Religion

[gater2]

Well, I think it's probably going to be fair to say we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

I'm trying not to make anything I say come across as an attack on people's personal beliefs, so please don't take anything that I say the wrong way - I'm just wary that it might be misinterpreted as I am commenting on your own belief system.

But I have to say that I find it astounding that you cite some examples of the church as 'progressive' when it was them that lived in those systems for years. You mention the churches' role in the civil rights movement, yet fail to mention that there were separate black and white churches in America at the time.

You have also amazingly glossed over the churches' role in the slave trade - something that they didn't feel that they needed to formally apologise for until 2006.

When the church does attempt to be 'progressive' (women and gay priests, for example) it causes immense divides. Yet I don't know why, it always humours me as I was always led to believe that it was god that did the judging, and not others... yet that is exactly what often happens.

Secondly, I always find it astounding when people claim that without the church charitable acts would just stop. It's almost a tacit way of saying "if you don't believe in a deity, how can you do good things?"

You can do good things without religion, and people do every day. It comes down to morals, and morals are not prescribed by the church or the bible, no matter what people may think. If they do, simply read the old testament and let me know whether the morals offered in there are ones you want to live by. Morals are created by society at the time, and I believe that in today's increasingly secular society there is still a lot of good.

I like doing good acts in the knowledge that it's just because I want to do it. Many religious people do good acts as they think it will please their god. Which is more moral?

Nice to see you missed the entire point of what I put. I never said that the church hasn't been deplorable at times in its history, my point was that you can't just dismiss Christians in one big lump as people seem to do. To make sweeping statements as people often do just annoys me. Also, do you really think getting rid of God will solve everything? Are all atheists good people? Just look at the only truely God-less society: communism?

[Mr Mosquito]

The church should give direction. For starters millions of people put themselves under its authority. Secondly, of course it makes mistakes like any form of authority. Secular governments have made horrible mistakes, should we stop listening to them?

I know you have a big problem with the church, and, as I said above, some of it is definitely justified. But you cannot forget (and maybe you're not aware at the moment) of all the wonderful and amazing things the Church has done/is doing.

All around the world I know Christians who have given up wealth and security and gone where pretty much no one else will go to show people that they are loved.

Yes the church makes mistakes, it's a human institution, but it's not as bad as it's worst mistakes. I also acknowlege the whole church hasn't always been behind all of the things I've mentioned, but that doesn't mean you can lump all Christians and 'the church' into the terrible institution you seem to think it is.

Like you I also believe that the Church should give moral and ethical direction. The Church does make mistakes but - overall - it will set people on a righteous path. Whether you be Catholic or of a Reformation Church - direction can be found.

If we take the example of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell's only speech in the Parliament of 1628-1629 was a fierce attack upon the High Church bishops. This mistrust of the Anglican Church - that gave 100% support to a tyrant King - didn't shake Cromwell's belief in God. In fact, during the Civil War that followed, Cromwell fervently believed that God was guiding his victories against the King's minions. That demonstrates the power of religious belief because Cromwell never lost a battle to my knowledge and he and his men - against all the odds - brought down the Monarchy, House of Lords and Church of England that saw the King and his corrupt minions as having a divine right to misrule England.

[The Man In Black]

Nice to see you missed the entire point of what I put. I never said that the church hasn't been deplorable at times in its history, my point was that you can't just dismiss Christians in one big lump as people seem to do. To make sweeping statements as people often do just annoys me. Also, do you really think getting rid of God will solve everything? Are all atheists good people? Just look at the only truely God-less society: communism?

I'm not saying that all Christians are evil. But to state that the Church (or relgion) is still "not as bad as it's worst mistakes" overlooks an awful lot of history. Aids denialism, crusades, ethnic cleansing, war, repression, discrimination, denying or objecting to scientific advances etc.

Hell, some of the hymns you sing in services are making grandeur out of bloodshed and genocide.

At no point in my reply did I lump all Christians into 'one big lump' - I was responding to my understanding of the role of the church in the historical events that you listed.

Will getting rid of god solve everything? Possibly not. But does having gods solve anything? No. But I still stand by having a great feeling in doing good things because I want to, and not because I'm trying to please a god I don't believe in.

Oh, and I'm not really going to bother commenting on atheism and communism, as it's a pretty weak link to make. You've gone from moaning about individuals within a soceity being 'tagged' for the wrongs of the whole, and then done it with another to try and prove some point. Your point, however, is fatally flawed since you seem to think that communism and atheism are the same thing... they're not. You've swallowed an American lie hook, line and sinker.

[newboy]

The church should give direction. For starters millions of people put themselves under its authority. Secondly, of course it makes mistakes like any form of authority. Secular governments have made horrible mistakes, should we stop listening to them?

I know you have a big problem with the church, and, as I said above, some of it is definitely justified. But you cannot forget (and maybe you're not aware at the moment) of all the wonderful and amazing things the Church has done/is doing.

Just a few examples:

The church was at the heart of the civil rights movement in america with Revd Martin Luther King at the forefront.

The church was at the heart of abolishing slavery in the 18th Century with William Wilberforce at the forefront, who founded his drive for change on his faith in a God of love.

The church has been a strong driving force behind the green movement with many churches advocating a much greener way of life.

The church has been a strong force with trying to eradicate poverty ('Make Poverty History' was a Christian campaign at first) - also, before you say it, it's definitely NOT just Christians they look after; I know many people who work for Tearfund, another Christian aid organisation with whom it makes no difference what faith, race you are.

You say the church won't address social decay when children are brought up in single families..etc - I know first hand this is not the case: the Salvation Army is the second largest distributor of welfare after the government, and that is a Church, founded on the principle of Christian charity.

'The Church won't help single mothers who can struggle to bring up an unplanned baby.' - Again, not true - in my church there is a community centre where single mums can come and do exactly this; they are provided the support and guidance that they need and often can't find anywhere else, especially in a secularised, depersonlised society. In India Mother Theresa (a catholic) used to say to mothers thinking of abortion: 'don't get an abortion, life is too precious for that. If you really don't want your child, my sisters and I in the nunnery will take care of your baby.'

My fiance works in a salvation army church in east london, and on Christmas day they are having a celebration with everyone who is lonely in the neighbourhood. When they opened for people to buy tickets, they went in under a week; that's how many people are lonely, and on a very frequent basis, if the church wasn't there, they wouldn't have anywhere to go at all.

All around the world I know Christians who have given up wealth and security and gone where pretty much no one else will go to show people that they are loved.

Yes the church makes mistakes, it's a human institution, but it's not as bad as it's worst mistakes. I also acknowlege the whole church hasn't always been behind all of the things I've mentioned, but that doesn't mean you can lump all Christians and 'the church' into the terrible institution you seem to think it is.

Good examples, and I've said earlier that religion does bring communities together and does some good work at a grass roots level. However....

I'm not sure how a community centre really helps a single mother in any meaningful sense. And there aren't that enough Mother Theresa's out there to address the issue.

This is all a great example of how the Church has made a complete mess as a result of policy and has some token gestures in response, even if well meant. How does a community centre help a woman who pregnant through rape? How does a community centre help a single mother who has no money and can no longer work due to being lumbered with a baby?

I'm sure your answer will be to point to the state. However there is a fundamental difference here. The state is voted in via democractic means based on it's policy. If the public don't like it they can vote another (largely similar unfortunately) government in with different policies.

It's not perfect, but it's relatively answerable to the people and gives the people choice over which policies govern their lives and to what extent.

The Church is answerable only to God. Does not respond to the will of the people, being based on a 2000 year old set of rules and corrupt upper echelons. It is not democratic and imposes its will through preaching, indoctrination and prosthletising. It relies on people being subservient to a higher being and relies on guilt (or at least the Catholic version does). It takes power away from the people.

There's a massive difference between the two. One imposes outdated policy and answers to no-one. One imposes policy chosen by the masses and is ultimately answerable to the people.

As a result you get policies like no condoms in Aids ridden countries and poor countries where the state can't sustain single parents.

So no, I don't believe the Church should give direction and least of all impose that direction with the fervour it does. You've given examples of good that people have done, but not answered whether the direction we've talked about (condoms etc) is right.

[gater2]

I'm not saying that all Christians are evil. But to state that the Church (or relgion) is still "not as bad as it's worst mistakes" overlooks an awful lot of history. Aids denialism, crusades, ethnic cleansing, war, repression, discrimination, denying or objecting to scientific advances etc.

I'm afraid I disagree. On that logic you could say humanity (which has done those things as well as the church, theists and atheists alike) is just as bad. I just think it's a bit of a negative view in life to always look for the worst in people. Naturally you shouldn't overlook all the rubbish, of which I admit there has been a lot in the church; but I think it's dangerous when you define people by this, cos all of us have done a lot of bad stuff. If you look for the worst in people you will surely find it.

