PB, you got slightly offended by my comment and I should really, for the sake of clarity, offer an explanation to you, and everyone possibly offended.

However any individual finds hope, comfort etc is none of my business, if it happens to be through religion, then cool, Ive no issue with ANY personal beliefs, as long as they don't interupt my life. I know many people with a religious faith who are not interested in "spreading the word" and theres no issue at all.

I do get annoyed, however, when those personal beliefs (only beliefs remember) are impressed on others as "the truth" and the subsequent (and usually embarrassed) threats of eternal torture follow. And thats the real issue...religion, by its very nature and doctrines demands its membership to spread the word....why?? Because those that dont believe are morally inept sinners who need saved or punished. Whilst religion has recently had to recant some disgusting and horrific views on woman, ethnic minorities and gays (to name but a few) all specifically formed from highly dubious stories (not fairy!), legend and myths, it still always tries, and struggles, to maintain the higher moral ground. At least stories and myths can be usually "misinterpreted" and somewhat awkwardly excused (although thats wearing thin now) however, actual events with (hold your breath) "eye witness accounts", as we're assured most of the bible is, simply can't be. Why would god wait (at minimum) 100,000 years, witnessing all the death, destruction, struggle and wars by our earliest ancestors, then after 98,000 years or so, decide he will intervene? And only then by placing a man in a non-descript village in bronze age palestine who would then spread his message- by word of mouth- around the world. Why not china for instance, where people were already so advanced as to have been writing books.....seems a little risky. But again, people of faith use the trump card, God knew....

Take the Hitchens test and "Name one ethical statement made, or action performed, by a believer, that could not have been uttered or done by a non-believer".

The flip side, name as many horrific deeds as you like carried out in the name of religion which couldnt/wouldnt be done by a non-believer. As an example, in Iran its illegal to execute a virgin for a crime, because of their religious beliefs. So the Iranian National guard will regularly and normally, carry out rape, then execute the woman...totally barbaric....theres many, many more Im sure anyone could think of.

To desribe any atheiest as an "extremist" is just unfair and wrong, its an embarrising word which naturally attaches itself to religion. you'll never hear of bombings, beheadings, rapes, mutilatiions, threats, wars, instructions of any kind or crime carried out in the name of atheism. Why? Because there's no need to "spread the word", its obvious and without any insecurity to the majority - evidence and reason are the only tools required.

People are correct when they say you should never debate religion-religion is fresh air - invisible and open to any interpretation, just a shame it cant be used only for what it really excels at, personal, private comfort. To mix in politics with the private intention of debasing any civil right cause completely shameful and embarrising to most of those with a privately held faith.