to think that Christians do not want equal treatment, they want their views to be given a privileged in public life.

[seeker]

and that the discrimination that some Christians claim they are suggering is actually just the withdrawing of that privileged position, and the levelling of the playing fiels for people of faith and people without faith.

amberlight/UQD - I think the issue is the difference between a religion as a cultural identity and as a set of supernatural beliefs.

Many people when asked what their religion is will say Christian as they are not Jewish or Muslim or Zoroastrian - what they might not necessarily do though is believe all the making the world in seven days/rising from the dead stuff.

Most Christians don't believe the world was literally made in seven standard length 24 hr days anyway, but I know what you mean.

And - to return to my point. 15% or the population going to church at least once a month does not seem to me to be a basis for 25 bishops in the House of Lords, compulsory RE in secondary schools and daily Christian worship at all state primary schools!

amberlight - This is one of the problems though (and it is by no means unique to Christianity) - it's almost impossible to know what someone believes based on what religion they tell you they are. Pretty much everyone seems to pick there own bits out.

seeker, tempted to agree with you when you put it that way, but RE covers more than Christianity? I go into school RE lessons to teach the basics of the Christian faith, and we work with other faith leaders to get them to do the same thing, so it's a balanced offering that explains what the religions are about, not what the pupils should personally think.

I agree about RE - it's an interesting subject and there's lots of useful learning there.

But I can;t get my head round RE being compulsory when history or physics aren't.

I dislike RE just as I loathe 'Christian' services. If only they could teach actual Talmudic wisdom or the Gita or Aquinas or philosophy like Spinoza - oh yes, you can. But it's so dumbed down. Get rid of it.

I think the idea that Christians have less rights than other religions is simply laughable. It sounds like a BNP leaflet! Really? The idea that Christians are about to become a persecuted minority is a fucking joke.

Coalition - that's right. Culturally, lots of people will say "Christian" because they have grown up in that environment. I'd have said it myself as the default, before thinking about it properly. My parents and grandparents went to church in the C of E and called themselves Christians. Even Richard Dawkins, I believe, is on record as saying that he is probably a "cultural Christian". The real acid test comes when you ask about the nitty-gritty of the supernatural beliefs involved. Here is where I stand:

Am I culturally a Christian? Yes, as I am not a Jew, a Hindu or a Moslem.
Do I believe in Jesus? Yes, there is strong evidence for the existence of a historical figure of that name at that time.
Do I believe in God/ the divine? No, of course not.
What will I tick on the census? "No Religion."

Worth linking also to the recent Searchlight survey which found that "55% never attended a place of worship in their local community".

It seems it really does depend who you ask, and how you phrase the question.

'of course not' makes it sound as if there is no possibility of God existing. I don't think many of the most strident atheists claim that they can be 100% sure of that, based on any real evidence. If God exists (I know He does from my own direct experiences) then He is quite capable of keeping out of scientific measuring techniques. It becomes an impossibility to say He cannot be there at all.

You can say that to prove anything, though, amberlight. You must realise that.

Do you think Santa Claus (a) doesn't exist, (b) might exist or (c) is out of reach of current measuring techniques?

Sometimes, we just have to give up and admit that "can't be shown using any objective evidence" is the same, to all intents and purposes, as "doesn't exist". Otherwise you may as well not use the definition "doesn't exist" - it becomes meaningless. (Can you give me an example of something which, for you, doesn't exist, and say why?)

yes I can - agreement on religious issues - based on this thread

Saint Nicolas was a real historical figure. And in a universe which may consist of multiple perhaps infinite numbers of universes, we absolutely cannot rule out the possibility of anything existing, I would say.

amber - it is preposterous, when talking about the existence of god, to even suggest that the onus should be on the atheists to prove non-existence. I think it makes absolute sense, that if you want people to believe, you need to prove existence.

To claim that god is out of the reach of scientific measuring techniques is just evasion from having to accurately justify, or debate with any real intensity, ones belief.

If you can say that you know god to exist, based on your own experience, why can an atheist not say that they know god to not exist based on their own experience? Because as far as you are concerned, that person has just not experienced god yet? BUT - this is based on your opinion as a believer.

I don't need real evidence to show me that god does not exist. Because there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to show that any sort of god does exist. And that is enough to give me my 100% belief that there is no god of any kind, christian or not.

I wish religious threads didn't always get on this subject of proof or non proof of the existence or non-existence of God.

Most surveys seem to suggest that the majority of people are really pretty much 'meh' about God and Christianity, neither really believing or disbelieving. Does that suggest that its more that actual belief, and showing (and sometimes pushing) belief, that people dislike, rather than religion or God per se?

Lucysnowe - It's kind of inevitable as it's really at the heart of many of the issues.

TheCoalition - why is it? You mean, if we were sure God existed we shouldn't separate church and State? I think we should anyway. I think he exists, and I'm still against bishops in the Lords and faith schools and theocracy in general. Besides, most people who are religious don't begin by asking themselves 'now, does God exist, or not?'

siedlinde - because it is the assumption on which the whole case for religion depends.

Wherever you start you end up at:

"But why should we do that?"
"Because God says so."
"No he doesn't, because he doesn't exist."
"Yes he does."
"Prove it."
"Shan't."

This doesn't mean that you can't be secular and religious, just that those who want to make a case against secularism from a religious viewpoint will inevitably end up at the god exists/doesn't exist argument.

Same as church schools, same as homophobia, same as privledging philosophical beliefs that depend on the supernatural.

amberlight, your reply to Unquietdad "yes I can - agreement on religious issues - based on this thread" was a good one and amusing :)

Seriously though I'd love to see you or anyone answer that one because it has me curious. Is it permitted to say anything at all "doesn't exist" or must we always say that we can't be sure.

Speaking carrots? mutant space goats eating the moon? sharks in the custard?

pfMagicdragon. I've no objections to anyone believing or disbelieving anything they like. I know what I believe, and I expect others to make up their own minds.

There was a good documentary on R4 this evening called The Report which looked at the conflict. Not available on Listen Again just yet but probably will be shortly. Interesting that the anti-gay B&B couple and prospective foster family both had their cases financed by Christian campaign organisations who deliberately seek out such cases primarily to forward their political agenda. One was particulaly underhand in trying to discredit the gay men by slipping the Daily Mail a bit of extra, but totally false, information...

But the case for religion doesn't need to include any of those totally secular things like legislation or injecting religion into schools. The existence of God DOESN'T have to mean homophobic legislation.

Onagar - Anything that isn't logically impossible isn't entirely impossible. The sun might NOT come up tomorrow. All the things you mention are possible, if it turns out that everything we know about the physical laws of the universe are wrong. Possible, just very, very, very unlikely. So unlikely that for all practical purposes they are impossible. But not totally.

What isn't possible are things that are logically possible and category mistakes. A pentagon cannot have seven sides, as the definition of a pentagon is that it has 5 sides, a table cannot be sad, as that is not a property that tables can have.

Zikes- The Qu'ran says that women must address men "through a curtain" apart from talking about modesty (no more than the Bible) it says nothing about the hijab.