Will getting rid of god solve everything? Possibly not. But does having gods solve anything? No. But I still stand by having a great feeling in doing good things because I want to, and not because I'm trying to please a god I don't believe in.

I'm not saying you have to believe in God, I'm just questioning the view that the God-less world view is better than one with God. I don't doubt that you feel good because you want to do them, but from my perspective if I didn't believe in God I don't think I'd really see that much point. Excuse the crude example (as I said above), but in a world without God, ultimately I will be born, I will live and then I will die. Anything I do in my life and any meaning I derive from it will ultimately fade away when I have died, and any lasting impact I have on the world will be gone when eventually humans die out or the world ceases to exist. If I live in hatred of others and murder millions, or live loving others it won't really make any difference to anything save a few years and a few history books being written about me. Everything will disintegrate. Hitler/Stalin/Ghengis Khan/Pol Pot etc. will have got away with the evil they have done. They will have the same fate as all the heroes/heroines we honour.

Another example: a loved one dies or I lose my job and cannot provide for my family. In a world of random chance, absurdism, there is nothing that promises me things could get better. There is just the same chance that things will get worse. There is no reason for hope. If something good happens then I've been lucky. For these reasons (and more), I personally feel that a worldview without God does not provide as positive a worldview as one with God. Note, I'm not talking about truth, and whether this proves God, just about which provides the more positive worldview.

And when you come back to me and say, 'well how can a God who causes so much pain be a better view', I would admit this is a very hard question, and one I don't have an answer to which will satisfy you, save to say I don't believe God 'causes' this pain, but evil comes from elsewhere; God allows evil to come into the world, sure, but that doesn't mean he causes it. It's like someone builds a chair, and then the chair breaks, the maker didn't create the break, but it was possible to break when he made it.

Oh, and I'm not really going to bother commenting on atheism and communism, as it's a pretty weak link to make. You've gone from moaning about individuals within a soceity being 'tagged' for the wrongs of the whole, and then done it with another to try and prove some point. Your point, however, is fatally flawed since you seem to think that communism and atheism are the same thing... they're not. You've swallowed an American lie hook, line and sinker.

I don't think communism and atheism are the same thing; I'm just commenting that one of the core elements in Marxism was the abolition of religion, and generally, if you look at history, whenever God has been pushed out of a society, the results haven't been that great. As a rabbi who escaped a concentration camp said when he was asked the question: 'How can you believe in a God who lets this happen in the world?', he said: This is what happens when you push God out of the world.

Also, I'd like to think I haven't swallowed an American lie.. If I've got it wrong I've thought about it quite a lot in my life rather than just accepting what other people say. I'm pretty left wing too, so I doubt it would have been an american lie I'd swallowed. I think the whole republican/southern baptist thing is one of the worst things that could have happened to Christianity, and I'm saddened that people's view of Christianty is often formed in the light of them.

Finally, it would be good if this didn't descend into personal jibes. I know you have a big problem with the church and I respect your view. I happen to have another view and I'm trying to defend it. I apologise for my comment in my last post on that note as well.

Good examples, and I've said earlier that religion does bring communities together and does some good work at a grass roots level. However....

I'm not sure how a community centre really helps a single mother in any meaningful sense. And there aren't that enough Mother Theresa's out there to address the issue.

This is all a great example of how the Church has made a complete mess as a result of policy and has some token gestures in response, even if well meant. How does a community centre help a woman who pregnant through rape? How does a community centre help a single mother who has no money and can no longer work due to being lumbered with a baby?

It's not just a community centre open part of the day. In the Bible it talks about God 'becoming man' and 'dwelling among us'; in the message translation of the Bible John 1.14 is translated: The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood.' I know many Church communities that have taken this idea and tried to act it out in the real world. It's not just a job to work on a community centre, but these Christians live in the council estates, and are completely involved in people's lives who live there. As a result it's not just depersonalized help they are given, but they can help shoulder the burden. Examples could be offering to babysit for a single mum while she has to go out and work. I know Christian accountants who have freely helped families struggling families with their bills/accounts. I know Church communities who give free English lessons to refugees. I know Church communities who have given money to help pay bills for single mums. I even know Chruch communities who have freely offered their homes for people to stay in until they can get back on their feet. Even on Sunday I was talking to a man who said he used to run a very successful business; when it went under he was forced to live on the street. He was the lowest he'd ever been but he was taken in and supported by a Salvation Army Church community and now he has a home, and back on his feet again. Of course it's not always this rosey, and it is fricking difficult at times, but I know a lot of churches which take this approach and don't just stand back. Also, before anyone says anything, I'm not saying atheists don't do this, or that Christianity has a monolopy on charity; all I'm saying is I have witnessed some wonderful things in the Church, lives been completely turned around.

I'm sure your answer will be to point to the state. However there is a fundamental difference here. The state is voted in via democractic means based on it's policy. If the public don't like it they can vote another (largely similar unfortunately) government in with different policies.

It's not perfect, but it's relatively answerable to the people and gives the people choice over which policies govern their lives and to what extent.

The Church is answerable only to God. Does not respond to the will of the people, being based on a 2000 year old set of rules and corrupt upper echelons. It is not democratic and imposes its will through preaching, indoctrination and prosthletising. It relies on people being subservient to a higher being and relies on guilt (or at least the Catholic version does). It takes power away from the people.

Here I would disagree (to an extent). I think it is widely accepted in the church (certainly in England) that the Church does have to be accountable to people, primarily because it's a given that God uses people to get his message across. Just look at the Bible, when Israel was screwing up he didn't just send a booming voice to tell people they were screwing up, but he sent prophets (people). If I went up to the church leader of my church and said 'I think you have to think about this again', or 'I think you've got this really wrong', then he/she would listen. Again I admit that in history people have forgotten this and people have used 'God's justification' to do terrible things. But I would argue, rather than this being a pure reflection of the Church is actually a distortion of what the Church is meant to be (shown in the examples I gave above). You will then come back to me and say, 'well you're just interpreting what 'the Church' is according to what you want', and I would say yes I pretty much am, but at the end of the day it's my interpretation against yours. I would honestly say that the 'church' which fights greener energy, 'the church' that is racist, 'the church' that created systematic slavery in USA, actually stopped being what the Chruch was meant to be a long time ago and actually people have used 'the church' for selfish gain. Of course I acknowledge there are those who truely believe what they are doing is right and are/have done terrible things in the name of God, and I will protest and argue against these people saying that I think they have misunderstood God.

Look at Martin Luther King; as The Man in Black noted, it was against a white church in USA that he had to fight, but he didn't say, 'oh the church has got it wrong here, lets abandon the Church cos it's terrible'; he knew the Church should be standing for justice, love and mercy and took his stand here. He loved the Church so much he couldn't bare to see what it had become. His attitude is summed up: 'I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up against our most bitter opponents and say: We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to love. We will meet your physical force with love's force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.... But be assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to love, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.'

That's my opinion and I know you'll disagree. And even if you do say 'you can't distinguish what the church is or isn't', my argument would be, you can't then throw out the baby with the bathwater. Of course the church has gone off course, it's a human institution, but is there any political system in the world that works? That's why I was arguing you have to take something for what it is aiming at as a mark of what it can be rather than what it is. And as such you can put your life behind it, even though it may be flawed now, as you are always striving for perfection, and perfection which starts here and now, not just something unattainable to wait for in the sky.

As a result you get policies like no condoms in Aids ridden countries and poor countries where the state can't sustain single parents.

So no, I don't believe the Church should give direction and least of all impose that direction with the fervour it does. You've given examples of good that people have done, but not answered whether the direction we've talked about (condoms etc) is right.

I for one, as a Christian, do like to think that I hold the church accountable to this. I agree that the Pope is wrong to say people in Africa shouldn't wear condoms. I agree it's wrong for southern baptists to get in the way of greener sources of energy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed it was wrong that the Church didn't stand up to the evil of the Nazis in 1930's Germany, but didn't leave the Church; he tried to hold the Church to account for what it failed to do. I, too will go on marches, I will argue my point with other Christians/Churches and try and keep them accountable, and the vast majority of Christians I know would feel the same. If our churches do something we don't think it right we won't just say, 'oh God's got it all under control'; I believe uses people to get his message across and it's not good enough just to sit back and wait for this to happen.

I must admit I agree with you on one major point: that the Church shouldn't be attached to power. There's a quote I love: "Christianity is at its best when it is peculiar, marginalized, suffering, and it is at its worst when it is popular, credible, triumphal, and powerful." - Shane Claiborne. Look at the early Church. In 200 years it spread like wildfire not through imposing Christianity onto others and being a powerful organisation, but it was persecuted and marginalized. Many of the early sources show how not only did the Christians take in their own poor, but the Romans' poor as well. This is why it spread so much. Things started to get a bit messy when Christianity was given the power of the empire in 325AD, and for my mind this was one of the worst things that could have happened to the Church.

