Jumping on the bandwagon (or Popemobile)

A J Scott

Good stuff, Melanie. A bit shrill, perhaps, but right on the button. Snatch an opportunity off an opportunist, indeed.

AndyinBrum

Being oppressed? Bollocks. How many bishops in the lords? How much money in tax breaks do the churches get? You're not oppressed, it's exactly the opposite.

Stop whining and try and make your religion relevant, or suffer slowly drifting into further obscurity. It's what happens to all religions eventually, people see through the myth or a new better shiny one comes along and replaces them.

Just as Christianity did.

And if the Pope's truly sorry about his hand in protecting the Catholic Church's paedophiles then he'd hand over all the records to the police. Anything else is just empty platitudes.

Raymond Douglas

Yes Melanie, I think the smug liberal- left in this nation have had their collective noses put well out of joint by the Pope's visit ! How dawkins, fry et al , must be gnashing their teeth at this manifestation of Christian spirituality by our nation's Christians ! For to long these militant atheists have been allowed to strut their stuff on the media stage , particularly on the BBC. Still, credit where credits due, Sheila ferguty on radio 5 has done a magnificent job . I think she to , got fed up with the cynicism the popes visit drew from certain quarters !

Raymond Douglas

Would also be nice if the catholic Adoption agencies could be allowed to re-open on their own terms again ! These agencies did a magnificent job in placing children with loving , married families. I will never forgive labour for their role in closing them down !

Steve

Oh boo hoo.
After 2000 years of murder, torture and theft the religious are now having to 'cope' with the knowledge that we consider women & gays to be of equal value to our society.
I cannot think of a greater injustice.
Apart from the inquistitions, the crusading, the papal tithes, the grotesque acquisition of wealth, the child-molesting, the nazi collaboration, the purges and progroms, the suppression of the enlightenment.....
The poor poor dears.

Robert Mitchum

Speaking as a non-catholic Gentile, what a pleasure it was to see Rabbi Sacks and the Pope together. It seemed very natural and the Rabbi's speech was full of humanity. What a change it was for us, the majority, to hear such words being broadcast instead of the usual ego-centric bile we are force fed from Fry, Dawkins, and the like.

Chris

Wildly successful? In your dreams

baileyntx

Why is it that Atheists of today conveniently forget that biggest mass murderers of all time were Atheists themselves?

Mao alone was responsible for having murdered over 100 million people.

Stalin weighs in at between 30 and 60 million people.

Atheists try and justify to themselves and to others their own beliefs by condemning religion's violent and oppressive past, but as you can see....

Atheism can certainly claim no badge of honor when it comes to man's inhumanity to man.

Mark

And if he hadn't politely complimented the Pope then he would have been condemned on this blog too.

I thought the Pope handled himself and the issues very well. I agree with what The BBC said on the Today programme in that the Pope presented a more human face to the world than perhaps we might have previously thought. I also feel that his treatment of the child abuse issues was suitably humble and a welcome step forward.

I'm liberal and left of centre and an atheist. I don't consider myself to be radical or aggressive neither was I weeping or gnashing my teeth at the apparent success of the visit.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

What I cannot forgive is hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of the 'Liberal Humanists'. This includes the mentally unstable Fry and all his ilk. Outrage at child abuse is a natural response to this evil crime, but why are the Liberal Humanists not marching with banners raised agsainst the widespread secular abuse of children? This starts with the heads of children's local authorities and goes down to the staff at state and charity run Homes. When Baby P was abused, and ignored by so-called top medical doctors and hospitals, where were the demonstrations? There wouldn't be any, because it would be against child abuse and not for advancing the agenda of same-sex marriage and other perversions.

Andre

Raymond Douglas
Excellent comment - I agree with your every word. It's cool to be catholic

Dominic L-R

baileyntx:

You seem to have fallen for an old fallacy.
It is not enough to say that because Mao was an atheist, and he committed atrocities, it must have been because of his atheism. You have to show how a non-belief in God(s) led him directly to commit mass murder. Otherwise, you could link up any 'non-belief' to any crime and say 'hey presto, he did X because he didn't believe in Y'. It is illogical and absurd.
If a Christian commits a murder, it would be wrong to assume it was either because of his Christianity (or his 'non-belief' in Zeus). If, however, a serial killer constantly quotes biblical references and declares his victims will burn in hell, we can confidently say that he was directly inspired by his religion.
Non-belief in Gods (or UFOs or homeopathy) doesn't automatically lead anywhere. Show me a logical pathway from atheism to wickedness, and I'll take the comments seriously.

