Thank you very much for replying to my email, as it was rather unexpected. I do have a few points in reply.

Thanks for writing to the Sunday Herald Sun re the Faithworks column. Awesome start. Unfortunately, it all goes a bit down hill from here. In general, the main problem with your arguments is that most of them are straw men. You did not argue the points that I made in my email, but instead made various assumptions about me and argued against those. You constantly state things such as you think, you say or you assert when I did nothing of the sort. Just because you have done that, however, it does not automatically render your points wrong. Let’s have a look.

But why all this Christian-bashing? Don't you see the irony in calling Christians narrow-minded? I did not bash Christians specifically, but rather religions in general. Please understand that I am not trying to offend, or that I dislike Christians personally. Some of the things you say, however, are factually incorrect on an objective basis, not merely my subjective opinion. And no, I didn’t catch the irony. I take it you are trying to accuse me of being narrow-minded here? (not that I accused Christians of narrow mindedness). I am quite willing to concede that I might be wrong. Show me some good evidence that God exists or even that the earth is 5-10 thousand years old (not that you said it was) and I will become a believer immediately. That old saying holds here: ‘You should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.’

If we're talking about the primacy of logic then consider the possibility that, as you I think believe, that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! Think about it I don’t need to think about it too hard. I do not believe that humans are a product of chance. You are operating under an extremely common misconception about evolution. That being that evolution is a theory of chance. Natural selection has nothing at all to do with chance. I recommend you read this webpage at talk origins which covers several such misconceptions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof This way, if you wish to attack evolution in the future, you can do so without using a big straw man which, quite frankly, makes you look a tad silly.

You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. This sounds reasonable until you realize that in the case of religion, there isn’t a scrap of evidence to weigh. That’s why believing in god is called faith and why I pointed out in my original letter that you were wrong when you stated that believers come to faith through skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry requires evidence in order to believe something. Your statement was therefore contradictory and absurd. You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, I do not call people ‘anti-science’ if they deny evolution, I call them ignorant (I thought the ‘goo to you’ call was funny though). That evolution happened and continues to do so is an observed and indisputable fact (in much the same way as gravity). The theories of evolution are an attempt by science to explain the mechanism by which this fact occurs. Natural selection, the mechanism that Charles Darwin came up with, is now so well supported by such overwhelming mountains of evidence that you might as well call that a fact as well. It is the same with Newton’s and Einstein’s theories, which are attempts to explain the mechanisms behind the fact of gravity. You don’t see too many religious people having trouble with those theories, do you? Even though natural selection has as much evidence to back it as do those theories. The Vatican has publicly stated that evolution is real. Why do you have such a problem with it? and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. Nor should people merely accept what scientists say (see Edward Teller, the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, for an excellent example as to why). Kids should be taught critical thinking skills so they can look at the evidence and decide for themselves. The importance of evidence, however, is paramount. Without evidence, people just make up any old crap and say it’s true, and there’s no way you could ever know one way or the other (unless it’s testable). Hence, religion, metaphysics, psychics, astrology etc. Only a few areas of the Bible can be shown to be false (the seven day creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark etc). Science cannot prove, however, that God does not exist. You have nothing to worry about in this department. You are quite correct, however, in attacking ridiculous rubbish like psychics, astrology etc. These beliefs are testable by science and in every case they have failed, miserably.

When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". Wrong again buddy, I would completely agree with them. Once again, natural selection has bugger all to do with chance or randomness. You refer to the god of the gaps fallacy, which is similar to the logical fallacy called the divine fallacy. It goes something like this: I don’t know how that happened, therefore god dun it. This is exactly the same as saying: I don’t know what that light in the sky is, therefore it’s aliens or, I don’t know how that plant grows, therefore the invisible fairies dun it. YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!) A scientist may say that (except for the chance thing) based on the overwhelming success of the theories of evolution, but I doubt it. Do you seriously expect scientists to say; ‘nope, this is too hard to figure out. Therefore, god dun it. Let’s give up and go to the pub.’ No, scientists would investigate the phenomenon by looking for evidence in the fossil record, the DNA, looking at the environment in which it evolved, doing experiments etc. You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person. No, I would not claim that. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is yet more proof that evolution occurs. So too must you get a new flu shot every year because the virus evolves. This is not proof by itself that protozoa evolved into man. We have mountains of other evidence to back up that proposition. Protozoa evolved into people and other animals over billions of years through various intermediate steps. It wasn’t like ‘wow, there’s a protozoa. Did you see that? It just gave birth to a person.’

You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs I just read my original email several times and I’m pretty sure I asserted no such thing. I would assert that if you asked me though. Secular morality is very simple: you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t encroach on other people’s right to do whatever they want. Religious morality is a nightmare. The Bible/Koran is so full of sick, nasty and contradictory rubbish it would make your head spin. In the end, religious people make up their own mind on what is right and wrong, and use their Holy books to justify it. A great example of this process is slavery, where comments made by Jesus and God were used to support the slave trade in the early U.S. Another is the homosexuality/gay marriage issue. but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position. I would never, ever, in a million years say anything of the sort. Christians have the whole spectrum of character, from wonderful on down, just like any other group. The stuff they believe just happens to be bullshit, that’s all. That doesn’t make them bad people, just ignorant. Ignorance is not a derogatory term by the way, but a relative one. Compared to Professor Richard Dawkins, whom you attacked in the original article, I am stunningly ignorant. The guy’s got a few years on me though.

You think Secular Humanism actually promotes religious tolerance. You claim to hold no dogma. I think and I claim things again that I didn’t. Tolerance for your beliefs? Absolutely. Respect for your right to believe whatever you want? Absolutely. Respect for the beliefs themselves? I think not.  Yet, you're just as rigid and stubborn with your beliefs as any Dogmatists. Garbage. I am completely open to being convinced by evidence or logical argument that I am wrong. I would then change my opinion, as I have several times throughout my life on many issues. To do otherwise would constitute dogma. I am extremely confident that I am not wrong regarding religion, however, based on the mountains of evidence that back up my ‘beliefs’. I pose you this question, what makes you so confident that you are right, considering that your beliefs have not a shred of evidence in favour of them, and in many areas contradict observed facts?

You are, my friend , in danger of becoming a fundamentalist. Oh dear. I am, my friend, in no danger of becoming a fundamentalist.

Anyway, thanks for writing and please do again I may well do so sir. Thank you once again for replying. A reply to this email would also be greatly appreciated. This time though, please argue against the things that I have actually said, rather than just making assumptions.