NJS

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India.

Surely that is primarily a land conflict- they are fighting over Kashmir and terroitorial supremacy- not who is the 'true God'. At independence it was all India - the dispute arose when separate countries had to be established for the Muslims. Kashmir is nothing special - its just an excuse to enshrine their religious differences.

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems. The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict. There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

As much shit in the name of science compared to religion? - now thats nonsense. Yes a lot of "evil" is men being bastards but sometimes the sense of "tribes" or "gangs" as defined by religions provides a very handy platform. 19 well educated, middle class men flew planes into buildings not because they thought it would so some good for the Palestinians or even because they hated America - they did it because they fundamentally believed they were going to paradise for doing it. A lot of the old labels like nationality and even "tribe" are being blurred in moderm times due to mass migrations. It may be natural to form "gangs" but when those gangs are based on an attitude of "You're wrong, I'm right and I want to kill you for it" then thats obviously dangerous. Sometimes blaming religion is too easy and I admit that, however I'd turn that around and say that excusing religions abberations as "human nature" is just as bad.

Emmanuel is a new-fangled Blair Academy not a "standard" Faith school which is how the 10% funding/let us teach lies is excused. I went to a catholic school (christain brothers). RE was Catholics go to heaven if they're good, everyone else burns in hell no matter what they do.

Not thelogy - thats just lame attempts to explain God - but religion itself is certainly mans attempts to explain things and answer the "why?" question. Another thing that seems obvious to me when you consider the many, many religions that emerged after man became "civilised" is that "inventing" God(s) to explain the world, storms, sunlight, where we came from and everything else seems like a good idea in the face of that much ignorance. I just feel that now that we have a lot of the answers to those questions, and a sense of where the world is in the universe especially, that more of us should have had the sense to realise that history and reject the notions in general. Of course then we enter the argument that if people weren't indoctrinated as kids then it wouldn't last another couple of generations imo. On a more specific point I'd define God as the excuse people use when they don't or won't understand something that is generally explainable. I realise it doesn't cover everything but it certainly covers things like evolution.

They are all sensible questions but the thing they suffer from is going from a position of where we are now. There are billions of galaxies in the universe with probably an infinte number of planets - the conditions here may not be the only ones which support life and there may be millions of planets "identical" to Earth where life may have evolved. You also have the multiverse theories which can help explain the "perfect" conditions in this one. Biologists have identified about 9 stages in eye evolution which all provide an advantage and all exist in nature in various forms. If people believe that "someone" kicked it all off and either did or didn't nudge things along here and there then thats fine - I don't agree but it seems farely rational compared to the Genesis literalists. In that context however I can't marry that with christian faith. We are then expected to believe that a being capable of building that infinte universe waits 14 billion years until an ape evolves enough intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and then sends his son on a mission to one small tribe which he's picked out of thousands available to teach these beings about sin with the promise of eternal life after 70 years plodding around on earth. A mere 2000 years on and things are still ongoing but many of these beings believe that God will "write off" this 14 billion year project any day now. As I said in this "universe view" the biblical God is even more absurd than he was before imo. In some ways the "6000 year" christians could be said to be more "honest" in that their God view fits in with the picture as they see it. I think this is why Dawkins sees "moderates" as just as dangerous as "fundamentalists" - they seem to want their cake and eat it in a way which seems even more irrational on some levels.

*sighs* I brought it up in relation to the "teaching in school" comment. Not once have I said that evolution doesn't "exist". A lot of it however, IS based on faith in it. Yeah but the idea that Creaitonism (as science) and Evolution are somehow "alternatives" which can co-exist is central to the education argument - my point is that if they apply the same criteria to all science as they want to do to evolution then nothing would be left. I don't have a problem with that to some degree - I think if people reject science to the extent of the 6k year old earth and evolution then they shouldn't be treated with drugs or allowed to eat foodstuffs that are the result of that science. Theres a quote I read on Dawkins site about the Creationist who catches TB and the Doctor says something like "Do you want the drugs we would have used before we knew about evolution or do you want to live?"

Its not a major reason but its a major tenet of faith for a lot as well - see Mr Haggard as mentioned earlier who threw Dawkins out for suggesting his children "were just animals".

It takes a lot of "faith" to disagree with the generally held analysis of the fossil records that suggests the move from fish to amphibians though to mammals. the vestigial organs in whales that prove they had land based ancestors being a small example. I don't see how with the addition of DNA coding to the more obvious traits we share with other animals (organs, limbs etc) that it isn't obvious that we have a common descent with some animals obviously being closer than others. Science can't always "be there" - cosmology being the obvious example - what it does is suggest theories to explain evidence - on that basis evolution is no different and no less doubful than gravity, electricty, areodynamics or anything else. It only has to defend itself so much (usually from the ignorant) because it dares to question superstition.

