Rose Harvie says that "at last" Iain Macwhirter has had the courage to put into print what she feels about religion (Topic of the week: God and free speech, Letters, January 25).
"At last"? Where has she been sleeping for the last 15 years or more? Such attacks on religion have been commonplace for at least that long - whole books have been written and become bestsellers. You could almost (though not quite) say that it takes courage to defend religion these days. Whatever one's own view, it really is stretching credulity to think that someone has "at last had the courage" to say this kind of thing.
William Whitson
Bathgate
The religiose are at it again. They continue to conflate not believing with a belief system, presumably to reinforce their argument that non-believers are some sort of religious organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. They believe in something in which I do not. I live in a world of archaeological, geological and physical evidence that the Earth was not created in six days, is older than 6,000 years by an order of magnitude and we do not have human ancestors who walked with dinosaurs.
The evidence is there for those with an open mind to see. If adherents to the many "faiths" which are unable to agree on much outside of the "fact" that atheism is a religion, cannot accept this evidence that is entirely their choice and their right. That right stops at the school gates.
I have seen no evidence that any god exists, despite growing up in a highly religious household. I listened to the dogma, because I had no choice, realised it was not evidence, and rejected it.
When Mr Maan, Mr Cook and anyone else can demonstrate to me the existence of a god I will accept it. I will not worship it, appease it nor indoctrinate anyone's children in accepting its reality.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines belief as the acceptance of something without direct evidence. Atheism is not defined as a belief but as the rejection of the proposition that a god exists because there is no evidence that he, she or it does.
Les Hunter
Lanark
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article