NJS

3rd transfer window lucky eh? I'd sack Roeder just for dismissing Woodgate out of the equation.

Since they started to win fter the new year I've just assumed they're going up - recent results would suggest automatically. They are over-reacting but at the same time hope is a good thing - I still think they have no premiership quality players so would have to do a lot in the summer. I also hope it will stir Shepherd into digging deep for us. Funnily enough I remember posting a questiion ages ago on the SMB on why they found the idea of Shearer being a manager so hilarious - they described his traits of being too single-minded, tough and likely being "a bully" as being fatal - traits in Keane that they now cream over. I think Keane will be found out when things get tough - I can't see him standing failing mediocrity without exploding.

That is definitely true, and I actually think there may be times people lie to themselves, or may have been hallucinating possibly. I can't understand how it would answer all sorts of questions regarding such experiences. I have heard and seen a huge number of cases where people have had a really "big" meet with God. Today a friend of mine said he was at a talk with some other people where a man who used to be one of the biggest gangsters in east London became a Christian. He used to hurt and probably kill people and earn millions. He now lives in a small house with his wife (who he used to beat up and also became a Christian). He'd seen some pretty horrid things in his time, but when he had a big calling he became a Christian and having God in his life had such an immense change to it. He lives his life for God, despite what he used to be and all he's been through. Now I'm afraid, those things don't happen every day. Similarly, not every "miracle" that takes place can be a healing from God - there's reasons for this. Yet these happen all over the world every day and it's a big big risk to deny it all as being healing from God. I'm not sure what some atheists might perceive religious experience - it strikes me from what I've read by various people, that they think an imaginary voice must say random things in some Christians' heads maybe once or twice in their lifetimes. Dawkins went on to say the Yorkshire Ripper was told to kill someone by Jesus - I think he might be missing the point somewhat in that Christianity is based on subjective relationships with God, not just the belief he exists and will help you. I'm sure I could really go on but chances are would make myself look ridiculous. A "bad" man becoming "good" is obviously good - but I'm afraid it doesn't prove that what he put it down to is true. 13 years ago I was a really lazy fat bastard heading for an early grave when I had a health scare which changed my life - I've let it slip a little and am now an "average" fat bastard but that life changing moment was a simple reaction to fear of death - not a "revelation" though I could easily describe it that way if inclined. I'm also afraid I don't believe in miracles - every day or ever - none have ever been proved. I know there have been claims for some people from Lourdes and similar but there have been just as many spontaneous remissions from some diseases without "intervention" while of course nobody questions how many pilgrims are "rejected". The same "logic" is used elsewhere - that case the other week when the bairn was given viagra - Doctor's with years of training use all their expertise and finally use a drug brought by science to save a life. The parents thank the doctors then say "we prayed for a miracle and got one" - so which God was it that caused the kid to be born early in the first place and endanger its life? If they believe the God goes around constantly "correcting" his mistakes if the people are worthy then why don't they ask whether the initial problem means they were being "punished" - if thats the case what for?

Yep - we do have the weirdest religion of all.

I watched episodes 3-6 of Heroes last night and have really got into it - going to have a marathon for the rest of the day and see how far I can get.

Just because I'm so anti-religion doesn't mean the idea doesn't intrigue me but my instinct is to say no.... I think if it did exist one of the "conditions" I'd have would be an end to the idea than humans are so special compared to other animals. I'm a big fan of Monkey Business on Animal Planet and its easy to recognise that same "sense of wonder" being displayed by chimps - albeit at simpler things sometimes like giant ice lollies Its thinking about things like this that most make me regret that a humans's lifespan is so short - I'd love to be able to live another couple of hundred years (at least) for no other reason to see what we find out about the universe in that time (and maybe see us win a trophy).

