Religion

[bucksred]

Nothing wrong with religion whatsoever. The problem is the humans who are God/Allah/whoever's voice on the planet. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like politicians, they luuuurve the sounds of their voices and start beleiveing their own bollocks.

Like everything on planet Earth, and beyond, its the humans that f uck it up.

And it should be tolerant enough to accept differences in views.

[newboy]

Nothing wrong with religion whatsoever. The problem is the humans who are God/Allah/whoever's voice on the planet. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like politicians, they luuuurve the sounds of their voices and start beleiveing their own bollocks.

Like everything on planet Earth, and beyond, its the humans that f uck it up.

And it should be tolerant enough to accept differences in views.

Thing is if you took away organised religion, what have you got left? They are the ones who propogate their religion and converted people, so if you don't trust them what are you actually trusting?

Do you go back to when the scripts were first written (by humans)? Or edited (by humans)? Or translated (by humans)? Or first preached (by humans)? etc

I'd argue that it's not man that corrupts religion, it's religion that corrupts humans and that religion is an entirely man made concept. If you look at the history of religion since the dawn of time it's been cropping up whenever man needs answers to hard questions and someone/some people stepped in either for self gain or trying to help and gave the ultimate cop-out answer - "it was a God".

Why do our crops fail? "It was God - we all need sacrifices. BTW - I'm the priest so gimme stuff." Now we know it's the water cycle being influenced by weather patterns caused by differences in air pressure etc.

What are the twinkly things in the sky? "They're souls of our ancestors. Look at me, I'm wise and venerable." Now we know they're giant nucleic reactions in space.

How was the earth formed? "It was God. In 7 days. 3000 years ago. Isn't he great, now kneel before his majesty. P.S. I'm one of his minions to cower before me as well." Now we know that continents formed over millienia due to tectonic plates and that the earth is billions of years old (and old enough to support evolution).

Now we know about stars, how does the Earth fit in? "The earth is the centre of the universe - don't doubt my wisdom you oik" Now we know the Sun is the centre of our galaxy which in tern spins round the centre of the universe

Why did my friend die? "God moves in mysterious ways". Nuff said.

Back to the point - if humans are corrupt, what credence can you give to a man-made book edited by men and disseminated by men? Which specific bits do you trust and base your faith on?

[bucksred]

Thing is if you took away organised religion, what have you got left? They are the ones who propogate their religion and converted people, so if you don't trust them what are you actually trusting?

Do you go back to when the scripts were first written (by humans)? Or edited (by humans)? Or translated (by humans)? Or first preached (by humans)? etc

I'd argue that it's not man that corrupts religion, it's religion that corrupts humans and that religion is an entirely man made concept. If you look at the history of religion since the dawn of time it's been cropping up whenever man needs answers to hard questions and someone/some people stepped in either for self gain or trying to help and gave the ultimate cop-out answer - "it was a God".

Why do our crops fail? "It was God - we all need sacrifices. BTW - I'm the priest so gimme stuff." Now we know it's the water cycle being influenced by weather patterns caused by differences in air pressure etc.

What are the twinkly things in the sky? "They're souls of our ancestors. Look at me, I'm wise and venerable." Now we know they're giant nucleic reactions in space.

How was the earth formed? "It was God. In 7 days. 3000 years ago. Isn't he great, now kneel before his majesty. P.S. I'm one of his minions to cower before me as well." Now we know that continents formed over millienia due to tectonic plates and that the earth is billions of years old (and old enough to support evolution).

Now we know about stars, how does the Earth fit in? "The earth is the centre of the universe - don't doubt my wisdom you oik" Now we know the Sun is the centre of our galaxy which in tern spins round the centre of the universe

Why did my friend die? "God moves in mysterious ways". Nuff said.

Back to the point - if humans are corrupt, what credence can you give to a man-made book edited by men and disseminated by men? Which specific bits do you trust and base your faith on?

Take yer point. Individualy the majority of priests I have come across are genuinely interested in their vocation, but there are all too many like the likes of the anti gay/anti women priests/anti abortion/anti Jewish/Muslim/Buddist etc types and they piss me off. the military ones I came across in the service were mostly tossers too, although thats changed so I understand. Religious people who are fnatical about their chosen faith are a pain in the ass. I detest them all whatever faith they profess to follow.

Also understand the other part re creation.

for what its worth, I beleive there is or was a maker, and a masterplan in all this, not because I am convinced its all gospel truth, but because I choose to. I choose not to go into organised religious events, I worship in my own way, and I'll be damned If I will change that. Everyone has a choice, and they live with the consequences. Life as we all know it. Good, Bad, or indifferent.

Probably a cop out, but thats my views.

[gater2]

Thing is if you took away organised religion, what have you got left? They are the ones who propogate their religion and converted people, so if you don't trust them what are you actually trusting?

Do you go back to when the scripts were first written (by humans)? Or edited (by humans)? Or translated (by humans)? Or first preached (by humans)? etc

I'd argue that it's not man that corrupts religion, it's religion that corrupts humans and that religion is an entirely man made concept. If you look at the history of religion since the dawn of time it's been cropping up whenever man needs answers to hard questions and someone/some people stepped in either for self gain or trying to help and gave the ultimate cop-out answer - "it was a God".

Why do our crops fail? "It was God - we all need sacrifices. BTW - I'm the priest so gimme stuff." Now we know it's the water cycle being influenced by weather patterns caused by differences in air pressure etc.

What are the twinkly things in the sky? "They're souls of our ancestors. Look at me, I'm wise and venerable." Now we know they're giant nucleic reactions in space.

How was the earth formed? "It was God. In 7 days. 3000 years ago. Isn't he great, now kneel before his majesty. P.S. I'm one of his minions to cower before me as well." Now we know that continents formed over millienia due to tectonic plates and that the earth is billions of years old (and old enough to support evolution).

Now we know about stars, how does the Earth fit in? "The earth is the centre of the universe - don't doubt my wisdom you oik" Now we know the Sun is the centre of our galaxy which in tern spins round the centre of the universe

Why did my friend die? "God moves in mysterious ways". Nuff said.

Back to the point - if humans are corrupt, what credence can you give to a man-made book edited by men and disseminated by men? Which specific bits do you trust and base your faith on?

Really interesting you say this. If you did want a sophisticated response to this, read some Dietrich Bonhoeffer: in Letters and Papers from prison he picks up on exactly this and suggests it's a really good thing the world 'has come of age'. The religious a priori which has been assumed for thousands of years has been exposed, and the deus ex machina (God of the gaps) has been proved to be the wrong way to think about God. Rather than being the answer to everything we don't know, God always wanted to be at the centre of life and understood in the light of what we know through things like science, not in spite of them.

Again, Newboy, I do respect your opinion and you've obviously thought about these issues a lot, but sometimes I think your charicature of 'theists' is founded at quite a low intellectual level. Yes of course there are those who don't think much about their faith, and come up with phrases like, 'Why did my friend die? God moves in mysterious ways. Nuff said', but to use these as proof that it's ridiculous to believe in God I don't think is that productive or representative of the most sophisticated and thought through theist apologetics. Again, some of the greatest minds in history (read Kierkegaard, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Kant, Newton, Pascal (and many more contemporary scholars) to name but a few) have engaged with the contemporary intellectual, philosophical and scientific challenges that have arisen (especially during the enlightenment and the rise of reason) and still held a theistic position. Therefore to minimise and 'typify' theistic positions to the very base level and conclude it's therefore not worth purusing doesn't lend that much weight to your argument.

I know this isn't the whole of your argument, but I just picked up on a few things you said above.

p.s. good to be back

[newboy]

Take yer point. Individualy the majority of priests I have come across are genuinely interested in their vocation, but there are all too many like the likes of the anti gay/anti women priests/anti abortion/anti Jewish/Muslim/Buddist etc types and they piss me off. the military ones I came across in the service were mostly tossers too, although thats changed so I understand. Religious people who are fnatical about their chosen faith are a pain in the ass. I detest them all whatever faith they profess to follow.

Also understand the other part re creation.

for what its worth, I beleive there is or was a maker, and a masterplan in all this, not because I am convinced its all gospel truth, but because I choose to. I choose not to go into organised religious events, I worship in my own way, and I'll be damned If I will change that. Everyone has a choice, and they live with the consequences. Life as we all know it. Good, Bad, or indifferent.

Probably a cop out, but thats my views.

TBH it doesn't matter if it's a cop-out, they're your views and you're entitled to them like you say. I know it's a bit low-brow, but by pure chance I happened to come across an episode of South Park where they rip the piss out of Mormonism and the giant holes in the story behind it and the massive leap of faith people are willing to take to believe in it. But then the key message is that it's well getting high and mighty about the absurdity of religion, but if good people do good things from it, who the hell is anyone else to comment.

It's a great reminder of tolerance of other people's views, but then again this is a discussion about Religion as a whole and a recent trip to India has reminded me that if we're discussing Religion then we should not be so insular and only consider the mild faiths we have in the UK. We're lucky in the that CofE church is a massively watered down version of Catholicism and that the teachings of Islam are trivial here compared to parts of Africa where women are stoned in the name of Allah if they so much as get raped.

So as much as I respect other people's right to believe in what they belive and recognise that in some cases religion does good, if I have to comment on religion as a whole, I'd argue that both from a historical and present perspective, it's an uncessary evil and there where it does good, it's not necessary - society should be able to fill that role.

[newboy]

Really interesting you say this. If you did want a sophisticated response to this, read some Dietrich Bonhoeffer: in Letters and Papers from prison he picks up on exactly this and suggests it's a really good thing the world 'has come of age'. The religious a priori which has been assumed for thousands of years has been exposed, and the deus ex machina (God of the gaps) has been proved to be the wrong way to think about God. Rather than being the answer to everything we don't know, God always wanted to be at the centre of life and understood in the light of what we know through things like science, not in spite of them.

Again, Newboy, I do respect your opinion and you've obviously thought about these issues a lot, but sometimes I think your charicature of 'theists' is founded at quite a low intellectual level. Yes of course there are those who don't think much about their faith, and come up with phrases like, 'Why did my friend die? God moves in mysterious ways. Nuff said', but to use these as proof that it's ridiculous to believe in God I don't think is that productive or representative of the most sophisticated and thought through theist apologetics. Again, some of the greatest minds in history (read Kierkegaard, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Kant, Newton, Pascal (and many more contemporary scholars) to name but a few) have engaged with the contemporary intellectual, philosophical and scientific challenges that have arisen (especially during the enlightenment and the rise of reason) and still held a theistic position. Therefore to minimise and 'typify' theistic positions to the very base level and conclude it's therefore not worth purusing doesn't lend that much weight to your argument.

I know this isn't the whole of your argument, but I just picked up on a few things you said above.

p.s. good to be back

Welcome back!

Trying to dissect your first paragraph, aren't you just saying that clearly the old way of thinking about God has been proved to be wrong, so let's just shift the posts a bit and re-cast God as at the centre of everything, but accountable for nothing?

That's making God even more ephereal and abstract - to a point where it/he/she would be above any rational analysis. Try and argue against that now you atheist cynics!

One of the obvious issues with this is that by making God more abstract it's hard to see how God influences anything and therefore it negates the point of it/him/her. If it's not there to answer queries or to materially help out or meter old-testament style justice to wrong-doers, what's the point?

I'm sure some religious people would say I was missing the point and that God is more subtle than that - he/she/it is in the detail and inspires us in our weakest moments and gives us doubt when we're about to do wrong and so on. The obvious rebuff to that is that:

a) If God is there to inspire us in a mysterious way, why do people still do bad stuff. Not very effective is it?

b) Or if God is in the beauty of nature, what about the bad stuff - worms that cause kids in Africa to go blind etc.

