Holiday Hiatus

Alex Fear and the Mrs are officially on holiday for 2 weeks from tomorrow, so the blogging will be light. We're actually looking for new flat to rent but we may just skip to the beach if the sun keeps (or catch a cheap 'environMENTALly unfriendly' flight away for a few days). In the meantime, any time I get at the 'puter will be devoted to testing a new CMS and thinking the best way to go about transferring this to a Wordpress blog (domain name/content). Look forward to changes, and better organisation of the resources (devoted to social action etc). In the meantime, click on one of the labels below to read through some previous topics.

Fallible Design: Questions I Was Never Taught To Ask

This Post Is Rated: D for Duh! Warning. May cause you to seriously doubt the intelligence of the author. Last month I posted the first in my Fallible Design series: How I Went From Intellectual to Dumb Before I begin this second post I must issue a clarification on the subject of 'evolution'. It appears to me there is a lot of ignorance and omission from both evolutionists and creationists when debating this subject. I include myself when I say ignorance but perhaps it is more lazy thinking. The problem is that the whole 'Evolution vs Creationism' debate is framed wrong. When the term 'evolution' is used, it's far too indefinite and absolute. Thus creationists (who believe God created the universe) easily fall into the trap of arguing against the whole theory and appearing quite stupid. Creationists should not be arguing against 'evolution'. They should study it and argue on the specifics. Wikipedia defines the Theory of Evolution in 6 mechanisms (taken from condensed sources): Adaption - "an anatomical, physiological, or behavioral trait that contributes to an individual's ability to survive and reproduce ('fitness') in competition with conspecifics in the environment in which it evolved" Williams Genetic Drift - "A change in the gene pool of a small population that takes place strictly by chance." - Encyclopaedia Britannica Gene Flow - "The transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another." - Wikipedia Mutation - "A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." - Answers.com Natural Selection - "The process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common." - Wikipedia Speciation - "The process in which a new species is formed from an initial one." - Ridley I've simplified the mechanisms described above as I'm not a scientist and don't intend to get tangled in the minute details. However some reading in detail is needed to be able to fully understand the differences between these mechanisms that form the basis of the evolutionary theory. Looking at the theory in more detail, as a creationist I would be an idiot to argue against genetic drift, gene flow or natural selection. The problems I and I assume almost all creationists have is with certain elements of adaption and mutation. I say 'certain elements' because it is clear mutation happens, but I disagree that mutations are heritable or transmutation occurs, for example. With this in mind, I intend to change the nature of the debate by redressing the terminology used. I recommend to Christians reading this, that if they intend to debate with evolutionists that argue on specifics such as adaption or transmutation. Debates should be titled to reflect this, eg. 'Creationism vs Adaption' (of course any Christians who disagree or have a better idea- feel free to discuss it in the forums). 'Creationism' itself is a bit of a misnomer because just as there are many complexities to evolution, there are numerous philosophies behind the creation of the universe. Creationism is not even strictly in conflict with evolution, it's not even totally in conflict with the big bang theory. One could happily accept a philosophy such as the clockmaker hypothesis (as is unconsciously popular in western culture) as well as the big bang and all the tenets of the evolutionary theory. With that in mind, I will now proceed with some questions that I have regarding evolution which lead me to doubt the theories of adaption, transmutation and speciation. 1. What happened to the giraffe? The accepted theory for the adaption of the giraffes long neck put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the 1700s was to reach the higher leaves on the trees. It is obvious that giraffes did not starve during this time they were growing their long necks, that there was plenty of vegetation to eat on the ground, so why did it happen at all? I could go on but this has been discussed already many times by people with far more knowledge than me (and not even creationists) - read The Nature Institute: The Giraffe's Short Neck. 2. How is adaption triggered? This is one thing that puzzles me. An animal either somehow finds itself in an alien environment, or it perceives one from afar (eg. fish to land). So over successive generations it's physiology transmutates (adapts) to be able to migrate and exist in