The Rev. Pat Robertson

[dell boy]

And TT your comments are more of an extremist than some fanatical religious leaders. You are condemning those who do believe in God. So you could say causing conflict and extreme response, just what you are arguing about.

[Talk Talk]

I'd suggest over the past century or so political ideology has easily surpassed religion as the "bandwagon of choice" - Hitler and Stalin alone account for over 20 million deaths

I think that they are only vehicles, Paul. At a more fundamental level it is power that attracts the evil and corrupt and allows them to be in a position to create such havoc.

Do any normal people on here want to have control over others? No, I thought not.

[Talk Talk]

And TT your comments are more of an extremist than some fanatical religious leaders. You are condemning those who do believe in God. So you could say causing conflict and extreme response, just what you are arguing about.

No, I'm not. As I replied to DRS, it has absolutely nothing to do with me what others believe. I am simply stating my opinion and my thoughts. I don't condemn anybody for their beliefs.

Others can disagree with me all they like, but I'm not the one with a bomb strapped to me blowing up innocent people, or stoning women for adultery. Or a catholic priest interfering with children.

[Talk Talk]

Your figure of 5% is way too high. Five nutters in every 100, never. Just because they follow religion doesn't make 5% of the worlds populations killers/extremists.

The Ten Commandments, can you name them? Still hold good today, even for a modern society.

I reckon it is about 5%. And you are confusing what I said - that 5% includes anybody who doesn't respect others or their property, I didn't say that they were all religious or murderers.

I can't name the Ten Commandments because it is irrelevant to my life. I can give you a good overview of the laws of the land though.

[pauld]

I think that they are only vehicles, Paul.

Sure, as with atrocities/wars/abuses committed "in the name of" religion or violence "in the name of" a football team. That was kind of my point. Religion isn't inherently "bad", any more than strongly held political beliefs or football, it's people who are bad. People should be banned.

[Talk Talk]

Sure, as with atrocities/wars/abuses committed "in the name of" religion or violence "in the name of" a football team. That was kind of my point. Religion isn't inherently "bad", any more than strongly held political beliefs or football, it's people who are bad. People should be banned.

As in 'bad people', then bloody hell, we agree 

[pauld]

As in 'bad people', then bloody hell, we agree 

Fuck me, I'll have to rethink that then

[Arriba]

I agree that people who are religious fear death less, and I do understand that religion does appeal to many in that it provides an answer to death. However, that doesn't mean that all people of some sort of faith choose it specifically to negate the fear of death, nor does it prove that all religion has arisen as a reponse to the fear of death.

i agree with your point and have never thought otherwise.
i should have been clearer in my original post.
i believe religion came from the fear-thoughts-and the complete unknown to what happens when we die.it offered answers that people wanted to hear.i do believe many people become religious when the fear of their own death is a glaring reality also.likewise many are brainwashed from birth so know no different.
i also know many others become religious for all manner of reasons.

the 'is there a god' debate could go on forever, and cannot be won by anyone.i cannot prove there is no god and vice versa.
too many questions that cannot be answered with any sense means i'll never believe in any god though.i'm actually quite staggered that despite the mounting evidence of evolution and the proof of the millions of years it took for the world to evolve, that people still believe what they do.they keep changing the religions to suit what new evidence is found.they may not be bad people or have harmfull thoughts, but i think they are deluded.

[Talk Talk]

the 'is there a god' debate could go on forever, and cannot be won by anyone.i cannot prove there is no god and vice versa.

I will have a bash at this. I bump into you in a pub one day and I say "Hey Arriba! How are you doing? I've got an invisible giant spider sitting on my head!".

Arriba: "Errrr right...are you sure?"
Alan: "Yes, I really believe it! It's awesome!"
Arriba: "Well can I touch it then?"
Alan: "Oh no, you can't feel it"
Arriba: "Ok. Does it smell of anything?"
Alan: "No, it's completely odourless"
Arriba: "Well does it make any noises?"
Alan: "No, never"
Arriba: "Well, can I go and get an infra-red camera and then will I see it?"
Alan: "Ha ha, no of course not, it's invisible at all wavelengths!"

This goes on like this for a while and I can offer absolutely no physical evidence for the existence of the spider. Eventually you will end up saying "well actually Alan, you can't prove to me that it is there and therefore it is not real".