This all goes back to that famous saying about God being either ineffectual, evil or non-existent. Bad stuff happens to nice people, God doesn't intervene. What's the point? Good behaviour can be explained by memes and societal game theory. We just don't need a god for morality - I'd rather people did good because they understand society than out of fear of going to a made up Hell.

Back on track, I do agree I characterise religious apologists at quite a low intellectual level. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Pretty much every argument I have has a very simple response from religious people. I've not met many intellectual religious people and it's fair to say that most of the intelligent people I meet are atheists. Now before anyone takes offence, there's obviously some factors at play here:

• People tend to hang around like minded people. I don't go to church so I don't meet too many religious people.
• I've read a lot of counter-opinion on the internet - there's a lot of dumbasses out there and whoever shouts the loudest is usually the dumbest. There's a lot of over simplification

2. It takes a clever person to make something clever sound simple and a dumb person to make something simple sound complex. I believe the levels of discussions we've had to date are around some pretty basic principles - the credibility of the source material, the motives for belief and the corruption of religious organisations. I've still not seen any credible counter arguments to a lot of the things I've put in and before we delve into the grey areas, a clear counter point would be good. I've seen some counter arguments that are very wooly and use some very exotic words but when they're broken down it's just obfuscated fluff.

3. The evidence presented for God is farcical to anyone who looks at it objectively - pillars of salt, burning bushes, rapid world creation, everything coming from 2 people, resurrection. Some wacky stories that clearly are made up. Some over elaborate ceremonies and fluff that is flim flam of the highest order. As an adult, how can anyone take it seriously?

Yes, we can delve into complexities if you want, but in order to have a clear debate they really ought to be based around a clear principle otherwise it's just lightweight argument which just goes nowhere. If I'm being cynical, I'd say that anyone who wants to make this very simple concept more intellectual is just trying to obfuscate a very clear truth - there is no evidence for God.

We're not talking about rocket science here, we're talking about the existence or not of a higher being. We've discussed at length:

• the bad thinking being used to promote this concept and the reliance on faith (which is simply gullibility dressed up nicely). surely if something is wholly reliant on faith it must raise alarm bells for any rational person?
• the reasons for believing in it coming from stress, general lack of understanding or simple indoctrination at a vulnerable state.
• the motives for organised religion in the first place and the corruption that comes from that (or seeds it)
• that absurdity of multiple religions all making contradictory claims. there's a lot of wrong people out there...
• the paper-thin credibility of the material used as proof (the bible etc) and the historical trend of it becoming more and more irrelevant as a document of evidence
• the futility of believing in something that has no power to do direct good

I've not see a robust defence against any of that, despite there being hundreds of posts. It may be basic thinking to some, but surely that makes it easily discredited? I'm really interested in hearing some more intellectual arguments - why not inject these into the argument?

Regarding your point about some intellectual heavyweights believing in God, I would put forward the following:

• No matter how clever we think we are, there's still lots of things we don't know. Newton was of a time where much of the Bible was still not contradicted in terms of scientific knowledge and society as a whole was not so cynical about the bible. Therefore many people were simply of the mindset where it was just accepted.
• Many people don't express their religious stance as either its entirely private or for fear of prejudice. Take a look at mainstream USA - it takes a brave person to be an atheist over there. Even Einstein was cagey about his atheistic stance and was very careful with his wording.
• Indoctrination. Many people are converted at birth and don't challenge religion as it's natural to them. You don't continually question why you're breathing and likewise some people never question if there really is a God.
• No one is clever about all aspects. I'm good at design, but rubbish at accountancy. Some people might be great at science, but poor at analytical thinking about matters of God.
• I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again - it's a convenient get out clause. Some of those very clever people may not like having unanswered questions and religion plugs that awkward gap very nicely. It does a good job of leaving their ego intact.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that as society learns more and knowledge grows religion is shrinking. Conversely where there is poverty and poor education, religion is prospering. Obviously there's always exceptions but there's a very strong correlation there.

[Mr Mosquito]

This is absolutely......Absolutely Remarkable. I will tell you the basics, she is now 12 years old. She started painting at age 4, her Mother is an atheist so God was never discussed in their home and she really had never been taught anything about him or the Bible. She has visions and has told her Mum she has visited heaven numerous times. She gives God the glory for her talent. She has never had an art lesson.

P.S. Her family now believes in God! Enjoy. This 3 minute clip is from CNN......

[newboy]

This is absolutely......Absolutely Remarkable. I will tell you the basics, she is now 12 years old. She started painting at age 4, her Mother is an atheist so God was never discussed in their home and she really had never been taught anything about him or the Bible. She has visions and has told her Mum she has visited heaven numerous times. She gives God the glory for her talent. She has never had an art lesson.

P.S. Her family now believes in God! Enjoy. This 3 minute clip is from CNN......

Remarkable talent. Let's just assume it really is her (with no outside help) and that it's not being sensationalised by the reporters.

What does that say about God if he's busy making visions to a 12 year old girl and posing for paintings, but can't be bothered to help in Chile or Haiti? Or generally starving and oppressed people around the world?

Or that pesky old fact that other religions exist too, and many other artists have created fantastic works of art via different Gods? Once again, they can't all be right and therefore it's certainly possible (probable) that it's just talented people with no divine intervention.

Or that many other child progedies exist who make no claim to divine inspiration. Just good old fashioned talent.

Once again it's that crappy old religious habit of taking anything they can claim as evidence and not looking beyond that - note I'm not saying RG is doing that, but a quick google search brings them forth in spades. Never mind all those cases where God wasn't there or other Gods were given the credit.

Taking a step back for a second, a 12 year old is claiming to have visions of God (as a classical Charlton Heston style man) and is artistically talented. Nothing unusal about the latter part - statistically you're always going to get taltented people. Do we know what her parents do?

The former can be taken with a pinch of salt - she's got a healthy imagination as a kid and just because her parents were atheists, it doesn't mean that she's not been exposed to religious iconography.

What would be impressive is if her visions gave her access to information that she couldn't possibly know about - either via future visions or things that can be verified as happening now that are outside her sphere of knowledge. Now that would prove at least someting.

No doubt those who want to believe will use this as further evidence that their faith based belief systems are right. In reality it tells us very little and lot more information/testing is required before it can be disregarded as something other than sensationally-reported 12 year old kid has some talent.

[gater2]

Welcome back!

Trying to dissect your first paragraph, aren't you just saying that clearly the old way of thinking about God has been proved to be wrong, so let's just shift the posts a bit and re-cast God as at the centre of everything, but accountable for nothing?

No, I'm saying God never wanted to be understood as a God of the gaps (and I would argue he isn't in the Bible, but became in the centuries afterwards). You will evidently think that religion was created because we didn't know enough and created this thing called God. But you CANNOT deny the POSSIBILITY that religion/theism was inherent in humanity because Gaod created us as desiring to know him, with this God-shaped hole, even if you don't think it's true. I don't think there's any problem with lookig at the world around us and trying to understand it in the light of God creating it. I believe in evolution, and I know my understanding of God is probably a bit different to those who don't. The origin of scientific inquiry (observing the world) was in fact a theist (mainly Christian and Muslim) attempt to better know and understand God and how he works.

That's making God even more ephereal and abstract - to a point where it/he/she would be above any rational analysis. Try and argue against that now you atheist cynics!

If you read what I put I never actually said that. And also, I hope I haven't come across as an atheist cynic in any of this argument. I think it is a perfectly rational and sensible position to take, in some ways more than 'religion', but I don't agree with it because overall I don't think from my perspective it holds up to scrutiny as much as theism, as well as my personal experience. I hope what has been coming through in my argument isn't necessarily a refute of atheism as much as an apology of theism (and in particular Christianity).

This doesn't necessarily make God more abstract and ephereal, it just suggests he works in completely different ways to what we expect him to. This will sound like the absolute cop out (and I'm sure you will say it is newboy), but I would suggest God has created this world so that we can only truly see him when we make the choice to believe, and then, rather than seeing theology as anthropology you actually see him at work.

There is also a paradox in Christian theology: God is both comprehensible and incomprehensible. Now of course this has lead many to simply explain away hard things with God. But there are others (see below) who have engaged a lot with the problems.

One of the obvious issues with this is that by making God more abstract it's hard to see how God influences anything and therefore it negates the point of it/him/her. If it's not there to answer queries or to materially help out or meter old-testament style justice to wrong-doers, what's the point?

I'm sure some religious people would say I was missing the point and that God is more subtle than that - he/she/it is in the detail and inspires us in our weakest moments and gives us doubt when we're about to do wrong and so on. The obvious rebuff to that is that:

Again, I wouldn't say more subtle, but working in ways we just wouldn't expect, through faith. When this is accepted it is far from subtle.

a) If God is there to inspire us in a mysterious way, why do people still do bad stuff. Not very effective is it?

b) Or if God is in the beauty of nature, what about the bad stuff - worms that cause kids in Africa to go blind etc.

This all goes back to that famous saying about God being either ineffectual, evil or non-existent. Bad stuff happens to nice people, God doesn't intervene. What's the point? Good behaviour can be explained by memes and societal game theory. We just don't need a god for morality - I'd rather people did good because they understand society than out of fear of going to a made up Hell.

Back on track, I do agree I characterise religious apologists at quite a low intellectual level. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Pretty much every argument I have has a very simple response from religious people. I've not met many intellectual religious people and it's fair to say that most of the intelligent people I meet are atheists. Now before anyone takes offence, there's obviously some factors at play here:

• People tend to hang around like minded people. I don't go to church so I don't meet too many religious people.
• I've read a lot of counter-opinion on the internet - there's a lot of dumbasses out there and whoever shouts the loudest is usually the dumbest. There's a lot of over simplification

Yes, but I don't think it's that amazing to reftue simple, un thought through theist arguments. I do it all the time, and I get frustrated with Christians who don't think about their faith. All you're doing, however, is building a straw man and blowing it down, which isn't very impressive (please don't take this as offence, as I can obviously see you're very intelligent and have thought these things through). If your aim is to make ignornant/un thinking theists think more about what they believe, I can say I will join you in this task.



2. It takes a clever person to make something clever sound simple and a dumb person to make something simple sound complex. I believe the levels of discussions we've had to date are around some pretty basic principles - the credibility of the source material, the motives for belief and the corruption of religious organisations. I've still not seen any credible counter arguments to a lot of the things I've put in and before we delve into the grey areas, a clear counter point would be good. I've seen some counter arguments that are very wooly and use some very exotic words but when they're broken down it's just obfuscated fluff.

Absolutely, and I'm not even saying I will necessarily produce very good arguments. I just want to show you that theism is in fact an intellectually sound position to take rather than a cop out for people who can't be bothered to think. Just like I'm pretty left wing, but I can see the value in some right wing perspectives even if I don't agree with them. I know you probably aren't going to be convinced by many of my (or others') arguments (and I wouldn't want you to be really, as I believe God is a relationship we have rather than an idea we adehere to).

3. The evidence presented for God is farcical to anyone who looks at it objectively - pillars of salt, burning bushes, rapid world creation, everything coming from 2 people, resurrection. Some wacky stories that clearly are made up. Some over elaborate ceremonies and fluff that is flim flam of the highest order. As an adult, how can anyone take it seriously?

Again, you have built up firstly a straw man to blow down and not secondly represented what many many people actually see as God and faith in him. I agree a lot of 'religious' stuff is pretty ridiculous, but I don't then conclude it's all worthless. A lot of 'religion' and faith in God is amazing and produces wonderful people and acts of love. You will, no doubt explain this in anthropological terms, and I in God-terms. Both are possible and both are credible. Our perspectives will differ due mainly to personal experience rather than one argument being better than the other.

