NJS

No more than for Mithras or other cults form the same period. Can you describe your personal relationship? (if thats not too personal a question). I don't consider chrsitianity more or less ridiculous than the rest - I'm more aware/.knowledgebale of it but I don't see any basic difference between them. When you mention "truth in christianity" I would accept that there are good morals in there somewhere (though the source is open to question) but I don't see that much "truth" elsewhere - for example whether Christ existed or was resurrected is a moot point for me compared with the morality taught in general - the whole package of morality I think is flawed (eg homosexuality) . If you mean the whole promise of eternal life then this goes back to a core question - do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

Its strongly linked to your point about locational fluke - I get the impression TI went looking for something and found it in the bible (nothing wrong in principal) - a choice determined by his location. If this was India, China or Saudi he would have looked for it in a different book and been convinced of that deity/deities. I think an overview taking this into consideration is the key to realising the origin of all of them.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Now if he meant Hitchens...... Just finishing God is not great - its a bit "dense" in that the amount of information he presents is a bit overwhelming but on the whole some new angles to support my view. For example I never new about the Vatican's extensive role in promoting fascism in the 20th century and more recently its role in protecting and covering up priests and bishops who were directly involved in the genocide in Rwanda. He also answers the "Hitler was an atheist" argument with a view I'd not read before - again how much the churches were involved which undermines any moral high ground.

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply. I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't. He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind.

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men. Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well. Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money. Dawkins has a policy of not entering debates - I don't think he's scared he just thinks its an environment that doesn't work for him personally. As an example theres a US creationist called Kent Hovind (now jailed) who always "won" his debates by scatter gun facts that couldn't be disproved in the time available Also he certainly doesn't need the money. Considering the people he interviewed on either of his C4 tv shows I think those remarks cound't be more wrong - if someone told you "all your women dress like whores" would you answer respectfully with "they dress how THEY want to" or would you tell the bloke he was a fuckwit?

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

I can accept that 3000 years ago writing tribal laws was very much in context - ie the banning of pork was supposedly due to a nasty bacteria at the time - but I don't understand why people should try and apply it now. You make a good point that the Gospels don't mention homosexuality - this annoys a lot of christians but they can take comfort in the bigotry and mysoginism of Paul. I think/ homophobia and quoting a religion is in a way a feed back loop - people have a bigotry which they look for justification for which makes them more bigoted etc etc. As I referred to above the thing that concerns me is that religions ir (in the organised sense) evolve too slowly (if at all). I think most people in general accept that modern morality recognises things like homosexuality and slavery as okay/wrong. That change has come about imo via a natural progression of morality which has little to do with religion which in some cases has not moved at all.

Undoubtedly - I'm not one who says remove religion and wars end. What does need to end is all the criteria for gang forming of which religion, nationalism, tribalism (football) are all examples- it still might not work but I think we'd be nearer. I think Europe post WWII, apart from a couple of hotspots, is a good ideal for a general conglomeration of people where the above gangs matter less than other places - thats why I'm opposed to Merkel's attempts to refer to a "christian heritage" in any new mission statements of the EU.

I know the "evidence" usually given is dubious at best - it really does just leave the gospels. In all honesty I think there probably was a preacher around at the time who may have been "good". What happened to him and what he taught in a factual sense I doubt very much (especially the later added resurrection bits(different style of writing apparently)). Levticus: 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Always quoted by bigots on the issue. Its a lovely chapter that - if you have sex with a woman during her period you should be cast out of your town. It also has the classic "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - the justification of hundreds of murders by the church of love.

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality. The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me. Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next. Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.

I agree with that but I'd say it again comes down to a personal definition of God - if someone says "this is how my God worked his magic with evolution" then thats fine even though I don't agree. All I'm saying is that in terms of the general definition of the Abrahamic God based on the bible it doesn't equate imo. This is where I think a person who does have their own definition who dips into the bible for moral lessons is "fine" (though I dispute the need to look there) but the more dogmatic believers who want to hold onto some if not all biblical "truths" are the more "dangerous" in my view. My opinion is that science and religion are irreconcilable. You can't accept the scientific method and recognise that everything should be investigated and then have lines which can't be crossed and get out clauses for things you don't understand. For an example I keep reading anti-atheist articles talking about the "magic of love" etc, etc and denying that brain chemistry can explain it. Heres a hint - look up Oxytocin.

No offence Meenzer but I doubt most men watching any of that would care what she cooked or what she said. That doesn't mean you're wrong and she might not be someone I'd like to actually go out with but my God is she shaggable. Sorry, I just know the image of her Dad would force its way into my head at a critical moment and that spells disaster. She did feature in a list in Viz which covered that exact situation and I agreed at the time - the list also included Angelina Jolie which I also agreed with but I've managed to overcome the problem in her case and I reckon probably in Nigella's case as well. Can't remember who else was on the list.

No offence Meenzer but I doubt most men watching any of that would care what she cooked or what she said. That doesn't mean you're wrong and she might not be someone I'd like to actually go out with but my God is she shaggable.

