NJS

Classic misinterpretation - "survival of the fittest" does not mean murder in Darwinism. I'd love to know when your "special force" applied - to prevent the crusades? to prevent the inquisition? to ask the church to torture Gallileo? When were the great moral decisions made? who by? Do you beleive there is the "guidance" for the pope the catholich church claims? Does your force come in dreams for "the great and the good"? Are the interventions small every day or huge every now and then? If Christ was an intervention why in that place at that time? - if it was then was the rise of christianity pre-destined? If the Mongols hadn't went home they would have conquered Europe - did your force intervene and "murder" the Emperor so they fell out over succession and thus safeguarded christianity? The thing about "warm and fuzzy" notions like there being a benevolent force influenceing evertything is that you have to prepared to answer some pretty easily thought of questions - or just like the organised believers you can just say "Yeah but thats just what I believe" with no rationale.

Do you think the "liberal" morals which most people support ie the general law plus things like the gradual acceptance of homsexuality and women's rights derive in any way from the Abrahamic religions or from "natural" moral development? By natural moral development I mean how it was pefectly acceptable under your wonderful christian utopia for homosexuals to be persecuted, women to be "kept in their place", slaves to exist and the abhorrent racism of the british and others empires to be excused. In fact more than excused - encouraged. It was not one iota of the establish religions that changed those "crimes" (Wilberforce was an individual christian) it was the moral progession of civilised people as a whole - the same way comparing morals of the middle ages or the older times compared to today shows a vast difference.

Because there was an evolved natural advantage to building communities. Which is more sensible - that or your "spiritual intervention"?

The best one I read recently was on the BBC's Have Your Say page where somone stated that God took Homo Erectus who was just an animal and put a soul into him thus creating humans. Absolutely no evidence or thought at all but oh so typical.

Theres a differnce in my view between the "moral leaders" of the time ie the religious hieracrchy using what I would maintain are "natural" morals to interpret the bible and pick the good bits and them actually setting thouse morals as you imply. The main reasons for the western cultures "supremacy" is nothing to do with christianity - you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond - those 3 items were all the western empires needed to conquer most of the world - the missionary recruitment drive followed in the wake. As a socialist I accept that Stalin/China don't exactly fill me with joy but I think its too easy to imply those "failed" therefore lets not risk athiestic societies ever again. It could be done right. To expand on my point from the other thread about Japan (perhaps the most civilised nation there is) I was reading that they are probably the nation on earth with the least christian influence. I know they do have a spiritual side but thats a long way from the "join us or burn in hell" approach of the Abrahamic faiths. I would also point out that I read an article last week about the "iconic atheist" Stalin - his entire childhood was warped by Russian orthodox priests (as in the famous jesuit phrase) so I would no longer hold him up as an example of an "enlightened Atheist" that is my ideal - he was a very warped and twisted man on many levels and one of the factors in that was good old religion. Another book I'd recommend is one I've just finished - Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridly - I think he answers your query on how genes "pass on" morals -and yes is it all evolved chemistry and biology. The way we turn out is a mixture of genetics and environment but a surprsising amount of influence passes between the two. Genes require environmental input to "switch on" various functions thoughout our lives and at the same time there is a lot of genetic influence in how we influence our own environment. I don't think we're going to reach the point that some physicists thought in the last century where science is "finished" and explains everything but I think every insight like those talked about by Ridley are another hammer blow to the "we're special due to something mystical" view.

Briefly read todays posts so a scatter gun reply is in order: If we descended from an incestuous family 6000 years ago in the middle east then you could argue morals come from the biblical God via stone tablets. We Didn't and they don't. All of the civilisations that developed before the jewish one, all those that developed concurrently with them and all the ones that have developed since share, despite a myriad of faith beleifs, a core set of moral values: Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal and all of the related variations. The idea that we need a particular God or indeed any to "keep us right" is plainly ridiculous in my view. The idea that English law is based on a Christian view of these is also wishful thinking - theres plenty of rape and murder in the bible sanctioned by God (and enshrined in his laws) so those laws were "cherry picked" once again - what tool is used for this cherry picking? - the same evolved morality that exists throughout the world. Altruism which leads to morals come from mutually beneficial exhanges. As man started to form communities beyond the family unit its obvious that on a long term basis building bridges with other groups is a better "plan" than simply killing them - that obviously happened but the fact that we developed these morals to me proves that thy were naturally selected for in that we survive now. That doesn't mean everyone is "nice" but I'll also bet that the percentage of people who think normal morals are wrong has dramatically reduced in the last 10000 years which is of course a blink of the eye in evolution terms. Turning once again to Isegrim's assertion that the big bang and the 14Bn year thing aren't that big a problem I'd beg to differ. The God(s) of all human religions are very local and very current - they only look after their own and they have plans (like biblical prophices) which only take 100s of years. At the same time we are constantly told he/they is/are that powerful that they can do anything they want so why not just click their fingers rather than start 14bn year projects? Why do so many believe armageddon is imminent which again when you consider 2000 years Vs 4.5bn years looks daft? Why use phrases like "his one and only son" if God has billions of planets to play with? Earlier I said its the "obvious" answers that people ignore that bug me. Religions are a product of the fear and ignorance of very young civilisations who sought answers to everyday things like why the wind blows. I see them as a youthful myth like Santa that we haven't quite rejected yet but will in time. The only things that will stop that is the continued over use of respect in questioning them and the lack of education in the thir world - it won't happen in my lifetime but I hope it won't be too long. On the "people have the right to believe anything" thing I'd say yes but within reason. When it starts to affect other people then I think there has to be a framework of acceptability - that can be as simple as making barbarism like female circumcision or child abusive exorcisms completely illegal but I also think it should include stuff like teaching creationism in schools. "Beliefs" can only go so far - you can't "believe" that 2+2=5 or that Germany won World War II or that the holocaust is a myth without being quite rightly ridiculed so why is it okay to say that the world is 6000 years old? Bodies like the catholic church have been forced to change their dogma because of science to appear more "reasonable" than the US evangelists but it won't fool me until they explain how the biblical God (not Isegrim's Deist one) fits in with the universe.