Yes, we can delve into complexities if you want, but in order to have a clear debate they really ought to be based around a clear principle otherwise it's just lightweight argument which just goes nowhere. If I'm being cynical, I'd say that anyone who wants to make this very simple concept more intellectual is just trying to obfuscate a very clear truth - there is no evidence for God.

There is no evidence for God IN YOUR OPINION. I believe there is evidence for God. You have been arguing just as much as I have, and you haven't convinced me there is no God, so you can't just say outright, 'there is no proof for God'. Also, if this is your opinion I would in fact see you in the same way as you see the theists you criticise for not engaging in rational thought. Again, I would encourage you to read Kierkegaard (e.g. Works of Love), Bonhoeffer (e.g. Discipleship, Ethics), Alistair McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) etc, go to an Alpha course/Church and see a bit of a broader picture of 'religion' or faith. If I lived in Bristol I would be very happy to meet up with you and show you a side you may not have seen (or at least it doesn't seem you have seen from what you've been arguing).

ot talking about rocket science here, we're talking about the existence or not of a higher being. We've discussed at length:

• the bad thinking being used to promote this concept and the reliance on faith (which is simply gullibility dressed up nicely). surely if something is wholly reliant on faith it must raise alarm bells for any rational person?
• the reasons for believing in it coming from stress, general lack of understanding or simple indoctrination at a vulnerable state.
• the motives for organised religion in the first place and the corruption that comes from that (or seeds it)
• that absurdity of multiple religions all making contradictory claims. there's a lot of wrong people out there...
• the paper-thin credibility of the material used as proof (the bible etc) and the historical trend of it becoming more and more irrelevant as a document of evidence
• the futility of believing in something that has no power to do direct good

I've not see a robust defence against any of that, despite there being hundreds of posts. It may be basic thinking to some, but surely that makes it easily discredited? I'm really interested in hearing some more intellectual arguments - why not inject these into the argument?

See my point above.

Regarding your point about some intellectual heavyweights believing in God, I would put forward the following:

• No matter how clever we think we are, there's still lots of things we don't know. Newton was of a time where much of the Bible was still not contradicted in terms of scientific knowledge and society as a whole was not so cynical about the bible. Therefore many people were simply of the mindset where it was just accepted.
• Many people don't express their religious stance as either its entirely private or for fear of prejudice. Take a look at mainstream USA - it takes a brave person to be an atheist over there. Even Einstein was cagey about his atheistic stance and was very careful with his wording.
• Indoctrination. Many people are converted at birth and don't challenge religion as it's natural to them. You don't continually question why you're breathing and likewise some people never question if there really is a God.
• No one is clever about all aspects. I'm good at design, but rubbish at accountancy. Some people might be great at science, but poor at analytical thinking about matters of God.
• I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again - it's a convenient get out clause. Some of those very clever people may not like having unanswered questions and religion plugs that awkward gap very nicely. It does a good job of leaving their ego intact.

I'm afraid this doesn't hold much weight. The people I mentioned before wrote at the time of the Enlightenment when the rise of rationality and science. People like Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher far from being prisoner to 'indoctrination' or living in a time when everyone just believed, actually engaged hugely with the intellectual challenges we have today and came up with robust and thought through arguments.

As far as 'no one is clever about all aspects', again I beg to difffer. I did my undergrad at Oxford and I know some of my professors did PhDs in science and also in theology. For example Alistair McGrath (one of the most vocal critics of Dawkins) has a PhD in molecular biophysics at Oxford, and did many years of scientific research at one of the top academic institutions in the world, but then went into theology which he also as a PhD in and is one of the forefront academics in the world. He is a Christian who knows far more than me, and I'm guessing a lot more than you about theology, philosophy and science and he believes in God. As well as this, John Lennox teaches on the medical sciences staff at Oxford and is a Christian (and I could name many mroe). Finally, regarding your last bullet point: this simply is 100% not true. Even with my two examples I have just mentioned who have reached the pinnacle of academic achievement: do you really think they have used religion as a get out clause to keep their ego in tact? In fact they have both debated with Dawkins and many other atheists.

If you wanted to engage with Alistair McGrath's material you can find a lot here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/#

I don't believe it's a coincidence that as society learns more and knowledge grows religion is shrinking. Conversely where there is poverty and poor education, religion is prospering. Obviously there's always exceptions but there's a very strong correlation there.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that as religion has been pushed more out of society we haven't become any happier or more satisified as many seem to think we would be. From my perspective, people think they can replace God with knowledge (and material things) and they simply do not satisfy, or any satisfaction that is achieved is fleeting at best. This is suggested by the fact that the actual number of atheists is relatively small in the West: although many people don't subscribe to organised religion, most people do in fact believe in some kind of spirituality. As Voltaire suggested, even if God wasn't real, it would be necessary to make him up.

[newboy]

"No, I'm saying God never wanted to be understood as a God of the gaps (and I would argue he isn't in the Bible, but became in the centuries afterwards). You will evidently think that religion was created because we didn't know enough and created this thing called God. But you CANNOT deny the POSSIBILITY that religion/theism was inherent in humanity because Gaod created us as desiring to know him, with this God-shaped hole, even if you don't think it's true. I don't think there's any problem with lookig at the world around us and trying to understand it in the light of God creating it. I believe in evolution, and I know my understanding of God is probably a bit different to those who don't. The origin of scientific inquiry (observing the world) was in fact a theist (mainly Christian and Muslim) attempt to better know and understand God and how he works."

I can easily deny that possibility, and not because I'm being contrarian for the sake of it. If the Christian God wants us to know him, why doesn't he make himself more visible? If God wants us to understand him, why doesn't he make it explicit as to what he/she is about. And please don't mention the Bible - we all know how much of that is clearly bollocks. Surely with all that power he'd make himself more obvious. The God shaped hole is diminishing rapidly as we find out more and more and there's only so much space he/she/it has left.

If you want to re-label insecurity, ignorance, desperation and gullibility as a God shaped hole then please go ahead.

A very important point here - you seem to be turning your back on the bible here. If it's not true, what is your God. Where is he defined? Do you just have a personal view of an entity? How do you then align yourself to any one religion? If I'm going to argue without the existence or not a being please can you define it as clearly as you can.

"If you read what I put I never actually said that. And also, I hope I haven't come across as an atheist cynic in any of this argument. I think it is a perfectly rational and sensible position to take, in some ways more than 'religion', but I don't agree with it because overall I don't think from my perspective it holds up to scrutiny as much as theism, as well as my personal experience. I hope what has been coming through in my argument isn't necessarily a refute of atheism as much as an apology of theism (and in particular Christianity).

This doesn't necessarily make God more abstract and ephereal, it just suggests he works in completely different ways to what we expect him to. This will sound like the absolute cop out (and I'm sure you will say it is newboy), but I would suggest God has created this world so that we can only truly see him when we make the choice to believe, and then, rather than seeing theology as anthropology you actually see him at work."

But, and I can only keep on saying this til I'm blue in the face, you're talking about intangible stuff. How exactly does God act? Give me an actual example. Tell me why if he does act and changes our lives, people still do bad stuff. And have done for centuries and still do.

"There is also a paradox in Christian theology: God is both comprehensible and incomprehensible. Now of course this has lead many to simply explain away hard things with God. But there are others (see below) who have engaged a lot with the problems."

Please go further then. You're just being a theist cocktease at this point. :-)

"Again, I wouldn't say more subtle, but working in ways we just wouldn't expect, through faith. When this is accepted it is far from subtle."

I have a whisk I keep in a drawer that no-one can see. It influences everyones lives in subtle ways that can't be measured or even seen by non-believers. I did write a book about it and all it's glory, but when people pointed out the obvious gaps I just said that I'm glad that people have found that because now we can understand that the Whisk moves in different ways. It's all very subtle and I'm not going to give you any evidence of that, but you just need Faith. I could make any stuff up here.

"Yes, but I don't think it's that amazing to reftue simple, un thought through theist arguments. I do it all the time, and I get frustrated with Christians who don't think about their faith. All you're doing, however, is building a straw man and blowing it down, which isn't very impressive (please don't take this as offence, as I can obviously see you're very intelligent and have thought these things through). If your aim is to make ignornant/un thinking theists think more about what they believe, I can say I will join you in this task."

I've only got a straw man to knock down because that's all people (and the official text!) are feeding me. Again, please give me something more concrete.

"Absolutely, and I'm not even saying I will necessarily produce very good arguments. I just want to show you that theism is in fact an intellectually sound position to take rather than a cop out for people who can't be bothered to think. Just like I'm pretty left wing, but I can see the value in some right wing perspectives even if I don't agree with them. I know you probably aren't going to be convinced by many of my (or others') arguments (and I wouldn't want you to be really, as I believe God is a relationship we have rather than an idea we adehere to)."

It's not intellectually sound because it's not based on any objectivity or fact. It relies on ignoring contra-evidence and is a classic example of flawed thinking. Your particular brand just has time, pretty ceremonies and a lot of people on it's side. Do you believe in Islam? Scientology? Mormonism? Why not?

I willl be convinced by arguments when someone can give me any kind of evidence. That's not too much to ask for, yet no-one seems to be able to provide it.

"Again, you have built up firstly a straw man to blow down and not secondly represented what many many people actually see as God and faith in him. I agree a lot of 'religious' stuff is pretty ridiculous, but I don't then conclude it's all worthless. A lot of 'religion' and faith in God is amazing and produces wonderful people and acts of love. You will, no doubt explain this in anthropological terms, and I in God-terms. Both are possible and both are credible. Our perspectives will differ due mainly to personal experience rather than one argument being better than the other."

Again, because no-one has given me any kind of solid argument. I can only go on what's presented to me and it's clearly nonsense. What you've just said above is that a lot of stuff that religion is based on is pretty ridiculous, but that the side effects of believing in it are positive and produce good things.

Hallucinogenic drugs produce wonderful acts of belief. Chemical imbalances in the brain create creativity and wild acts. I'd say religion was similar to both of those in terms of mind-state and avoidance of reality.

And I believe you're being very insular. If you look world-wide, you'd see that religion is far less mild than it is here and produces many bad things. History backs this up as we've seen.

So again, if a lot of religion is ridiculous, which bits do you actually believe in?

"There is no evidence for God IN YOUR OPINION. "

Give me some! Again you talk about evidence and you talk about subtle effects and you talk about God showing that he wants us to know him, but don't produce any actual examples.

"I believe there is evidence for God. You have been arguing just as much as I have, and you haven't convinced me there is no God, so you can't just say outright, 'there is no proof for God'. "

I'm not the one making outrageous claims here. You're claiming that there's all powerful being that created the Earth and watches over us. It is down to you to provide the evidence or I (and other atheists) can simply say it's made up. Please tell me how that's unreasonable.

"Also, if this is your opinion I would in fact see you in the same way as you see the theists you criticise for not engaging in rational thought. "

Give me something rational and I will engage you with it.

"Again, I would encourage you to read Kierkegaard (e.g. Works of Love), Bonhoeffer (e.g. Discipleship, Ethics), Alistair McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) etc, go to an Alpha course/Church and see a bit of a broader picture of 'religion' or faith. If I lived in Bristol I would be very happy to meet up with you and show you a side you may not have seen (or at least it doesn't seem you have seen from what you've been arguing).I'm afraid this doesn't hold much weight. The people I mentioned before wrote at the time of the Enlightenment when the rise of rationality and science. People like Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher far from being prisoner to 'indoctrination' or living in a time when everyone just believed, actually engaged hugely with the intellectual challenges we have today and came up with robust and thought through arguments."

