NJS

Perhaps its just my warped brain but the icon used on that advert reminds me of something...... The Jimbo (and me) equivlent of seeing the face of christ in a cheese toastie.

Thats how it works by definition.... and Bollocks.

I know its just "allegedly" but this bit about finding needles gets me - if it turns out that all else aside they were sedating their kids with injections they should be struck off at the very least - then again you've got to get to Shipman's level before the GMC act usually.

There was a possible flood of the black sea which became the subject of a Sumerian myth (Gilgamesh) - the jews simply ripped it off (as they did the concept of Satan and other thing). As I said the point is do you want a God who would drown everyone even it is just metaphorical.

Dawkins writing in Free Inquiry and pretty much summing up what I think:

Don't forget it was only 2 of the unclean animals (why bother) and 7 pairs of the clean. "How did the Koalas get from and to Australia" is always a classic. Creationists are also willing to suggest that the flood caused the grand canyon but leave out how that fits in with native americans. Of course the real question is how can you believe in a god who metaphorically or not would drown every human and animal on earth (including innocent babies) just because he didn't like how the hebrews had turned out. What is the metaphorical lesson? - please God or drown? - loving God my arse.

Yes its is more likely Science asks and gives answers - the human brain is capable of hallucination, mood swings, psychotic tendencies and delusions - all because of an upset chemistry or cell damage - much more plausible than an invisible friend. Until there is one shred of evidence otherwise I'll stick with science.

I've often wondered whether an honest psychiatrist when confronted with a patient who spoke of an invisible friend who watches over them and judges them but doesn't use the word God would be diagnosed with a psychosis. Yes I am serious - but for the "virtue" of faith and its place in society I don't see any difference or justification for not giving that diagnosis.

Absolutely - its obvious as I've said before that communities of humans couldn't have formed without basic /murder/rape/theft laws and other stuff will have developed from that. Its also obvious that a desire to explain nature before it was understood as much as it is now could easily invoke Sky God explanations - the worldwide diversity of such explanations a hint to their man-made nature. All I'm saying is its time we grew up and realised this.

Months of campaigning but now charges are supposedly on the horizon they need to go home for the sake of the other bairns - hmm.....

So bowing down to him is in your view as important (or more so) than leading a good life? If the morality is just a part of it, why doesn't he just ask for the worship and not care how we act? Does someone who is very religious but "evil" - for example a mafia don deserve a place more than someone who never does anything major wrong but can't bring themselves to believe? What about people who never hear the message - the pope recently implied that the native people of South America "needed christianity" to obtain redemption - would they deserve to be damned simply for living an ocean away from Europe? These questions apply whether the more recent twisting whereby the saved get heaven and the rest get nothing or whether the rest are off to hell.

They need to come home to whip up support for their "Portuguese police are framing us" campaign in the tabloids.

Theres a big campaign in the US to make it a Theocracy - it would be funny if Bush said "Ok - but its Islamic".

No more than for Mithras or other cults form the same period. Can you describe your personal relationship? (if thats not too personal a question). I don't consider chrsitianity more or less ridiculous than the rest - I'm more aware/.knowledgebale of it but I don't see any basic difference between them. When you mention "truth in christianity" I would accept that there are good morals in there somewhere (though the source is open to question) but I don't see that much "truth" elsewhere - for example whether Christ existed or was resurrected is a moot point for me compared with the morality taught in general - the whole package of morality I think is flawed (eg homosexuality) . If you mean the whole promise of eternal life then this goes back to a core question - do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

Its strongly linked to your point about locational fluke - I get the impression TI went looking for something and found it in the bible (nothing wrong in principal) - a choice determined by his location. If this was India, China or Saudi he would have looked for it in a different book and been convinced of that deity/deities. I think an overview taking this into consideration is the key to realising the origin of all of them.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Now if he meant Hitchens...... Just finishing God is not great - its a bit "dense" in that the amount of information he presents is a bit overwhelming but on the whole some new angles to support my view. For example I never new about the Vatican's extensive role in promoting fascism in the 20th century and more recently its role in protecting and covering up priests and bishops who were directly involved in the genocide in Rwanda. He also answers the "Hitler was an atheist" argument with a view I'd not read before - again how much the churches were involved which undermines any moral high ground.

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply. I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't. He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind.

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men. Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well. Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money. Dawkins has a policy of not entering debates - I don't think he's scared he just thinks its an environment that doesn't work for him personally. As an example theres a US creationist called Kent Hovind (now jailed) who always "won" his debates by scatter gun facts that couldn't be disproved in the time available Also he certainly doesn't need the money. Considering the people he interviewed on either of his C4 tv shows I think those remarks cound't be more wrong - if someone told you "all your women dress like whores" would you answer respectfully with "they dress how THEY want to" or would you tell the bloke he was a fuckwit?

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

I can accept that 3000 years ago writing tribal laws was very much in context - ie the banning of pork was supposedly due to a nasty bacteria at the time - but I don't understand why people should try and apply it now. You make a good point that the Gospels don't mention homosexuality - this annoys a lot of christians but they can take comfort in the bigotry and mysoginism of Paul. I think/ homophobia and quoting a religion is in a way a feed back loop - people have a bigotry which they look for justification for which makes them more bigoted etc etc. As I referred to above the thing that concerns me is that religions ir (in the organised sense) evolve too slowly (if at all). I think most people in general accept that modern morality recognises things like homosexuality and slavery as okay/wrong. That change has come about imo via a natural progression of morality which has little to do with religion which in some cases has not moved at all.

Undoubtedly - I'm not one who says remove religion and wars end. What does need to end is all the criteria for gang forming of which religion, nationalism, tribalism (football) are all examples- it still might not work but I think we'd be nearer. I think Europe post WWII, apart from a couple of hotspots, is a good ideal for a general conglomeration of people where the above gangs matter less than other places - thats why I'm opposed to Merkel's attempts to refer to a "christian heritage" in any new mission statements of the EU.

I know the "evidence" usually given is dubious at best - it really does just leave the gospels. In all honesty I think there probably was a preacher around at the time who may have been "good". What happened to him and what he taught in a factual sense I doubt very much (especially the later added resurrection bits(different style of writing apparently)). Levticus: 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Always quoted by bigots on the issue. Its a lovely chapter that - if you have sex with a woman during her period you should be cast out of your town. It also has the classic "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - the justification of hundreds of murders by the church of love.

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality. The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me. Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next. Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.