In a world where physical reality and science is the truth, invisible spiders, leprechauns, ghosts and sky fairies are figments of people's imaginations and nothing more. The Romans and the Greeks had lots of gods. Did they retire?

they keep changing the religions to suit what new evidence is found.they may not be bad people or have harmfull thoughts, but i think they are deluded.

Indeed. If religion is an absolute set of immovable principles handed down by a god then you can't change the rules because the situation has become embarrassing.

[Barry Scott]

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[Highland Robin]

Hell, I'm going to have to try very hard not to preach a sermon!  Just got back in to find this column growing and growing, which says something in itself.  The debate continues to rage and that (for me anyway) is really good!

So....the existence of God - i.e. a creative force for good offering ultimate meaning and fulfilment to the world - cannot be proven.  Full stop.  And any 'believer' who claims otherwise is not being honest with him/herself, never mind anybody else.  The non-existence of God cannot be proven either, unless you still believe in the 'old man in the sky' concept of God, and many, many serious and distinguished scientists acknowledge that, and also acknowledge that it is extremely unlikely that human knowledge will ever fully embrace the final and ultimate truth of the universe.  Indeed many serioius scientists are also believers.

Where the two positions meet is in the idea of mystery - a cop-out maybe, but if it is, it is from both sides; there are many facets of human life which cannot be explained in scientific terms - and most can be summarised under the heading of 'good and evil', and encompass things like love, beauty, joy, faithfulness, cruelty, selfishness etc etc.  The ability of humanity to stretch both to the heights and the depths remains a mystery.  As does the amazing diversity and fragility of life and of the world generally.  I would argue that faith is most importantly about hope - hope that there is more than a world under the control of decidedly unsuitable human beings (including religious people!).  One of the most interesting atheists I know, Professor John Gray, writes that a world that can look forward to some sort of divine good is a lot more attractive prospect than a world which is totally under the control of human beings, as liberal humanists would claim.

But at the end of the day, we are never all going to agree, so a quote from another atheist scientist, the late Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote about fellow atheistic scientists  (and whom I would quote to my more aggressive co-religionists:  "Many of them are militant.  'Is it not the duty of everyone' they demand,'to fight for truth and destroy error - in season and out of season?' On such occasions, I am a pacifist.  I hold that truth has to make its way in its own right without browbeating.  A forced truth, like a forced peace, has no enduring value."

End of sermon

[Ardiles]

As sermons go, that was an interesting one, HR.  I wouldn't count myself as hugely religious, but I do believe and accept that there is a great deal out there that we cannot explain rationally through the use of science alone.  And I speak as a science graduate with (at best) a weak religious conviction.

I think it is profoundly misguided to assume that right now, in January 2010, we have reached a point where scientific advances can once and for all discount the possibility of there being a God (or anything else that we can't see, touch or understand).  In as little as 100 years from now, our knowledge and way of life will probably seem antiquated and primitive to our descendents...so a little humility about what we don't know is probably no bad thing.

Science even struggles, on its own, to answer a question as simple and fundamental as 'Where did the Earth come from?'  You can take things back as far as the micro-seconds that immediately followed the Big Bang, but what about before that?  What caused the Big Bang?  I don't think anyone really knows...and I'm not sure they ever will.  I'm playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent - and I certainly don't buy the Genesis account either - but do want to make the point that before anyone dismisses anyone else's views as hokum or fairytale, you need to be fairly sure of the ground you're standing on.

[axs]

Just wait until the LHC really gets going.

[Talk Talk]

A cop out indeed, HR. It's just more mysticism and reference to ethereal entities like the "truth".

Sorry, I don't buy any of it. I don't need hope, I want rational solutions to the problems of the evil and corrupt of the world hurting the moderate and human.

[Doore]

Your figure of 5% is way too high. Five nutters in every 100, never. Just because they follow religion doesn't make 5% of the worlds populations killers/extremists.

The Ten Commandments, can you name them? Still hold good today, even for a modern society.

I've just looked up the Ten Commandments - most of them would fit in with general decency - in fact the only one I would take issue with is number 1:I am the Lord your God.

I don't need to be told by some almighty being that killing people or fucking my neighbour's wife is wrong.

Each to their own, but for me its science over some beardy bloke who lives on a cloud any day.