In the meantime, some Christians demonstrate their peaceful minds

Nice link you gave nelliemoser.
The methodist website has improved a lot over the years.

People are becoming very exercised over what are, in essence, trolls.
They are everywhere with their deranged minds and have a wonderful arena in the internet. Not typical of christians - in fact not christians at all!

RD portrays an image of an an avuncular, charming, amused professor in his woollie pullie who can rise above the views of mad christians.

Very clever media portrayal, a nice touch with the calm background of the aquarium and the fish (a christian symbol).

That's exactly what RD does. It's irritating and, I suspect, bogus.

RD is not innocently searching for the 'truth'. He is motivated by unresolved resentment stemming from his childhood experiences with religion.

It is also supremely arrogant, condescending and manipulative.

I speak as a probable number 3.5 !

The people who wrote the letters did very wrong behaviour.

Do you know that thatbags talks to her Mormon friend without mentioning the Mormon religion and saying what she thinks of it soontobe ? It seems to me that she would be equally frank whoever she spoke to, and whatever she was discussing. but she would not do it so as to insult the person she was speaking to.

There is a world of difference between saying

"I admire you as a person, but I don't believe the doctrines and dogma of the religion you follow." and

"I can't admire you as a person when you believe all the doctrines and dogma of the religion you follow"

I wasn't aiming my comment at anyone. It was just an observation.

Yes, polite disagreement is one thing. Saying Christianity is bollocks, rubbish, superstitious nonsense (for instance) or sneering is another.

It's not hard to politely disagree. I do it all the time with my priest friend.

There's too much history on Gransnet to discuss this logically.

I can understand absent's frustration. As she and others have said countless times, setting out an alternative argument is not "insulting" a religion - it is merely expressing a different view.

I do not agree with hurling insults or ridiculing or humiliating anyone, be they followers of Christianity, Islam or any other belief system. But I think it is incorrect to say that questioning or challenging something is the same as insulting it.

Given that most religions contain texts and practices that are deeply demeaning of women, for instance, I think it is essential that they be questioned.

If I can't question how can I come to understand? I may never become a believer but I may have more understanding of the reasons why some people do.

I need to hear and questions both sides of an argument before I can make an informed decision. I know that belief is based on faith but surely that faith must have some basis in a reasoned logical argument just as lack of faith must have.

Questioning a religion or religious person - not insulting
Challenging politely a religion or religious person - not insulting
Expressing a different view politely - not insulting

You are right vampirequeen. Faith has to have some basis.

@vampirequeen - "faith must have some basis in a reasoned logical argument" - so you say; so why do we never hear this logical argument?

When Richard published The God Delusion it was followed by a spate, a raging torrent of attempted replies, books that became known as 'Richard's fleas' (as in the lines about fleas having lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And lesser fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum) - and not one of them could refute the statements made in Richard's book. It's a truism, that faith is belief in spite of, and perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
I can't remember which noted divine said that reason is the worst enemy of religion, but he wasn't far wrong!

I was musing on this question in the early hours.

It is likely that things do exist for which there is currently no proof.

Of course, I do not know what they are now. But five hundred years ago would people have believed in, say, sound waves? Even if they had guessed, how could they have managed to prove it then?

Maybe in another five hundred years there will be better proof that 'God' or something that we presently call God, exists.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why some people think of science as infallible. Science often gets things wrong.

I agree petallus that we probably know only a tiny fraction of what there is to know about anything.

That neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god or gods - it merely leaves the question open.

Petallus I don't think people do think of science as infallible. If they have any sense they think that on a given question science has the answer which is nearest to being proved at the moment , but science is willing to yield to further proof of right/wrong if more testing has produced more evidence. And then that evidence may be superseded by future investigation.

The opposite is believing that there is nothing further to be investigated and the book can be closed.

For a long time the accepted view of the universe was that the earth was at the centre and everything else, including the sun, revolved around it. Galileo used that newly invented gadget, the telescope to look more closely, and supported Copernicus' theory that the earth went round the sun. For this, he was convicted of heresy and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Well, isn't it nice that, despite the controversial nature of this thread (I know, my bad) we've all managed to remain polite and courteous, even when we vastly disagree on many points. Thank you all.

I have heard some arguments in favour of God. I think there is a theory called something like design by divine or divine design. Not sure of the name but basically it says that some things are so amazing they couldn't have evolved by chance and that something greater must have been involved. The Catholic Church accepts the big bang theory but then leaves the door open for God by asking where the first particles came from to cause it.

The problem seems to be that when push comes to shove the nutters come out on both sides and simply hurl abuse rather than having a rational debate. (Not on Gransnet btw)

Has anyone said Christianity (i.e. all of it) is bollocks (etc), petallus? Even R Dawkins doesn't say that.

I once read a book by Jung in which he argues that if something is thought to exist by enough people over a certain period of time, then in a sense it does exist (as a powerful and influential idea).

I found the concept quite hard to get to grips with but think I got a sense of what he meant.

Bags. You recently said something was bollocks but it might not have been Christianity.

I remember because I was shocked!

I think I understand the concept of that, petallus.

What I have never been able to grasp is infinity.

Having read a post you made earlier, granjura I am now worrying that I may be thought of as a hypocrite.
I thought agnostic could be a good description, but would an agnostic be at 3.5 on bags's scale of 1-7?

Upbringing, imbued in the christian traditions, a feeling of a 'comfort blanket' in times of need versus science and logic.

LOL don't worry many of our family and best friends are 'hypocrites' eg cultural Christians, non-believers, but lovers of the traditions and also the advantages (schools for instance). Not for me, personally- either I do, or I don't- no half measures. And I perhaps have too much respect for the faith of others for taking the mik and advantage/s- knowing full well I do not believe.

That's just the way I am. I could not agree to become a Godmother, for instance, making promises with my fingers crossed behind my back and thinking 'there is no way I am doing THAT'. And no way we could have married in a Church- possibly the most important day of our lives- and spend the whole ceremony lying- what would it say about our genuine wows? I am always looking at all sides of a story, trying to get all the angles and all the shades of grey in between- but not with religion.

As they say on Strictly SE...VEN!