Homonids Toumai (6-7 mya)

Evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps who lived btween 5.5 and 7 mya in Africa - good enough? The Fossils are there, the DNA of chimps and humans (and Neanderthals for good measure) are there. All thats missing is a rejection of the blinkers endowed by God.

Try here: Fact/Theory Theres a slight difference between a few dodgy records and 150 years of scientific research. Reading it somewhere else doesn't exactly make it fact either . It's fact that we currently don't know where man came from. Thats a site with a multitiude of references to peer-published and reviewed scientific evidence - you can't get much more "factual" when it comes to science than that. The full story may not be known (but its quite extensive) - However We do know Man did not "appear" 6000 years ago.

Change "Apes" to "common ancestor with apes" and its atheory with so much evidence it may be stated as a fact - just like Gravity or Electricity. Evolution should be taught in Science lessons - thats where the lies need to be excluded from. You should try working in the numerous Faith schools which aren't as "shy" as yours about brainwashing.

Try here: Fact/Theory Theres a slight difference between a few dodgy records and 150 years of scientific research.

The Koran promises paradise to martyrs - should they act on it? Bishops sit in the House of Lords, they vote on laws that effect me - I find that abhorrent. "Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise)" The Bible says pretty much the same tbh Undoubtedly - I'm an equal-opportunities heretic. Koran: 4:74 Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. Deuteronomy: 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; (13:6-10) "Thine hand shall be first upon him." If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Should "excused" beliefs allow people to murder non-believers as encouraged here?

I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard. In the last one I saw 51% of Americans believe the world is less than 10000 years old and Genesis is fact - thats 150 million morons. Did the Christian church object to or campaign for the abolition of slavery? Actually heres one with 53%: Poll

The Koran promises paradise to martyrs - should they act on it? Bishops sit in the House of Lords, they vote on laws that effect me - I find that abhorrent.

Thats pretty much my view - I think a persons beliefs (I actually accept Peter Beardsley as my God) are fine as long as they never leave the house. Teaching kids lies is what really pisses me off.

Things that made the goalposts move: Proving Genesis is bollocks - all of a sudden it became a "metaphor" when the authors wouldn't have a clue what that was. General progress in the understanding of the Earth and its place in the universe. The printing press and the education of the masses to read. The moral progress of civilisation (see how Christians were okay with slavery). None of those were pushed by Theists - in fact I maintain the catholic church were and would be much happier now if only they had the ability to "interpret" the bible - nothing should cause more doubts that a browse of the OT. As Dawkins says what we use to "cherry pick" the bible for the good parts are our own inate sense of morals we have as humans - if you take away the nice but obvious bits and ignore the really nasty bits as we're all a bit more civilised now what exactly is left? - the mythology of one small middle eastern tribe. As I said people are moral for all sorts of good reasons - "thanking" religion for that or for any kind of progress is giving too much credit imo.

What you need to research is Psychiatry and Neurology - those two might not have all the answers but I do know that the effects you describe can be chemically induced in any brain - see the book of Revelation as evidence.

The census, which was actually an invention to get the birth to Bethlehem as prophesised, never happened in Herod's reign. More generally on morality hundreds of religions all over the world all came up with the same general principles - a clear indication that those morals are human nature rather the "god given" - the only thing really supplied by religions is the petty dogma. I think the mainly Chrisian notion that the only thing that keeps people from behaving "like animals" is the fear or love of God is the most insidious, evil notion ever raised.

There a lot less evidence than you think - most is contrived to fit the belief rather than being unquestionable. I'm not 100% sure he existed but tend to err on the positive - if he did he may have said some good things (Filed under "stating the bleeding obvious") but the supernatural part of it is as far-fetched as Jason & The Argonauts or perhaps more apt the legend of Mithras.

Do I need to study Fairies or Astrology in any depth to know they're nonsense? Do I need a degree in classics to dismiss Zeus? "Theology" fails by its definition - the study of something that does not exist. The Sky God of an inerrant bible has been proved to be a lie so they move the goalposts to "something that exists ouside of space and time" - fair enough but that fucker isn't the Abrahamic God that "ordinary" believers pray to.

Would that be Adolf "Choir Boy, given power by Rome to appoint bishops, wrote in Mein Kampf of the Lord's work, never excommunicated but still named as a fucking atheist" Hitler. As Renton said Atheism wasn't their ethos.