that environment. Let's take it for granted that the first fish could observe land above the surface of the water. What is the secret ingredient that now tells the fish genes to start creating fish/mammal hybrids. Of course a creationist could argue God, but that's the easy way out. If not God (or a spiritual/energy/intelligent force if you're a naturalist), then we have to assume that the fish either consciously activated the adaption itself, or received the genetic requirements by some form of applied kinesiology (where the body responds to its environment). It's hard to imagine a simple life form such as a fish (which after millions of years of adaption still falls for the old maggot on a hook) consciously adapting itself, we humans can't even do it. Therefore applied kinesiology it is. 3. With the exclusion of a few nutbags, why don't creationists debate the theory of gravity, or the earth revolving around the sun? Yet the theories of adaption and transmutation still cause much debate. 4. Why does God exist? In opposition to the teaching of intelligent design, Bobby Henderson 'went public' with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which had apparently been around, in secret, hundreds of years. Oddly, whilst being secret, the religion managed to retain "millions, if not thousands" of followers. Not a very good secret then. Yet I doubt any scrap of religious texts could be produced for the FSM could be produced that existed before 2005- which makes it not a very good religion. In fact, can the FSM really be proven to be the same religion it was hundreds of years ago, if no-one shared the secret and no proof existed before 2005? Enough of this nonsense, we all know it's parody, however back to adaption and transmutation. If we really did mutate from bacteria, adapting to new environments as required, how on earth did we adapt God into our environment? This is beyond applied kinesiology- this is some sort of defective mutation. We did not know about the FSM hundreds of years ago, because it did not exist (until an objector decided to respond with a parody). If some form of higher power did not exist, then we would not even know about it. 5. How many parallel universes? Why is it easier to believe in infinite parallel worlds than it is to believe a intelligent being (perhaps on the evolutionary scale) created our planet? Rather than objective reasoning, it seems to me that for people like Stephen Hawking any explanation but a being more advanced than humans will do. 6. Why do we sacrifice our lives, even for our own enemies or people we do not know? If sacrifice is the result of altruistic memes, then why do the memes continue to exist? Surely the memes would have been forgotten early during human development. How would a meme spread if its objective is to work against survival? If it is passed on by genes, why has it not been bred out- how do the sacrificial gene carrier transfer to a non-sacrificial gene carrier, unless you infer that sacrificial genes are also able to recognise sacrificial genes in others. Once again we have to ask how? Is this the same way an organism transmutates into an entirely different organism (see above)? Would it not mean that psychics and spiritualists are real because they are actually using their genes? 7. Why do we wear clothes, and why are we embarrassed by our bodies? Technically, anyone who is free from religion should automatically strip down and start living naked. The first thing that God did when Adam and Eve were discovered to have sinned, was to cover them up. Covering up and hiding parts of the body is deeply rooted in religiosity. So is this a meme that has refused to die? Why is Richard Dawkins still enslaved by this religious meme? Is it a gene that tells us to be ashamed of our own nakedness? Then why doesn't this gene prevent us from going into changing rooms, or revealing our nakedness to a sexual partner? Can the gene detect when it's safe to be naked and when it is not? Why then would someone who has the naked shame gene then be able to overcome that gene later in life to become a nudist? 8. Why do we feel injustice and suffering, why do we seek revenge, what is evil? I once accidentally kicked my dog, when he was a little pup, in the head. But there was never any trace of bitterness or revenge in the dog, we went on to have a healthy 'man and his dog' relationship. However, if we accidentally cut up another motorist, we see can see great examples of bitterness, resentment and hate in the form of road rage. Animals do not show signs of revenge or hate, whereas humans can hold on for a lifetime to one incident and exact revenge years later. Of course animals can exhibit patterns of aggression if under sustained mistreatment or threat (perceived or real). But for an uncharacteristic isolated incident of harm, an animal will not act in this way. Since we have adapted and mutated to our environment, and not the other way round, why do we perceive injustice and unfairness? Surely we would simply adapt to the new environment rather than complain. 