And their is the crux of the problem with religious fundamentlism, all critical thought and reason goes out of the windowand is instead replaced by blind dogmatism.

It is this line of thought which leads to the subjugation of women and provides "justification" for the killing of other humans who do not belong to the same faith or who dare to question it that particular faith.

I've somehow managed to stay out of this debate so far, having lived in the US (Colorado, to be specific, home of the well known pillar of morality Rev. Ted Haggard) this sort of thing has been a fairly frequent bar room conversation for me.

Now, in this case I originally thought kirkstaller was trolling, then I thought he was serious, then back to trolling and now I've come to the sad realisation that he is probably serious after all.




This is the beauty of science, that it can and does change. In fact it constantly wants to change, redefine and improve on its ideas based on new evidence. If the world was happy to take the 'unchanging word' of a god then we would be stuck in the dark ages. Think of all the great things that are now available to you in everyday life that you owe to 'fickle scientists': cars, planes, medicine, the Internet, computers. Not to mention the vast amounts knowledge that the last century alone gave us. We have been enriched as a species by the quest for knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Please don't allow yourself to be satisfied with the 'unchanging word' of some bronze age scribblings. Even the brightest minds in the world really had no idea what was going on back then when compared to what the average person can discover today, if only they have the willingness to open their eyes and look.

Isn't there something in the AUP against this kind of thread?

Is 'Gods unchanging word' the one that has changed on many occasions down the years then? You know... losses and gains in translation, English version being different from other language versions in some respects, all that kind of thing?

More likely men in white coats.

Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

To answer the opening question, 'god' doesn't have a nature because he doesn't exist. Having watched my mother die an awful, drawn out death over almost two years, I can quite happily say that if God exists, he's a complete b*stard, and he can go and move his butt onto a sharp stake in as mysterious a way as he likes. If he's got a problem with that, I dare him to come and see me - he apparently knows where I am at all times, so finding me shouldn't be a problem.

People have choice. People can choose what they want to believe in or not. End of.

Paedophiles believe in "loving" children, should they be allowed to practise their belief without challenge?

Some people choose to believe in some things. Some don't. Rightly, or wrongly in your extreme example.

You chose to post what you post.

See. It's all about choice.

People can "believe" in what they want.

But it shouldn't effect other people.

But people have to accept that if they air unacceptable beliefs in public they will be challenged. That's also all about choice.