I don't agree, if that were true then why would so many sensible theists have such a specific problem with it? Evolution takes human beings out of a special place in the Universe, whereas all the major religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, have us at the centre of the Universe. We are supposedly created in God's image after all. If we are descended from apes, what does that say about God? Exactly - by the time Darwin released Origin there was widespread acceptance that the earth was millions of years old (the exact figure unknown) - the reason for the opposition was that humans (more specifically white Europeans) were considered "one step down from angels" and certainly not as animals. People were able to come up with ideas like the "days" being millenia (ignoring the wrong order) but common descent and close relationship with animals (though blindingly obvious) was and is a step too far for many.

I think I should make clear that I don't believe in Christianity simply because I live in a country where the biggest religion is Christianity and that I've had a Christian upbringing. People generally come to Christ through their own experience - something that is supposed to not happen in Islam. This is why Christianity deals with a personal relationship with God and not merely just a belief. If the only reason to believe was the country I'm in it wouldn't surprise me to think I could well be an atheist now, being a pretty sceptical guy myself. As it stands I think there is a lot of evidence for Christianity in different forms. The Bible clearly states God will respond if people come to him, which is what atheists aren't prepared to do. You make a fair point about different countries, however the Bible again makes a case that you can still get eternal life even if you don't follow Christianity. Otherwise, it would be quite tough for those in Saudi Arabia. As for your point about an unequal world, sadly I doubt God designed it that way, yet he gives free will if you go by the Bible and that is how Egypt for example, was invaded and became an Islamic country. I accept you have made points which I've partly responded to with my point about skeptics/atheists refusing to come to God, but I'm not going to deny there's some issues we can't answer. This doesn't however mean the religion is stupid. Certainly not right now can we say that. Thats your take but surely you are aware that a lot of christians (and other faiths) believe that only they are saved and the rest are damned.

My Mam was a catholic who completely accepted evolution but believed God kicked it all off 14bn years ago - more akin to deism than theism which I admit is harder to disprove as easily as pointing out the "atheists for all the Gods bar one" argument. On Renton's point I get the feeling you may be one of the few who "chose" a system from the menu rather than a simple matter of upbringing - I have to say I find myself in two minds on such cases - I respect the choice but it goes against my brainwashing argument and Renton's regional fluke argument which I think are generally valid.

I accept that premise but still haven't seen a good explanation for such an acceptance - the mass extinctions and dead ends for our ancestors in our past suggest to me a very "disjointed" plan at best. I think even if it were the case thats a long way from the all powerful God most believers define. On the ratiionality of Christianity I would go back to the biblical "truth" - the base premise of that religion is Christ dying for our sins which results from the fall - that fall (ie the Garden of Eden story) would then have to be "true" for the faith to make sense. This brings us back to Genesis - if christians now describe it as a "metaphor" or whatever rather than fact where does that leave the original sin?

I'm reserving judgement on Nobby until I found out what his ex does for a living. He said she moved for career reasons. If she has a job which is "normal" ie one where the contribution of his salary makes it nothing more than a hobby and theres no real reason to shift to London than I feel no sympathy towards him - he should have increased her money for the ONE YEAR of his remaining contract to persuade her not to move. I know I sound cold but you can't tell me that an extra £60k say in her pocket wouldn't have put her career on hold.

There were no official tickets for the Liverpool game as they were rebuilding that end. A mate of mine from Northampton had sorted out half a dozen tickets for their end so I drove up to his house and then we headed off for Liverpool before turning back about Stoke. We went back to a club in a village near Northampton for a few pints and I was told how before she was married Diana and her posh mates used to slum it around the villages picking up rough. This was confirmed by one lad whose brother had been there. Do you think I should send this in as a suggested eulogy? To quote Paul Heaton - "Diana liked to protest about landmines - why didn't she stand outside the british factories where they were made - oh, sorry no photogenic brown babies to hold". As you can tell I'm not exactly a royallist.

Just thinking what the change of regime means - I remember last year sitting up till midnight screaming "we have to sign some fucker" at SSN. This year presuming the two sign we can relax for once. (Though I hope Deco shite is true just for a laugh)

I never got why Christians considered the Jews to be "Christ killers" apart from an excuse for hatred when the whole premise is that he was sent to die - surely the whos and the hows shouldn't matter. I think the Catholic Chuech only lifted the "warrant" against the Jews post WWII - the "crime" was a big thing in the Nazi propaganda.

I think Fish's post probably illustrates two sides of the argument - if muslims and jews both suddenly stopped believing then they'd still have issues. However I'd argue that the forming of the "gangs" in the first place is the root cause that religion feeds on and off. Iread a riposte to the classic anti-atheist argument about Stalin a little while ago that alluded to totalatarian communism and religion being like smallpox and cancer - both are killers but just because we eradicate one doesn't mean we should tolerate the other. I'd add tribalism and nationalism to the list of diseases.

How did he cancel it? He wasn't even allowed to ref a Boro game. He was the ref consulted by the ""Safety committee"