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first. Forget about fucking religion....the deabte here should be about spirituality, something we ALL have - even if we feel it only as a momentary sense of wonderment. And if we are going to line up spirituality/mysticism - then yes that would be a good foil for 'string theory'. These long sentences mean something....Not sure what. I take your point about religion however and agree. But the engine room of religion is mysticism....You see?? What you call "spirituality" I just called an evolved intellect taking in its environment with a "sense of wonder" which I have no problem with. It just doesn't have to be couched in pretensious terms imo.

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first.

Fair point - and I'd agree that some of the theories make a grey-haired old bloke look sensible in comparison but its the desire to find out that matters. I've read a couple of books on string theory - bizarrely they sort of made sense and the 10/11 dimensions thing is supported by maths.

I can see the 14bn years is nothing argument but its the 14bn years in the context of 6000 years of "action" that makes no sense to me. There are now very few scientists who dispute the age and size of the universe or evolution - those that do tend to be theists - I think they have what is known as compartmentalised minds - they can be perfectly good scientists but have what I would say is an unscientific portion which sees things differently due to faith. There are obviously perfectly decent christians. My mother was one and we used to talk about these things - my view of christians is certainly not one of the kind of ignorance you suggest. Again there are many scientists who are theists but there is a general correlation between education and lack of belief. Many American sites who try this argument have a very dubious definition of scientists when it comes to this and would for example count people with degrees in Engineering - now I think engineers are to a certain extent scientists in that they apply scientific principles but I don't think they are as relevant to the argument as physicists and biologists where the correlation of non-believers is far, far greater. The brain and the mind combine to form one of the last frontiers of science. A lot of recent work has started to explain "revelations" and "mystical experience" - I'm not saying such discoveries would or should hinder your beliefs per se - they are a part of you but I'd hope your fascination with science would let you consider such evdence. Creationism as part of a study of comparitive religions and obviously including the hundreds of versions ie not just genesis I don't have a problem with (though the subject should be optional). Teaching it as science is completely wrong. As I said earlier even though history is open to interpretation key facts like who won wars and whether the holocaust happened are sacrosant - there is no "alternative" theory of the German death camps and the same should be true about the age of the world and the common descent of man. The evidence really is overwhelming to the point that creationists should be dismissed as easily as the nutjobs who deny the holocaust. As an alternative science to evolution its a joke - as is its stealth cousin - ID. As has been said many times the phrase "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as in more general useage. Evolution is really just as nailed on as gravity or electricity. Dawkins has rattled a few cages and thats one of the best things imo - firstly we are seeing how much people rely on this "you must respect us" thing as a barrier to honest query. Secondly the arguments used against him if examined somewhat prove his point - classics like he doesn't understand theology - replied by I don't need to undertsand Astrology or Fairyology to know they are flawed. It also seems apparent that theology is a non-subject without a God - that seems obvious but theologians have now moved on from defending the biblical god and have tried to move the goalposts more towards Isegrim's "God" - as I said fair enough but thats not the God most people "know". The atheists/ moderate theists who have attacked him tend to be from the camp who demand too much respect imo. People who look at the good believers do as a justification for the faith. Once again as I argued with Isegrim I prefer to see that as people who would do good with or without the faith. They also use the argument "it makes people happy" - once again I have no objection to "comfort" but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more true. You also have the point as made by Sam Harris that "nice" believers get in the way of the "nasty" elements. Because we are taught that faith is a virtue no matter what we say there is no great will to condemn fundamentalists as they are just "really faithful" or "holy". If the moderate followers of religion all woke up tomorrow and said en masse "we reject dogmatic faith and fundmentalism" the idiots wouldn't last much longer.