[The Man In Black]

I don't doubt that you feel good because you want to do them, but from my perspective if I didn't believe in God I don't think I'd really see that much point. Excuse the crude example (as I said above), but in a world without God, ultimately I will be born, I will live and then I will die. Anything I do in my life and any meaning I derive from it will ultimately fade away when I have died, and any lasting impact I have on the world will be gone when eventually humans die out or the world ceases to exist. If I live in hatred of others and murder millions, or live loving others it won't really make any difference to anything save a few years and a few history books being written about me. Everything will disintegrate. Hitler/Stalin/Ghengis Khan/Pol Pot etc. will have got away with the evil they have done. They will have the same fate as all the heroes/heroines we honour.

OK, how about this.

All the elements that make up me were present in the big bang. The stuff that makes up 'me' is literally the stuff of stars. The atoms that make up me are likely to have been any number of things. They've been within stars, plants, other animals (some extinct) etc. etc.

Through some wonderful bizarre concoction these elements have been created, and have somehow managed to make me, including my consciousness.

There is a sense of wonder that I have ever become me. And I have carried out the purpose of genes - I have produced offspring who should continue copying elements of my DNA to future generations.

I have no fear of death, not any more. I used to, but since I realised that there was no god, I lost all fear. When I die, the lights probably will just go out. But that doesn't upset me. All the molecules, the elements, the atoms, they will all just return into the universe. One day parts of me will reform into other combinations. They could become other people, or animals, and will undoubtedly return to the stars one day.

Isn't the universe wonderful?

And I will have made an impact. To my friends and to my family. And what I do today will impress on them. My son will hopefully take the good stuff that I teach him and impress that upon his offspring. That truly must be the meaning of life. In the meantime I will enjoy my life as much as I can. After all, we are here for not even a blink of an eye when you consider that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Now, so much of the way of the universe is beyond our understanding so far, but that doesn't mean that I personally have to attribute a deity to it. I can just marvel in the complexity and the beauty of it - much the way Einstein did (when Einstein talked about a god, he wasn't talking about a creator. He was talking about wonder at the universe).

Finally, it would be good if this didn't descend into personal jibes. I know you have a big problem with the church and I respect your view. I happen to have another view and I'm trying to defend it. I apologise for my comment in my last post on that note as well.

I fail to see the personal jibes. Point them out and if I feel they were personal I'll apologise - I didn't notice any from you so no need to apologise just yet!

For clarity, I don't have a 'big problem with the church'. Anyone can believe whatever they like. But in my extremely humble opinion:

• No-one should be able to force their religious views on others (I'm not saying you do, but it does happen, especially in the American Evangelists I already know that you hate)
  
• I do not believe that children should be labelled by religion, they should be able to choose if they wish to follow a religion when they are at an appropriate age
  
• Church and state should be entirely separate
  
• Faith should not be taught in schools, and 'collective worship' is wrong
  
• There should be no faith schools, they are divisive
  

Other than that I have no issue with religion.

[annred]

OK, how about this.

All the elements that make up me were present in the big bang. The stuff that makes up 'me' is literally the stuff of stars. The atoms that make up me are likely to have been any number of things. They've been within stars, plants, other animals (some extinct) etc. etc.

Through some wonderful bizarre concoction these elements have been created, and have somehow managed to make me, including my consciousness.

There is a sense of wonder that I have ever become me. And I have carried out the purpose of genes - I have produced offspring who should continue copying elements of my DNA to future generations.

I have no fear of death, not any more. I used to, but since I realised that there was no god, I lost all fear. When I die, the lights probably will just go out. But that doesn't upset me. All the molecules, the elements, the atoms, they will all just return into the universe. One day parts of me will reform into other combinations. They could become other people, or animals, and will undoubtedly return to the stars one day.

Isn't the universe wonderful?

And I will have made an impact. To my friends and to my family. And what I do today will impress on them. My son will hopefully take the good stuff that I teach him and impress that upon his offspring. That truly must be the meaning of life. In the meantime I will enjoy my life as much as I can. After all, we are here for not even a blink of an eye when you consider that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Now, so much of the way of the universe is beyond our understanding so far, but that doesn't mean that I personally have to attribute a deity to it. I can just marvel in the complexity and the beauty of it - much the way Einstein did (when Einstein talked about a god, he wasn't talking about a creator. He was talking about wonder at the universe).

I fail to see the personal jibes. Point them out and if I feel they were personal I'll apologise - I didn't notice any from you so no need to apologise just yet!

For clarity, I don't have a 'big problem with the church'. Anyone can believe whatever they like. But in my extremely humble opinion:

• No-one should be able to force their religious views on others (I'm not saying you do, but it does happen, especially in the American Evangelists I already know that you hate)
  
• I do not believe that children should be labelled by religion, they should be able to choose if they wish to follow a religion when they are at an appropriate age
  
• Church and state should be entirely separate
  
• Faith should not be taught in schools, and 'collective worship' is wrong
  
• There should be no faith schools, they are divisive
  

Other than that I have no issue with religion.

It is so difficult to argue about belief and faith. One either has it or not. I think it is true that people have been let down over the centuries by various if not all churches, but we must remember that churches are man made institutions and as the bible says,no man is perfect. To form an opinion about God and christianity I would suggest reading a modern translation of the teaching of Christ in one of the gospels might be the best way of forming an opinion.

[newboy]

It is so difficult to argue about belief and faith. One either has it or not. I think it is true that people have been let down over the centuries by various if not all churches, but we must remember that churches are man made institutions and as the bible says,no man is perfect. To form an opinion about God and christianity I would suggest reading a modern translation of the teaching of Christ in one of the gospels might be the best way of forming an opinion.

So why persist with religious organisations and leave it as it should be (IMHO) - a personal choice? Religious organisations are, as you say, run by people who have been given an inordinate amount of power over peoples' lives and will inevitably become corrupt or inadvertantly harmful.

With religion afforded the luxury of a lack of accountability or critical analysis by it's followers (who by definition already need to suspend reality and not think critically to join the club) any errors of judgement by men at the top level will be amplified by those (but not all) underneath who will largely follow blindly and often literally what the top brass say. Hence anti-abortionists killing abortionists etc.

Not fair to pick on the extremists in a balanced argument, but you can't deny it's not there. On a more balanced note there's also the insidious nature of confession which suppresses people's control over their own self worth and accountability. The AA programme which takes in the weak and effectively makes them a cult member by handing over control to God (and therefore the organisation of the Church).

If you guys want to believe in God, all of the Old Testament, creationism, only the good bits of the New testament, the tooth fairy or even Mormonism then it's your personal choice. If it ends up making you positively contribute to society then great. I'm genuinely happy about that.

But overall what good does the organised part of religion really serve? A focal point? Can't community centres or local clubs do that?

Anyhoo. Regardless of what you believe, Happy Christmas!

[gater2]

OK, how about this.

All the elements that make up me were present in the big bang. The stuff that makes up 'me' is literally the stuff of stars. The atoms that make up me are likely to have been any number of things. They've been within stars, plants, other animals (some extinct) etc. etc.

Through some wonderful bizarre concoction these elements have been created, and have somehow managed to make me, including my consciousness.

There is a sense of wonder that I have ever become me. And I have carried out the purpose of genes - I have produced offspring who should continue copying elements of my DNA to future generations.

I have no fear of death, not any more. I used to, but since I realised that there was no god, I lost all fear. When I die, the lights probably will just go out. But that doesn't upset me. All the molecules, the elements, the atoms, they will all just return into the universe. One day parts of me will reform into other combinations. They could become other people, or animals, and will undoubtedly return to the stars one day.

Isn't the universe wonderful?

I agree, I think the universe is wonderful. From my perspective the universe displays the wonder and beauty of a God who created it, and the beauty I see reflects the future hope I have the one day all pain will cease that God will have finally defeated evil.

I see what you have said and I understand what you're saying, but I think it falls short of giving any grounding for morality and ultimate and lasting meaning for life. Your genes may just for a brief moment in history be passed on, but when humanity dies out, the world ends this will all have been lost and it won't matter at all; it might as well not have been. Also, when we consider morality, everyone will have had the same impact as you, Hitler's molecules will also go into the universe and form other combinations; it doesn't matter what you've done in your life. Also,

Also, the universe might be wonderful for you when everything's going well; you've got a job, children etc. But what if you're a starving child in Africa, or your family is killed suddenly (I apologise if this offends anyone, it's just hypothetical to make my point). The universe isn't so great then; there's nothing out there and no reason for hope that things could get better. I have been blessed in my life that I haven't had to go through any horrific pain like this, but I, personally, don't think the fact that my atoms will form other rocks and stars would comfort me in the slightest in any real sense if I did. Again, I'm not saying this means there has to be a God, but I am saying the idea of God gives people hope they otherwise wouldn't have. Now of course I know this might just be humanity trying to comfort itself by creating something to deal with the nothingness that comes in a world without any meaning, but that's pretty much my point: the world without God, I believe, just cannot satisfy our greatest desires.