CONFUSED

Melanie, All good people are outraged by child sexual abuse. How come that lefties and liberals are not as outraged at child brides in Islam as they are about Christian children being abused?
Child abuse is not a tenet of Christianity nor is 9year old brides. We Christians do not practice female genital mutilation or approve of same. We also consider it a crime to rape another human being, but the silence against honour killings, which is essentially kill the victim but protect the criminal, is deafening.
God preserve us from hypocrisy.

Pete

On the 'smug liberal left' we're still laughing at the truly pathetic starry-eyed fawning over this grotesque individual. The rights of women, gay people, raped children and the truth itself are all trampled underfoot in the rush to simper before him. If evidence were ever needed how disconnected from reality, how hypocritical, how irretrievably sunk in mental illness and how cowardly and insipid these people are, then the last four days have provided it in spades.

If there were a God, he would weep in shame at the state of his followers, mired in hate and untruth as they are.

Daniel Heslop

Dominic L-R: "It is not enough to say that because Mao was an atheist, and he committed atrocities"

Dominic of course you are right - but it works both ways - the fact is that humans commit atrocities because we are primates and primates kill in rivalry.

TomTom

"How much money in tax breaks do the churches get?"

Not much actually. Far less than in the USA where they are tax-exempt or Germany where they are tax-funded. You should be able to answer your own question....but you will find tax-breaks available to Churches are paltry and little different to those available to the RSPCA.

Since you ask Andy in Brum I think you should push for 100% tax exemption for the Churches - no property taxes, no VAT, no income taxes....complete and total freedom from The State as in the US.

Your proposal is good !

phil

Raymond Douglas
September 20th, 2010 9:06am hear hear ,the stupidity and humbug that caused their closure is off the richter scale ,and the idea of sending a child to the playground owning two mums or two dads is so thoughtless that it could only be the idea of idiots ,certainly not anyone who cares a jot about a kid .

raymond

Actually Andre , I am not a catholic ! As good Evangelical Protestant, there are obvious differences between someone like myself and the catholic Church. Nevertheless , I applaud the Pope for the stand he made regarding the erosion of Christian freedoms in our land.

steve

TomTom:

I don't think you're right that churches in the US are completely exempt from all taxes and I believe that status is what charities receive as well. One thing the US doesn't allow, unlike in the UK, is state funding for religious education. My sister's children go to Catholic school in the US and she has to pay tuition for all of them.

Wonky7

Well said Confused!

James Baldwin

Why stop with the equality laws? Let's also reintroduce slavery, ban unhappy couples from divorcing, and bring back the death penalty. All in the name of "Christian values".

Just think, if we did embrace "Christian values", imagine how much more civilised we would be. About as civilised as Uganda and Malawi.

E Hart

Christians in Britain are not oppressed. A large number o them have voted with their feet. Given the rate of apostasy, they've turned the other cheek and are now gazing with undimmed admiration at a selection of false idols, foremost among them: prescription and non-prescription drugs, table wine, shopping, mumbo-jumbo (all variants), nihilism and atheisism.

Cameron's interest in the spiritual side of the British flock will last as long as Thatcher's, that is, until it starts to be bite back. Who can forget that dotty old cow not realising that the Good Samaritan stopped because he wanted to and not because he was carrying a load of moolah or a collection of max-out credit cards.

The marvellous thing about free will is you get to choose. The interesting thing is that in our ability to do so, it doesn't seem to make us any happier.

MartinT

It would be nice if some of the carpers listened to the Pope rather than their own prejudices. All he asked for was for religion to be allowed to play a role in society. Religion also benefits from 'reason' and can evolve and make itself better. And he didn't say that atheists cause mass-murder. Only the removal of God creates a vacuum that is easily filled by murderous ideologies.

We shall see what happens in future, but I hope the papal visit will lead to a more balanced appreciation of our Christian culture.