I have to concede the point here since I haven't read them. I realise I'm being both arrogant and lazy here and I will take some time out to read it, but it's obviously going to take me some time. Since you're knowledgable out the works it may be easy for you to summarise?

"As far as 'no one is clever about all aspects', again I beg to difffer. I did my undergrad at Oxford and I know some of my professors did PhDs in science and also in theology. For example Alistair McGrath (one of the most vocal critics of Dawkins) has a PhD in molecular biophysics at Oxford, and did many years of scientific research at one of the top academic institutions in the world, but then went into theology which he also as a PhD in and is one of the forefront academics in the world. He is a Christian who knows far more than me, and I'm guessing a lot more than you about theology, philosophy and science and he believes in God. As well as this, John Lennox teaches on the medical sciences staff at Oxford and is a Christian (and I could name many mroe). Finally, regarding your last bullet point: this simply is 100% not true. Even with my two examples I have just mentioned who have reached the pinnacle of academic achievement: do you really think they have used religion as a get out clause to keep their ego in tact? In fact they have both debated with Dawkins and many other atheists."

Many clever people I know can solve complex mathematical equations but can't remember what they had for dinner today. Where does this leave us - some really clever people believe in God. It still doesn't make it real - if they're that clever then can they convince the average layman of the existence of God?

"If you wanted to engage with Alistair McGrath's material you can find a lot here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/"

Thanks I'll take a look and come back.

"And I don't think it's a coincidence that as religion has been pushed more out of society we haven't become any happier or more satisified as many seem to think we would be. From my perspective, people think they can replace God with knowledge (and material things) and they simply do not satisfy, or any satisfaction that is achieved is fleeting at best. This is suggested by the fact that the actual number of atheists is relatively small in the West: although many people don't subscribe to organised religion, most people do in fact believe in some kind of spirituality. As Voltaire suggested, even if God wasn't real, it would be necessary to make him up."

How do you know that? How can you say that non-Christians aren't happy or satisfied. I think you're projecting your own values onto everyone else here. Voltaire was just plain wrong - rationality and society can easily replace God. If you want to look at a happy society look at Sweden - the nicest place to live and the most atheist.

Look at the places where religion is the most prolific - also the most crime ridden and depressed.

[gater2]

"No, I'm saying God never wanted to be understood as a God of the gaps (and I would argue he isn't in the Bible, but became in the centuries afterwards). You will evidently think that religion was created because we didn't know enough and created this thing called God. But you CANNOT deny the POSSIBILITY that religion/theism was inherent in humanity because Gaod created us as desiring to know him, with this God-shaped hole, even if you don't think it's true. I don't think there's any problem with lookig at the world around us and trying to understand it in the light of God creating it. I believe in evolution, and I know my understanding of God is probably a bit different to those who don't. The origin of scientific inquiry (observing the world) was in fact a theist (mainly Christian and Muslim) attempt to better know and understand God and how he works."

I can easily deny that possibility, and not because I'm being contrarian for the sake of it. If the Christian God wants us to know him, why doesn't he make himself more visible? If God wants us to understand him, why doesn't he make it explicit as to what he/she is about. And please don't mention the Bible - we all know how much of that is clearly bollocks. Surely with all that power he'd make himself more obvious. The God shaped hole is diminishing rapidly as we find out more and more and there's only so much space he/she/it has left.

If you want to re-label insecurity, ignorance, desperation and gullibility as a God shaped hole then please go ahead.

A very important point here - you seem to be turning your back on the bible here. If it's not true, what is your God. Where is he defined? Do you just have a personal view of an entity? How do you then align yourself to any one religion? If I'm going to argue without the existence or not a being please can you define it as clearly as you can.

"If you read what I put I never actually said that. And also, I hope I haven't come across as an atheist cynic in any of this argument. I think it is a perfectly rational and sensible position to take, in some ways more than 'religion', but I don't agree with it because overall I don't think from my perspective it holds up to scrutiny as much as theism, as well as my personal experience. I hope what has been coming through in my argument isn't necessarily a refute of atheism as much as an apology of theism (and in particular Christianity).

This doesn't necessarily make God more abstract and ephereal, it just suggests he works in completely different ways to what we expect him to. This will sound like the absolute cop out (and I'm sure you will say it is newboy), but I would suggest God has created this world so that we can only truly see him when we make the choice to believe, and then, rather than seeing theology as anthropology you actually see him at work."

But, and I can only keep on saying this til I'm blue in the face, you're talking about intangible stuff. How exactly does God act? Give me an actual example. Tell me why if he does act and changes our lives, people still do bad stuff. And have done for centuries and still do.

"There is also a paradox in Christian theology: God is both comprehensible and incomprehensible. Now of course this has lead many to simply explain away hard things with God. But there are others (see below) who have engaged a lot with the problems."

Please go further then. You're just being a theist cocktease at this point. :-)

"Again, I wouldn't say more subtle, but working in ways we just wouldn't expect, through faith. When this is accepted it is far from subtle."

I have a whisk I keep in a drawer that no-one can see. It influences everyones lives in subtle ways that can't be measured or even seen by non-believers. I did write a book about it and all it's glory, but when people pointed out the obvious gaps I just said that I'm glad that people have found that because now we can understand that the Whisk moves in different ways. It's all very subtle and I'm not going to give you any evidence of that, but you just need Faith. I could make any stuff up here.

"Yes, but I don't think it's that amazing to reftue simple, un thought through theist arguments. I do it all the time, and I get frustrated with Christians who don't think about their faith. All you're doing, however, is building a straw man and blowing it down, which isn't very impressive (please don't take this as offence, as I can obviously see you're very intelligent and have thought these things through). If your aim is to make ignornant/un thinking theists think more about what they believe, I can say I will join you in this task."

I've only got a straw man to knock down because that's all people (and the official text!) are feeding me. Again, please give me something more concrete.

"Absolutely, and I'm not even saying I will necessarily produce very good arguments. I just want to show you that theism is in fact an intellectually sound position to take rather than a cop out for people who can't be bothered to think. Just like I'm pretty left wing, but I can see the value in some right wing perspectives even if I don't agree with them. I know you probably aren't going to be convinced by many of my (or others') arguments (and I wouldn't want you to be really, as I believe God is a relationship we have rather than an idea we adehere to)."

It's not intellectually sound because it's not based on any objectivity or fact. It relies on ignoring contra-evidence and is a classic example of flawed thinking. Your particular brand just has time, pretty ceremonies and a lot of people on it's side. Do you believe in Islam? Scientology? Mormonism? Why not?

I willl be convinced by arguments when someone can give me any kind of evidence. That's not too much to ask for, yet no-one seems to be able to provide it.

"Again, you have built up firstly a straw man to blow down and not secondly represented what many many people actually see as God and faith in him. I agree a lot of 'religious' stuff is pretty ridiculous, but I don't then conclude it's all worthless. A lot of 'religion' and faith in God is amazing and produces wonderful people and acts of love. You will, no doubt explain this in anthropological terms, and I in God-terms. Both are possible and both are credible. Our perspectives will differ due mainly to personal experience rather than one argument being better than the other."

Again, because no-one has given me any kind of solid argument. I can only go on what's presented to me and it's clearly nonsense. What you've just said above is that a lot of stuff that religion is based on is pretty ridiculous, but that the side effects of believing in it are positive and produce good things.

Hallucinogenic drugs produce wonderful acts of belief. Chemical imbalances in the brain create creativity and wild acts. I'd say religion was similar to both of those in terms of mind-state and avoidance of reality.

And I believe you're being very insular. If you look world-wide, you'd see that religion is far less mild than it is here and produces many bad things. History backs this up as we've seen.

So again, if a lot of religion is ridiculous, which bits do you actually believe in?

"There is no evidence for God IN YOUR OPINION. "

Give me some! Again you talk about evidence and you talk about subtle effects and you talk about God showing that he wants us to know him, but don't produce any actual examples.

"I believe there is evidence for God. You have been arguing just as much as I have, and you haven't convinced me there is no God, so you can't just say outright, 'there is no proof for God'. "

I'm not the one making outrageous claims here. You're claiming that there's all powerful being that created the Earth and watches over us. It is down to you to provide the evidence or I (and other atheists) can simply say it's made up. Please tell me how that's unreasonable.

"Also, if this is your opinion I would in fact see you in the same way as you see the theists you criticise for not engaging in rational thought. "

Give me something rational and I will engage you with it.

"Again, I would encourage you to read Kierkegaard (e.g. Works of Love), Bonhoeffer (e.g. Discipleship, Ethics), Alistair McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) etc, go to an Alpha course/Church and see a bit of a broader picture of 'religion' or faith. If I lived in Bristol I would be very happy to meet up with you and show you a side you may not have seen (or at least it doesn't seem you have seen from what you've been arguing).I'm afraid this doesn't hold much weight. The people I mentioned before wrote at the time of the Enlightenment when the rise of rationality and science. People like Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher far from being prisoner to 'indoctrination' or living in a time when everyone just believed, actually engaged hugely with the intellectual challenges we have today and came up with robust and thought through arguments."

I have to concede the point here since I haven't read them. I realise I'm being both arrogant and lazy here and I will take some time out to read it, but it's obviously going to take me some time. Since you're knowledgable out the works it may be easy for you to summarise?

"As far as 'no one is clever about all aspects', again I beg to difffer. I did my undergrad at Oxford and I know some of my professors did PhDs in science and also in theology. For example Alistair McGrath (one of the most vocal critics of Dawkins) has a PhD in molecular biophysics at Oxford, and did many years of scientific research at one of the top academic institutions in the world, but then went into theology which he also as a PhD in and is one of the forefront academics in the world. He is a Christian who knows far more than me, and I'm guessing a lot more than you about theology, philosophy and science and he believes in God. As well as this, John Lennox teaches on the medical sciences staff at Oxford and is a Christian (and I could name many mroe). Finally, regarding your last bullet point: this simply is 100% not true. Even with my two examples I have just mentioned who have reached the pinnacle of academic achievement: do you really think they have used religion as a get out clause to keep their ego in tact? In fact they have both debated with Dawkins and many other atheists."

Many clever people I know can solve complex mathematical equations but can't remember what they had for dinner today. Where does this leave us - some really clever people believe in God. It still doesn't make it real - if they're that clever then can they convince the average layman of the existence of God?

"If you wanted to engage with Alistair McGrath's material you can find a lot here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/"

Thanks I'll take a look and come back.

"And I don't think it's a coincidence that as religion has been pushed more out of society we haven't become any happier or more satisified as many seem to think we would be. From my perspective, people think they can replace God with knowledge (and material things) and they simply do not satisfy, or any satisfaction that is achieved is fleeting at best. This is suggested by the fact that the actual number of atheists is relatively small in the West: although many people don't subscribe to organised religion, most people do in fact believe in some kind of spirituality. As Voltaire suggested, even if God wasn't real, it would be necessary to make him up."

How do you know that? How can you say that non-Christians aren't happy or satisfied. I think you're projecting your own values onto everyone else here. Voltaire was just plain wrong - rationality and society can easily replace God. If you want to look at a happy society look at Sweden - the nicest place to live and the most atheist.

Look at the places where religion is the most prolific - also the most crime ridden and depressed.

OK there's a lot of points in here and I don't have time to reply fully (will try to in the next few days but can't promise - I am getting married in a few weeks!).