Just mentioning Dawkins briefly again I've read a few critiscisms of TGD which probably sum up my antipathy towards religion which is related to Renton's original point and his reprise. We are told that science can't answer questions in the philosphy realm such as "why are we here". My view is it can and it does - we are evolved animals - plain and simple - anything beyond that is unprovable. However there is also an implication that religion can answer that question which to me is complete rubbish. Answering questions with "God did it" really sums the problem for me. I've always had a thirst for knowledge and I now feel that religion seems to "dislike" that natural trait. If you start questioning peoples faith with quesions like Renton's then either you are told "its impolite to ask" or when it comes to things like the age of the universe you get the classic "we cannot question God's plan". Its that refusal to think and question that really frustrates and I suppose angers me because I feel that the problem is that the "obvious" answers as I see them are painful. However having been brought up catholic and gone through that "pain" and feeling better for it I suppose I now have a sort of "mission" to free others - much like the new breed of outspoken atheists. I'm always told that "reasonable" theists can feel comfortable with the age and size of the universe and evolution and still believe in God. However I've yet to read an answer that makes any kind of sense.

I think its about degrees - a woman politician was shot dead in Pakistan last week by a Muslim nutjob because she refused to wear the veil and had encouraged others not to - now you can argue that he has to be "a bit mad" to kill someone anyway but the fervour with which some people are indoctrinated with Islam (and others) could be said to be a form of conditioning - if its hammered into you that immodest women are "evil" then combined with a disposition to violence something can give too often. Fair enough thugs who beat up gays may not go as far as "God told me to do it" but the fact that someone, somwhere who may have had a say in their early life is willing to say "thats just" isn't exactly helping matters. I've said before on here that I think paedophilia may be "hard-wired" for want of a better phrase and perhaps should be treated rather more than punished (not popular I know). If it is like that I don't think it "excuses" their actions but at the same time thats a bit different than an outside influence "coercing" them into thinking its right which is what I was reffering to.

So Cath do you want a day of Michael Owen's pay or a day of Paul Huntingdons? Maybe you should write to all of our players and ask them to adopt one of you each for the day.

The blasphemy challenge wasn't Dawkin's "thing" - the link may be there but it was created by someone else. The thing you have to realise is that being even able to say what he does is relatively new (and still would have him killed in some places). As he has argued there has been a "taboo" about all out criticism of religion for years. I think the harsh reaction he gets from people like you shows that you're not used to it and I've seen articles saying atheists should back off out of this misguided respect. As I say I don't care what people believe at a personal level but that shouldn't give them any more rights than other people. A good example was the catholic adoption thing. 1.7% of the citizens of the UK are church-going catholics and according to "official" figures 6% are gay. On a simplistic democratic basis the catholic church has absolutely no right to demand exemptions from laws which affect more people than it "represents". I know this was specific to agencies run by them but the same applies to the CofE who wanted to be exempt from the same laws with regards to sex education in their faith scools. They want to continue teaching that homsexuality is "evil". The fact that a large number of the assaults and even murders carried out on gays have this kind of "excuse" and the people actually quote religion means I'd have the bishops on an accesory charge.

He is managing director of hat trick promotions. That was the cause of the fall out I think - probably a moral somewhere there about going into business with your best mate.