Yes, the most important bit is the letter of St. Paul to Philemon (which is about the freeing of a slave). There are other examples of anti-slavery stances in the bible (and the personal freedom of men), but as well in works of Augustine and even some of the popes were actually condemning slavery throughout the centuries. The political-practical approach though (in the name of religion) in reference to Roman law and the predominant opinion became that you were allowed to take non-christians (which applies to muslims and later to indians) as slaves in the state of war. But there have always been critics to this which finally became predominant (by people like Wilberforce) in the early 19th century. Again blinding out religious influences in the development of reason (the practical approach was pretty reasonable) would be totally non-historic. That was really my last contribution. Cherry picking a few verses to make your point and ignoring the entire OT. The prevailing morality at the time was christian and it taught that slavery was okay. The majority of the law making part of the bible in the OT condones slavery. To me he was a rebel against the majority of christian teaching. The people who profited from slavery no doubt considered themselves good christians yet their morality wasn't outraged by slavery because I would argue that was the prevailing general morality. I suppose you would argue Wilberforce was a better christian than them - I'd argue he was simply a better man - people are "good" or "bad" due to a combination of genetics and early environmental influence - religion has lttle to do with it - if it did the more religious societies would be "better" - they are not. Slavery (as in european driven) was abolished because general morality demanded it - the same goes for rights for women and more recently less outright persecution of homosexuality. Most religion's stances on the latter two have not changed at all but society has adapted anyway - as it would have done no matter what belief system thrived.

I mentioned Stalin as he's an iconic Athiest in the context of you saying irreligious societies were failures - I was just saying that he didn't become an atheist trough rationality - "Hating" religion because you were its victim is different to taking an enlightened position. How devout were the slave traders, owners and the church leaders who opposed Wilberforce? Would he have found his anti-slavery stance in the bible where you say christian morality is based?

Not from the churches which you say "set the tone" or are you saying the fact that "good" people like Wilberforce were christians means that the religion gets the credit and not the courageous man. If the morals are a cut and paste job from the bible why is for the most part the OT insanity dropped? - could it be that the base morals are more human at the core and don't need embellishement? - Thats all I'm saying.

Classic misinterpretation - "survival of the fittest" does not mean murder in Darwinism. I'd love to know when your "special force" applied - to prevent the crusades? to prevent the inquisition? to ask the church to torture Gallileo? When were the great moral decisions made? who by? Do you beleive there is the "guidance" for the pope the catholich church claims? Does your force come in dreams for "the great and the good"? Are the interventions small every day or huge every now and then? If Christ was an intervention why in that place at that time? - if it was then was the rise of christianity pre-destined? If the Mongols hadn't went home they would have conquered Europe - did your force intervene and "murder" the Emperor so they fell out over succession and thus safeguarded christianity? The thing about "warm and fuzzy" notions like there being a benevolent force influenceing evertything is that you have to prepared to answer some pretty easily thought of questions - or just like the organised believers you can just say "Yeah but thats just what I believe" with no rationale.

Do you think the "liberal" morals which most people support ie the general law plus things like the gradual acceptance of homsexuality and women's rights derive in any way from the Abrahamic religions or from "natural" moral development? By natural moral development I mean how it was pefectly acceptable under your wonderful christian utopia for homosexuals to be persecuted, women to be "kept in their place", slaves to exist and the abhorrent racism of the british and others empires to be excused. In fact more than excused - encouraged. It was not one iota of the establish religions that changed those "crimes" (Wilberforce was an individual christian) it was the moral progession of civilised people as a whole - the same way comparing morals of the middle ages or the older times compared to today shows a vast difference.

Because there was an evolved natural advantage to building communities. Which is more sensible - that or your "spiritual intervention"?

The best one I read recently was on the BBC's Have Your Say page where somone stated that God took Homo Erectus who was just an animal and put a soul into him thus creating humans. Absolutely no evidence or thought at all but oh so typical.