And I will have made an impact. To my friends and to my family. And what I do today will impress on them. My son will hopefully take the good stuff that I teach him and impress that upon his offspring. That truly must be the meaning of life. In the meantime I will enjoy my life as much as I can. After all, we are here for not even a blink of an eye when you consider that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Now, so much of the way of the universe is beyond our understanding so far, but that doesn't mean that I personally have to attribute a deity to it. I can just marvel in the complexity and the beauty of it - much the way Einstein did (when Einstein talked about a god, he wasn't talking about a creator. He was talking about wonder at the universe).

Again, this impact will be for a very limited time in history and will be completely wiped out when humanity dies out. Ultimately if you were a good parent or a bad parent it would of course impact your children and maybe their children for a few decades, but after a while this impact will fade as you are forgotten by the world and your distant descendants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there can be 'no meaning' if there's no God. Meaning can be derived for a very short time, but my point is that it ultimately fades and turns out to be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I know of the wonder you speak of, and I have exactly the same wonder of the universe. The origins of scientific study were from theists who were in awe of the universe God created and wanted to understand it better, and I know many scientists who are Christians. So I have this wonder at the greatness and magnitude of the universe, but on top of this I would argue that I won't just be able to enjoy it for a fleeting moment, but for eternity; and even more amazing, the God who made all of this didn't just make it and get lost, but He loves us so much that He came to die for us (excuse the wondering into preaching, I'm not doing it for the sake of preaching, I'm just trying to express my wonder and awe, just as you did).

[*]No-one should be able to force their religious views on others (I'm not saying you do, but it does happen, especially in the American Evangelists I already know that you hate)

I agree completely. Something is much more powerful if you demonstrate it in your life, which is what I try to do (and often fail). I am personally against street preaching, as it is just depersonalized, and so often becomes judging others, the thing Jesus told us we should avoid at all costs!

[*]Church and state should be entirely separate

Again, I agree 100%. The Church stops being what it is meant to be when it is married to power. The best period in the Church's history was its first 200-300 years before it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire.

[*]Faith should not be taught in schools, and 'collective worship' is wrong

I do disagree here. Firstly religion is hugely important in the world and in our multicultural and multi-religious society, it is important for children to understand what religion/faith is. Also, if you don't do this there will be no spiritual input into the children's lives, and although strict secularists get uneasy at this, the majority of people in this country do believe in some form of spirituality. Finally Christianity has been very important in forming what our country is today, and children should know this.

[*]There should be no faith schools, they are divisive

Again I disagree and I would suggest thefacts actually don't support you on this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8381090.stm

So why persist with religious organisations and leave it as it should be (IMHO) - a personal choice? Religious organisations are, as you say, run by people who have been given an inordinate amount of power over peoples' lives and will inevitably become corrupt or inadvertantly harmful.

With religion afforded the luxury of a lack of accountability or critical analysis by it's followers (who by definition already need to suspend reality and not think critically to join the club) any errors of judgement by men at the top level will be amplified by those (but not all) underneath who will largely follow blindly and often literally what the top brass say. Hence anti-abortionists killing abortionists etc.

Not fair to pick on the extremists in a balanced argument, but you can't deny it's not there. On a more balanced note there's also the insidious nature of confession which suppresses people's control over their own self worth and accountability. The AA programme which takes in the weak and effectively makes them a cult member by handing over control to God (and therefore the organisation of the Church).

If you guys want to believe in God, all of the Old Testament, creationism, only the good bits of the New testament, the tooth fairy or even Mormonism then it's your personal choice. If it ends up making you positively contribute to society then great. I'm genuinely happy about that.

But overall what good does the organised part of religion really serve? A focal point? Can't community centres or local clubs do that?

Anyhoo. Regardless of what you believe, Happy Christmas!

Read what I've put on my last response to this. I agree that this is a problem in the Catholic church, but this is not the case in a lot of Protestant churches. Periochial Church Councils in the UK for example ensure that people in power are chosen by the members of the church and they are held accountable to these people on the decisions they make.

Also, Happy Christmas to everyone!

[The Man In Black]

It appears that we just differ on one major thing gater2 - I am happy with me being here for not even a blink of an eye in terms of the universe, whereas you feel that there has to be a much deeper meaning to your existence, and that after this life you will still continue to exist in another form.

Otherwise, we both share a sense of wonder in the workings of the universe, and since you don't appear to be one of the types who hates scientific endeavour to help us understand more I'm extremely happy with that. Since I'm sure that neither of us is going to completely convince the other of their argument, I'm happy to leave it at that if you are

Again I disagree and I would suggest thefacts actually don't support you on this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8381090.stm

I'm uneasy with accepting a Church of England study into this - they're hardly going to provide a balanced opinion when they rely on faith schools to indoctrinate the next generation!

I cannot see why schools should be faith-based. It is not inclusive, of course it isn't. How can a person from another faith feel entirely happy sending their child to one?

I'm also not entirely sure how Ofsted measure effect on community. However, I'm sure that they just look at some of the stuff the school has claimed to have done and tick a box. Communities are much more complex than that.

And taking a point from something you wrote earlier in that post, I disagree that the majority of people in this country have some form of faith. Most people say "Christian" as they were raised that way. If you ask them further, you will often find out that they don't really have any belief. It is just a big step sometimes to not use the label that you have been brought up with - it certainly took me a lot of careful consideration before I told my two grandmothers (both of whom are very religious) that I did not consider myself a Christian.

And of course, that label often begins in state-funded faith schools...............

edit: I forgot to say - I hope you had a very pleasant Christmas season.

[The Man In Black]

[newboy]

For all those who claim that religion has to be at the centre of policy, as it provides the morals and guidance for that policy, just remember. You are merely saying that your belief system is more important than mine and everyone else's. As there are so many religious belief systems in the world, you have to agree, in my opinion, that it is no different to having a political persuasion, or even a favourite colour.

Except that, as you mention, religion is not subject to democratic principles and some cases not even the same legal constraints as political parties.

Up until fairly recently, it's not even been afforded the same level of inspection and accountability as pretty much any other major train of thought, developing a pretty ruthless method of suppression and indoctrination. Unfortunately we seem to be moving backwards - take a look at Ireland's blasphemy laws that came into effect on Jan 1st.

[gater2]

Except that, as you mention, religion is not subject to democratic principles and some cases not even the same legal constraints as political parties.

Up until fairly recently, it's not even been afforded the same level of inspection and accountability as pretty much any other major train of thought, developing a pretty ruthless method of suppression and indoctrination. Unfortunately we seem to be moving backwards - take a look at Ireland's blasphemy laws that came into effect on Jan 1st.

Yes, I agree religion shouldn't be at the 'centre' of policy, but it should still have a voice in the public arena which people can ignore or take onboard. Many people are still Christians and do put themselves under the authority of the church (although of course I would argue this shouldn't be blindly). I think religious voice in public discourse should be the same as a political thinktank.

Also, read what I put above. Churches in the Church of England (if not the Roman Catholic Church) is run by a democratic system with Periochial Church Councils, so it's not just one person making decisions which others have to accept.

[newboy]

Yes, I agree religion shouldn't be at the 'centre' of policy, but it should still have a voice in the public arena which people can ignore or take onboard. Many people are still Christians and do put themselves under the authority of the church (although of course I would argue this shouldn't be blindly). I think religious voice in public discourse should be the same as a political thinktank.

Also, read what I put above. Churches in the Church of England (if not the Roman Catholic Church) is run by a democratic system with Periochial Church Councils, so it's not just one person making decisions which others have to accept.

Hey Gater2, hope you had a good Christmas.

Don't disagree at all - no problems with the church having a voice. What I disagree with is where the Church has 14 seats in the house of Lords which can then be used to pass/reject policy which has been democratically raised. You've got 14 people in a position of power purely because they believe in a 2000 year old book that's full of fantastical nonsense. It's almost laughable if you don't believe. Mind you, the House of Lords is also full of other unelected people so that rather dilutes my point.

And for what it's worth, I kinda like the CofE - I've no problems with teaching compassion, social cohesion etc. From my experience (and yes, I've looked into a number of faiths for fairness) the CofE is not too hot on subservience and it doesn't rely on cult like practices (confession, AA programmes etc) to get its flock in. Obviously I still believe it's make believe at source, but I respect what it's trying to achieve in principle.

It's the Catholic church and any form of fundamentalism that I perceive to be the most harmful. Most of the bad stuff I've alluded to comes from that. Apart from mild disempowerment, and partial surrendering of fate to God, I've not got too much else to say about the CofE.

