tengri: So you are saying that atheists just think there isn't a God ... they are open to the possibility that there might be one? Am I reading this correctly?

Divine:Look, it is very simple. I don't believe in god the same way as I don't believe in ghosts, in father Xmas or the Lochness monster.
What is it you don't understand about that?

Once again, I find some of the comments, to say the least, disingenuous... If the add in question had portrayed the prophet Mohamed in what could be seen as a disrepectful way , the same people who here can't see much wrong with using Jesus for this add would be up in arms, saying inflamatory material like this should not be used etc etc .... So which is it ? Do we apply the same guidelines for everyone, or should we be particularly mindful of not hurting the feelings of a section of the population, where it would be perfectly to ignore that of another ?

Keir, stop talking nonsense. There is ample evidence in the Hebrew text that the Bible has been edited, these edits are far less obvious to detect in the translations than they are in the Hebrew. Consider one example, the problem of the age of Saul. Here in my Hebrew Bible, which is the original text in case you are unsure, 1 Samuel 13:1 reads: A son of one year old was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel.

Ok, now go and read the rest of Saul's history and ask yourself whether a baby can do all the things Saul is said to have done.

Now, let's get to the editing part. In the Greek Septuagint Saul's age is given as 30 years when he started to reign over Israel. Based on what? not the Hebrew text as the Hebrew text predates the Septuagint. But 30 years is nonsense in any case because Saul had a son who was old enough to serve in the military. So what is Saul's real upon ascension? If you consider Acts 13:21, then Saul ruled for 40 years ... which it gets from where exactly? Again, not from the Hebrew text, in other words, someone sat down, did the maths and realised that Saul couldn't have been three when he fell on his sword in battle, so someone edited the Greek NT to make up for the Hebrew texts somewhat unreliable history of Saul.

You know nothing about Hebrew or the history of the Hebrew bible, don't go around spreading falsehoods about it simply because you want to make it seem like there is something other than bad reasons to believe in it.

Andyb: I'm not arguing about words , I'm asking for clarification. The word 'believe' is used to mean 'know' and 'think' by different people. I'm asking when people use the word 'believe' what exactly do they mean, 'think' or 'know'? I want to know what they are saying. I'm not trying to make an argument supporting religion or one against it.

Any Religion that can't take mocking or ribbing or criticism of its founding fathers is not up to much.
ASA was wrong to ban the cartoonsbecause they did not overstep the mark of decency.
Life of Brian.

My answer to the question of the existence of Father Christmas is not based on faith, it is a logical conclusion based on a rational appraisal of the world around me. I conclude that he most certainly can't exist because delivering toys to all children in the Christian world within a tiny 24 hour period before Christmas day is logistically impossible even in this day and age. Also I have never seen flying reindeer. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure they don't exits. http://www.diykitchenremodeling.net/

The Christ was a bit of a radical revolutionary. So maybe the monarchy and moneylenders and easter. Well perhaps not Easter, because the whole thing was choreographed anyway with a beginning middle and the end.

Mr Divine.

I was very careful to use the word "conclude". I never used the word "belief" because that sounds too much like faith.

My answer to the question of the existence of Father Christmas is not based on faith, it is a logical conclusion based on a rational appraisal of the world around me. I conclude that he most certainly can't exist because delivering toys to all children in the Christian world within a tiny 24 hour period before Christmas day is logistically impossible even in this day and age. Also I have never seen flying reindeer. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure they don't exits.

Similar arguments apply to the existence of a god. Although this does depend on how you define god. The god I think of is that guy who is supposed to answer personal prayers, loves us (apparently) and occasional performs miracles.

Is this clearer?

Oh. And the word "know" can be as dangerous as "believe". Rather than say "I know god doesn't exist", I would prefer to say "I am convinced he doesn't exist". This is because we can never formally demonstrate his non-existence. If he's a really lazy God who never interferes in our affairs, then we could all be completely oblivious to his existence.

Mr Divine,

Atheists like me (damn, I used that word) frequently ask believers how they know what they believe is true. I can honestly tell you I have never recieved an answer that was anywhere near compelling.

I just have to accept that certain people don't feel the need for evidence to believe what they believe (or often claim they know). They are happy to be irrational. I find that strange.

The executives of Samsung will suffer no pains or indignities for mocking Jesus. It is for promoting Easter that they will wish they had never been born.

So we won't see a Baby Cheeses advert then?

It is amazing how certain people who profess to not be religious can't seem to stop going on about religion all the time. Personally, I think fundamentalism of any stripe - whether we're talking about biblical literalists, terrorists on jihad, Hindu nationalists or intolerant atheists - simply indicates lack of faith in one's convictions.

If there's a God who created the Universe, he could easily have created evolution. It doesn't challenge the existence of a creator - only the faith one has in the Book of Genesis. If you only believe in God because you're convinced the Bible is literally true, then you don't really believe in God at all. Similarly, if you believe Allah is threatened by people who have not yet accepted Mohammed as his latest prophet, then your faith is in Mohammed, not in Allah. If you don't believe in any god at all, why waste your short time on Earth trying to convince believers that they're wrong?

But if everyone else believes what you think you believe, or what you want to believe, then you don't have to question your beliefs anymore. Your faith isn't threatened by the different faiths of others. You can simply conform to the rest of society, or at least to the leaders you respect, and not worry about whether or not your faith is misplaced.