Theres a differnce in my view between the "moral leaders" of the time ie the religious hieracrchy using what I would maintain are "natural" morals to interpret the bible and pick the good bits and them actually setting thouse morals as you imply. The main reasons for the western cultures "supremacy" is nothing to do with christianity - you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond - those 3 items were all the western empires needed to conquer most of the world - the missionary recruitment drive followed in the wake. As a socialist I accept that Stalin/China don't exactly fill me with joy but I think its too easy to imply those "failed" therefore lets not risk athiestic societies ever again. It could be done right. To expand on my point from the other thread about Japan (perhaps the most civilised nation there is) I was reading that they are probably the nation on earth with the least christian influence. I know they do have a spiritual side but thats a long way from the "join us or burn in hell" approach of the Abrahamic faiths. I would also point out that I read an article last week about the "iconic atheist" Stalin - his entire childhood was warped by Russian orthodox priests (as in the famous jesuit phrase) so I would no longer hold him up as an example of an "enlightened Atheist" that is my ideal - he was a very warped and twisted man on many levels and one of the factors in that was good old religion. Another book I'd recommend is one I've just finished - Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridly - I think he answers your query on how genes "pass on" morals -and yes is it all evolved chemistry and biology. The way we turn out is a mixture of genetics and environment but a surprsising amount of influence passes between the two. Genes require environmental input to "switch on" various functions thoughout our lives and at the same time there is a lot of genetic influence in how we influence our own environment. I don't think we're going to reach the point that some physicists thought in the last century where science is "finished" and explains everything but I think every insight like those talked about by Ridley are another hammer blow to the "we're special due to something mystical" view.

Briefly read todays posts so a scatter gun reply is in order: If we descended from an incestuous family 6000 years ago in the middle east then you could argue morals come from the biblical God via stone tablets. We Didn't and they don't. All of the civilisations that developed before the jewish one, all those that developed concurrently with them and all the ones that have developed since share, despite a myriad of faith beleifs, a core set of moral values: Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal and all of the related variations. The idea that we need a particular God or indeed any to "keep us right" is plainly ridiculous in my view. The idea that English law is based on a Christian view of these is also wishful thinking - theres plenty of rape and murder in the bible sanctioned by God (and enshrined in his laws) so those laws were "cherry picked" once again - what tool is used for this cherry picking? - the same evolved morality that exists throughout the world. Altruism which leads to morals come from mutually beneficial exhanges. As man started to form communities beyond the family unit its obvious that on a long term basis building bridges with other groups is a better "plan" than simply killing them - that obviously happened but the fact that we developed these morals to me proves that thy were naturally selected for in that we survive now. That doesn't mean everyone is "nice" but I'll also bet that the percentage of people who think normal morals are wrong has dramatically reduced in the last 10000 years which is of course a blink of the eye in evolution terms. Turning once again to Isegrim's assertion that the big bang and the 14Bn year thing aren't that big a problem I'd beg to differ. The God(s) of all human religions are very local and very current - they only look after their own and they have plans (like biblical prophices) which only take 100s of years. At the same time we are constantly told he/they is/are that powerful that they can do anything they want so why not just click their fingers rather than start 14bn year projects? Why do so many believe armageddon is imminent which again when you consider 2000 years Vs 4.5bn years looks daft? Why use phrases like "his one and only son" if God has billions of planets to play with? Earlier I said its the "obvious" answers that people ignore that bug me. Religions are a product of the fear and ignorance of very young civilisations who sought answers to everyday things like why the wind blows. I see them as a youthful myth like Santa that we haven't quite rejected yet but will in time. The only things that will stop that is the continued over use of respect in questioning them and the lack of education in the thir world - it won't happen in my lifetime but I hope it won't be too long. On the "people have the right to believe anything" thing I'd say yes but within reason. When it starts to affect other people then I think there has to be a framework of acceptability - that can be as simple as making barbarism like female circumcision or child abusive exorcisms completely illegal but I also think it should include stuff like teaching creationism in schools. "Beliefs" can only go so far - you can't "believe" that 2+2=5 or that Germany won World War II or that the holocaust is a myth without being quite rightly ridiculed so why is it okay to say that the world is 6000 years old? Bodies like the catholic church have been forced to change their dogma because of science to appear more "reasonable" than the US evangelists but it won't fool me until they explain how the biblical God (not Isegrim's Deist one) fits in with the universe.