Terrorists who truly believe a place in paradise awaits. Barbaric mysoginy of Islam. Sectarian conflicts worldwide. Bishops in the house of lords. Presidents who consult God before starting wars. Faith schools teaching creationism. Churches wanting exemptions from laws to be able to preach bigotry. Anti-abortion campaigns. Anti-condom campaigns relating to AIDS. Anti-contraception campaigns in the third world which increase poverty. Anti-stem cell research campaigns. Child abuse with related cover-ups. Being told I have no morals because I'm an Atheist. Despite my denial of its existence many theists "hope and pray" I will burn in hell for eternity - what a very generous notion for a fellow human. Thats my list off the top of my head - as for Dawkins I think he feels the "dismissal" of evolution (which isn't exclusive to the USA) to be a huge crime which I agree with but feel he doesn't go far enough with the above.

Don't know if its still there but there was a club in Preston called the Warehouse which was absolutely brilliant - went there about 10 times as we used to stop with a mate nearby for north-west games and the two semis.

I agree that its "possible" that there is a God who oversees more than one planet or indeed the universe but as I've said before thats not the God most people believe in. The major religions betray theie "gang-forming" roots by emphasising the "one true faith" and "chosen" parts of their dogma which makes their gang pretty small for this planet let alone any other possible planets. On your second point we've come a long way in the past 50 years in understanding the universe but nobody denies theres still some huge questions. I read today that a landmark in the building of CERN has been reached which will hopefully provide more answers. We should have hope and dare I say it faith that we will be able to find these answers - what we should not do is give up and just say "something bigger than us did it".

When the major religions were formed their view of the world and the "universe" made a sort of sense. Now we know that view is nonsense. Take away the ludicrous history and celebration of violence and genocide in the bible and the Koran and you are left with a few "be nice to each other" platitudes that all human civilisations whether thay are "Chosen" or not have generally lived by - like everything else about us morals have evolved - they were not handed down on stone tablets. As I said before literal biblical creationists strike me as more honest than those who accept "the truth" - one view of God in context makes sense - that same God in the context of the universe is ridiculous. On science Vs Religion itself - my view is simple - you seek knowledge and hopefully find uses for it or you give up any sense of intelligence and recite "God did it" to anything troublesome. If it makes you happy then fair enough but stop telling rational people how to live their lives.

Head On by The Pixies or Wild Horses by The Sundays - in general I hate cover version on principle but those two are exceptions. Worst - Tin Tin Out - Here's where the story ends or that Pet shop boys one where they tried to take the piss out of Where the streets have no name - both capital offences.

My Dad died 15 years ago - never had a problem with him - he was a damn good man. My Mam who was an inspiration to me in trying to always find the best in people died last May - this may sound preachy but those of you who've lost touch or have problems - I'd echo the urges to get them sorted before....

Its just one person at the moment but you know it will "expand" - its the Da Vinci code all over again - "this novel is pure ficion - I know this to be true by reading the gospel". Re-reading I realise he was probably speaking with his archealogy hat on (like Indy's?) rather than as a gospel believer so maybe I was too hasty but the overall point still stands.

I love the way "the atheists" are so quick to rubbish people's religious beliefs and then whine about the intolerance and hypocrisy of religion. I make no apology whatsoever for pointing out the sheer stupidity of "the bible says it therefore its true". Utter bollocks at that level needs rubbishing constantly while the irrationals have so much power.

I think its nonsense but love the way the Theists say "its impossible" so strongly without a shred of evidence for their version. I saw Cameron on one of the documentary channels claiming some bollocks about Noah's ark - I couldn't work out whether he was just promoting a film idea or is another bible literalist moron - that and the above story supports either conclusion.

Not sure about the date thing but the usual moans about "American English" are down to them not evolving (how ironic) the language as muc as we have. Things like color were how thing were spelled in the 16/17th century but we added the "u" in the meantime. Thet also use words we used to use like "furlough" for a holiday that have fallen out of usage. The classic "aluminum" is however them being twats - they discovered it but blatantly refused to follow the international standard of metals ending in "ium" which we corrected for them but they wouldn't follow suit. Getting back to dates from a geek pov as someone who has torn his hair out over the years because of the way dates work and the different formats I'd prefer it if we could adpopt some kind of Trek like decimal system.

I've read a lot about evolution in the last couple of years and it had previously puzzled me how if we and the chimps had a common ancestor then how come we "left them behind". As I understand it animals only evolve when they need to - things like crocs have stayed the same for about 200m years as they are "perfect" for their notch in the environment. Also we evolved as the forests of Africa gave way to savannah and we had to adapt. My point is that maybe the "pressure" we are putting on the chimps by changing their environment could cause them to evolve at an increased pace with examples like this illustrating it - unless of course we make them or us extinct all together we could see them "join us" in a couple of million years. Then again I was flicking through a Sci-Fi anthology I hadn't got around to reading which has stories which complement "epic" series of novels and the synopsis for one of them has a future in a few hundred years time where we have genetically "uplifted" Chimps and Dolphins to our intelligence level - I can imagine that being feasible.

Reading, V and Muse at Wembley for me.

Best: Dogma Worst: Escape to victory

"a" as opposed to the "the" means Liverpool have 7 you thick scouse bastard.