Save to say, possible evidence: the very fact that we are here at all. Why is matter even here in the first place? Science can't tell us and will never be able to, as it fundamentally deals with different questions: how, not why. Following on from this: meaning. History has to have some kind of direction for any proper meaning to be derived, and I would argue that an atheistic world-view doesn't provide this. So the act of creation can be seen as evidence for God. Also, beauty: looking at a sunset, mountains; thoughout the centuries people have marvelled at the wonder of this almost unexplainable beauty. As well as this, the experience of love; for many people the depth of love we feel for others suggests there must be more to us than simply a bunch of atoms randomly coming together. Finally hope: the hope that things can and will get better is: in many people's minds this inbuilt desire for things to get better cannot be satisfied without God.

Now, before you start telling me you can explain all these simply from an anthropological perspective rather than a theological one, I would like it if you thought, just for a minute, that these might (not definitely prove) act as evidence suggesting G(not proving) God is real. Are you honestly trying to tell me you these things I mentioned, in aboslutely no way whatsoever could point to the possibility of God?

Truth, must of course be absolute (something we both agree on). What I'm questioning is the ability to attain it right now. You can be an atheist who at least concedes the possibility of God: even Dawkins has done this.

As far as your point on the clever people goes, I think this illustrates a fundamental difference in the way we're approaching this whole topic. You say, 'if they're that clever then can they convince the average layman of the existence of God?' The key phrase here seems to be 'convince'. As I have mentioned before, the Christian faith is not anything to do with being convinced of an argument. God is NOT an idea to be understood (like communism, or Maths), he is a Being or Perso even, with whom to have a relationship. This is ultimately why I believe orthopraxy to be more important than orthodoxy.

Ultimately the only way any of what I have said will really make sense is if you knew that God loves you more than you can ever imagine, just as you are. That is essentially the Christian message (forget 'theism' in general for the moment). There has been a lot of crap around Christianity, so much so that this message has even been inverted at times and a hatred is preached, but I maintain and I would die for the truth that no matter what you do, you matter not just for the time you are alive on this planet, but for all eternity. God loves you

[gater2]

Double post.

[newboy]

OK there's a lot of points in here and I don't have time to reply fully (will try to in the next few days but can't promise - I am getting married in a few weeks!).

Save to say, possible evidence: the very fact that we are here at all. Why is matter even here in the first place? Science can't tell us and will never be able to, as it fundamentally deals with different questions: how, not why. Following on from this: meaning. History has to have some kind of direction for any proper meaning to be derived, and I would argue that an atheistic world-view doesn't provide this. So the act of creation can be seen as evidence for God. Also, beauty: looking at a sunset, mountains; thoughout the centuries people have marvelled at the wonder of this almost unexplainable beauty. As well as this, the experience of love; for many people the depth of love we feel for others suggests there must be more to us than simply a bunch of atoms randomly coming together. Finally hope: the hope that things can and will get better is: in many people's minds this inbuilt desire for things to get better cannot be satisfied without God.

Now, before you start telling me you can explain all these simply from an anthropological perspective rather than a theological one, I would like it if you thought, just for a minute, that these might (not definitely prove) act as evidence suggesting G(not proving) God is real. Are you honestly trying to tell me you these things I mentioned, in aboslutely no way whatsoever could point to the possibility of God?

Truth, must of course be absolute (something we both agree on). What I'm questioning is the ability to attain it right now. You can be an atheist who at least concedes the possibility of God: even Dawkins has done this.

As far as your point on the clever people goes, I think this illustrates a fundamental difference in the way we're approaching this whole topic. You say, 'if they're that clever then can they convince the average layman of the existence of God?' The key phrase here seems to be 'convince'. As I have mentioned before, the Christian faith is not anything to do with being convinced of an argument. God is NOT an idea to be understood (like communism, or Maths), he is a Being or Perso even, with whom to have a relationship. This is ultimately why I believe orthopraxy to be more important than orthodoxy.

Ultimately the only way any of what I have said will really make sense is if you knew that God loves you more than you can ever imagine, just as you are. That is essentially the Christian message (forget 'theism' in general for the moment). There has been a lot of crap around Christianity, so much so that this message has even been inverted at times and a hatred is preached, but I maintain and I would die for the truth that no matter what you do, you matter not just for the time you are alive on this planet, but for all eternity. God loves you

First off, good luck again with the forthcoming wedding - it's meant to be one of the top 5 stress points in life (mine was so long ago I can't remember) so I hope it's all going swimmingly.

It's clear that we're approaching this in two entirely different ways and all we can do is get better understanding of each other's perspective. This goes back to an earlier post I made about atheist v theist discussions rarely being successful due to the radically different mindsets.

I'm slightly confused about you saying that God is not there to fill the gaps one minute and yet in the next post you're talking about motives, beauty, hope and joy being justification for God's existence. I appreciate the syntactical difference between a gap in knowledge and the amazement/bewilderment at beauty, but they both come down to a lack of understanding. Can you elaborate on the difference please?

I of course acknowledge that anything can happen, but reserve the right to say that I don't believe it usually does. If we went through life believing anything could happen at any time we'd get nothing done. We'd try to start a car with a banana instead of a key. We'd stand still and naked each morning waiting for bluebirds to fly through the window and dress us a la Disney. We may through life not achieving stuff because we'd believe that we'd end up in heaven. We may be civil to each other only through fear of hell rather than an understanding of how close-knit society is and how reputations affect us and those around us.

So yes, there's may be a sentient all powerful God out there, but I've got two options here:

1. The rational explanation which is backed up by a complete lack of evidence of direct intervention by such a being and the presence of a sensible-sounding anthropological one.

2. The theistic explanation which has proven to be historically inaccurate when anything coming close to a tangible claim has been made.

There's no motive for anyone to lie over the rational explanation, but a whole bunch of motives for the theistic explanation.

So what should any sane person go with? The non-motive-based explanation or the motive-led explanation created by organisations who have proven to be anything but trustworthy?

If you don't believe in the majority of what the major religions tell you (and there's plenty of reason for you doing that given the lack of credibility of the source material), what are you actually believing in? At this point is comes down to more of a personal interpretation of spirituality and at this point we're just trying to justify intense emotions (love, joy, hope etc). What leap of faith makes you believe that there's a God that bestows you with those feelings? How can you back that up? Why the Christian God, why not the FSM or Shiva or Thor?

I also find it mildly depressing that you believe God has to be behind love, joy, hope and beauty. First off you have to then admit that God is also behind hate, sadness and ugliness. If that's the case, once again what is the point of God? If you give God credit for a magnificent vista, who do you give credit for a parasitic worm that makes a child blind? What does it say about you and your fiancee that you can't love her without God's help? Sorry if that touches a nerve, but it begs to be asked.

There's also a large problem here in that different people find different things beautiful. One person may find the torture of another person beautiful. If God is behind that, isn't he a bit of a sick puppy? How do you reconcile that?

If someone hopes for another person to die (for whatever reason) is God behind that? How do you justify that?

If somone loves another person and abandons their family for them is God behind that? How can that be a good thing?

You can't take all the fluffy stuff and give God credit for it without reconciling the bad things that happen as a result or contra to the event. It's just naieve and one-sided thinking, which goes back to that bad-thinking model I've mentioned so many times that propagates religion.

Secondly I have no belief in an all powerful being and yet find happiness, joy and beauty through family, friends, nature, bcfc (sometimes) and alcohol (moderately). I don't see how the anthropological model fails here. That same model also rationally allows me to be charitable to others even when there's no direct payback. It allows me to be civil and compassionate (and therefore moral) without any form of Godlike intervention at all. I can also hope that my children have a happy life and that no verly bad things happen to them. I really struggle to see how you need God to have that.

The same goes for billions of other happy people who believe in other Gods. The only common demoninator here is that mankind expresses these feelings with and without your particular God. What does that tell you? How can you explain that?

[ruraldean]

Afternoon all.

I've been following this discussion closely, and it's clear as newboy says that diametrically opposed mindsets rarely reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

So I'll ask a simple question to all the theists here:

What in your experience of God can be described as objective rather than subjective?

And as a supplementary question: If anyone CAN come up with an objective example, does it preclude the possibility of an alternative answer?

Newboy is also right in saying it does not fall upon a non-believer to offer any proof whatsoever. Non-believers make no claims at all - they merely ask to be shown evidence which might change their minds.

I can't prove there is no god or God. I don't have to. All I can do is point to the inconsistencies between the claim that God cares for us and listens to our prayers for instance, and the reality that those who pray have a chance that exactly corresponds with coincidence that they will have their request granted. Jesus allegedly told us our prayers will be answered. If that answer stands an equal chance of being yes or no then this will ring alarm bells with a rational thinker. If God does not answer our prayers then Jesus lied, and the whole of the basis for the Christian faith crumbles.

A friend of mine belongs to a Pentecostal church. His daughter (aged 8) contracted a virulent form of child cancer and the whole church joined in prayer for her recovery. A piece of cloth was passed around the congregation to be prayed over and finally these "collected prayers" were passed to the young girl, who subsequently died. Had she recovered, then the congregation would have shouted God's name from the rooftops (although such recoveries have happened outside of religious belief). In fact, following her death, the overwhelming response was that God had decided to take her to himself, and is now providing her with an existence of unparalleled joy.

Now this seems a bit sketchy to me.

Firstly, it makes the parents feel a bit shitty that God thought they were not doing a good enough job. (They told me this).

Secondly, it proves that whatever answer God had provided would be OK with his followers, because he could not provide a "wrong" answer.

Lastly, that everyone seems to forget that the prayers were specifically for her recovery, not for whatever God thought might be best. I know this because I was there.

So Jesus' "Ask, and you shall receive" seems a bit off to say the least.

As a further point, the NT makes clear that "Faith is a gift of God". Well whoopy-doo. All this seems to mean is that theists have been given it and we haven't. This allows theists to sometimes appear smug in the extreme, unless they take the time to think things through and realise that this is exactly what I would say if I wanted to get a bunch of gullible people on my side.

And if anyone comes up with the standard Christian answer to the child death question that "We cannot possibly understand God's motives in such cases" then it raises a further question: Why can't we know, if the whole of the Bible and Christian experience is a form of God's revelation to Man? Christians have an understanding of God's loving nature which is disproved at every turn and this is just ONE reason why for some of us belief is impossible.

[Mr Mosquito]

Afternoon all.

I've been following this discussion closely, and it's clear as newboy says that diametrically opposed mindsets rarely reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

So I'll ask a simple question to all the theists here:

What in your experience of God can be described as objective rather than subjective?

And as a supplementary question: If anyone CAN come up with an objective example, does it preclude the possibility of an alternative answer?

Newboy is also right in saying it does not fall upon a non-believer to offer any proof whatsoever. Non-believers make no claims at all - they merely ask to be shown evidence which might change their minds.

I can't prove there is no god or God. I don't have to. All I can do is point to the inconsistencies between the claim that God cares for us and listens to our prayers for instance, and the reality that those who pray have a chance that exactly corresponds with coincidence that they will have their request granted. Jesus allegedly told us our prayers will be answered. If that answer stands an equal chance of being yes or no then this will ring alarm bells with a rational thinker. If God does not answer our prayers then Jesus lied, and the whole of the basis for the Christian faith crumbles.

A friend of mine belongs to a Pentecostal church. His daughter (aged 8) contracted a virulent form of child cancer and the whole church joined in prayer for her recovery. A piece of cloth was passed around the congregation to be prayed over and finally these "collected prayers" were passed to the young girl, who subsequently died. Had she recovered, then the congregation would have shouted God's name from the rooftops (although such recoveries have happened outside of religious belief). In fact, following her death, the overwhelming response was that God had decided to take her to himself, and is now providing her with an existence of unparalleled joy.

Now this seems a bit sketchy to me.

Firstly, it makes the parents feel a bit shitty that God thought they were not doing a good enough job. (They told me this).

Secondly, it proves that whatever answer God had provided would be OK with his followers, because he could not provide a "wrong" answer.