Just mentioning Dawkins briefly again I've read a few critiscisms of TGD which probably sum up my antipathy towards religion which is related to Renton's original point and his reprise. We are told that science can't answer questions in the philosphy realm such as "why are we here". My view is it can and it does - we are evolved animals - plain and simple - anything beyond that is unprovable. However there is also an implication that religion can answer that question which to me is complete rubbish. Answering questions with "God did it" really sums the problem for me. I've always had a thirst for knowledge and I now feel that religion seems to "dislike" that natural trait. If you start questioning peoples faith with quesions like Renton's then either you are told "its impolite to ask" or when it comes to things like the age of the universe you get the classic "we cannot question God's plan". Its that refusal to think and question that really frustrates and I suppose angers me because I feel that the problem is that the "obvious" answers as I see them are painful. However having been brought up catholic and gone through that "pain" and feeling better for it I suppose I now have a sort of "mission" to free others - much like the new breed of outspoken atheists. I'm always told that "reasonable" theists can feel comfortable with the age and size of the universe and evolution and still believe in God. However I've yet to read an answer that makes any kind of sense.

I think its about degrees - a woman politician was shot dead in Pakistan last week by a Muslim nutjob because she refused to wear the veil and had encouraged others not to - now you can argue that he has to be "a bit mad" to kill someone anyway but the fervour with which some people are indoctrinated with Islam (and others) could be said to be a form of conditioning - if its hammered into you that immodest women are "evil" then combined with a disposition to violence something can give too often. Fair enough thugs who beat up gays may not go as far as "God told me to do it" but the fact that someone, somwhere who may have had a say in their early life is willing to say "thats just" isn't exactly helping matters. I've said before on here that I think paedophilia may be "hard-wired" for want of a better phrase and perhaps should be treated rather more than punished (not popular I know). If it is like that I don't think it "excuses" their actions but at the same time thats a bit different than an outside influence "coercing" them into thinking its right which is what I was reffering to.

So Cath do you want a day of Michael Owen's pay or a day of Paul Huntingdons? Maybe you should write to all of our players and ask them to adopt one of you each for the day.

The blasphemy challenge wasn't Dawkin's "thing" - the link may be there but it was created by someone else. The thing you have to realise is that being even able to say what he does is relatively new (and still would have him killed in some places). As he has argued there has been a "taboo" about all out criticism of religion for years. I think the harsh reaction he gets from people like you shows that you're not used to it and I've seen articles saying atheists should back off out of this misguided respect. As I say I don't care what people believe at a personal level but that shouldn't give them any more rights than other people. A good example was the catholic adoption thing. 1.7% of the citizens of the UK are church-going catholics and according to "official" figures 6% are gay. On a simplistic democratic basis the catholic church has absolutely no right to demand exemptions from laws which affect more people than it "represents". I know this was specific to agencies run by them but the same applies to the CofE who wanted to be exempt from the same laws with regards to sex education in their faith scools. They want to continue teaching that homsexuality is "evil". The fact that a large number of the assaults and even murders carried out on gays have this kind of "excuse" and the people actually quote religion means I'd have the bishops on an accesory charge.

He is managing director of hat trick promotions. That was the cause of the fall out I think - probably a moral somewhere there about going into business with your best mate.

Terrorists who truly believe a place in paradise awaits. Barbaric mysoginy of Islam. Sectarian conflicts worldwide. Bishops in the house of lords. Presidents who consult God before starting wars. Faith schools teaching creationism. Churches wanting exemptions from laws to be able to preach bigotry. Anti-abortion campaigns. Anti-condom campaigns relating to AIDS. Anti-contraception campaigns in the third world which increase poverty. Anti-stem cell research campaigns. Child abuse with related cover-ups. Being told I have no morals because I'm an Atheist. Despite my denial of its existence many theists "hope and pray" I will burn in hell for eternity - what a very generous notion for a fellow human. Thats my list off the top of my head - as for Dawkins I think he feels the "dismissal" of evolution (which isn't exclusive to the USA) to be a huge crime which I agree with but feel he doesn't go far enough with the above.