Bhaskar

A bit of clarification is required here, Melanie. What exactly do you mean by the repeal of the equality laws? Are you saying that all anti discrimination legislation passed and endorsed by successive governments (both Labour and Tory) since the early seventies should be repealed? Are you saying that we should go back to the time when employers, landlords, clubs and estate agents could legally discriminate on grounds of race and sex? When B & B owners placed stickers on their windows saying "No blacks, no Indians, no Irish?" Who are the totalitarian victims of these so called pernicious laws? I would like to know. Incidently, until very recently the Tory party had an ultra right wing fringe group called the Monday Club which openly advocated the repeal of all anti discrimination laws. They also supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa and advocated repatriation of 'coloured' immigrants. Mercifully, Michael Howard expelled this group from the Tory party when he was leader. Melanie, when everyone else is becoming more liberal, why are you going backwards?

Bickers

I'm amazed that when we are finding out so much about how The Universe, bio systems and science works that we as a so called rational, intelligent species continue to believe in imaginary friends and have faith in unproven teachings and myths.

We no longer believe in Zeus or Odin - why not? Why are they are more unbelievable than the Abrahamic God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims?

Of course religion thrives because people are understandably afraid of the unknown and death, however religion is a bogus and false prophet in these areas, although I accept people can irrationally convince themselves otherwise.

We don't need religion or faith to behave in a way that could be interpreted as Christian; our species is intrinsically humanistic (or we wouldn't have survived this long).

Like Dawkins I believe it's criminal to inculcate impressionable children with fears and unproven beliefs that 'trap' them for life. Of course this suits the Church (and all religions) as they know that an unfettered, rational minds will most times reject irrational and unproven beliefs.

Don Cox

"We no longer believe in Zeus or Odin - why not?"

Because those religions were stamped out by the Christians.

Liz

Bickers, I wonder if you'll be so smug on your deathbed.

E Hart

Enough of the childhood indoctrination thesis! If you get to adulthood and haven't got the nous to choose between your parent's beliefs - and/or lack of - and your own - then neither God nor the blind spanner merchant will be able to help you.

The fallacy in Dawkins' indoctrination hypothesis is laid bare by the increasing number of people in Britain and elsewhere who think it was Jack Shit who created the universe. If Dawkins was right, then the opposite ought to be the case.

Huldah

I see the atheists are out in well, not too much force really, trying to persuade us that Christianity is the root of all evil.

If I were an atheist I'd be getting my own house in order. Wherever atheists have gained power there has been unimaginable persecution of non-conformists, oppression of the masses, suppression of the truth and mass poverty on a stupendous scale.

Look at atheism's record - Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China and Stalin's Russia for example - and tell me that women and homosexual people were free and happy.

And it would all start again if some atheists had their way - starting with Martin T's suggestion that parents who bring up their children as believers are criminals. We've seen that sort of thinking before in communist Russia where believers' children were kidnapped and placed in atheistic boarding schools for 're-education'.

Religion oppressive? Atheists, heal yourselves!

david elder

Dominic L-R @ 12.58 pm: Dominic, the point is that Mao wasn't an isolated case. Stalin. Pol Pot. The current CEO of North Korea. Castro for his endless speeches alone. Don't you see just a hint of a pattern there? These people thought they were effectively God because they thought there was no higher power to answer to.

Pot Head

"Don't you oppress me"

http://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c

I remember when the 'Life of Brian' was banned by some Tory councils for being blasphemous.

Impossible to believe that would happen now!

Maybe the god bothers will get a post Pope bounce, but it won't last, my side is winning, slowly we become a less godless nation . And I rejoice!

dominic

Spot on Mel, and isn't it hilarious how the huge success of this papal visit must stick in the craw of the atheistic trolls whose spite is in inverse proportion to their numbers. I see a few are still infecting this blog, perhaps they'd have been better off trying to beef up the puny numbers who tried to spoil the Holy Fathers visit?

watttyler

British Social Attitude surveys give percentage of respondents who attended church in 1983 as 21%, and in 2008 as 15%. 2010, Cof E attendance declines for 5th year in a row.

It seems to me that the state of our society has declined in the same way - lets all have a guess as to why that should be. Of course, if you are the sort of Progressive Marxist who dogmatically thinks per their religion (an infinitely more dangerous thing than Christianity) that things always get better, then you would not see the same intellectual and moral decay about you as a Christian would.

