goddamnit you beat me to it!

You did the right thing in pressing the post button, Susan.

Haven't read this thread for some time so I hope I'm not repeating anything, but I do think it would be good if a major politician came out as being a confirmed atheist (even though I don't like that word). I'm worried that religion is creeping into politics along US lines. Tony Blair made no secret of his beliefs (although he's gone quiet on Catholicism since his meeting with the pope) and Gordon Brown has referred to his religious upbringing a few times.

Ah think you should probably make the same exception for Muslims that you make for Christians (re: normal vs fundamental).  Isn't it arguably better to try to prove the literal truth of scriptures than to just recite them and mull over their moral value?  (of course, the faux-rationalism of some(dare I say many? Muslim and Evangelical scholars can be quit far removed from anything we might recognise as reason).

And what, then, is the concern of the non-evangelical Christian?  To affirm a set of beliefs without investigating their truth?  I had some family member call me a "doubting thomas" recently in response to my skepticism on some topic (the health benefits of magnetic wrist-bands actually).  How absurd this parable (or rather the interpretation we were thought at school) seems to me nowadays!) In my school growing up "faith", defined as "believing without seeing", was posited to be the most important thing a person could have.  Or at least it was said to have been.  I remember asking the same teacher who said this if the story of Noah's ark was true, and she told me that "no", it was clearly only a fairy-tale. This sort of doubletalk is for me entirely characteristic of many religious conversations I've had.


Scriptures (as well as many ideologies) have also functioned as tools to control large bodies of people, certainly not to their benefit.  I would also, as a side view, see the "religious" (Christian) world view to be rather inefficient (and, interpreted materially, I believe without rational basis); it seems to me that a
humanist ideology is more appropriate for a functioning society (at least one that I would wish to live in).


Saying all of this, I do find that religious and mystical writings can be fascinating.


What do you mean by this statement?  (I do not believe that anyone doubts the existence of "religious traditions", and I do not believe that the social conduct of some of its members has anything to do with it).

Neither do I D.B..  I am willing to discuss things.  However, I have no wish for anything too heated and, so far as I do discuss Things Like This, I do try to temper my tone as much as I can.  I would also like to say that I appreciate your responses and wish to understand your point more than endlessly quarrel with you.


No, no it is not at all; I am in full agreement with you here.


No, indeed.  But having the Bible on my bookshelf doesn't make me religious, does it?

The middle one is more reasonable.  But then should one feel "disloyal" if one finds that one might be more inclined towards one that is in opposition to one's current belief system?  There's something slightly anthropomorphic about that statement that seems a bit insidious to me.  It also certainly, by that definition, isn't by any means a laudable thing any more than "loyalty" in general is.

I agree that there is something to this (and, of course, not just due to Christian faith).  But religious rhetoric was also often used by the oppressors as well.


People who are members of different religions often have rather varying definitions of what it means to be "good", though.

For what it's worth I agree because "What you believe is what you see". Faith does not require Religion and vice versa and  , by the way,  self confessed 'Monkey Men' like Dickie Dawkins are easily dismissed. They are victims of their own propaganda. Indeed they should stick to growing water cress and counting peas instead of being silly boys and interfering with The Creation in a strangely genetic way . I mean, you can't trust them can ya ? I had that Charles Darwin in the back of the cab once, seemed like a nice boy ...

I had dinner with god yesterday and she told me that she believes richard dawkins to be a myth as has no evidence to support his existance.

Delectable Dawkins (NOT!) has been spouting his mouth off once more.  Now he's rubbishing alternative medicine, astrology, etc.  Says that Tom Cruise is "as thick as two short planks" for believing in Scientology.  Says that homeopathy is just "placebo".  Now that is a very interesting point.  It very likely is.  In fact I'm absolutely sure it is.  However, having thereby acknowledged the placebo effect - how does he think that works?  Mind over matter? Hmmm.....does that exist according to him?  Could it actually be that he thinks the brain can somehow put someone into spontaneous remission all by itself?  Like a miracle cure......?

Whatever, the man is as boring as thump.   I cringe with embarrassment when he sets off on his one-man crusade and I just wish he'd go back to dissecting herrings and leaving the rest of us alone.  It's a bit like Prince Charles telling us this morning that he doesn't like bungalows.  Well he doesn't have to live in one does he?  At any rate it's not all bungalows he doesn't like, just the ones that don't fit in with the environment apparently.   

Why do these two think that their opinions should be inflicted on the population at large?  Perhaps I should write to them both and tell them my opinions - just so that it's equal.