9. Why can we conjure abstract thought and concepts? Why are we interested in entertainment? A human being will ignore all natural impulses to eat or survive to feed their appetite for entertainment or greed. 10. At what point did the first organisms become cannibalistic? At some point in the water, or after we crawled out of the water, some of us stopped eating plants and eating each other. Obviously this was not triggered by species survival, was it triggered by mutation? How could this be a slow process of evolving. What did the intermediary species eat while they were waiting for their vegetarian stomachs to turn into carnivore stomachs? This makes me think of dodos. The dodo became extinct through hunting. Like penguins and chickens, they were unable to fly. But why did some of those first land-mammals become birds? It can't be because of a desire to fly, or food supply, otherwise the dodos would have continued flying instead of getting lazy. It must have been to escape predators right? Well as we see by example of the dodo, the first bird would have never had a chance to get its feet off the ground. Why do chickens not fly the coup, to escape inevitable murder at the hands of the farmer? How  long have we been eating chickens and they have not yet developed their wings enough to escape us? Aah but we provide for the chickens and do not feed on them to extinction. So who was there farming the first birds? Do we see any other examples in nature of one species farming another species? Is it even possible? The following is a question of contradictions in the Wikipedia article on introduction to evolution. Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but shows that however naive or inconsistent creationists are in their explanations, evolutionists are just as bad: Key Points Evolution does not mean "progress" towards an ultimate goal; in fact, evolution is not goal-driven. Organisms are merely the outcome of mutations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at that time. Evolution is not a random process for creating new life forms. Mutations are (partly) random, but natural selection is far from random. Well, which is it- is evolution random or not? Evolution does not state that humans are descended from monkeys, or that human ancestors were monkeys. However, evolution implies that humans and present-day monkeys share a common ancestor. Evolution does not attempt to describe the process which brought forth life on earth (such as abiogenesis or some other method). Why are these things often stated as fact? Why do evolutionist see the need to argue against creationism when it's clear the two are not in conflict (and more to the point, why do creationists respond on their terms)? "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced and is widely accepted by biological scientists. An understanding of evolution underlies all biological sciences and much of medicine." Really? how is that benchmarked. No-one disputes gravity so why is this the best? surely an undisputed unanimously agreed theory is the most successful? I have purposefully used my own questions, and not referenced the usual and repeated questions from the main debate, which can be googled. There really is a lack of common sense from both sides. I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to do a large cut and paste job of debunking scientific theories here, but at the same time, I have difficulty tolerating other people who are not scientists simply doing the same thing for the theory of transmutation. I do believe that creationists who want to argue against evolution have set themselves a difficult if not impossible task. Not only are they choosing to argue against a group of differing theories as one big theory (just as anti-theists attack 'religion' and lose by not discerning between different belief systems), they are choosing the wrong theory to attack. How are you going to convince someone who doesn't even believe in a higher power that the universe did not bang itself into existence? Evolution is the only reasonable explanation for them. The theory of Intelligent Design goes a step in the right direction, but even then the next acceptable theory after the big bang would be aliens, which still does not discount the big bang. On the other hand, anti-theists who want people to stop believing in God, are not going to get anywhere by using the theory of evolution. If you can convince someone of transmutation, it shouldn't affect their faith one bit. There's nothing to say that God could not be as active in transmutation as he is in creation. If you really want to rid the world of theism, then you need to study philosophy and find ways to defeat theists by reasoning, rather than by science (which is not the opposite of religion). Technorati Tags: religion, evolution, transmutation, creationism, intelligent design, science, big bang, meme, dawkins, hawking, genes, God DISCUSS THIS POST (Registration is free)

