@ Francis Saliba MD:

By chickening out and refusing to answer my simple question (how is anyone ramming atheism down anyone else’s throat?), while pretending you are ignoring me, you prove H.P.Baxxter right.

Is it so hard for Christian fundamentalists to admit a simple mistake, even one that does not question their faith?

Let me clarify this further. No atheist I know has ever vowed to remain atheist for the rest of his life. So the atheist is an atheist only at this point in time…at this very second. He may stop being an atheist the next second. Atheism is only a declaration of disbelief in God at this point in time.

Therefore, the assertion that an atheist “by definition” lacks the courage to foment doubt against his conviction is false because it rests on a non-sequitur – that to disbelieve in something at this point in time implies that one cannot change his mind another time.

@ Francis Saliba MD:

HP Baxxter was obviously generalising, and not referring to each and every Maltese Catholic. I hope you understood that much.

@ Francis Saliba MD:

Oh, I do understand your English. You wrote:

“…and to force their atheism/agnosticism down the throats of Malta Catholics”.

Now, pray tell, how is this done? Through comments and letters? Are you forcing your opinion down our throats by commenting here?

You may have it so easy in The Times, with its amateur moderators. Here it’s different. Here we are allowed the right of reply.

So enough of your beating around the bush and reply to simple questions written in plain English, which I hope you are able to understand.

@ Jozef:

“The atheist, alas, by definition, lacks the courage to foment doubt against his conviction”.

False. The atheist, because he holds no dogmatic faith, will change his convictions when presented with new contradicting evidence.

@ Jozef:

Faith is belief without evidence (or in spite of contrary evidence).

H.P. Baxxter, I don’t think it’s fair to include ‘festi’ (fiestas) and fireworks in the religious equation.

They are secular events which everyone including myself, a lapsed Catholic, enjoy.

I agree with you on the divorce, abortion and Angelik issues.

@ Kenneth Cassar.

I anticipated that you would avoid commenting on my clear contention that pouring disdain, sarcasm and scorn on people, because they choose to believe in God, is not a simple civil and unobjectionable “expression of opinion” in the exercise of acceptable “free speech”.

I would not even dream of applying to you, and to atheists in general, the derogatory labels used by Baxxter (5 Jan 2012 at 7:58) to insult Maltese Catholics. Most certainly I do not pretend that I have any right to be uncivil in that fashion under the pretext of “free speech”.

I think what Francis finds objectionable is the atheist posit, declared in no uncertain terms as truth, leaving no space for the plausibility and purpose of religious belief.

I’m afraid the Constitution invites such attack, mostly from those who tend to make the greatest racket, distorting any dialogue.

This doesn’t mean religion and its influence should be shunned from public discourse to pacify matters.

Personally I think it more healthy to have a Catholic Church antagonising secular institututions within a state, even more so considering its experience with the fragility of men and power.

One can argue that in Malta we have not reached the desired level of state, religion separation and this is outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution where, whilst it advocates freedom of worship, conflictingly ‘imposes’ a religion on the state, by stating that Malta’s religion is the Roman Catholic one.

This might sound harmless to Catholics but in reality, since the Constitution influences laws passed in Parliament, this could be translated as impinging on people with different beliefs or no religion.