Is it not enough for atheists that only a very small percentage of people go to church that they want to force and re-edukate us not to? They hate us because we force them to convict themselves. God has placed that talent within them and they can't fight it; the only way to deny it is to get rid of us.

Look at how the likes of people named Pot Head long for the reign of Satan. It is just so predictable, is it not?

Roger K

You're a naughty girl, Melanie. A.J. Scott picked it up when he said you were 'a bit shrill'. You've delibratley used language to stir up and over excite these atheistic secular foot soldiers who are unable to hold more than one concept at time in their heads and have some idea that they know history because they can repeat a list from bits of second-hand received knowledge. Very funny.

Derek BLADES

dominic finds it "hilarious how the huge success of this papal visit must stick in the craw of the atheistic trolls whose spite is in inverse proportion to their numbers."

Several atheistic trolls have contributed to this discussion. Just take a look at the measured, well-written and often humorous contributions from Bickers, Dominic L-R, Mark and several others. Nothing spiteful or even trollish about their comments.

The atheists come across as a rather likeable bunch. The god-botherers by contrast look smug and intolerant. Is there a lesson here?

Tony Pearson

Huldah said "Look at atheism's record - Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China and Stalin's Russia for example"

This is so stupid it's hardly worth answering.
Fortunately Dominic L-R has already done so a number of posts before yours.

Using your logical principles, we can therefore assume that you and all Christioans are unable to read.

Andre

raymond Do forgive me - claiming to be cool is a silly thing to say. I delight in the sermons of Derek Prince and J John and wish you well

Bob Hutton

Down through the centuries the Christian Gospel has been the subject of many attempts to stamp it out. eg. The old USSR govt. tried to do it for 70 years. All these attempts failed for one reason - Jesus said that He would build His church "..and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it." Matthew 16 v 18.

No matter how many times the likes of Dawkins rails against the truth of the Bible the Gospel will still be preached and souls will still be saved.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ms. Phillips: This is off-topic, but I wish you, your family, and all the religious Jews on this website a happy, healthy kosher Succot.

Dominic L-R

David Elder: "Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... These people thought they were effectively God because they thought there was no higher power to answer to"
Absolutely! I agree entirely, and it is a danger we have to be aware of. When you abandon one belief system, you have to be very careful in constructing another. My point is that those regimes are not an inevitable consequence of disbelieving in God. Stalin and co. had to make a further step to construct an unquestioning, ultra dogmatic, quasi-religious dictatorship. And as G K Chesterton said, when we stop believing in God, we don't believe in nothing, we believe in anything. Wise words indeed - hence the current proliferation of bizarre, untestable, dogmatic beliefs ranging from homeopathy to crystal healing to astrology to power bracelets. But, unlike Melanie Phillips who seems to regard religion in a different category to those beliefs, I regard it as essentially the same impulse.

Ronnie

Pot Head.

It was banned in Glasgow by the Catholic Labour council and we all had to get the train down to Greenock to see it.

We need more of that kind of freedom. I don't know how Mel gets away with it, I really don't.

dominic

Mr Blades must have been on Pluto for the past 3 months if he thinks that atheists have criticised the Catholic Church with reasoned arguments and balance. They vented their spite and malice wherever they could, aided by the BBC and the net result was a complete and utter humiliation as the British people discovered they really liked and respected this frail, meek but hugely principled and intelligent little man. Not so smug now are you Mr Blades? But you're certainly full of hypocrisy.

Michael White

One question that to me arises through much of this debate is whether it is actually worth being a Christian. Many of the arguments following the Pope’s visit seem to scuttle between being a Christian or serving another god, or none. What is the benefit of God and Christianity? Will it make any difference? Why should I be subject to a god? If God exists, he doesn’t seem to take much care of his people. Is there actually an afterlife or is that ‘religion’ trying to choke human freedom? What happens in the first minute after death?

If only these key questions could be answered accurately, so much would be revealed about the importance of the Pope’s time in the UK, but they have not really been touched upon during his stay. In fact, the answers to all these questions are found in Biblical texts. The burning question, therefore, is whether such texts are historically accurate and above all truthful. I believe they are – masses of witnesses, a variety of professional authors (many of whom who clung to this new faith to their deaths), prophesy, and of course numerous prominent roles for women including a key role for a prostitute which would never have been included if this was fiction. Take time to make a careful decision.