This one's purely out of personal curiosity so please feel free to ignore - what was the moment of ephiphany for you and how did you know it was related to God?

[The Man In Black]

Not just the House of Lords, the government have just appointed 13 'faith advisors' to help with policy making.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/117318.html

Taking the religious/faith aspect out of this for a minute - did any of you vote for any of these people to help shape policy?

[Daz555]

"God". It's an interesting hypothesis but nothing more.

Until someone presents me with some evidence to support the existent of a god I'm happy to assume they do not exist.

[gater2]

Hey Gater2, hope you had a good Christmas.

Don't disagree at all - no problems with the church having a voice. What I disagree with is where the Church has 14 seats in the house of Lords which can then be used to pass/reject policy which has been democratically raised. You've got 14 people in a position of power purely because they believe in a 2000 year old book that's full of fantastical nonsense. It's almost laughable if you don't believe. Mind you, the House of Lords is also full of other unelected people so that rather dilutes my point.

And for what it's worth, I kinda like the CofE - I've no problems with teaching compassion, social cohesion etc. From my experience (and yes, I've looked into a number of faiths for fairness) the CofE is not too hot on subservience and it doesn't rely on cult like practices (confession, AA programmes etc) to get its flock in. Obviously I still believe it's make believe at source, but I respect what it's trying to achieve in principle.

It's the Catholic church and any form of fundamentalism that I perceive to be the most harmful. Most of the bad stuff I've alluded to comes from that. Apart from mild disempowerment, and partial surrendering of fate to God, I've not got too much else to say about the CofE.

This one's purely out of personal curiosity so please feel free to ignore - what was the moment of ephiphany for you and how did you know it was related to God?

Happy New Year Man in Black and Newboy!

I'm glad we have found something we all agree on. I think it's awful that the Church has 14 seats in house of Lords, and I'd get rid of them right now if I could. As I said earlier, the church is not doing its job when its attached to power and prestige.

[ruraldean]

This has been an interesting and well-mannered debate, with intelligent responses on both sides. I've read many where this hasn't been the case.

I'd like to make a point, often overlooked. Firstly, according to the poll I'm a de facto atheist. To be a God denier, stated with absolute fact, is as arrogant a position as to be a full blown evangelical Christian. I have no evidence for God, therefore I act as if He doesn't exist. When evidence emerges I'll no doubt behave differently. But those who try to convert atheists are forgetting this argument:

1. Belief is not a matter of choice without evidence because belief without evidence is faith.

2. Trying to convince anyone to have faith without first having belief is illogical.

3. Therefore faith without evidence is illogical.

I'd better explain my credentials: I studied theology within the Church of England, under tutelage, for nigh on fifteen years. I trained as a Lay Reader, licensed to officiate at funerals, evensong, and to counsel parishioners. Throughout my training and studies I struggled to give intellectual assent to what I was being taught although I tried with all my heart. I WANTED to believe. But the more I studied, the lower the chances of my believing became. My logical hard-wiring kicked in.

I've met many Christians who have taken offence at my inability to convert, thinking I'm stubborn or bloody-minded. Wrong - I have no choice.

I also fully agree with the argument that somebody needs to present me with evidence to change my mind. I however, have nothing to prove regarding my non-belief. My non-belief is not a matter of faith, it's an absence of evidence. People who occasionally describe atheism of being a religion miss the point that all religion by definition requires faith.

By the way, as an atheist I am an extraordinarily happy person. I believe (because that's what the evidence tells me) that my span on earth is all I get. I therefore endeavour to live life to the full and not rely on the "jam tomorrow" mentality adopted by those with faith, which I've already shown to be illogical.

With regard to our new signing BTW, let's give the bloke a fair crack. I believe (based on historical evidence) that he can be an extremely valuable asset. Let's get behind him, and GJ's decision.

[CiderHider]

This has been an interesting and well-mannered debate, with intelligent responses on both sides. I've read many where this hasn't been the case.

I'd like to make a point, often overlooked. Firstly, according to the poll I'm a de facto atheist. To be a God denier, stated with absolute fact, is as arrogant a position as to be a full blown evangelical Christian. I have no evidence for God, therefore I act as if He doesn't exist. When evidence emerges I'll no doubt behave differently. But those who try to convert atheists are forgetting this argument:

1. Belief is not a matter of choice without evidence because belief without evidence is faith.

2. Trying to convince anyone to have faith without first having belief is illogical.

3. Therefore faith without evidence is illogical.

I'd better explain my credentials: I studied theology within the Church of England, under tutelage, for nigh on fifteen years. I trained as a Lay Reader, licensed to officiate at funerals, evensong, and to counsel parishioners. Throughout my training and studies I struggled to give intellectual assent to what I was being taught although I tried with all my heart. I WANTED to believe. But the more I studied, the lower the chances of my believing became. My logical hard-wiring kicked in.

I've met many Christians who have taken offence at my inability to convert, thinking I'm stubborn or bloody-minded. Wrong - I have no choice.

I also fully agree with the argument that somebody needs to present me with evidence to change my mind. I however, have nothing to prove regarding my non-belief. My non-belief is not a matter of faith, it's an absence of evidence. People who occasionally describe atheism of being a religion miss the point that all religion by definition requires faith.

By the way, as an atheist I am an extraordinarily happy person. I believe (because that's what the evidence tells me) that my span on earth is all I get. I therefore endeavour to live life to the full and not rely on the "jam tomorrow" mentality adopted by those with faith, which I've already shown to be illogical.

With regard to our new signing BTW, let's give the bloke a fair crack. I believe (based on historical evidence) that he can be an extremely valuable asset. Let's get behind him, and GJ's decision.

Nice post, Agreed, some very interesting and considered responses here.

So do you think professionals in the Church are sometimes fully aware that what the represent is a lie, but are to ashamed or weak to change? A good friend of mine is a Witness, nice bloke, but totally unbending to logic, which is weird considering he's an otherwise intelligent chap. But he was taught from year 1 witnesses were the voice of God.

I find it odd that religious people take such a dim view of atheism too, but to me our universe without a creator is just as fascinating, if not more so.

Certainly more interesting than turning water into wine or walking on water. Sceice is fascinating, our life and existence is fascinating. I don't want to spend my whole life apologising or asking forgiveness for my thoughts like my catholic upbringing told me to, and hoping for a better life next time, becuase this life is just a stepping stone to the next....Jeeez, this is such bad advise.

Relegion is man made, i'm convinced, not saying it didnt serve a purpose many centrys ago, but lets be honest, all the fighting in the world is down to religion one way or another, religion is evil.

I probably will get in trouble for this bit, but its my opinion that teaching religious studies to children should be outlawed, to me its brainwashing and as bad as child abuse, but Religion and child abuse go hand in hand and have been for since the beginning.

There should be no such thing as a Jewish child, or Muslim Child, becuase that name has been imposed on them by their praents, let them decided when they are old enough, You don't ever find parents saying "he's a good Marxist, or little Tommy is a good little Capitalist" don't brainwash them, its not your decision and its abuse.

Can't ban religion and would never want to, its dieing already. As we as a people advance, we'll look back on religion as an infant would a dummy once grown up.

[Philip Belgrave]

Nice post, Agreed, some very interesting and considered responses here.

So do you think professionals in the Church are sometimes fully aware that what the represent is a lie, but are to ashamed or weak to change? A good friend of mine is a Witness, nice bloke, but totally unbending to logic, which is weird considering he's an otherwise intelligent chap. But he was taught from year 1 witnesses were the voice of God.

I find it odd that religious people take such a dim view of atheism too, but to me our universe without a creator is just as fascinating, if not more so.

Certainly more interesting than turning water into wine or walking on water. Sceice is fascinating, our life and existence is fascinating. I don't want to spend my whole life apologising or asking forgiveness for my thoughts like my catholic upbringing told me to, and hoping for a better life next time, becuase this life is just a stepping stone to the next....Jeeez, this is such bad advise.

Relegion is man made, i'm convinced, not saying it didnt serve a purpose many centrys ago, but lets be honest, all the fighting in the world is down to religion one way or another, religion is evil.

I probably will get in trouble for this bit, but its my opinion that teaching religious studies to children should be outlawed, to me its brainwashing and as bad as child abuse, but Religion and child abuse go hand in hand and have been for since the beginning.

There should be no such thing as a Jewish child, or Muslim Child, becuase that name has been imposed on them by their praents, let them decided when they are old enough, You don't ever find parents saying "he's a good Marxist, or little Tommy is a good little Capitalist" don't brainwash them, its not your decision and its abuse.

Can't ban religion and would never want to, its dieing already. As we as a people advance, we'll look back on religion as an infant would a dummy once grown up.

