NJS

You need to be more specific - as a computer geek I opened the thread only to be confronted with comic geek bollocks.

100% sure ??? Yes corroboration ?? My eyes/memory (admittedly pissed) not good enough? I did look on the .com archive but they just have the score and not the match report.

100% sure ??? Yes

Robert Lee vs Antwerp away in 94.

I see charity as crumbs from the table to salve the consience of the well off rather than an attempt to change. I see the wefare state/socialism as a more fundamental recognition of human brotherhood and an attempt to make a real difference (though I know its idealistic and usually impractical). Yes, but even the socialistic ideas just didn't spread from the ground, but are the result of a continuous process. Of course you have at first the catholic ideas of doing good works for the benefit of your afterlife. Then you get the protestant reformation telling people that they will get salvation regardless of their actions in life on earth, which doesn't mean they dropped the idea of caritas in the form of responsibility, but it was the (absolutistic) monarch who was responsible for it. The next step is the state as form of a community taking over and getting the responsibility. When you take Marx and Engels (and especially the latter as a strong religious past) for example, they didn't just came up with something totally new but just were trying to further develop existing ideas to better the current state. It's only their whole concept as a sum of several already known ideas and concepts that is revolutionary. That makes sense but then I'd go back to questioning the motivation. If someone does "good works" with the promise of heaven that to me isn't as good as doing them just out of a sense of inherent "goodness" that I've been talking about. Thats why I mentioned the "brotherhood of humanity" as a concept. Okay the end result is desirable but the flip side to that to me is the "Mr Hyde" of dogma which as well as the promotion of the "lies" we've mentioned in this thread of bad science also takes the form of opressive ideas such as those on homosexuality and more modern times contraception. This "baggage" to the more altruistic side of religion is what I really find distateful and is why as Sam Harris says some of the more Eastern philosophies with their less dogmatic approach to life seem less "harmful" as a whole.

I see charity as crumbs from the table to salve the consience of the well off rather than an attempt to change. I see the wefare state/socialism as a more fundamental recognition of human brotherhood and an attempt to make a real difference (though I know its idealistic and usually impractical).

Socialism not christianity founded the welfare state - even if it was originally the Liberal party that laid the groundwork. That great bastion of christianity, the tory party, never lifted a begrudging finger unless it was the hypocrisy of charity. When people are scared it can give them comfort to embrace superstition even if they've rejected it in their "real life". That does not give that suprtsistion itself any merit or truth.

I accept what you say about Germany but taking the UK quite a large number of people still call themselves "christians" but only ever attend funerals and weddings etc. I think if you counted church attendees or members as Isegrim put it then a clearer picture emeges. Obviously I'm not saying that church attendance is a pre-requisite of faith but I think its a pretty fair indicator. Perhaps my "hope" that these countries are less religious than sometimes stated is overestimated but in comparison to bastions of religiosity like South America, the muslim world in general and the US I think saying those countries lean towards agnosticism isn't that much of a push. They are certainly less religious to a fair degree. I'd love the UK to have the separation of church and state as established in the US but with a lot stronger adherence especially on things like charitable status. Unfortunately a lot of our problems in this area when it comes to constitution are wrapped up in the bloody royal family as well - another thing I abhor

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start. I know Japan does have a spiritual side but I don't think its the theistic one of the Abrahamic religions. It could be said by some that the decline of religion in western Europe could be attributed more do an increase in "decadence" and materialism but I'd argue that its an increase in disillusionment with religion as reflected in the the recent Guardian poll where 82% of british people questioned felt that religion was "a bad thing". More in general: League I know there are anomalies there like Vietnam and there ae some very religious people in some of those countries but I do know , though I can't find the source, that that table almost matches the top "most developed" countries as defined by the UN in terms of social benefits, health services etc, etc. Now I'm willing to accept that history has a role in all of that but I find it most interesting that the middle east which was one of the major cradles of human civilisation is now what I'd call the most backward on the planet - the reason? - not science thats for sure.

