I'm afraid you're engaged in a logical inconsistency. It does not follow that someone who says they believe A, B or C must be delusional. There are numerous other possibilities.

Quite frankly, your persistent refusal to acknowledge anything that could possibly exist in opposition to what you have already proclaimed "fact" demonstrates an astounding degree of arrogance.

Atheism is the assertion held on faith that nothing exists beyond the material. I refer not exclusively to deities because atheists must be strict materialists to maintain even a damaged logical consistency.

Since atheists are strict materialists, then they are unable to accept non-empirical proofs or methods for anything, and thus must accept on faith that nothing beyond the material exists.

You are the one who claimed that atheism is not a religion because it has no dogmas, and then claimed that atheism has no dogmas because it is not a religion. There is no clearer example of circular reasoning.

Your comment about Christians being unable to discount their pastors is totally ignorant - there are thousands of people running about who call themselves Christian yet act in complete independence, with loyalty to any pope or pastor. The fact that you think otherwise demonstrates only how little you know about religion in general and religious people in particular.

As for comparing the two texts as equal, please don't make the mistake of putting words into my mouth. Comparable is the attitude held towards the texts by their adherents (to speak logically, there exist atheists who hold "The God Delusion" in as high regard as Christians do The Bible).

We do seem to agree on your last point, however. You seem incapable of rationally considering two of atheism's dogmatic claims - that the universe is exclusively material, and that atheism is not a religion.

Let me guess!

"...because I say so"?

Dogmas are established by religions. Religions have dogmas. Atheism has no dogmas, therefore it is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion, therefore it has no dogmas.

Could you reason more circularly?

Many Christians have never read the Bible, and don't hold it up to nearly the pedestal that your typical western Atheist holds Dawkins.

There are thousands of Christians around the world who don't give a second thought to the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or whoever that guy who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life" is. It doesn't matter, because you'll just turn around and say "aha, but there are many Christians who do!" I do the same to you - a large number of self-proclaimed atheists acknowledge Dawkins, Hitchens and others as "leaders" of atheism, therefore they are.

So far you have given me nothing but circular reasoning, why is anyone supposed to believe that atheism is even remotely rational? You can't even get past introductory logic.

No Dogmas? "nothing exists beyond the material"

No holy texts? "The God Delusion"

No morals or ethics? Got me there, philosophy has so far proven incapable of justifying ethics or morality on atheist assumptions.

No recognised leaders? Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

As for false information, every time you refer to the subject of "religion" as "make believe things", you do exactly the same thing. Religions have as their subject immaterial things, which are not the same as "make believe things". Truth and melancholy are distinct from Peter Pan. Of course, charging you with hypocrisy would be meaningless, since atheism is incapable of enforcing even a code of courteous discourse.

No, you're a gerbil, and that's the end of it.

(that is to say, just because you say something is so, does not make it so)

Atheism is the judgement on faith that there is nothing in which to have faith. Atheism, like any other religion, has its dogmas which cannot be proven by material investigation (for Christianity it is that there is a triune God, for atheism it is that there is nothing beyond the material).

I'm probably not what you would consider a creationist or a holocaust denier, but if you can demonstrate that you actually understand why some people believe these things (eg restate an extant argument for holocaust denial that a denier would recognise as their own) I will give you a turkey.

Furthermore, I've lived in Japan for ten years, but that doesn't in any way mean that I've followed Japanese politics and actively informed myself of the reasons each side gives for their positions. It's a lot easier to parrot the party line off CNN than actually listen, understand, and weigh an opposing argument... especially in America.

I'm an Australian too, and I disagree. Generally the Australians who take your position have never listened seriously to the opposing arguments those Americans propose. In my reckoning, if someone is willing to invest so much energy and expense in promoting a position, it's worth at least giving a hearing (as we say, a "fair go") before being dismissed as nonsense.

Sarcasm aside, what do you expect? Apple has to obey the country laws. Free speech is not a right in China, no matter how much we think everyone should have it, it just isn't. It's like Britain and Canada insulting the US for not offering it's people the right of socialized medicine.

Free speech is a right in China, and in any other sovereign jurisdiction. It is a right despite the country trampling on it, because human rights don't come from the whimsical concessions of governments.

Their primary markets are still dominated by Asian countries, where piracy is also strongest. Furthermore, the profitability of the company probably reflects the success of the Wii system, whereas the bulk of piracy is occurring with the DS games. Nintendo's portable market has always been the primary target for pirates.

The problem is that the standard model of console game marketing is that the primary company (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) makes a LOSS on every console as an investment in returns on game sales. If all they're doing is selling consoles and no games, then everyone who loves Nintendo enough to pirate their games is dealing them death by a thousand cuts.

No, you've just defined "tolerance". Tolerance is putting up with the shit you don't like. Freedom is the ability to name it for what it is. But in a global society where "tolerance" trumps "freedom" (often "tolerance" is enshrined as the defence of "freedom"), how can anyone truly claim to be free? If "tolerance" is mandatory, then "freedom" ceases to be.

This is not the case. If one considers the definition of a "miracle" (a material event which can not be explained by normal means) and the fact that countless have been witnessed throughout history, one is compelled to see significant evidence for the existence of some supernatural element (supernatural by definition refers to anything "above" nature, having some kind of control over it).

The problem arises when someone like Dawkins makes assumptions like "if it can't be explained by science, it's not possible" and thus is incapable of seriously considering the evidence for (and against) recorded miracles because their world-view does not permit their existence.

Events like the spontaneous generation of a severed optic nerve in Lourdes 180 years ago (a kind of repair that is still utterly inexplicable to contemporary medicine) have been meticulously recorded and scientifically studied, even by the most devoted sceptics. If they were intellectually honest Dawkins and friends would take an objective scientific position in studying these records...but alas, it won't happen. Nothing is more terrifying to pride than the prospect of being proven wrong.