Derek BLADES

dominic. You are mistaken. I have not been on Pluto recently. I have been on planet Earth the whole time and while here one of the things I did was watch the BBC's coverage of the Pope's visit. The lady who covered most of it was positively gushing in reporting the enthusiasm of the young Roman Catholics and other supporters at the various events. Protesters barely got a look in. I was surprised, therefore, at your complaint that “[atheists] vented their spite and malice wherever they could, aided by the BBC”. This makes me wonder if you have been off in space recently.

Derek BLADES

Liz,September 20th, asked Bickers, "I wonder if you'll be so smug on your deathbed."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines smug as "self-satisfied" or "complaisant". Bickers' neat summary of the atheist case was neither of these.

Suppose Bickers were to change his mind on his death-bed. Would that prove that his atheist views were mistaken? Of course not. It might suggest that he was covering his bets but from the intelligence he shows in his writing I think it most unlikely he will do anything so silly.

Two bits of nonsense in an entry of just 12 words is getting on for a record.

dominic

And by the way, 200,000 Scots turned out to welcome Benedict warmly, even paying good money to trudge off to a mass in a far out park. And how many protesters were there that day that you felt should have been mentioned? The police estimate about 20. I shan't bother to respond to any more of your posts since you clearly don't know when you've lost the argument. `oh, sorry, you still have that smug atheist axe to grind. Shame nobody else cares.

Raymond Do

Andre, no problemo ! J.John, Derek prince, top men ! Have a blessed day

Augustus

It's certainly about time Somebody peddled Christianity in Britain, atheists peddle only hopelessness. Of course, one can argue that religion has been the cause of wars and bloodshed, and no one disputes that, but Judaism and Christianity at least provide a perfect reason to celebrate life. They provide a Creator and a general set of rules by which to live in a manner that minimizes and shields one from our human weaknesses and penchant for self-indulgence, conceits, and, yes, evil. The alternative is the belief that only a random senselessness pervades our lives. That the only trust that exists can only be found in human intellect. Leaders who take that cool intellectual approach are often devoid of moral purpose. The starting point for the resistence of despotism and the spreading of liberty lies in a commonly held belief that the Creator exists, and that we mortals must be mindful of His requirements.

Dave M

"How dawkins, fry et al , must be gnashing their teeth at this manifestation of Christian spirituality by our nation's Christians ! For to long these militant atheists have been allowed to strut their stuff on the media stage , particularly on the BBC."

I was actually hoping for a piece written by Melanie on Stephen Hawking's "falling in line" with Prof Dawking. At least, so far as Hawking believes the origen of life was spontaneous. In this he seems to differ from Einstein who did believe in a non Biblical God.
At any rate, it's true Prof Dawking himself is a bit O.T.T. in his aggression towards religion but I don't think he'd endorse or support discrimination towards Christians.
What gets up Dawkin's nose is how innocent children are simply branded with a set of beliefs from birth. In Catholic Spain, girls would be called Maria and boys Jesus. In the Middle East it's either Muhammad or Islam. Sadly the children are then taught a set of beliefs that are thought to be "beyond rational criticism" and exempt from investigation.
I think Dawking's book simply calls for open minded education, not any notion of discrimination.
Ask yourselves how easily peace could be obtained in the Middle East had Arab children been taught the truth about history at school. Then they would have had a balanced and tolerant outlook as opposed to blind religious fanaticism.

Dave M

"Of course religion thrives because people are understandably afraid of the unknown and death, however religion is a bogus and false prophet in these areas, although I accept people can irrationally convince themselves otherwise."

Sure thing. If Judaism is correct then Christians won't be saved from Hell through Jesus. Therefore, it's safer to dislike Jews or try and disconnect the Jewish aspect from Christianity.
By the same token, if Christians are right then that leaves Muslims in a quandry. Far easier to shrug it off and not tolerate Christianity.
It boils down to fear of death and the unknown.

phil

Dominic
September 21st, 2010 12:34pm Please keep blades busy ,we could only wish he were on Pluto ,but he usually resides on one of Mel's threads castigating all things Israeli .I doubt that he likes anyone other than himself and the memory of the grand mufti ,so you should not worry whatever he says ,its usually irrelevant and far from the truth .