The War Against Theism

This Post Is Rated: O for May be deemed Offensive. But it's not, really, not unless you want to be offended. Side Note: This is my first post using Microsoft's new Windows Live Writer, which works almost effortlessly with Blogger! It's amazing, Microsoft is actually embracing third party and open source?! It's actually pretty decent and so far was the easiest to configure amongst the ones I tested. I consider myself a fairly moderate/progressive Christian, someone who believes in all the tenets of the Christian faith, but also someone who you could have a pint down the pub with and talk about current events. But I started to notice that some of the bloggers whose opinions I both read and respect have made negative reference to the Christian faith, both passively and directly. The basis of their arguments usually consist of the old Science vs Religion argument, but it can sometimes degenerate into the usual "religion is dangerous/evil/fault of the worlds problems". I therefore felt I should make a direct comment on the rise of anti-theism that is being led by fundamentalist atheists such as Richard Dawkins. It's not just a point of discussing scientific theories, if that was the case most people would not have heard of him, it's gets much more personal than that. The reason being is that Dawkins and people like him are hostile towards religion, specifically Christianity, and consider believers like myself to be infected with a "virus of the mind". Before I continue, it is important to separate atheism from anti-theism. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of a God or gods (some atheists prefer to be referred to as 'normal', but then we would have to call theists not-normal, and if these statistics are to be believed, theism is the norm. Whatever, lets avoid the neologisms for now). In contrast, an anti-theist is someone who not only disbelieves in a God or gods, it is someone who is opposed to that belief in others. Many readers of this blog may be atheist, but they do not spend their days trying to disprove God or rally against believers, they simply live their lives as we all do. I made a rational choice 10 years ago to become a Christian (and continue to believe against the difficulties that present themselves). I can understand why someone would make a rational choice to become an atheist, or would be an atheist simply because they have not had a religious upbringing. So if you're confident in your beliefs, it should mean that there's no real reason to feel threatened by someone else's. Yet after suffering the intolerance of the religious right for years, we now must now also face the intolerance of the militant anti-theists. I have a theory on anti-theists. You see a true atheist really has nothing against God, since they don't believe God exists. They do not feel the need to fight against something that isn't there. This makes me think that anti-theists are people who have either been hurt in the past by the church, or hold some sort of grudge against God and/or believers. After all Dawkins himself flip-flopped between Christianity and atheism in his early years. You can't tell me there isn't some bitterness there towards the church. I know because I've been in the church for 10 years, you just don't come away without some scars! But before I'm accused of being obsessive. It's not all about Dawkins, he is merely a figurehead, easy to reference. There are many evangelists on the side of anti-theism. The thing that bothers me most is the lack of intellect and common sense in the arguments against faith. This is observed in the often used platitudes and aphorisms, when arguing against theism: "Religion is not only wrong, it's evil" - New Atheism "Theism and its corresponding religions are harmful to society and individuals" - No God Network "[Religion] teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." - Sam Harris "The Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible." - Hector Avalos "[Religion] is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness." - American Atheists "Religion kills." - Christopher Hitchens So according to the proponents of anti-theism, religion is: evil, harmful to society, uneducated, responsible for violence, comparable to Nazism, criminal, cruel, envious, hateful, malicious, uncharitable and it kills. As the Americans would say, that's a long rap sheet. Shouldn't we start rounding up theists and executing them for the good of humanity? It's clear that by choosing to be a Christian I am aligning myself with the mythological Devil of the scriptures! I have sold myself to the ideological Satan of the post-modern world. I'm fine with that description if that's what you want to use to define my set of beliefs. Here's a list of other deluded individuals like myself from past and present, who have caused harm to society through their theistic beliefs: A List of Evil Religious Oppressors Martin Luthor King Leader of the civil rights movement for blacks in America. