Islamaphobia?

Errr, what? I don't know the detail of what he looked for but presumably it would've given him pause if he'd found a development that clearly disadvantaged the animal.

Oh ffs

as so eloquently explained by Satan in Paradise Lost) Christ dieing (dying - how is that word spelled) to redeem our sins?

All I can is the idea of a god makes no sense to me. I have a vivid memory of being in a Primary 2 class (age 7 in Scotland ) in an RE lesson and thinking this makes no sense. I didn't know anything about the theory of evolution or the Big Bang then (if pressed to explain the latter I'd struggle now)

As I grew up it made even less sense. Original sin? The Christian god setting Adam and Eve up for an inevitable fall ? (as soon eloquently explained by Satan in Paradise Lost) Christian dieing (dying - how is that word spelled) to redeem our sins?

BUffy, I'm not in a position to talk about it in terms of Islam, but I will in terms of Christian fundamentalists.

Christian fundamentalism does draw upon the beliefs of the church and the bible. It is connected to the non fundamentalist Christian beliefs I was brought up with.

The beliefs of Dawkins are fundamentalist and are connected to the same non fundamentalist scientific and rationalist beliefs I was also brought up with.

But atheism is not a belief system. I'm not saying that to disassociate atheists from Dawkins. I'm saying it because I don't understand how people are supposed to communicate with each other when we start assuming very basic statements like believing or not believing in God are whole systems of belief.

"He had a hypothesis and he tested it."

No, he looked for evidence that would support it. How, exactly, could you test the mechanism of natural selection? I'm not saying Darwin wasn't a great scientist. Clearly he was. I'm just saying that science is more of a fuzzy business than it's made out to be, and that belief does have a part to play in it.

Slug, I hope you haven't put together the fact that I'm sceptical about materialist atheism either the fact that I mentioned Darwin and assumed I'm a Creationist. That would be prejudice, no?

I love it, Christmas is coming and people are arguing about beliefs that have the same amount of credibility as Father Christmas popping down the chimney.

And atheists who want nothing to do with what you might call the discourse of atheism, most commonly associated with people like Dawkins. And yet, my experience tells me that atheism is strongly linked with Dawkins esque beliefs in science and evolution, particularly in our culture, even acknowledging that this link is in no way inevitable. Would you say that my perception of the connectedness of these things was wrong, in terms of western culture?

I don't even know what Dawkins thinks or says beyond he is an atheist. I've never read him or listened to him and have no intention of doing so. I've never read any philosophy of atheism nor On the Origin of Species. I have probably a very basic layperson's understanding of the theory of evolution. I know that I do not believe in a god and never have. I don't need Dawkins or anyone else to explain or validate what I don't believe in.

I have no idea what people mean when they say they do believe in a god.Believers talk about having a relationship with a god or Christ. I literally have no idea what they are taking about.

I would not dare say you are wrong but your analysis of what is going on in my atheist brain is wrong.

". It was belief without foundation in empirical evidence. He spent the next 25 years collecting evidence to back up his belief, "

He had a hypothesis and he tested it. That IS science!

slug - I'm not a Creationist, don't worry. I have no beef with Darwin. I'm an academic specialising in the Victorian period, that's all

Slug, I didn't say Darwin had no evidence at all - merely that he didn't have that evidence when he formulated evolution by means of natural selection. And Malthus's work is purely speculative - it's not meant to have empirical evidence.

As Buffy says, we would need to have a discussion about what counts as evidence. Testimony and experience are admissible as evidence in a court of law - indeed are the main elements of the evidence in most trials.

Startrek I know almost nothing about Mormons apart from the Osmond so are (and you must get fed up of hearing that)

I was impressed how little fuss Mormons made (if any) about Matt Stone's The Book of Mormon.I haven't seen it and won't. Mormons are such an easy and lazy target for him , he could be as rude as he liked ; non-Mormons won't care and Mormons themselves very unlikely to turn to violence.

Buffy - I agree with you entirely about what we mean by belief, theory, evidence and the like.

In a way, that's the point about Darwin. If we say that our definition of belief is something that has no evidence to support it, that leads to the conclusion that the status of natural selection in 1833 was a belief. You could also describe it as a hunch.

If you define belief as something you trust - as in 'I believe in you and I know you'll manage to swim to the other side of the pool', then natural selection in 1833 might also count as a belief, because it was something Darwin believed in enough to spend 25 years on.

But if you think that belief can have no place in science then calling natural selection in 1833 a belief will cause a certain amount of friction.

And I think we should be able to criticise those aspects which are problematic without being told we're bigots

Yes , saying "I think homosexuality is a perversion" or "women should dress modestly" is no less bigoted just because you claim it's your religion which tells you that.

I wouldn't cut an atheist man or woman who said that any slack.

I agree with your point about the US too.

vestalvirgin Mormons are christian. I know, I am one. Please elaborate how awful the men in my life are. Genuinely curious about what you have heard.

Sorry, slugs, I have read Origin of Species, and I have read a lot of books and articles in the history of nineteenth-century science. Darwin didn't publish because he didn't have the evidence and he was worried about being labelled a speculative theorist. It's an open question how religious Darwin ever was, and he had certainly lost his faith well before 1859. He published Origin of Species jointly with Wallace because he was worried that if he didn't Wallace would publish first.

But he didn't gather evidence on the Beagle voyage. He gathered all the evidence, for 25 years, after he'd had the idea. It's been conclusively shown that the idea was formed by his reading of Malthus. It was his belief that natural selection must be the mechanism by which evolution worked but he did not have the evidence for it. Though he brought back some specimens from the Galapagos they did not constitute the kind of evidence he needed to support his belief.

I do know a bit about this stuff.

Surely Darwin had a theory rather than a belief. One which he was obviously keen on. That's not the same a a belief, as with a belief, no evidence is needed. Or do I not understand what a belief is?