(You are not going to call this a "Nice Post", because I couldn't agree with you less)

I am not a "Religous Person" :- if you want to label me, I suppose I'm a "Hopeful Agnostic"- but I certainly take a "dim view of atheism ".

To me it's the height of intellectual arrogance. Can you prove that the universe was formed without a creator? If so, you are a step ahead of the rest of the scientific world.

Atheists always fall into the same trap. They see formalised religion: -that is mankind's bumbling, totally inadequate efforts in groping for eternal truth- and think that ,therefore, it must be all cr*p and this God thing is a complete sham.

They see wars fought through the ages, fought in the name of various brands of religion, (ostensibly ,actually the real reasons are greed and power ,as always) and think that, therefore, the church must deal in pernicious garbage and that all professional clergy are only on the make.

So all this disproves the existence of God ? Where's the logic there then ?

You scoff at "This life is just a stepping stone to the next", Well, I don't know: -you do, do you ?

You sneer at the concept of turning water into wine, your committed Christian might argue that Almighty God performs that trick on an annual basis in the vineyards of the world . (Is that too deep perhaps ?)

Religious studies = brainwashing. Hoo boy ! From the moment of birth a child is brainwashed: by parents, schoolteachers, advertisers: anybody and everybody who think that they can gain an advantage or make a quick quid out of the child.

At least with religious instruction a child might gain a moral code which might guide him/her through a difficult life.

I am sure that Church authorities the world over will be relieved by your decision not to ban religion. People have been attempting that trick for the past 2,000 years so I would'nt have given much for your chances.

[ruraldean]

Quote: Nice post, Agreed, some very interesting and considered responses here.

So do you think professionals in the Church are sometimes fully aware that what the represent is a lie, but are to ashamed or weak to change? A good friend of mine is a Witness, nice bloke, but totally unbending to logic, which is weird considering he's an otherwise intelligent chap. But he was taught from year 1 witnesses were the voice of God.

I find it odd that religious people take such a dim view of atheism too, but to me our universe without a creator is just as fascinating, if not more so.

Agreed on all counts. I know a number of clergy who teeter on the edge of doubt. In fact, many claim that the doubt is essential to their faith, which I find difficult to comprehend. I know one clergyman who has admitted that he has lost his faith and struggles daily to keep the façade in place. He (oddly) prays every day for it to come back, which just about shows the level of confusion going on in his mind.

With regard to wars, I've seen the argument here that atheists start wars too. This misses the point. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion, none in the name of atheism. Atheists also don't stand on street corners and tell you you're eternally damned if you don't stop believing in God either.

[Eddie Hitler]

Well done Philip, have to say I agree with you.

I don't really understand why somebody such as Richard Dawkins or the anti-religionists through the years have this huge need to belittle peoples' beliefs. Belief (and disbelief) is a personal thing, though it can be shared.

For example I know a creationist, I think she is wrong but I see no point in debating it with her because she bases her belief on faith whereas I see the scientific evidence for some kind of evolution. We have different start points on this subject so will inevitably have different conclusions.

And whilst aggressive evolutionists are often encountered you do not often see aggressive creationists; they think is fine for somebody to hold a different belief even if they think they are wrong. Which is a more mature and human viewpoint.

[ruraldean]

Quote: (You are not going to call this a "Nice Post", because I couldn't agree with you less)

I am not a "Religous Person" :- if you want to label me, I suppose I'm a "Hopeful Agnostic"- but I certainly take a "dim view of atheism ".

To me it's the height of intellectual arrogance. Can you prove that the universe was formed without a creator? If so, you are a step ahead of the rest of the scientific world.

Did you read my post, and my definition of atheism. I think this is what the poster was referring to. Are you saying that anyone displaying intellectual honesty causes you to take a dim view of the thinker? You continue making the mistake that it is down to a non-believer to prove something. We don't. For that to be the case then God would have to be the objective default position. Subjectively you think it is, but objectively there is no evidence. It's like me saying that Santa is real, and it's down to you to prove he isn't, and until you can you're just plain wrong. Not an intellectually strong position.

Atheists always fall into the same trap. They see formalised religion: -that is mankind's bumbling, totally inadequate efforts in groping for eternal truth- and think that ,therefore, it must be all cr*p and this God thing is a complete sham.

I don't fall into that trap. I don't need religion, good or bad, to make me an atheist. I need proof of God to make me a believer. I might as well say "All Christians don't understand atheism", an untrue generalisation, although not in your case.

They see wars fought through the ages, fought in the name of various brands of religion, (ostensibly ,actually the real reasons are greed and power ,as always) and think that, therefore, the church must deal in pernicious garbage and that all professional clergy are only on the make.

And where has anyone said this?

So all this disproves the existence of God ? Where's the logic there then ?

See my answer above.

You scoff at "This life is just a stepping stone to the next", Well, I don't know: -you do, do you ?

Well, it seems to be a Christian claim. Are you saying that this life isn't a stepping stone to the next? Those of us with no God tend to think of death as being very much like life before birth - nothing.

You sneer at the concept of turning water into wine, your committed Christian might argue that Almighty God performs that trick on an annual basis in the vineyards of the world . (Is that too deep perhaps ?)

No, not deep, just not very well thought out. Firstly, God does not turn water into wine, vintners do. And they use grapes too. However, it takes a while and has never been done when 500 people are sitting in front of them with their hands out. On the other hand if you see the whole of the New Testament as metaphor then we can have a different conversation.

Religious studies = brainwashing. Hoo boy ! From the moment of birth a child is brainwashed: by parents, schoolteachers, advertisers: anybody and everybody who think that they can gain an advantage or make a quick quid out of the child.

Partially agreed, although as a parent I don't look on my kids as a cash cow. Quite the reverse - they suck money out of me like an Electrolux on speed. Do you have children, and are you looking forward to fleecing them?

At least with religious instruction a child might gain a moral code which might guide him/her through a difficult life.

Hey, kids can learn morals without religion. Society has always evolved codes. Western society has just adopted Christianity as an excuse for them.

I am sure that Church authorities the world over will be relieved by your decision not to ban religion. People have been attempting that trick for the past 2,000 years so I would'nt have given much for your chances.

Take the trouble to read his post - you may find that he didn't preface the sentence with "I",and may therefore have been generalising. He then went on to say he wouldn't anyway. The sentence structure is ambiguous, but the message is clear. If he could ban it he wouldn't. Your sarcasm is unjustified.

To Ciderhider - Sorry for jumping on what may have been your reply, but it was hanging out there, naked, and I couldn't resist.

[ruraldean]

Quote: Well done Philip, have to say I agree with you.

I don't really understand why somebody such as Richard Dawkins or the anti-religionists through the years have this huge need to belittle peoples' beliefs. Belief (and disbelief) is a personal thing, though it can be shared.

Richard Dawkins doesn't hang round shopping centres with a bag of leaflets telling me that I'll go to hell if I don't believe him. He also doesn't shove little booklets through my door, or come round with his mate to ask me what I think of the world today. So why do anti-religionists get labelled as people out to belittle peoples' beliefs?

I have an acquaintance from my old church who always asks me my position whenever she sees me in Tesco: "Have you rediscovered the Lord yet?" she asks. When I'm honest she looks at me pityingly as if I have terminal cancer, and tells me she'll pray for me. It really doesn't help.

Dawkins is avoidable. If you don't agree with him then don't watch him or read him. Just give me the same option when it comes to evangelicals.

And I promise not to knock on your door in an attempt to convert you.

[Eddie Hitler]

Quote: Well done Philip, have to say I agree with you.

I don't really understand why somebody such as Richard Dawkins or the anti-religionists through the years have this huge need to belittle peoples' beliefs. Belief (and disbelief) is a personal thing, though it can be shared.

Richard Dawkins doesn't hang round shopping centres with a bag of leaflets telling me that I'll go to hell if I don't believe him. He also doesn't shove little booklets through my door, or come round with his mate to ask me what I think of the world today. So why do anti-religionists get labelled as people out to belittle peoples' beliefs?

I have an acquaintance from my old church who always asks me my position whenever she sees me in Tesco: "Have you rediscovered the Lord yet?" she asks. When I'm honest she looks at me pityingly as if I have terminal cancer, and tells me she'll pray for me. It really doesn't help.

Dawkins is avoidable. If you don't agree with him then don't watch him or read him. Just give me the same option when it comes to evangelicals.

And I promise not to knock on your door in an attempt to convert you.

I would say that they have something in which they believe and that gives them great comfort and they wish to share that with someone else. If you say no thankyou they will go away.

Dawkins for me represents an absence of belief. It's a logical position to hold if that is sufficient for you, but you are actually believeing in nothing, accumulating evidence and making theories from it. I don't say that it is wrong, it is entirely self-consistent, but for most people it is not enough.