Lastly, that everyone seems to forget that the prayers were specifically for her recovery, not for whatever God thought might be best. I know this because I was there.

So Jesus' "Ask, and you shall receive" seems a bit off to say the least.

As a further point, the NT makes clear that "Faith is a gift of God". Well whoopy-doo. All this seems to mean is that theists have been given it and we haven't. This allows theists to sometimes appear smug in the extreme, unless they take the time to think things through and realise that this is exactly what I would say if I wanted to get a bunch of gullible people on my side.

And if anyone comes up with the standard Christian answer to the child death question that "We cannot possibly understand God's motives in such cases" then it raises a further question: Why can't we know, if the whole of the Bible and Christian experience is a form of God's revelation to Man? Christians have an understanding of God's loving nature which is disproved at every turn and this is just ONE reason why for some of us belief is impossible.

An objective rather than a subjective view: the transending soul/spirit seems to exist - just as described in the many examples in the Bible - in the following scientific study......

Scientific Research into Past Lives

[gater2]

Newboy and rural dean thanks for your replies. Again, a huge amount you've both written, and with limited time I'll probably only be able to address a few points which I feel are central to your arguments.

Firstly (and quickly), newboy: I don't believe saying God wants to be understood in the light of, and not in spite of advancements in knowledge is contradictory. Again this comes back to the paradox of God: in one sense there is a myestery about God or about beauty/love etc., but in another sense we, as humans, know and understand beauty, love and ultimately God. I love my fiancee as I'm you you love your wife (if you have one) and children (which I seem to remember you saying you have), but there's no way you can explain this to me in rational terms: I will never be able to understand the love and relationship you have for your wife/children, because that's specific to you. This I think, is the same with 'knowledge of God': it cannot really be explained, but God wants to be found in the centre of our being, not right at the edge of our existence (God of the gaps).

Secondly, to address the point which has come up again and again that of reason, I would like to just raise a few points. You have both acknowledged that God is a possibility even if he is very unlikely. Newboy, you even used the word 'I reserve the right to believe it usually doesn't'. This suggests that if you go right to the base level, you do acknowledge that rationality or reason will only take you so far. It is ultimately a question of then taking a leap of faith, and you have chosen to believe that these things often don't happen. Now I agree with you that if we simply did away with rationality, nothing would ever get done. In a lot of areas of life (most?) rationality and reason are good things. I don't walk in front of a bus hoping that it will suddenly disappear, that would be irrational. However, in a few aspects of life, and I would argue often the most important areas, rationality falls short.

Love is the primary area I'm thinking of. You cannot rationally explain the love we have for those closest to us. I acknowledge we can find some links between brain functioning and affection and loyalty we feel for our loved ones, but I would argue these fall way short of describing the love I feel for my fiancee, and you feel for your children. It is often said that love is simply beyond words or comprehension. Why would you risk your life to protect your children? I respect the right for you to reply, because the chemicals in my brain tell me to, or I have been socially conditioned to. For me, this simply isn't enough: it's a mystery which shouldn't have to be explained, and whenever it is in empirical terms, some of the greatness is lost. So I believe rationality only takes us so far. Again, I use an example I have used before: can you rationally prove to me that you love your wife or your children? You can give me pointers, like collecting them from school/work, taking them on days out, but all these fall short of proof. Love has its reasons which reason itself cannot understand. In a similar way, even though Jesus' parable about the good samaritan almost certainly didn't physically take place, in one sense it is far 'truer' than the fact that I ate toast for breakfast this morning, even though I could rationally and empirically prove to you that this did physically take place. And this is the same, I believe, with God: although he can't be rationally proved, there is a deeper sense of truth than rational truth which God occupies.

Following on from this and addressing rural dean's point, I would suggest one kind of objectivity sensed by all theists is the desire for something more than themselves: the current everyday reality simply does not satisfy, or if it does it is fleeting. With regard to your second point, of course I acknowledge it does not preclude the possibility of another hypothesis apart from God. The fact that religion developed in the very first place when the first humans evolved could be because they wanted to fill their ignorance with something else, but in my mind it seems just as likely, if not more, that God had created us with an inbuilt desire to get to know him, and even if this manifests itself in very different ways (with different religions evolving over time), I would say the aim of religion is pretty much all the same: simply existing in ourselves does not satisfy and we need to look outside ourselves for ultimate fulfilment. I have mentioned before and will do again: why is it that films, literature, art are so essential to our being? It's because they offer us a way out of our simple, ultimately unfulfilling existence by offering us hope of something more. Newboy, you have constantly suggested that an atheist world-view can satisfy even more than a theistic one. If this is the case, why are humans constantly making up stories of other worlds (just look at Avatar the film), other forms of existence and being as shown in the entire history of the human race? Surely, if atheism is satisfying, we would simply be happy with our lives just as they are: we live, we die and that's it. You may say that is the case with you, but I would argue that the vast majority of human history shows the opposite: a desire for something more. This is what Voltaire realised (and before you diss him, remember he was himself one of the fathers of atheism) when he said, even if God doesn't exist, it would be necessary to make him up.

Why do we sing, 'We always believe' at City games? There's no rational reason for this (especially at the moment!), but we still do it. I think this is because there is something build deep into the human psyche which values belief, even sometimes against all the odds, and this has its source in God.

This then leads onto another discussion we don't have time for here of other religions. Some (e.g. John Hick) argue for the modalism of God, where all religions simply display one truth, manifested in different ways. Others argue for exclusivism (conservatives), where only one manifestation of God is the true one. I am probably somewhere in the middle: God can be seen in Islam, Hindusim, Judaism etc., but his full manifestation is in Christ (not necessarily Christianity, but this is the 'religion' which is closest to the truth). As I said though, this is a tangent, and I would rather you reply to my above suggestions rather than this one.

I was about to start a reply on the problem of evil from a Christian perspective, and I would be happy to pursue this, but with constraints on time and a desire to hear responses to my above points without trying to debate on many different fronts all at the same time, I think I'll stop there if that's OK. I will very happily discuss the problem of evil, but would it be OK to stick to this whole 'rationality' and 'objectivity' thing first?

[newboy]

Firstly (and quickly), newboy: I don't believe saying God wants to be understood in the light of, and not in spite of advancements in knowledge is contradictory. Again this comes back to the paradox of God: in one sense there is a myestery about God or about beauty/love etc., but in another sense we, as humans, know and understand beauty, love and ultimately God. I love my fiancee as I'm you you love your wife (if you have one) and children (which I seem to remember you saying you have), but there's no way you can explain this to me in rational terms: I will never be able to understand the love and relationship you have for your wife/children, because that's specific to you. This I think, is the same with 'knowledge of God': it cannot really be explained, but God wants to be found in the centre of our being, not right at the edge of our existence (God of the gaps).

So God is the God of the hormones? How is the situation where you cannot explain Love, so credit it to God different from an Aztec warrior who cannot explain the Sun, so credits to a Sun God?

If that's not God of the Gaps I don't know what is!

I still fail to see how you make the huge leap from feeling love to crediting God with that. Same goes for beauty (which is utterly subjective and differs from person to person - one person's beauty may disgust another - how do you explain that?)

If knowledge of God cannot be explained (not justified, just explained or described) then it must be counted as a delusion.

Secondly, to address the point which has come up again and again that of reason, I would like to just raise a few points. You have both acknowledged that God is a possibility even if he is very unlikely. Newboy, you even used the word 'I reserve the right to believe it usually doesn't'. This suggests that if you go right to the base level, you do acknowledge that rationality or reason will only take you so far. It is ultimately a question of then taking a leap of faith, and you have chosen to believe that these things often don't happen. Now I agree with you that if we simply did away with rationality, nothing would ever get done. In a lot of areas of life (most?) rationality and reason are good things. I don't walk in front of a bus hoping that it will suddenly disappear, that would be irrational. However, in a few aspects of life, and I would argue often the most important areas, rationality falls short.

Rationality and reason are all we have, but as non-rational beings all we can do is aspire to them and use them when we can. We cannot rationalise everything all the time or we'd have paralysis by analysis and creativity would be stifled as we'd always take risk-free options. However when presented with anything either significant and/or outlandish, we'd be foolish to rely on subjectivity and to not rationalise what's being presented to us.

Religion is such a thing - it's not satisfactory in terms of what it's providing as explanation for answers and the organisations that push it are both untrustworthy and have little credibility in the 'evidence' they provide. As a rational decision why would you trust what their saying. I've covered this in far more depth in previous posts, so I'm not going to repeat it here. So if you don't follow the organised religion's mantra all your left with are those unexplained feelings you have. It is irrational to ascribe these feelings to an a particular all powerful being since they can be destructive and beneficial and occur only within. There's no evidence or proof that someone else is providing them.

They also appear in vaguely predictable ways - at the end of a feel-good movie, upon seeing loved ones, seeing a beautiful work of art and upon getting success. That's nothing to do with God, but only external stimuli or internally set expectations.

So yes, anything is possible since we can't know everything, but every explanation of God I've seen so far has no credibility for me and therefore I utterly reject what's been described to me. Once again, if someone can give me a plausible theory with preferably some evidence I'll take it on board and providing it makes sense and the evidence is sufficient, I'll accept it. I don't see how that's not sensible or closed minded. I just don't believe everything I'm told. Particularly where there's motivation and gain for other people pushing it and where what is being pushed is frankly a little bit kooky and almost-child-like in it's description.

I like religion to us believing in Santa as children. Ask any 4 year old and they'll believe absolutely and whole-heartedly in Santa and won't question his existence. They just accept it as fact. As we get older we think hang-on - how can one man deliver all the presents to all places? How can one man know what every child on the planet is doing all the time? How come I got a great present when I was secretly naughty this year? And pretty soon the whole things falls apart.

Same goes for religion - how can one person create the planet and be all knowing and let innocent people suffer? How come God used to smite people and turn them to salt and yet we've not seen that happen in hundreds of years? Why are some priests corrupt? Why is the church so rich? How can the church have so much power? How come there's no heaven in the sky? How come the earth is over 3 billion years old? Why does the Pope say that Aids-ridden Africans can't use condoms? How come I've seen no evidence of God's direct intervention? How come after 2000 years of Christianity society isn't perfect? Why can no one come up with a consistent and credible justification of what God is and how he affects us after 2000 years of trying?

If you look at it objectively you realise it's a big hoax and almost incredulous that so many people have believe such fanciful tales for so long and are willing to kill for it. It's like a giant joke that sane adults just don't seem to get. Imagine waking up one day and everyone around you was believing in fairies and yet you could see no reason for such fervent belief and no evidence to back it up. You'd think them mad. And yet because religion is so pervasive and so large and so well enshrined we're not rational and accept it - almost a herd mentality thing. I've done some dumb things because we cannot be rational all the time or we'd be in permanent indecision. But just because we are largely irrational, it doesn't mean we should ignore rationality where we can apply it. Obviously for some people religion works for them - if it gives them comfort and 'love' then why the hell not? I'd argue that society can provide that as well, but I'm not going to stand in the way of someone's happiness if it's not harming other.

Do you believe in Scientology with their nasty alien spirits that go from person to person unless you pay up $20,000 and get 'audited'? Why not? Scientologists will have as much fervour for their beliefs as you will and have just as much evidence as you have for justifiying what they believe. I love that Dawkins quote in that you're just as atheist as me in terms of both of us rejecting thousands of Gods, except I believe in one less God than you. It's a cliche, but it's a powerful statement.

Going back to your point, rationality only ever lets us down when we don't have all the facts - at that point we have to take a leap of faith based on experience and best guess, not complete bollocks made up in a 2000 year old book.