Still a bit very simplistic view in my opinion, just to condemn religion because its violent past (Leazes would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing). If it was that easy to think of an areligious peaceful society you have to wonder why never in history such a society developed. And before you spring in, it also won't develop if you cut out "religious indoctrination" for a couple of generations. Religion has always been answering those metaphysical questions natural science couldn't answer. With scientific progress these questions might get fewer, but even that trend is questionable. In fact the current trend to irrational religious fundamentalism rather shows the opposite. There will always be metaphysical questions that science will hardly find answers to but mankind will try to cope with, e.g. the sense of life. And it is also hard to believe that the concept of transcendence will ever be abolished. Even the likes of Einstein (or more recently Stephen Hawkins) don't go that far. In fact I do find it also a bit too simplictic to reduce religion/theology onto an antipode of natural science. The scope of religion is a bit broader than just that. It isn't just about describing or explaining natural phenomens by linking them to a higher being. Religion is much more also about answering questions in regard to morality and ethics. And in this regard Christianity has very much contributed to the development of our modern western society. As much as you are (probably) proud of the current western values like freedom etc., it is a historical fact that those developments are always linked to religion as well. Blanking out religion in this historical process would just be highly hypothetical. I know my frustraion at what I see as peoples irrationality causes me to to sometimes go far in hoping for easy answers but I do take some issue with what you say. I accept some of your reasoning on Christianitys place in our development but I'd argue that that reflects a broader example of what I was arguing about in terms of the bible. I believe our inherent "goodness" allows us to see the nice parts of the bible and I'd say that same "goodness" is the driving force behind most progress in terms of civilisation rather than religion per se. I have no problems with people asking the kind of questions you mention but I feel that the "easy" answers provided by organised religion are a cop out - As I said above our place in the universe leads me to emphasise the view that we are just evolved animals who though capable of many astounding feats are destined for no more than death. I'd also argue that there is a direct correlation between the development of nations as "good" places to live and their rejection of organised religion. Its no coincidence that the most agnostic countries in the world are with a few exceptiions the most "civilised". I know history has played a part in that but moving forward education and rejection of dogma suggests progress, the increase of "believers" in third world countries with higher birthrates does not mean that we are seeing a rennaisance of faith.

The problem when dealing with issues in the Middle East is that you can divide most countries into religious denominations- it's the way the country has developed. You could equally say a lot of conflict is down to ethnic divisions- Kurds in Iraq and Turkey for example. My problem is that too often every conflict is linked with religion therefore the argument follows that getting rid of religion would solve this problem- when of course it wouldn't. Right now the Sunnis and Shias are blowing seven shades out of each other in Iraq- they all beleive in the same God, Prohpet and so on- but do so in a very slightly different way. But it's not religious- it's tribal. Religions, like languages, evolve and develop their own nuances within an enclosed group of people. That is why in an increasingly globalised society those differences will be laid bare and will form the source of many conflicts for the forseeable future. The Israel question however- is fundamentally a religious one- though there is obviously also a great deal of politics involved with regards to western control over oil-rich areas. The "religion is all at fault" argument is way too simplistic, and it's implementation in policy would only serve to create even greater problems. I'm not saying that "banning" religion tomorrow would solve these conflicts but I think we should be willing to name and shame them for being a root of the problem. A lot may be "tribal" but as I said above religion can be the reasons for the tribal divide and certainly an extra "spice" in the mix to exaggerate existing tribal differences. If you look at Ireland for example there are elements of politics and tribalism involved but at the core religion stands like a beacon as a simple label to which people raise their flag. In 2007 if you took away the religion of everyon in NI you'd have people who are indistinguishable on any other basis. That conflict may be on the wane but I'd apply that same reasoning to other places like Iraq. I don't have enough knowledge of how "intermingled" Sunnis and Shias are religion aside but clinging to those labels is a core problem.

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India. Aye, but should Iran get a nuclear weapon they might be mad enough to use it first. I think we're back to Saddam and even Qadaffi territory - they many want/have wanted WMD and may spend money/time trying to build them but I think its a bit harder than is made out to succeed.

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India.

Surely that is primarily a land conflict- they are fighting over Kashmir and terroitorial supremacy- not who is the 'true God'. At independence it was all India - the dispute arose when separate countries had to be established for the Muslims. Kashmir is nothing special - its just an excuse to enshrine their religious differences.

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems. The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict. There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

As much shit in the name of science compared to religion? - now thats nonsense. Yes a lot of "evil" is men being bastards but sometimes the sense of "tribes" or "gangs" as defined by religions provides a very handy platform. 19 well educated, middle class men flew planes into buildings not because they thought it would so some good for the Palestinians or even because they hated America - they did it because they fundamentally believed they were going to paradise for doing it. A lot of the old labels like nationality and even "tribe" are being blurred in moderm times due to mass migrations. It may be natural to form "gangs" but when those gangs are based on an attitude of "You're wrong, I'm right and I want to kill you for it" then thats obviously dangerous. Sometimes blaming religion is too easy and I admit that, however I'd turn that around and say that excusing religions abberations as "human nature" is just as bad.