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Led a movement against the Nazi regime in Germany. William Wilberforce Led the movement to abolish slavery in the UK. CS Lewis Author of The Chronicles of Narnia and wrote many apologetics for the Christian faith. Jim Wallis Leader of Sojourners for social justice and peace. JRR Tolkien Author of The Lord of the Rings. Johnny Cash Famous singer. Alice Cooper Famous singer. George Washington American President. Isaac Newton Scientist and mathematician. First hypothesized the law of gravitation. John Milton Author of Paradise Lost. William Booth Founder of the Salvation Army. Galileo Galilei Astronomer and physicist. Theorised that the Earth moved around the Sun and not the other way round. Blaise Pascal French mathematician and physicist. Inventor of the hydraulic press and syringe. One of the early fathers of modern computer engineering. Charles Spurgeon Founder of Spurgeon's charity for children and young people. John Adams American President. Helped draft the Declaration of Independence. Obviously this is just a small list of criminals who have committed crimes against humanity. But what about anti-theists and their wonderful contribution towards humanity? If we're going to define theists as evil, ignorant and murderous, then it's only fair that we establish a definition for all atheists and anti-theists. Here is a list of atheists and anti-theists who have brought enlightenment and peace to the world, through their atheism: A List of Enlightened Humanitarian Atheists Pol Pot Ruler of Cambodia, Responsible for the genocide of one third of Cambodia's population since being in power in his orchestrated 'Year Zero'. Josef Stalin Russian dictator, 'purged' his party of political rivals and organised assassinations of political opponents. Responsible for Ukrainian genocide and various atrocities against Eastern Europeans after WW2. Jeffrey Dahmer American serial killer. Robert Mugabe Leader of Zimbabwe, a 'corrupt dictator' who has oppressed political opponents and ruined the economy with his land reform policies. Mao Zedong Led a 'violent revolution' of China, executed political opponents and committed acts of genocide against people branded 'counter-revolutionaries'. Kenneth Parnell Convicted sex offender and kidnapper. Larry Gene Ashbrook Disturbed and paranoid spree killer. Armin Meiwes German cannibal who killed and consumed a willing victim he met on the Internet. Karl Marx Philosopher whose works have inspired many communist regimes including Maoism, Stalinism, North Korea, Russia and Cuba to name a few. Harold Shipman British serial killer. Gary Glitter Former glam rock singer, convicted pedophile sex offender. Jean Kambanda Leader of Rwanda inciting genocide of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathisers. Of course, there are more atheists that can be added to the list. These are people who unlike religious bigots, being atheists, have obviously had a good impact on society. Model citizens wouldn't you say? For what it's worth I detest the hate speech of Richard Dawkins as much as I detested the hate speech of Jerry Falwell. Richard may be more eloquent than Falwell but the underlying derision is there. My question to the anti-theists is this: Isn't it about time we have a reasonable open dialogue rather than this fundamentalist dogma? What exactly do you hope to achieve by constantly deriding religion? What are your goals? Be honest, what would it take for you to be satisfied you no longer felt threatened by people like me? Make us wear a band identifying our faith? Bar us from certain jobs and careers? Introduce regulations to limit the practice of our faith? Make us attend re-education camps? Wipe us out- convert to Atheism or die? I await a coherent response. EDIT: The original tables were giving my layout problems, if anyone else experienced this, my apologies- I've reduced the width to fit at least 800x600 (hopefully). Technorati Tags: atheism, theism, religion, anti theism, militant atheism, fundamentalist, faith, richard dawkins, christian, virus of the mind