I am comfortable in my atheism, and so I don't feel my beliefs are threatened by religion. Likewise reasonable religious people who have their own beliefs aren't threatened by me. We get on. But the nutcase screaming about Satan from the pulpit and Mr Jones "I will sell you a copy of not-Watchtower" here will forever be at each others throats because each secretly has doubts.

Be comfortable with your doubts Mr Jones, they are the sign of an inquiring mind and not a traitor to the faith, even if the faith involved claims to be faithless.

'Here in my Hebrew Bible, which is the original text in case you are unsure, 1 Samuel 13:1 reads: A son of one year old was Saul'

That's English. And not necessarily a translation. It's been translated various ways by competent people, and anyone with any knowledge of this verse would not do as above, unless dishonest. Even English translations indicate that Saul's age is simply omitted. This may be ascribed to copyist error.

'ask yourself whether a baby can do all the things Saul is said to have done.'

No doubt the Israelites would have asked themselves that same question, had it existed.

In the Greek Septuagint Saul's age is given as 30 years'

In a few late copies, it is. The Septuagint is known for its errors, anyway.

'If you consider Acts 13:21, then Saul ruled for 40 years'

What does that have to do with Saul's age at accession?

Mr Divine: do you really think that by arguing over words like 'believe' and 'think' you're making a convincing argument for religion and against atheists. Think again.

Most atheists come to the conclusion that religions are bogus because we see absolutely no evidence for the existence of gods. This is not a 'belief', just a rational conclusion based on observation and evidence (or lack of it). Similar considerations of observation and evidence lead you to no doubt conclude that Father Christmas is also a fiction.

We would however change our positions if such evidence did come to light. I am not holding my breath!

An atheist is a person who refuses to accept employment which does not permit normal work on Dec 25th. A rare species.

Duh, we're all agnostics at the end of the day

'Organised religion has a hierarchy and is a control mechanism for the masses.'

A phenomenon noted by ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and Romans. It seems that Homo sapiens has a religious instinct, and this instinct has often been channelled in the interests of oligarchies, that had tendency to appropriate more than was necessary to fulfil the duties of good governance. They made use of religious beliefs that supported their activities.

In the time and place of Jesus of Nazareth, it was the Roman power that dominated, though, in theory at least, it made a rare concession in Judea, where the religion was essentially democratic, and also firmly embedded. In true Roman style, the imperial power simply established a corrupt leadership and more or less kept control by this means. (It was, perhaps inevitably, not to last, and eventually the old theocratic/democratic state of Israel was totally destroyed, as was perhaps divine will.)

But there were religions corruptions in Judea, as well as political ones, and they relied on hierarchy, too- though these were informal hierarchies, because no religious hierarchy had been devised by Moses, Joshua, David or anyone else. The only authority recognised as proper in Judea was the Hebrew Scripture (even the political monarchy of Israel was not perceived as of divine will.) So two informal religious 'authorities' grew up, the liberal Sadducees and the legalistic Pharisees, to add to the rather shady Herodians whose primary interest was political.

But Jesus did not ban the Sadducees, Pharisees or Herodians, though he opposed them very firmly on moral grounds. He made not the least effort to displace them by force, and indeed he endorsed the Roman Empire by recognising the right of Rome to collect taxes in Israel. Rather, he appealed to the origin of the faith of Israel, the faith of Abraham, who had no organised religion, and who did not devise one. Abraham had no-one to tell him what to do in religious contexts, and he told no-one what to do in those contexts. That is the state of those who today follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

'the editing of the bible says everything you need to know about organised religion'

This is simple fantasy, bred by internet ignorance and bigotry. There is not the smallest evidence that the Bible of 66 books in the commonly agreed texts has been edited. Moreover, those original language texts in original languages do not support hierarchical, organised religion in any way. Rather, they demonstrate that such resorts are doomed to moral failure (as subsequent history has confirmed). One has to read either a discredited Greek manuscript or a 'translation' to find evidence of 'editing'- or rather, naked political interference intended to facilitate political control and organisation of 'Christians'.

RM: I've tied Kier in a knot .. that's why he can't talk sense.

He would be libertarian and would not look to ban things.

For the sake of this blog, OK, he would ban organised religion and those false prophets stating historical facts that are merely fiction and to which there is zero evidence (religion).

Thanks for that Andyb: So you think there isn't a God .. but there might be. But you think there isn't one based on your experiences. Have I got that right? You're an agnostic.

I hope I have given you something to work on when you talk to 'believers'. Ask them if they know or think. Then if they say they 'know', ask them how they 'know'. Usually they say it is written in the Bible or it is 'obvious' that it is all evolution.

How do they 'know' that what they read isn't something by an American man pretending to be a Syrian Lesbian?

There, a linguistic tool from someone with a Masters in Linguistics.

How about a turbomb cartoon?

And Jesus gazed upon his twelve disciples and proclaimed "At least one of you has got to have some weed."

And... Enter the fundamentalist agnostics that see any justified criticism of religion as being fundamentalist, in itself. Why are there so many people that aren't religious themselves, spending so much time talking about religion, you ask? Well, if you must pose such a stupid question, perhaps you should read the above article again, sans the opinion stuff. Monotheistic religion is quite easily the most divisive ideology concocted by the human race, and as such, I believe we are not only justified in making the claim, but bound to do so.

Also, Lox, I'm interested in whether you actually believe all atheists reject the possibility of spiritual experience? The problem with a lot of people that make spiritual claims, is that they invoke the supernatural, which in itself is a nonstarter. Listen to Sam Harris speak about his spiritual experiences, whilst studying meditation in the far East, and who knows... Maybe you'll agree with him. ;)