Emmanuel is a new-fangled Blair Academy not a "standard" Faith school which is how the 10% funding/let us teach lies is excused. I went to a catholic school (christain brothers). RE was Catholics go to heaven if they're good, everyone else burns in hell no matter what they do.

Not thelogy - thats just lame attempts to explain God - but religion itself is certainly mans attempts to explain things and answer the "why?" question. Another thing that seems obvious to me when you consider the many, many religions that emerged after man became "civilised" is that "inventing" God(s) to explain the world, storms, sunlight, where we came from and everything else seems like a good idea in the face of that much ignorance. I just feel that now that we have a lot of the answers to those questions, and a sense of where the world is in the universe especially, that more of us should have had the sense to realise that history and reject the notions in general. Of course then we enter the argument that if people weren't indoctrinated as kids then it wouldn't last another couple of generations imo. On a more specific point I'd define God as the excuse people use when they don't or won't understand something that is generally explainable. I realise it doesn't cover everything but it certainly covers things like evolution.

They are all sensible questions but the thing they suffer from is going from a position of where we are now. There are billions of galaxies in the universe with probably an infinte number of planets - the conditions here may not be the only ones which support life and there may be millions of planets "identical" to Earth where life may have evolved. You also have the multiverse theories which can help explain the "perfect" conditions in this one. Biologists have identified about 9 stages in eye evolution which all provide an advantage and all exist in nature in various forms. If people believe that "someone" kicked it all off and either did or didn't nudge things along here and there then thats fine - I don't agree but it seems farely rational compared to the Genesis literalists. In that context however I can't marry that with christian faith. We are then expected to believe that a being capable of building that infinte universe waits 14 billion years until an ape evolves enough intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and then sends his son on a mission to one small tribe which he's picked out of thousands available to teach these beings about sin with the promise of eternal life after 70 years plodding around on earth. A mere 2000 years on and things are still ongoing but many of these beings believe that God will "write off" this 14 billion year project any day now. As I said in this "universe view" the biblical God is even more absurd than he was before imo. In some ways the "6000 year" christians could be said to be more "honest" in that their God view fits in with the picture as they see it. I think this is why Dawkins sees "moderates" as just as dangerous as "fundamentalists" - they seem to want their cake and eat it in a way which seems even more irrational on some levels.

*sighs* I brought it up in relation to the "teaching in school" comment. Not once have I said that evolution doesn't "exist". A lot of it however, IS based on faith in it. Yeah but the idea that Creaitonism (as science) and Evolution are somehow "alternatives" which can co-exist is central to the education argument - my point is that if they apply the same criteria to all science as they want to do to evolution then nothing would be left. I don't have a problem with that to some degree - I think if people reject science to the extent of the 6k year old earth and evolution then they shouldn't be treated with drugs or allowed to eat foodstuffs that are the result of that science. Theres a quote I read on Dawkins site about the Creationist who catches TB and the Doctor says something like "Do you want the drugs we would have used before we knew about evolution or do you want to live?"

Its not a major reason but its a major tenet of faith for a lot as well - see Mr Haggard as mentioned earlier who threw Dawkins out for suggesting his children "were just animals".

It takes a lot of "faith" to disagree with the generally held analysis of the fossil records that suggests the move from fish to amphibians though to mammals. the vestigial organs in whales that prove they had land based ancestors being a small example. I don't see how with the addition of DNA coding to the more obvious traits we share with other animals (organs, limbs etc) that it isn't obvious that we have a common descent with some animals obviously being closer than others. Science can't always "be there" - cosmology being the obvious example - what it does is suggest theories to explain evidence - on that basis evolution is no different and no less doubful than gravity, electricty, areodynamics or anything else. It only has to defend itself so much (usually from the ignorant) because it dares to question superstition.

Homonids Toumai (6-7 mya)

Evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps who lived btween 5.5 and 7 mya in Africa - good enough? The Fossils are there, the DNA of chimps and humans (and Neanderthals for good measure) are there. All thats missing is a rejection of the blinkers endowed by God.

Try here: Fact/Theory Theres a slight difference between a few dodgy records and 150 years of scientific research. Reading it somewhere else doesn't exactly make it fact either . It's fact that we currently don't know where man came from. Thats a site with a multitiude of references to peer-published and reviewed scientific evidence - you can't get much more "factual" when it comes to science than that. The full story may not be known (but its quite extensive) - However We do know Man did not "appear" 6000 years ago.