Fallible Design: How I Went From Intellectual To Dumb

There seems to be a wave of anti-theism spreading across the interweb these days. Either that or I'm just reading the wrong sites. Regardless, it's inspired me to recount my own conversion from being an enlightened, smart, intelligent being, to an unenlightened, stupid, dumb theist. Anti-theism can come in other forms but it usually takes the form of evolutionism. So I will try not to point out the obvious irony that Creationists consider human beings to be of higher intellect, value and potential whereas evolutionists consider human beings to have evolved from less intelligent species. This will be the first part of a series. I was not raised as a Christian, or to believe in any God. You could say I was an atheist, but I was probably more of an agnostic. I didn't have much of a concept of God, but I had at some point been taught the story of Jesus and the usual biblical stories: Noah's Ark, Moses etc. I was not hostile to any of it, I liked the stories, but that was all they were, stories. I grew up with a typical British education that everyone receives. I remember the science classes and the science experiments: measuring force, gravity, chemical reactions and the noise of gas taps being flicked on and off to the annoyance of our teacher. I had some good science teachers, I remember in particular a couple of things they used to say: 1. Every scientific investigation starts with a hypothesis. 2. For a scientific theory to be proved, it must be repeated and observed under the same conditions and produce the same results. ...Or words to that effect. I was also taught the theory of evolution, as was everyone else in the class. I believed it, along with everyone else in the class. I was not taught any alternative theories, and I was not taught to question it. In fact, I don't remember being taught to question anything my teachers said. It's only later you consider that they are also human, prone to error and sometimes don't do a very good job of it (I once worked in a school for 3 years, I've seen it all). So I left school with an standard education that most people in the UK, around the late 90's received. I left school with the same standard public school education that every Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Wican, Pagan, Humanist and regular teenager received. It was a couple of years later that I became a follower of Christ. I'd leave out the details but I think it's important to mention some things about my conversion. I went from not believing in God, to asking God if he is real, to show me. I was in a time of need, and I said specifically "Jesus, if you are real, I need you now". There was no flash of light, no voice from heaven, no vision of God. But I read a few words and I then realised He was real, I got down on my knees and simply said "I'm yours, do what you can with me because I give up". It's important to mention this: nothing changed. I did not change in my appearance. I did not change my theology (apart from the fact God existed when previously he didn't). I did not renounce any of my beliefs (spiritual or physical). I did not renounce my prejudices. I did not suddenly forgive my enemies. I gave no thought to heaven and I did not suddenly believe in hell. In fact, the world still revolved around the sun, gravity still held us in place, the world was still millions of years old and I still had a fear of spiders. One thing did change. Hope. After becoming a Christian. The main thing for me was my relationship with Christ and that was what I concentrated on. It wasn't about my stand on homosexuality, abortion, creationism or politics- I still hardly knew anything of these things. I knew only that Christ was real, and Christ did not demand of me to change my position on any of these things. Jesus is only interested in our relationship with him. If we are in relationship with him, everything else will take care of itself. Of course, some things have now changed, the way I view the world for one. As a young Christian I made many embarrassing mistakes which cost me friends who were not Christians. But through Christ I learned to control my anger, forgive, appreciate classical music, continue my education, social skills, appreciate culture and debate politics. Christ has given me a passion for those who are downtrodden or oppressed. If anything Christ has made me more humanist and more rational than I ever was. Oddly, belief in evolution and human progress never did that for me. It was only after establishing my relationship with Christ, and becoming a better person all round, that I came across creationism as it is known to the wider world. Up till then, being a Christian, I still believed wholeheartedly in evolution (YES you CAN be a Christian and believe in evolution!). I had read Genesis by now, so I was trying to find a way to balance the two views. I was pointed in the direction of some literature by a Christian friend who was a science teacher. Amazingly, this literature actually asked questions that I had never though to ask. It gave alternative theories on carbon dating for example. Of course, I'm not a scientist and I don't know all the facts, but then, I didn't need to know all the facts to believe in evolution either. In actual fact, I was more ignorant as an 'evolutionist' than a 'creationist'. The most important thing to note, is that I relearned how to question sources, and I learned that evolution was still a theory, as is creationism and intelligent design. I wasn't around for the beginning of the universe, so if I was to be honest with you, I would say I can't actually tell you if life evolved from amoeba's or whether God actually created us exactly as you see us now. If you were honest with me you would say the same. What we both do is look at the evidence before us, and come to a conclusion. I'll continue to be honest and say I haven't fully come to a conclusion yet. I believe God exists, I believe he created us, but did he create us as we are now, or did he simply start the process, and use evolution as his tool to bring us into being? What difference does it make? None. For the record, I do believe in one aspect of evolution- natural selection. But if you asked to make a bet today, I would bet on intelligent design before I bet on genetic modification, just based on evidence I've read so far. Coming Soon... Questions I Was Never Taught To Ask