Love is the primary area I'm thinking of. You cannot rationally explain the love we have for those closest to us. I acknowledge we can find some links between brain functioning and affection and loyalty we feel for our loved ones, but I would argue these fall way short of describing the love I feel for my fiancee, and you feel for your children. It is often said that love is simply beyond words or comprehension. Why would you risk your life to protect your children? I respect the right for you to reply, because the chemicals in my brain tell me to, or I have been socially conditioned to. For me, this simply isn't enough: it's a mystery which shouldn't have to be explained, and whenever it is in empirical terms, some of the greatness is lost. So I believe rationality only takes us so far. Again, I use an example I have used before: can you rationally prove to me that you love your wife or your children? You can give me pointers, like collecting them from school/work, taking them on days out, but all these fall short of proof. Love has its reasons which reason itself cannot understand. In a similar way, even though Jesus' parable about the good samaritan almost certainly didn't physically take place, in one sense it is far 'truer' than the fact that I ate toast for breakfast this morning, even though I could rationally and empirically prove to you that this did physically take place. And this is the same, I believe, with God: although he can't be rationally proved, there is a deeper sense of truth than rational truth which God occupies.

By deeper you mean more obtuse. And relgion loves obtuse things since it gives uncertainty and therefore room to manouvre when peddling it's frankly incredulous ideas. I could try and rationalise my love for my wife through:

- a biological need to mate

- a rational need to supplant my skills with someone who's an ideal fit in terms of complementary skills

- physical attraction - she's lovely

- a need for economic stability that her secondary income brings

- a rational recognition of the payback that a housemate brings in terms of economies of scale

- her sense of humour that makes me happy

But that doesn't sell so many hallmark cards. My wife is an easy one to be honest - I both love her and it makes sense to be with her - hence I married her. I think you should be arguing about cases where people clearly know someone is wrong for them, but love them nonetheless - abusive relationships where the partner causes physical and/or mental harm. That's harder to explain and therefore gives you room to insert a deity since people are not acting rationally, but how would you like God to be behind that? Or are you only crediting God with where love means people are happy?

Following on from this and addressing rural dean's point, I would suggest one kind of objectivity sensed by all theists is the desire for something more than themselves: the current everyday reality simply does not satisfy, or if it does it is fleeting. With regard to your second point, of course I acknowledge it does not preclude the possibility of another hypothesis apart from God. The fact that religion developed in the very first place when the first humans evolved could be because they wanted to fill their ignorance with something else, but in my mind it seems just as likely, if not more, that God had created us with an inbuilt desire to get to know him, and even if this manifests itself in very different ways (with different religions evolving over time), I would say the aim of religion is pretty much all the same: simply existing in ourselves does not satisfy and we need to look outside ourselves for ultimate fulfilment. I have mentioned before and will do again: why is it that films, literature, art are so essential to our being? It's because they offer us a way out of our simple, ultimately unfulfilling existence by offering us hope of something more. Newboy, you have constantly suggested that an atheist world-view can satisfy even more than a theistic one. If this is the case, why are humans constantly making up stories of other worlds (just look at Avatar the film), other forms of existence and being as shown in the entire history of the human race? Surely, if atheism is satisfying, we would simply be happy with our lives just as they are: we live, we die and that's it. You may say that is the case with you, but I would argue that the vast majority of human history shows the opposite: a desire for something more. This is what Voltaire realised (and before you diss him, remember he was himself one of the fathers of atheism) when he said, even if God doesn't exist, it would be necessary to make him up.

Why do we sing, 'We always believe' at City games? There's no rational reason for this (especially at the moment!), but we still do it. I think this is because there is something build deep into the human psyche which values belief, even sometimes against all the odds, and this has its source in God.

Again, please stop assuming that we're all deeply unsatified and shallow. I think you've been watching too much Big Brother or reading Heat! I know plenty of people who are generally happy - particularly in the West country, where there's less energy spent on chasing wealth. I see you live in London - I humbly suggest you move out before it makes you too cynical!

We all sing 'we always believe' at City games because it's easier and nicer to be positive than pessimistic. We constantly reshape our view on lives to make us happy (although you might not belive it from this forum) - when we're young we think we're good looking before we go out on the pull, when we go out to a job interview we focus on the positives to give us more confidence. It's all part of the games we play with ourselves to mildly delude ourselves to get into the right frame of mind. Religion is exactly this - it's a convenient mask to wear when some things get too much and we can't bear the truth.

However delusion only goes so far and as with most things, it's never as bad as you fear it to be. Recognising that there's no heaven and that there's only one shot at life is more liberating that you'd think. You settle for less and sieze the day more often. Recognising that one is not Brad Pitt and settling for a nice bird rather than a stunner leads to happiness.

This then leads onto another discussion we don't have time for here of other religions. Some (e.g. John Hick) argue for the modalism of God, where all religions simply display one truth, manifested in different ways. Others argue for exclusivism (conservatives), where only one manifestation of God is the true one. I am probably somewhere in the middle: God can be seen in Islam, Hindusim, Judaism etc., but his full manifestation is in Christ (not necessarily Christianity, but this is the 'religion' which is closest to the truth). As I said though, this is a tangent, and I would rather you reply to my above suggestions rather than this one.

I was about to start a reply on the problem of evil from a Christian perspective, and I would be happy to pursue this, but with constraints on time and a desire to hear responses to my above points without trying to debate on many different fronts all at the same time, I think I'll stop there if that's OK. I will very happily discuss the problem of evil, but would it be OK to stick to this whole 'rationality' and 'objectivity' thing first?

We do need to discuss evil since you simply can't credit God for beauty and happiness and brush aside the bad-stuff that happens. It simply makes the model fall apart. I look forward to how you can justify bad stuff happening. If you're going to go down the route of God just gently influencing rather than directly intervening (which he simply doesn't - there's no evidence at all for that one) then please can you also justify how people still do bad stuff on a large scale everyday.

Oh, and if God does unconditionally love me, where was my card on Valentines day?

[CiderHider]

Jesus Christ guys!

Errr, probably wrong phrase to use, but when i get a spare afternoon i intend to read this thread properly. Either that or turn it into a book! I'm sure Dawkins and Hitchens would be proud of some comments, and equally outraged by others. Although i'm atheist I've admired some of the arguments from the 'believer' camp too. very interesting indeed.

One thing i can tell you is I'm way out of my depth with regard to some of the posters on here, and I initially thought i was pretty clever Anyway, appreciate the read and the time you guys have spent posting your views, most intriguing, thankyou

[ruraldean]

An objective rather than a subjective view: the transending soul/spirit seems to exist - just as described in the many examples in the Bible - in the following scientific study......

Scientific Research into Past Lives

And this objectively proves the existence of God how...?

What if this bloke of whom no one has heard actually has proven past life regression. It would make a mockery of those who are still trying to study it, wouldn't it. You'd think we'd all know about it. As it is he's spent two bob knocking up a website and announcing his expertise to the world and I'm now supposed to be a believer? here's a little bit about your new found guru:

Philosophically, Stevenson was a naive dualist. He believed that bodies and souls have separate evolutions and existences, and he seemed not to be concerned or aware of the philosophical problems that ensue from such claims about mind and body.

His dualism became stronger after he experimented with mescaline and LSD.

This may seem paradoxical, because if a small amount of a drug acting on the brain can markedly alter our mental experiences does this not prove that our thoughts are only our subjective awareness of our brain's activity? For me it does not. I admit certainly that the chemical changes in my brain that the drugs induced released the extraordinary images and feelings that entered my consciousness. However, this does not account for the images themselves, which (apart from those that I could identify as memories) had no correspondence to anything that I had earlier experienced. Here I need to add that my experiences included nothing that I could prove to have originated outside my mind and, if you like, my brain. I had no verifiable extrasensory experience when under the influence of drugs. My interest in extrasensory perception did not derive from my experiences with drugs, although they enhanced it.

(

Stevenson 1989)

.

He admitted that he couldn't prove that the images in his drug experiences originated in anything outside of his brain, yet he claims that there was no correspondence between those images and anything he had experienced. Thus, his belief in the extrasensory nature of his drug experiences seems to have been based on faith.

It would appear that he is a nutjob. Just Google the bloke and discover for yourself just what his peers thought of him.

Next...

[bucksred]

While a shit load of good stuff is being discussed here, I'd just like to say three of the biggest mosnsters of the last century: Hitler (and his acolytes, Himmler, Heydrich, Kalternbrunner & Eichmann), Stalin (his Beria, Dzerzhinski), & Mao were atheists. What about Saddam Hussein? all of these hated religion. Robert Mugabes tyranny is not religiously inspired. Neither was Castro, Mussolini, Chaucescu or many, many others. Equally you can bring bring religious fanatics like Adams/McGuiness/Paisley /Bin Ladens fanatics/Aminajehad,/Hamas & the Jewish West Bank religious settlers/ the Hindu & Sikh fanatics in India etc etc into it. Religion is not in itself bad. I beleive in God. I do not beleive in organized religion, because, like politics, humanity does not go well with it. Our human foibles are ruthlessly exposed. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absoloutly. Both organizations have done, are doing, and will continue to do very very evil things in their name. What we ALL have to do is to watch, and when the time comes say NO, not in OUR name

what religions CAN, and have done do is act as a counterbalance. The best religious practices ALL promote tolerance. Equally BAD practices promote intolerance.

This thrives in poor ill educated and or travelled societies, or ones riven by warfare/poverty/famine/drought/natural disaster. In todays world, political fanatics are as persuasive as religious ones. Look at all the nationalist/race based/left wing/right wing systems which exploit all our fears, and predudices.

Like I say its not a bad thing, till you involve humans who can exploit something. Keep religion and politicaians away from the state. Ensure they are not linked.

[Philip Belgrave]

I'll be Devil's Advocate here (perhaps literally ?)

I would rather be sharing an aircraft with professing atheists than one with a passenger list featuring a single fanatical Moslem equipped with an explosive charge and a death-wish.

That said, I think that the striking aspect about this thread is the extraordinary lengths the Atheist party go to explaining their philosophies. All that effort expounding their point-of-view and denigrating the poor efforts of anyone would might presume to think differently.

To paraphrase Shakespeare , Methinks they do protest too much.

Can it be ,I wonder, that they write so- perhaps unconsciously- to convince themselves ?

Just a thought.

[Guest clevedonred]

I'm a basso-ist

[ruraldean]

I'll be Devil's Advocate here (perhaps literally ?)

I would rather be sharing an aircraft with professing atheists than one with a passenger list featuring a single fanatical Moslem equipped with an explosive charge and a death-wish.

That said, I think that the striking aspect about this thread is the extraordinary lengths the Atheist party go to explaining their philosophies. All that effort expounding their point-of-view and denigrating the poor efforts of anyone would might presume to think differently.

To paraphrase Shakespeare , Methinks they do protest too much.

Can it be ,I wonder, that they write so- perhaps unconsciously- to convince themselves ?

Just a thought.

I agree with your first comment Philip, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't.

Regarding the rest, you know full well that the "Atheist party" go to great lengths to explain purely because we can. If many religious people spent as long thinking about things as we do they'd probably reach the same conclusion as us. We don't try to denigrate believers, we just try to present objective facts as we see them.

You'll note that I haven't had a response to my request for a single objective example of God in action. When I do, my part in the argument is over. I will say that being directed to a website where a little research would have revealed that the subject of the site is reviled by his peers is typical of the mentality I'm arguing against. I'm not going to be converted because one nutjob decides that reincarnation is likely, but rather I'd examine his claims and either accept or reject them. Perhaps if more people did genuine research into the subject then we wouldn't argue at all.