Edward McLaughlin

Pot Head

"slowly we become a less godless nation . And I rejoice!"

Oh dear, we seem to have stumbled over our own bile here don't we? Perhaps a little less of the waccy baccy my friend?

Derek BLADES

Augustus argues that "Judaism and Christianity … provide a perfect reason to celebrate life. They provide a Creator and a general set of rules by which to live ... The alternative is the belief that only a random senselessness pervades our lives."

What nonsense! Atheists celebrate life to the full. We can glory in the beauty of our planet, enjoy the changing seasons and marvel at the wondrous plants and animals that surround us. The difference between Augustus and me is that I can explain tigers, orchids and dung beetles thanks to the insights of Darwin while he, poor fellow, appeals to a preposterous theory of creation by a magical god. Augustus not only denies himself the intellectual challenge of explaining the world in real terms but even has the cheek to boast about his belief in magic.

His claim of the moral superiority of religious believers is equally preposterous. The atheists I know mostly behave very decently to their fellow beings and do so without the threat of hellfire in an afterlife. To me that makes their good behaviour more commendable than that of believers like Augustus who only behave properly because, like little children, they are afraid of a smack bottom or something worse.

Believe me, Augustus, no “random senselessness” pervades my life. It is filled with purpose and affection for my fellow beings – even for benighted chumps like you.

DavidSI

"Maybe the god bothers will get a post Pope bounce, but it won't last, my side is winning, slowly we become a less godless nation . And I rejoice!"

Pothead, there are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide and 1.3 billion Muslims which together represent nearly 40% of the world’s population. In addition, there are 135m Russian Orthodox members, 7m Jews and 400m Buddhists (excl. those sects which do not advocate a belief in gods) . The number of people who believe in a God as the creator of all life is increasing constantly with, for example, the number of Catholics increasing threefold over the past half-century alone. So, just from a numbers perspective alone, how do come by the idea that your side (i.e. Atheism) is “winning”? Perhaps you meant that that Atheism’s argument is more persuasive? For 156 million Atheists worldwide like yourself, that is certainly true, but that doesn’t prove or disprove anything, much less lead to the conclusion that a set of beliefs is winning!
Look, put it this way. A belief in a Creator has existed in various forms ever since the origin of man. Many billions of people have worshipped, written about, philosophised, debated and loved a God over time; many have given up their lives (and continue to do so) for their God. It is, on reflection, an incredible thing that such a colossal swathe of humanity – often thousands of kilometres apart and over many millennia – should all look for, and follow, a God. No “fairy-tale”, no amount of money and no level of coercion can explain the breadth and depth of that phenomenon (If governments and companies could even begin to replicate the same level of following, belief and commitment for their cause surely they would do everything in their power to do so?). So how can you possibly conclude that this is all conveniently coming to an end?
On a last note; Many of the more militant Atheists like you think that the existence of God is nothing more than a fairy tale. But, if that is true, why does this fairy tale agitate you so much? Why are you so desperate that this supposed “fairy tale” should end? My intuition is that your intensity is motivated by the same instinctive notion of a God as I, or billions of others, have but that you are driven to inverse need to repel it.

Derek BLADES

DavidSI's argument that God must exist because a lot of people think so is patently absurd. Virtually everyone in England once believed that many women were witches with magical powers. This is now generally thought to have been a mistake.

Throughout the world, belief in gods is negatively correlated with the level of education. Atheism/agnosticism is now standard among educated classes throughout the world. As education spreads, belief in fairy tales weakens. Pothead is spot on. DavidSI is on the losing side

Incidentally, David SI should tell us what he means by 1.2 billion Catholics. Is this supposed to be the numbers that attend church once a week, once a year or just those who thoughtlessly declare themselves to be catholics because Mummy and Daddy told them they were. His amazing statistics also miss out Protestants and Hindus. The latter believe in hundreds of gods and so would presumably bolster his “case”. And he might want to check his arithmetic. His dodgy numbers for Catholics and Muslims represent 30%, not 40%, of world population.

