'She believes we're decended from apes!'

[Bumperlicioso]

Said with incredulous laughter by a very religious acquaintance. Does religion preclude a belief in evolution? Apparently there is nothing to support it according to same acquaintance.

"Victorian - The question of whether or not there is a Creator God has nothing to do with whether or not you see a point in believing in such a God."

No, I know. I wasn't making that comment to come down on one side or another of the debate. I was distinguishing between belief in a god who initiates, but takes no further part in life on earth and the omniscient/benevolent/omnipotent god who listens to individuals' prayers. I can see why belief in the second type god is beneficial, but purely from the point of view of the believer, what purpose does the 'bluetouchpaper' god serve? None, surely, except to stem questions we can't answer.

Blaming religion for wars is like blaming football for hooliganism. It is not the religion or football that is inherently wrong, it is a minority of extremists who use religion as an excuse to be violent. Every organisation attracts a share of extremists, so Christianity, with several billion members world wide is bound to attract plenty. If religion didn t exist, they would find another organisation to use as an excuse to start a war.
Christians are often labelled as intellectually naive and stupid, people like - Obama, David Cameron, Gordon Brown.... You may not agree with their politics, but intellectually stupid?
I think it is sad that people cannot respect other people's views. As one poster put it, faith is a gift and inexplicable to those who do not have it. Why I have the gift and others don't , I really don t know. What I do know is that it makes me very happy. So many of the non believers on this thread sound so angry and feel a constant need to attack.

Religion was definitely the reason for some wars. You may have heard of the Crusades, for example.

It is not just the wars, either. It is The Troubles, pointless deaths, ethnic cleansing in the middle of Europe, segregation and subjugation of women according to tribal laws that are thousands of years old. The list is endless.

As for heads of state - They have to act religious to be elected. Having read quite a bit of his writings, I find it hard to believe that Obama for example is a terribly religious man.

In France, where state is secular and nobody really cares about political figures' religious beliefs or their lack thereof, you don't see them talking about religion, how much they pray, or see them photographed in churches. Why do you think that is?

Because the French are a lazy people who like to lie-in on Sundays.

*adds racism to the mix

tuffie, I am glad that your belief makes you feel happy and fulfilled. I believe that as humans we are predisposed to these sort of spiritual beliefs (i.e. religion) and they must have aided our survival (or ability to procreate) at some point in our evolutionary history.
However, if we are being intellectually honest, we must look at the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. I am not at all angry about this but have yet to hear a convincing arguement other than the sort of 'it makes me feel better' and' I just know its true' type of thing. The inability to argue in a convincing and logical way to defend religion is for us atheists very frustrating and perhaps causes the anger that you detect.

Just to add, the reason why it is worth arguing about is that religious groups still hold a gerat deal of power in our society (and the world in general) - an unjustifyable amount IMO.

If Tuffies list had gone back a little further, we'd have got to Bush and Blair.

The less said about the former the better, but the latter - no, he's not not 'intellectually naive and stupid' - maybe I could forgive him more if he had that excuse. His religious beliefs, combined with those of GB unarguably contributed to their decision making. They weren't 'extremist' or violent - but they evidently thought that they were doing God's will. Never mind the flimsiness of the evidence used to justify their actions...

Exactly Grimma,
Blair actually said something like 'I will be judged by God for my actions' when challenged about his disasterous intervention in Iraq. To me, this was the worst type of weaseling - it was as if we can't even question the life changing (or ending for many) decisions of our politicians anymore because we are not God.

Blaming religion for wars is like blaming football for hooliganism

Wrong. Unless on the ticket to get it in your local ground it says that you must believe the footballer manager is above the law.

That to be a friend to the team manager you must be prepared to sacrifice your individuality and obey the referee in all things (because he speaks for the manager).

That the greatest footballers of all time were those prepared to kill even helpless children because the football managers asked them too. ( Genesis 22 )

That the purpose of all life outside football is simply to prepare you for football.

That it doesn't matter what suffering goes on as long as the manager is pleased.

That horrendous suffering is good because it makes you appreciate the game more.

That anyone who believes in another team is evil and hateful and doesn't deserve to live.

That logic is for non-footballers and that only obedience matters.

All of that IS in the handbooks that come with the world's major religions. Believers carry around these handbooks and expose children to them.

That you don't have to use logic or evidence in explaining the rules of football but you will demand both if someone questions the rules. Or possibly just kill them.

I am bowing out as I dislike confrontation and am quite saddened at how much hatred there is out there towards Christians. I can see that nothing I say will convince you that the vast majority of Christians today lead a life whose central theme is "Love Thy Neighbour as thyself" and many spend their lives doing charitable works as Christ taught us to do. My aim when I get up each day is to try and make one person's life a little bit happier. Sorry if that sounds cheesy but that's what my faith teaches, and what ultimately makes me happy. And before you all start jumping up and down again, I know that lots of non Christians do this too.
I guess I have to conclude that unless you have a faith it is virtually impossible to convey what it means.

tuffie,
As I said before, it is very frustrating when theists like yourself will not address the arguements. I don't doubt that you are a kind and thoughtful person but as you concede that is possible whether or not you are religious. It is also possible to be religious and nasty and spiteful at the same time (just as it is possible to be a nasty, spiteful atheist). Saying that does not add to the debate IMO. The point made by the others was that religion has been used to justify all sorts of actions including many that we would now consider to be amoral and/or evil with hindsight.