To clarify: I would love to be able to believe. It would mean that any bad things I currently experience would be overwritten one day when I achieve salvation and I'd live the rest of eternity in joyous bliss. As I've pointed out previously the choice to believe or not is outside of my control. All we're doing here is conversing. You post, We answer. we are not protesting too much.

[ruraldean]

By the way Phillip - the argument that the more vigorously something is defended, the less likely the adherent is to believe it isn't a particularly strong one.

[newboy]

I'll be Devil's Advocate here (perhaps literally ?)

I would rather be sharing an aircraft with professing atheists than one with a passenger list featuring a single fanatical Moslem equipped with an explosive charge and a death-wish.

That said, I think that the striking aspect about this thread is the extraordinary lengths the Atheist party go to explaining their philosophies. All that effort expounding their point-of-view and denigrating the poor efforts of anyone would might presume to think differently.

To paraphrase Shakespeare , Methinks they do protest too much.

Can it be ,I wonder, that they write so- perhaps unconsciously- to convince themselves ?

Just a thought.

To add to RuralDean's comments: I obviously put my hands up as someone who has gone to a great length to explain what I think since I've posted a lot on here.

I can only speak for myself but it's pretty presumptuous to infer that I have to convince myself of what I believe. The fact that I can post at length about it and am prepared to justify it to whatever length is required should hopefully prove the exact opposite.

Since this is a debate on religion, and not knitting I think it's only fair that the posts argue about religion itself, and as long as they aren't personal I can't see how any rebuff to religion could be classified as denigration to anyone who posts on here. Perhaps you calling them poor efforts in a patronising tone is worse? Just a thought, as you say.

I've wondered why I've posted so much on here, but the simple answer is that I find it interesting:

- because for the life of me I don't understand why intelligent people fall for something that to me is so fabricated. I want to increase my knowledge by understanding others viewpoints, not mocking them. In order to do that I have to challenge their beliefs, and I still certainly respect them even though (maybe even especially) they think utterly differently to me

- because religion is effectively a world order that has as much (if not more) control over peoples' lives than democatically elected governments and the media and actually has less accountability. To me it seems essential that something with that much power is held accountable for what is says and does, even if it's just people like me asking some pertinent questions. If enough people do it then something might change, even if it's only a subtle mindset change in a handful of people that causes them to question and challenge this massive all-pervasive power.

- because the people on here - RuralDeal, Gater2 have made me think about some things more than I have before. I've enjoyed refining and challenging my own viewpoints. Simples.

So there's no crusade to convert - just to ask questions and hopefully get people to ask questions themselves. No disrespect intended. Just good old fashioned debate, which is something sorely lacking on internet forums as a whole. Why would you mock that? What's your agenda here? Why be so defensive/aggressive and mock so much? Do you appreciate the irony that the only person doing the mocking around here is you via your post about atheists posting too much and denigrating others?

Are you trying to mock those who are willing to explain what they think at length and therefore open themselves up for counter-argument? Surely the more we post and the more detail we go into, we're giving the opposing viewpoint more ammunition to fire back at us? Have you noticed that most of the pro-religion arguments are hazy at best and never go into any detail and avoid answering specific questions?

I mean, how dare someone spend so much effort making their point on a complex issue in a debate of all things? Let's mock them because they won't settle for dumb-ass soundbites and accept statements such as "God exists because I just know" without questioning it...

If this was a pub, then your comments might have some weight if some bore was going on and on about religion. But this is a forum post about religion, so your point that one side is putting effort into posts is quite frankly bizarre - what do you expect? If you've got nothing to add to the debate other than mocking the efforts of those are contributing then you can easily not read it, and go and get your opinions from somewhere far more convenient.

[Philip Belgrave]

To add to RuralDean's comments: I obviously put my hands up as someone who has gone to a great length to explain what I think since I've posted a lot on here.

I can only speak for myself but it's pretty presumptuous to infer that I have to convince myself of what I believe. The fact that I can post at length about it and am prepared to justify it to whatever length is required should hopefully prove the exact opposite.

Since this is a debate on religion, and not knitting I think it's only fair that the posts argue about religion itself, and as long as they aren't personal I can't see how any rebuff to religion could be classified as denigration to anyone who posts on here. Perhaps you calling them poor efforts in a patronising tone is worse? Just a thought, as you say.

I've wondered why I've posted so much on here, but the simple answer is that I find it interesting:

- because for the life of me I don't understand why intelligent people fall for something that to me is so fabricated. I want to increase my knowledge by understanding others viewpoints, not mocking them. In order to do that I have to challenge their beliefs, and I still certainly respect them even though (maybe even especially) they think utterly differently to me

- because religion is effectively a world order that has as much (if not more) control over peoples' lives than democatically elected governments and the media and actually has less accountability. To me it seems essential that something with that much power is held accountable for what is says and does, even if it's just people like me asking some pertinent questions. If enough people do it then something might change, even if it's only a subtle mindset change in a handful of people that causes them to question and challenge this massive all-pervasive power.

- because the people on here - RuralDeal, Gater2 have made me think about some things more than I have before. I've enjoyed refining and challenging my own viewpoints. Simples.

So there's no crusade to convert - just to ask questions and hopefully get people to ask questions themselves. No disrespect intended. Just good old fashioned debate, which is something sorely lacking on internet forums as a whole. Why would you mock that? What's your agenda here? Why be so defensive/aggressive and mock so much? Do you appreciate the irony that the only person doing the mocking around here is you via your post about atheists posting too much and denigrating others?

Are you trying to mock those who are willing to explain what they think at length and therefore open themselves up for counter-argument? Surely the more we post and the more detail we go into, we're giving the opposing viewpoint more ammunition to fire back at us? Have you noticed that most of the pro-religion arguments are hazy at best and never go into any detail and avoid answering specific questions?

I mean, how dare someone spend so much effort making their point on a complex issue in a debate of all things? Let's mock them because they won't settle for dumb-ass soundbites and accept statements such as "God exists because I just know" without questioning it...

If this was a pub, then your comments might have some weight if some bore was going on and on about religion. But this is a forum post about religion, so your point that one side is putting effort into posts is quite frankly bizarre - what do you expect? If you've got nothing to add to the debate other than mocking the efforts of those are contributing then you can easily not read it, and go and get your opinions from somewhere far more convenient.

Well, that "stirred the Possum":-to use an Australianism. That's making a meal of what was an only an innocent observation.

I suppose that I was being whimsical having reread the entire thread and marvelling at the erudition displayed on what, after all, is a forum devoted primarily to debating the fortunes of Bristol City F.C. Let's face it, the majority of subscribers would not normally be expected to take an interest in metaphysics- and why should they ?

(Except in demeaning our erstwhile goalkeeper's personal beliefs- have you read some of comments on the Basso Departure Thread ? Now that's the sort of thing that gives atheism a bad name !)

Patronising: by no means: -by poor efforts I mean, primarily my own contributions which- obviously- have cut no ice whatever.

Mockery ?- I would be the last person to mock anybody else's views on anything. My own beliefs on many subjects would be regarded as outlandish by some- and good luck to them.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'll be Devil's Advocate here (perhaps literally ?)

I would rather be sharing an aircraft with professing atheists than one with a passenger list featuring a single fanatical Moslem equipped with an explosive charge and a death-wish.

That said, I think that the striking aspect about this thread is the extraordinary lengths the Atheist party go to explaining their philosophies. All that effort expounding their point-of-view and denigrating the poor efforts of anyone would might presume to think differently.

To paraphrase Shakespeare , Methinks they do protest too much.

Can it be ,I wonder, that they write so- perhaps unconsciously- to convince themselves ?

Just a thought.

My maternal Grandfather served in the RAF in World War 2. To this day I remember him saying that when God draws your 'number' from his hat 'you have to go'. The 'number' his generation refered to was the military service number. Death was common place then in the forces and I don't think for one minute that anyone blamed God for the problems of the day as they do now.

[newboy]

Well, that "stirred the Possum":-to use an Australianism. That's making a meal of what was an only an innocent observation.

I suppose that I was being whimsical having reread the entire thread and marvelling at the erudition displayed on what, after all, is a forum devoted primarily to debating the fortunes of Bristol City F.C. Let's face it, the majority of subscribers would not normally be expected to take an interest in metaphysics- and why should they ?

(Except in demeaning our erstwhile goalkeeper's personal beliefs- have you read some of comments on the Basso Departure Thread ? Now that's the sort of thing that gives atheism a bad name !)

Patronising: by no means: -by poor efforts I mean, primarily my own contributions which- obviously- have cut no ice whatever.

Mockery ?- I would be the last person to mock anybody else's views on anything. My own beliefs on many subjects would be regarded as outlandish by some- and good luck to them.

Whimsy. Marvellous word.

Lots of things give atheism a bad name - I've noted that many atheists take a patronising tone when speaking to religious folks because they can't just see how a grown adult can believe in something they think is patently absurd. I try to avoid it but I'm sure I've done it several times - it's hard not to get over one's own incredulity with what's being presented and accepted by many sane adults.

Equally many religious folks speak down to atheists because to them it's entirely natural that God exists - they feel it, sense it and just... know it. So it seems madness that someone can question what is to them an utter truth.

The nice thing for me about this discussion to date is that although it's confrontational in parts - after all that's how good debate is invoked, it's done with a healthy amount of respect. I can't for the life of me understand what Gater2 et al can use to justify their beliefs, but ultimately I respect their right to believe in it and want to know more.

I haven't read the Basso one, but by the sounds of it don't want to - for what it's worth many atheists I meet are genuinely nice people who believe in helping others (despite the absence of a moral God). It seems to be an odd phenomenon that they only get aggressive/patronising/mocking when discussing religion.

Re: users of this forum. I've found them to be no more nor any less intelligent than the people I generally meet.

So a question to you - I believe that you originally stated you're agnostic - have any of these discussions changed your mind either way?

[newboy]

My maternal Grandfather served in the RAF in World War 2. To this day I remember him saying that when God draws your 'number' from his hat 'you have to go'. The 'number' his generation refered to was the military service number. Death was common place then in the forces and I don't think for one minute that anyone blamed God for the problems of the day as they do now.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I don't see many people blaming God for problems since many more people don't believe in him any more.

But just as people used to blindly treat the royal family as near deities, people are slowly starting to challenge the status quo and question the value and justification of religion. Centuries of prothletising are being slowly unravelled through the proliferation of communication channels as people can get better access to more information and more openly discuss what were once considered taboo subjects.

If you only had a limited number of people telling you things, there's less chance of you challenging the ideas being presented as you've got less access to dissenting views. Now religion has to preach frankly fantastical notions to an audience that has access to many more viewpoints, some of them based in reality!

Priests are no longer the focal point of the community, losing their monopolies on being teachers, judges and counsellors. Obviously you and I will see that differently as to whether that's a good thing or not.

[bucksred]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I don't see many people blaming God for problems since many more people don't believe in him any more.

But just as people used to blindly treat the royal family as near deities, people are slowly starting to challenge the status quo and question the value and justification of religion. Centuries of prothletising are being slowly unravelled through the proliferation of communication channels as people can get better access to more information and more openly discuss what were once considered taboo subjects.

If you only had a limited number of people telling you things, there's less chance of you challenging the ideas being presented as you've got less access to dissenting views. Now religion has to preach frankly fantastical notions to an audience that has access to many more viewpoints, some of them based in reality!

Priests are no longer the focal point of the community, losing their monopolies on being teachers, judges and counsellors. Obviously you and I will see that differently as to whether that's a good thing or not.

Scoff if you wish, but there aint no atheists on the battlefield. Think that was what Goblin was getting at. Even those idealogical heroes of the SS and NKVD found God, in the hell of the Ostfront.