DavidSI

Derek, the number of Catholics today = 1.2 billion. The number of Catholics since St.Peter started the church some 2,000 years ago runs into tens of billions. Your use of witches in an instance of time as a parallel is infantile. Once/if you manage to get past that initial hurdle, reflect on the fact that the instinctive human search for a creator is regarded as one of the key evidences for the existence of a God. At the very least, before you write another buffoonish comment about a parallel with witches, TRY to examine and think through that argument and critique it intelligently.
A priest in training studies philosophy, theology, Thomism for seven years before being ordained. The Pope lectured at several universities and speaks some five languages. The priest of the local UK diocese, where I lived before emigrating, had a doctorate in physics on top of the seven years of required ecumenical training. Derek, I could go on for a long time to undermine your assertion about the correlation between religion and education, but I ultimately recognize that the weight of evidence is inversely proportional to your ability to consume and appreciate it. You cannot be reasoned out of a deeply bitter set of beliefs that you haven’t reasoned yourself into in the first instance.
BTW, my numbers were calculated by dividing the 2.5 billion Catholics and Muslims in the world by the world’s population of 6.8 billion (i.e. 37%). If you add in the wider Christian community, the percentage rises steeply above forty percent (There’s nothing very complex or sinister about the math). However, I have no more idea about how often they attend church/mosque than you do about how often the world’s percentage of atheists (2.4%) go shopping (or reflecting on their choice of atheism). I also have no idea how many people decide to be Catholics on the back of their parents’ guidance any more than you know how many atheists have made their choice out of sheer stupidity and narrow mindedness (Exactly how much did you expect your line of juvenile taunting to further your argument?).
Derek, you have made your choice. Be content with it and try to avoid the usual atheistic nullity of validating that choice by attacking the belief of others. It will lead you nowhere except toward an even greater sense of bitterness than you have already.

Derek BLADES

DavidSI asks me to "reflect on the fact that the instinctive human search for a creator is regarded as one of the key evidences for the existence of a God" and wants me to "examine and think through that argument and critique it intelligently." Let me do so.

You are assuming that there is “an instinctive human search for a creator”. I am not sure that is correct. How we and other fauna and flora have come about is just one of a large set of natural phenomena that are, at first sight, difficult to explain. Prehistoric people were puzzled by thunder, rainbows, earthquakes, the changing of the seasons, crop failures, the rising and setting of the sun and such like. They concluded that supernatural forces must be at work and I would probably have done so myself at the time. Belief in supernatural powers was promoted by holy men of various sorts. Reliance on these holy men often had distressing results - sacrificing young girls in South America, burning witches in England and, something I saw myself last year, mass slaughter of livestock in Nepal to placate a Hindu god.

Little by little, the true causes of thunder, rainbows, the changing of the seasons and so on have come to light and, in the teeth of opposition from the holy men, more and more people have abandoned belief in supernatural explanations. (That is the link between education and religion that I tried to explain to you.)

One recent and very important step in the advancement of our knowledge about the natural world was made by Darwin who showed how different species evolved. True to form, the current crop of holy men are defending their turf and resisting the theory of evolution despite the large and growing body of evidence in its favour. I believe that Darwin has eliminated the need for a supernatural explanation for the origin of species although there is still room for debate about the origin of life itself. Darwin did not address that issue and it is still being examined by biologists, chemists, and zoologists in many countries and several theories are on offer.

I hope you will not conclude from any of the above that I am against all holy men. Properly instructed and restrained by laws they have a useful role to play as part of the social support system in civilised societies. I believe that is how more and more priests in the Christian churches see their role. Unfortunately some Christian sects still have the capacity to do harm – the Catholic church’s response to the African AIDS epidemic being a case in point.

Just one final point. For some reason you accuse me of having a great “sense of bitterness”. I resent that. I have great affection for my fellow humans – even including pompous chumps like you.

Mike Homfray

Christians are far from oppressed. They just can't block laws they don't like or demand exemption from them as they wish. They can discriminate all they wish within their own institutions but not outside

Augustus

Derek Blades - We believers appear to be all 'chumps' to you. But even if it turns out that there is no Heaven, it will certainly have helped me, and no doubt others on this Earth, in believing that there is. Your diminishment of us may suit your own pomposity, but it is, if I may say so, nothing more than childish name-calling.