I haven't seen any hatred or anger towards Christianity or any other religion. There's criticism and difficult questions, certainly, but criticism doesn't necessarily mean either anger or hatred. Religion has also been responsible for a great deal of good in the world, charity, education, healthcare etc. But we're not considering the outcomes of religion in isolation.

Tuffue, have you considered that it's the altruistic acts in themselves that give you a sense of happiness?

Hatred of Christians? Good lord, no. Some of my best friends are Christians; most of my family. Heck, I used to be one myself!

(anger might be detected in relation to Blair, but I should imagine a lot of religious people feel a good deal of righteous indignation on that score too)

What a shocker. A Christian bows out of a debate, citing hatred and intolerance of their faith.

As if Christians have ever been a persecuted minority. Look around, there is no worldwide hatred of Christianity, nor any here. Being interested, questioning your faith, asking you to justify what you believe - that's not hatred, and you should jump at the chance. Though I'm not surprised that it's gone this way.

I was thinking about this - why all too often on these threads, the non-believers will be discussing something in a largely dispassionate manner, but its interpreted as being hate-filled. I suspect this is because while we may be debating more or less as a matter of intellectual interest, some (not all) Christians may read it far more emotionally - its like someone criticising your lover, or your child, so its taken personally.

I don't hate Christians or any other religious people.

I do feel a bit sorry for most of them because they seem to be operating with a few cards short of a full deck.

Grimma - That is because these people are used to talking about fuzzy subject with emotive language, and are not accustomed to talking about evidence and proof using logic.

Cote - 'these people' 'are not accustomed to talking about evidence and proof using logic.'

Sorry, that's the sort of generalisation which I can understand religious people getting upset about.

I used to be one of 'those people'. And I was then, as now, a scientist.

The religious part of what I was then was, to be sure, emotive and a bundle of cognitive dissonances, but that didn't mean I couldn't also deal with logic and evidence. Well, maybe that has something to do with why I'm no longer 'one of them', but another part was more akin to falling out of love.

I think the difficulty is that faith cannot be talked about in terms of evidence and proof, so repeated demands to provide evidence sound deliberately provocative. I can see that the inability of religion to provide any proof is irritating, and that makes a logical scientific discussion of it impossible, but when it comes down to it people believe in God for reasons which are solely about personal experience and cannot be proved or falsified. In science, those sorts of issues would just be categorised as "pointless conjecture", like questions of what is outside the universe, you can make any guesses you like but they can't be properly debated or weighed up because there is nothing to work with.

But that doesn't mean that religious people don't apply logic to at least some areas of their religion, it's just the central point (does God exist, if so how should I respond) which can't be dealt with that way.

For some believers at least, the rest of it can be considered in logical terms.

Tuffie, you may be gentle and kind, but do you still carry the book that tells you all those other things I mentioned in my post? I didn't make it up - your fellow Christians did. Perhaps your disappointment should be directed at them.

It can work for a minimalist god. If someone wants to say something like "I feel there is something up there and this makes me want to be nice to people" there is nothing to argue with and no motive to do so.

As soon as the religious person starts being specific though it all falls apart. A conversation might go like this:

Believer: "My faith makes me feel there is something up there and this makes me want to be nice to people"
Atheist : "That's nice. I'm happy for you"

So far so good.

Believer: "btw, I must insist on not having that gay person near me because my religion tells me they are wrong. Also schools must tell all children - mine and yours that my religion is right. I shall also need to have a seat in the lords and an exemption from paying taxes.
Atheist : "Hold on. Aren't those demands a bit specific for a feeling to convey?
Believer: "My church tells me these things are right and my faith tells me that my church is right"
Atheist : "How does your church know these things are right?"
Believer: "They have God's word in the bible"
Atheist : "So your faith tells you that the bible is right?. What about all the murders and atrocities in the bible?. The awful things God tells people to do"
Believer: "Oh not those. That is the Old Testament. None of that is true! You are being hateful even mentioning those. I must see if we can get mentioning those lumped in with racism so we can have you arrested for it"
Atheist : "But.... how do you know the New Testament is true and that Jesus is the son of God"
Believer: "It says so in the Old Testament. It prophecies that God (the OT god) will send his son etc. That is evidence that it's true"
Atheist : "So you are now saying that the OT is God's word?
Believer: "Yes, except for all the bits that contradict me. Those are false"

Of course some Christians just do the first part, but I'm having trouble believing that those Christians are unaware of the other kind.

I'm thoroughly aware of the other kind, not least because most of them don't believe I'm a Christian

The complicated thing with threads like this, for me, is that I have to divide my time between disagreeing with some of the things which atheists say, and disagreeing with some of the stuff that other Christians say.

Oh I know that you know. I think you should become a missionary to those who most need to hear the word of god. (other Christians) :)

AMIS - me too, from the other perspective.