The Dog Vinci Code

If Da Vinci was trying to drop the marriage bomb on us, what is this artist trying to say? I'm no historian, but it looks like the one on the right of Jesus is not a disciple but in fact.... a dog! Referral: BoingBoing Cats and dogs are often considered part of the family so why shouldn't they get health insurance like their human family? Pet health insurance can help reduce your expenses when it comes to health care for your pet. When buying dog health insurance make sure to compare the pet insurance policies as there are several different policy types to choose from.

So Long (My Friend)

Chris just wants to be loved... tell me what's wrong with that? SharperIron links to an article on beliefnet that hints at American Idol Chris Sligh's Christian past: "If Chris has been paying attention to past seasons of the show, he probably knows that past winners like Carrie Underwood and Fantasia Barrino won lots of votes from Christian viewers, who are a valuable demographic to have on his side. He's trying to court the Christian vote while simultaneously win the favor of kids who think it's punk rock to sing "obscure" (read: not Stevie Wonder) songs on the show. If his strategy works, he could make it all the way to the top." - Idol Chatter: American Idol's Chris Sligh: Christian or Coy? To bad he didn't choose to sing DC Talks' My Friend, which might have been more relevant given the situation.

Is Atheism Important in British Society?

I am a Christian, but I don't feel the need to impose my faith on anyone who is not. I don't wish to be a moral crusader against the media or any other public group. I do hope that by living my life, as genuinely, humanly and fallibally as I can, that others may be drawn to Christ, and know the hope that I know and be released from all that binds them. I don't intend to trash other people's ideas or opinions, but it's disturbing when you come across the trash that some people have to say, when they clearly have not thought out at all their arguments. Take for example, a 'Have Your Say' article from the BBC I stumbled on this afternoon - 'Is faith important in British society?' http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=310&&&&&edition=1&ttl=20051114224247 Not that I think it is or isn't, it's important to my life and how I treat others, but some of the comments have made me feel compelled to say something. I didn't feel it was worth signing up with BBC for such a trivial subject, so I've pasted a few choice quotes below and made my own comments. "All this survey shows is that Christianity is no longer a religion, it's something people put on forms. Most Britons actually practice some sort of vaguely-defined theism rather then Christianity." - Deiniol Jones, Llandudno Undeniably true, unfortunately I have come across many people who claim the title 'Christian' who when questioned as to their status on following Christ, are not. If only these people knew where this title came from, if only they knew the decision that it represents and what some early Christians (and indeed present Christians still) went through to in order to boldly align themselves with Christ. Take for example, my Auntie Nora, who believes in Jesus, that he was a good man, she doesn't go to church however, and she not only believes in aliens, but believes Michael Jackson is one. Unless you draw your vision of reality from 'Men In Black 2' you have to question her state of mind. "Speaking as an Atheist, I see that comment as fundamentally flawed.There are many people who do not have faith of any kind, and certainly do not "put" their non-existent faith in any non-existent deity. Blanket statements by Christians intended to tar us with the same brush are only designed to draw us into a framework we are not part of." - spongebob1969 This is a ridiculous statement. When I get on the train every morning that takes me from [Chavsworth] to [Smeggingtown] I put faith in the driver that he'll get me there in one piece. I put faith in the company I work for that they are going to pay me at the end of the month. Faith might make me buy a season ticket for a football club (if I had more money than sense). Now you may say that's not faith, but what is it then, a lucky guess? "I am saddened to see that even though Britain is a Christian country, 75% of the Christian population don't go to Church. They have not read the Bible, and thus just don't understand how to respect the next human being, leave alone 'love your neighbour'." - Juliana Bhola, Thornton Heath I'd like to know where these people get their stats? The 'Christian' population? I disagree with 1, not reading the bible equates with not knowing how to respect others, and 2, Britain, a Christian country? No country on earth is Christian "we are but foreigners". So much of what Juliana has spouted is in complete contradiction with reality let alone the bible. "We no longer need religion as a crutch for our society, so the only real benefit it poses is with those who need that crutch to lead a happy life" - Sam Sexton, Essex I challenge anyone to prove that deciding to follow Christ is an aide to leading a happy life. Do you not realise what Christ went through? And of what happened to the 12 disciples later? Hello! I can say 100% becoming a Christian for me has been a challenge, there have been obstacles, there have been times I've felt I wanted to give it up and go back to being shallow and happy. Becoming a Christian means sticking your neck out for abuse, persecution and alienation. What planet are you from? I do agree however that we no longer need religion. "Theism is a dead end, a stop-gap towards understanding the world that humanity should have abandoned centuries ago - practically every claim any religion has made about reality has been proven false upon actual investigation. Religion clearly does not promote more ethical behaviour in many people - the statistics show that high levels of atheism are correlated with LOW levels of crime and "antisocial" behaviour. And there's no need to even mention the wars and genocides with religious origin. If faith is important in British society, I would argue that it's because of its negative effects rather than any positive contribution." - [ChorYuen], Leeds, United Kingdom I would love to see some examples of those investigations. It's investigation that has actually led many people to choose Christ, realising that he indeed exists (see Matthew Bache's comment). This actually made me laugh, where are these statistics? I've never read anything so inane. "Remember that the opposite of faith is certainty..." - judith, UK I can't think of anything actually intelligent to contribute so I'll take 30 seconds to think up a soundbite, doh! The opposite of faith is dubiosity. "I think I'm just as good a person as the most devout person of any religion. Maybe better, because I don't try to push my beliefs on to others." - Amy Amy, your ways are not our ways, show me the light that I may walk righteously just as you do. "In 2003 I attended an Alpha course, very out of character for me. I had many preconceived ideas, along the lines of many of the comments in this thread. But I went along and asked all the awkward questions about Christianity. To my own surprise I came to a realisation it was true." - Matthew Bache, Rayleigh "I am an atheist. I am very concerned that the government recently introduced the bill making it illegal to criticise religious groups. I believe that all of the most evil regimes that have ever governed carried out censorship and perhaps this is just the start of changes in the law that might ultimately result in such a regime being able to gain control in our own country." - Nick Holberton, Derby I am a Christian, I am also very concerned about laws Nu Labour are trying to get through the Lords, but talk about paranoid. "I DO NOT TRY TO IMPOSE MY CHRISTIANITY ONTO ANYONE ELSE NOR DO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OTHER FAITH" - ELIZABETH EDMONDSON, ATHENS, Greece But you do shout a lot. I could only copy some select quotes, there are many more, and many that require more than a few lines response. I don't have the time or inclination here to write pages of apologetics, but I think in some of my comments you may see what kind of a faith I have. I should like to end with my own little comparison. Feel free to judge my faith by historical events like the inquisition, the crusades. Compare me to tele-evangelists, Bush, anti-abortionist killers, and other irrelevant persons/events. But don't be offended if, because you are 'atheist', I compare you to communists, peadophiles, murderers, rapists, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao Zedong.