[ruraldean]

Dawkins for me represents an absence of belief. It's a logical position to hold if that is sufficient for you, but you are actually believeing in nothing, accumulating evidence and making theories from it. I don't say that it is wrong, it is entirely self-consistent, but for most people it is not enough.

I agree - hence the invention of God.

[Philip Belgrave]

Quote: (You are not going to call this a "Nice Post", because I couldn't agree with you less)

I am not a "Religous Person" :- if you want to label me, I suppose I'm a "Hopeful Agnostic"- but I certainly take a "dim view of atheism ".

To me it's the height of intellectual arrogance. Can you prove that the universe was formed without a creator? If so, you are a step ahead of the rest of the scientific world.

Did you read my post, and my definition of atheism. I think this is what the poster was referring to. Are you saying that anyone displaying intellectual honesty causes you to take a dim view of the thinker? You continue making the mistake that it is down to a non-believer to prove something. We don't. For that to be the case then God would have to be the objective default position. Subjectively you think it is, but objectively there is no evidence. It's like me saying that Santa is real, and it's down to you to prove he isn't, and until you can you're just plain wrong. Not an intellectually strong position.

Atheists always fall into the same trap. They see formalised religion: -that is mankind's bumbling, totally inadequate efforts in groping for eternal truth- and think that ,therefore, it must be all cr*p and this God thing is a complete sham.

I don't fall into that trap. I don't need religion, good or bad, to make me an atheist. I need proof of God to make me a believer. I might as well say "All Christians don't understand atheism", an untrue generalisation, although not in your case.

They see wars fought through the ages, fought in the name of various brands of religion, (ostensibly ,actually the real reasons are greed and power ,as always) and think that, therefore, the church must deal in pernicious garbage and that all professional clergy are only on the make.

And where has anyone said this?

So all this disproves the existence of God ? Where's the logic there then ?

See my answer above.

You scoff at "This life is just a stepping stone to the next", Well, I don't know: -you do, do you ?

Well, it seems to be a Christian claim. Are you saying that this life isn't a stepping stone to the next? Those of us with no God tend to think of death as being very much like life before birth - nothing.

You sneer at the concept of turning water into wine, your committed Christian might argue that Almighty God performs that trick on an annual basis in the vineyards of the world . (Is that too deep perhaps ?)

No, not deep, just not very well thought out. Firstly, God does not turn water into wine, vintners do. And they use grapes too. However, it takes a while and has never been done when 500 people are sitting in front of them with their hands out. On the other hand if you see the whole of the New Testament as metaphor then we can have a different conversation.

Religious studies = brainwashing. Hoo boy ! From the moment of birth a child is brainwashed: by parents, schoolteachers, advertisers: anybody and everybody who think that they can gain an advantage or make a quick quid out of the child.

Partially agreed, although as a parent I don't look on my kids as a cash cow. Quite the reverse - they suck money out of me like an Electrolux on speed. Do you have children, and are you looking forward to fleecing them?

At least with religious instruction a child might gain a moral code which might guide him/her through a difficult life.

Hey, kids can learn morals without religion. Society has always evolved codes. Western society has just adopted Christianity as an excuse for them.

I am sure that Church authorities the world over will be relieved by your decision not to ban religion. People have been attempting that trick for the past 2,000 years so I would'nt have given much for your chances.

Take the trouble to read his post - you may find that he didn't preface the sentence with "I",and may therefore have been generalising. He then went on to say he wouldn't anyway. The sentence structure is ambiguous, but the message is clear. If he could ban it he wouldn't. Your sarcasm is unjustified.

To Ciderhider - Sorry for jumping on what may have been your reply, but it was hanging out there, naked, and I couldn't resist.

And what was I saying about arrogance? vide PROVERBS 16:18 Reverend Sir (well-you still call yourself Rural Dean!)

To begin with, I responded to your mate's posting, not yours.

Frankly, what got up my nose was the ill-educated and vicious slurs on the Christian faith and the vast majority of decent, pious people who. throughout history , have subscribed to christian teachings and have done their best to live up the Christian ideals.

Do you endorse his comments ,Mr Ex- Lay Reader ?

Taking it from the top , I won't get bogged down with semantics, but forgive me, I don't take your reading of Atheism as definitive.

When someone professes atheism, philosophically he/she is taking a position: regardless whether it is deemed positive or negative. and to be intellectually honest, supporting evidence must be cited to support that position.

Where is it then ?, And to mention that there is such a thing as a "default position" in such a debate is ludicrous. As for your Santa Clause analogy-come off it ! There is abundant proof that the red-coated gentleman does not exist except in the dreams of children .where's similar proof that God doesn't exist ?

I cited an argument that many atheists come to their position due to the (erroneous) view that conflicts throughout history have a base cause in religious differences. You say ,"And where has anyone said this. Answer: just about everybody ,

I make the point that nobody can say what happens prior the commencement of life or after. Your lot say there is just oblivion- O. K, prove it !

Water into Wine ? Right-oh then, we will dig at little deeper with this one.

Certainly the vintners and blenders play their part but then again it might be argued that it was their God-given skills than made the vintage well.

If you subscribe to belief that God made heaven and earth and everything in it then it's game,set and match that God turns water into wine.

As for "500 people sitting in front of them with their hands out", honestly ,I don't know. You were there , were you ?

It's pleasing to know that you are, at least partially, with me on Religious Instruction. Since you put it to me- yes we, have children , of whom I am overwhelmingly proud. Our eldest daughter has advanced degrees in Philosophy and Social Work and is involved with Child Protection at the Royal Childrens' Hospital ,Melbourne. So perhaps you can understand that I KNOW that there are many parents and children totally lacking in any moral compass which might guide them through life.

You 'state "'Society has always evolved codes...Western society has just adopted Christianity as an excuse for them"'. Oh really ?-well I'm here to tell you that it's doing an appalling job of it in a great many cases. You think that there is no correlation between the increasing secularization of society and violent crime ? If so ,you're dreaming.

Sarcastic- me ? God forbid (sorry, sorry!) It was an honest rebuttal, His words, "Can't ban religion and never want to "' I merely made the point that many have tried in the past , but Christianity is still here. On that basis alone, it must have something going for it ?

Would you not agree ?

[ruraldean]

And what was I saying about arrogance? vide PROVERBS 16:18 Reverend Sir (well-you still call yourself Rural Dean!)

To begin with, I responded to your mate's posting, not yours.

See the last line of my post.

Frankly, what got up my nose was the ill-educated and vicious slurs on the Christian faith and the vast majority of decent, pious people who. throughout history , have subscribed to christian teachings and have done their best to live up the Christian ideals.

Do you endorse his comments ,Mr Ex- Lay Reader ?

I agree that this should not be about the "goodness" or "badness" of people.

Taking it from the top , I won't get bogged down with semantics, but forgive me, I don't take your reading of Atheism as definitive.

When someone professes atheism, philosophically he/she is taking a position: regardless whether it is deemed positive or negative. and to be intellectually honest, supporting evidence must be cited to support that position.

Where is it then ?,

My position is sraightforward, and very common. I have no evidence for the existence of God, therefore my default position is to believe he doesn't exist. When that evidence arrives, I'll change my mind. I believe that my belief requires evidence (as I've stated elsewhere) and I have plenty to tell me that the God of Christianity, a loving, caring, interventionist God, does not exist. Haiti, for instance; Churches collapsing in on their congregations; the deaths of children; the Tsunami. I'm sure that you could add to the list of things that say that God either isn't there or He doesn't care.

And to mention that there is such a thing as a "default position" in such a debate is ludicrous. As for your Santa Clause analogy-come off it ! There is abundant proof that the red-coated gentleman does not exist except in the dreams of children .where's similar proof that God doesn't exist ?

Cite one piece of proof that Santa doesn't exist and you win the debate.

I cited an argument that many atheists come to their position due to the (erroneous) view that conflicts throughout history have a base cause in religious differences. You say ,"And where has anyone said this. Answer: just about everybody ,

I thought you were referring to this debate, not those outside.

I make the point that nobody can say what happens prior the commencement of life or after. Your lot say there is just oblivion- O. K, prove it !

I can prove to my own satisfaction the "before bit". So can you. We've both experienced it.

Water into Wine ? Right-oh then, we will dig at little deeper with this one.

Certainly the vintners and blenders play their part but then again it might be argued that it was their God-given skills than made the vintage well.

If you subscribe to belief that God made heaven and earth and everything in it then it's game,set and match that God turns water into wine.

As for "500 people sitting in front of them with their hands out", honestly ,I don't know. You were there , were you ?

Please don't tell me those Gospel writers were having us on...

It's pleasing to know that you are, at least partially, with me on Religious Instruction. Since you put it to me- yes we, have children , of whom I am overwhelmingly proud. Our eldest daughter has advanced degrees in Philosophy and Social Work and is involved with Child Protection at the Royal Childrens' Hospital ,Melbourne. So perhaps you can understand that I KNOW that there are many parents and children totally lacking in any moral compass which might guide them through life.

