• "atheism" is his own shorthand.
• genuine ills do come in through "leaders" of various fields who hijack and pose, tricking the public into lowering critical guard. But by alluding to any issue this author is in fact peddling half truths and toying.
• mention of Jesuits is a give away. By and large "christians" don't believe their own God is capable of relating with human beings, therefore all action or improvement has to be solely by subliminal meme-like propagation and enforcement (instead of giving a chance to spontaneous inspiration).
• apart from possibly the eastern Churches, "christianity" has been totally replaced in churches with the dishonest imposing of Scofieldism and Teilhardianism (offshoots of Hegel & Spencer and summarisable as "manifest destiny" ).
• the process of inferring gods (if one wants to) is different from what that type and his audience got drummed into them. It doesn't matter in principle whether the inferred existence of gods is in a majority or minority among members in a society (leaving totally aside what is alleged to be the obligation of anybody to attach themselves to them).
• if I got into the ambiguous field of what constitutes "homosexuality" (which I don't have the energy for) it would strengthen your case.
• such a shoddily argued case isn't a case because that is how huge numbers of devious types of all stripes "try to persuade".
• disrespect of one's fellow mankind's intellect from a claimed position of authority is equal to and makes worse other evils. This guy isn't trying. He has a point (if you translate into honest vocabulary - which isn't easy) but hasn't brought any case forward.
• human beings are intended to be independent individuals each capable of their own spontaneity and inference freely building uniquely on each others' work and I have a hypothesis that one of the earlier concepts of some christians in some periods and some countries was closer to this. Where strong-armers didn't monopolise the field, ordinary folks were left space to explore this if they wished.
• insofar as I might appear to hold a "mental foible plus" theory this is simply because minds are capable of relating with "what is out there" (which everyone has a unique take on, and a unique vocabulary too) therefore for me, all hypotheses are left open indefinitely.
• thus: sloganeering - dishonest usages - button pressing - half truths - toying - plain crass ignorance - condones strongarming at the same time as claiming to be against it - promotes fallacies - complacent - disrespectful - disparages noble agnosticism - a dishonest unbeliever - etc

Atheism is NOT simply a 'default' position, imo it IS a position that some choose/elect to assume ONCE they have come to the realisation that the dogma they have been fed is nothing more than pure fiction, fantasy, etc, etc.

Snobbery of the faithful. It's all about arrogance, condescension, criticism and belittling of others, the imagined convolutions they go through to believe in their own worth - because churches tell them they have none.

Oh, and that first paragraph: how dare anyone not 'label' themselves!!!

So there's been a bit of a shift in burden of proof? And in the right direction, it seems.

I had to laugh at his complaint that we are opening the doors to things such as people who were assigned male at birth believing they are women. So while he bemoans the loss of traction that his particular belief system is suffering, he simultaneously bemoans the loss of ability to oppress belief systems that aren't part of his religion's sanctioned doctrine.

Which, of course, is precisely how organised religion operates. It doesn't just tell you what to believe. It tells you what not to believe, as well.

The whole thing is so patently ridiculous at this point that I strongly suspect most who still cling to religion are either playing Pascal's Wager, or simply in it for the coffee mornings and jumble sales. Science can adequately explain why the sun rises or the crops fail. Religion can't adequately explain why a benevolent god would choose to create babies born with leukaemia, or to 'bless' a 12 year old girl with the 'gift' of her rapist father's baby.

an except from the article:

"All this is very strange, for throughout the history of the human race some kind of theism (or polytheism) has been almost universal. Almost everybody has believed in God (or gods). Almost everybody has believed that some supernatural divine power (or powers) presides over the world."

when I read this I can't help but think ...the human species is growing up, we are muturing as a species

There we go again labeling people, is there a label for people like me that do not believe in gods or religions because they are all bullshit?

"This (a belief in a divine God) has been going on for so many millennia that until just the other day careful students of the subject concluded that human beings are religious by nature; there is something in our very nature that impels us to belief in God/gods. Atheism has therefore been rare and unnatural – rather like homosexuality."

Bullocks, I say. This man clearly knows nill about the natural world, as homosexuality is not a new pheneomena in the animal kingdom. Though I well understand that most theistic religions, and certainly the monotheistic ones, set man above the rest of the animal kingdom and dictate our purpose to be a conquering of all those who exist 'below' us on that spectrum as well as the primal instincts derived from a shared evolutionary ancestry.

I'm open minded to the question of gods existing but I cannot use any scared or holy writings to prove the point. Also, I cannot use someone's personal experience. This means that when you tell me a donkey spoke I am not likely to believe it. If you think Genesis is a real first hand account I cannot go with you either. Now, if you admit Genesis is just a story there is great likelihood that the entire bible is just a story. It is the same with all "god writings." I have no doctrine or dogma and agenda.

I find that author's prejudices and ignorance to be writ large in his piece.