You 'state "'Society has always evolved codes...Western society has just adopted Christianity as an excuse for them"'. Oh really ?-well I'm here to tell you that it's doing an appalling job of it in a great many cases. You think that there is no correlation between the increasing secularization of society and violent crime ? If so ,you're dreaming.

I agree, but only because religion has always been used as a control for the masses. I'll justify that in a separate essay if you want, but I think you're intelligent enough not to deny it.

Sarcastic- me ? God forbid (sorry, sorry!) It was an honest rebuttal, His words, "Can't ban religion and never want to "' I merely made the point that many have tried in the past , but Christianity is still here. On that basis alone, it must have something going for it ?

Would you not agree ?

To be honest, yes. What it has going for it is it provides something for people to cling to in bad times. It gives comfort after the loss of a loved one; comfort if you have trouble justifying natural disasters (It's all part of God's plan); comfort for those who can't determine their own paths (I'll leave it to God). In all, religion is a great thing for making people think that they don't have responsibilities and something better is just around the corner (Heaven?). It gives people hope, which is why religion is growing faster in the poor regions of the world then the rich. But none of this makes God true. Paganism goes back into pre-history. Do you believe that it too is true?

[gater2]

Really interesting debate has developed since I last looked. Ruraldean in particular, I have been very interested to read what you have to say as you've obviously thought about this a lot. You seem to be coming at this from a similar position to me (I have also studied theology - although not to become anything in the church, just the academix stuff), but we have come to very different opinions. As a result I'd like to go through and write some (good natured) reflections on what you have said.

I'd like to make a point, often overlooked. Firstly, according to the poll I'm a de facto atheist. To be a God denier, stated with absolute fact, is as arrogant a position as to be a full blown evangelical Christian. I have no evidence for God, therefore I act as if He doesn't exist. When evidence emerges I'll no doubt behave differently. But those who try to convert atheists are forgetting this argument:

1. Belief is not a matter of choice without evidence because belief without evidence is faith.

2. Trying to convince anyone to have faith without first having belief is illogical.

3. Therefore faith without evidence is illogical.

It's interesting you mention 'evidence', a phrase that often gets thrown around these debates. When you say evidence, I presume you don't mean 'proof'? As Philip Belgrave has mentioned, no one has and no one will 'prove' that God doesn't exist. If it had been proved that God doesn't exist, no one would believe in him in this world.

Although I respect Dawkins' and many other atheists' positions because they have evidently thought about the issue and come to a conclusion, I do question the emphasis atheists put on 'evidence' and (they say) as a result, 'proof'. Dawkins essentially says, 'I won't believe in this God thing unless I see any proof he exists, and I don't see any, so I won't'. I agree with you that there has to be an element of blind faith in God, but I would suggest that there has to be an element of blind faith in everythin we do as human beings, and very rarely, if ever can we reach 100% proof of anything.

If you think about it, I can't prove that I won't get run over by a bus next time I walk out of my house, but that doesn't mean I'm never going to walk out of my house. (An example I used earlier): I can't prove my fiancee won't cheat on me, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to marry her. So we always have to put our trust in things/people/decisions we make on a daily basis, without proof.

I'm sure you'll then say to me, well you can say beyond reasonable doubt that I won't get run over by a bus when I walk outside etc., but with God, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he exists, so he probably doesn't. I would reply in two ways for this. Firstly, just because you say this doesn't mean he's not there. Just because something seems like it's not there, doesn't mean it can't happen. It was beyond all reasonable doubt that Peteborough would come back from 4-0 at half time to draw with Cardiff the other week, but that did happen!

Secondly I would suggest, that subconsciously humanity acknowlegdes believing against all the odds is a good thing. In films/books/theatre etc. you hear phrases like, 'believe against all the odds', 'don't give up hope', 'trust in me' etc. It's been mentioned (not just by you), that atheists can be happy/satisfied with the fact that life is just as it is; we live, we grow up, we work (most of us), 9-5 during the week, party a weekends ****il this gets boring), we retire, then we die; that's it. I certainly think it is possible to be happy as an atheist (I have many atheist friends who are happy). But I would suggest that the history of the arts, film, the greatest stories, music etc. points to the fact that people do want more than the mundane fact that we are simply a bunch of atoms which have accidently come together to form humans. You can disagree with me if yo want, and that's fine, but for me, humanity is always trying to look beyond itself for fulfilment, beyond the normal drudgery of normal, everyday life, and the fact that 'this is it: I live, I die, the end', even if they don't admit it. What is it about the ecstacy of celebrating a last min goal for City, doing drugs, enjoying music (or even having an orgasm!) that makes these things so good? I think it is that even for a few seconds we can forget the drudgery of normalness, and the simple fact that 'this is it'. The problem, of course, is that all these things have to come to an end, and we have to go back to normalness. Look at figures in our society; although we have almost everything we want, we are not truely satisfied as a society. You just have to look at the news every night to see the frustration and anger and lack of fulfilment people feel, to see that people aren't satisfied; everyone is always looking for the next thrill.

Look at lyrics in music. Here is Avril Lavigne (yes I know, but it illustrates my point) - not a believer in God:

Sometimes I get so weird

I even freak myself out

I laugh myself to sleep

It's my lullaby

Sometimes I drive so fast

Just to feel the danger

I wanna scream

It makes me feel alive

Is it enough to love?

Is it enough to breathe?

Somebody rip my heart out

And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die?

Somebody save my life

I'd rather be anything but ordinary please

To walk within the lines

Would make my life so boring

I want to know that I

Have been to the extreme

So knock me off my feet

Come on now give it to me

Anything to make me feel alive

The line, 'somebody save my life', shows to me everyone is craving to truely live rather than just exist, and for me, this shows a frustration with the whole, 'get born, live, die, the end' paradigm.

Also Robbie Williams:

I don't wanna die,

But I ain't keen on living either.

Before I fall in love,

I'm preparing to leave her.

I scare myself to death,

That's why I keep on running.

Before I've arrived, I can see myself coming.

(chorus)

I just wanna feel real love,

Feel the home that I live in.

'cause I got too much life,

Running through my veins, going to waste.

And I need to feel, real love

And a life ever after.

I cannot get enough.

Again, I appreciate you can disagree with me, but for me, this (as well as countless other examples in classic books, films, art etc.) shows me people are dissatisfied with the reality their world gives them, and they are constantly looking outside themselves for fulfilment, whether they realise it or not.

My second point (before this gets really long!), is that 'evidence', I believe is often misconstrued. Some of the cleverest people I know (and I know quite a few with my father having been a tutor at Oxford university (not saying you have to go to Oxford to be clever, but you know what I mean)) are Christians, not because they have evidence for God in the way you might think. I will freely admit I have never seen a vision of angels or God physically in front of me. I have never physically heard God's voice. I have never seen someones arm grow back as a miracle, but for me, evidence comes in a much more subtle way. At times God will feel so far away that I do doubt he is there - I'm willing to admit that. But at other times, he is so close to me, and I experience him so deeply, that I have no doubt. This experience can come in many different ways, from singing songs of worship, to sitting down and chatting to Steve or Scott who are homeless and hang out near the tube stop where I live: I believe I see and experience God in them. I experience and have evidence for God when I see a beautiful sunset or I'm walking in the Lake district or the alps. Before you say it, I acknowledge you can put this as a warm fuzzy feeling you can explain from evolution. But firstly (as I said above), this doesn't exclude the possibility of God, and secondly (also above), I believe the desire we have to experience beauty like this and our desire for it never to end (and consequently our frustration when it does), points to a desire for heaven, when this beauty and peace will never end.

That was rather long winded, and I hope it makes sense as an apologetic of theism/faith.

Finally, I would like to say that I am probably what you call an 'evangelical' in the sense that I would love my friends and family to experience God the way I do, but I certainly don't judge them and tell them they're going to hell if they don't 'convert' (I hate that word anyway). I also do 'choose' to believe every day in God (to an extent) as I acknowledge that there is also evidence for God not existing. As a result I am faced with two alternatives, neither of which I can prove, and I just choose to believe in God (based on the evidence I said above). You choose not to, based on the lack of evidence (again: not proof). Also, I definitely don't live my life based on the 'jam tomorrow' mentality (as I have tried to explain in previous posts on this thread), and I get very frustrated with Christians who do this - and I acknowledge there are many!

Very interesting debate, and thanks everyone for contributing so well!

[Maesknoll Red]

I am amazed at the response to this question. How can you make a decision on faith to last you all of your life when you were still an adolescent?

Why on earth not? I was an atheist in my school years and remain convinced that I don't need a crutch to get me through life.