'How many Christians read the Quoran? and did the researchers ask other Christians to read the Quoran unlabeled? Or even dressed as Biblical?'

Could anyone familiar with the Bible mistake Bible for Qur'an? I don't think so. The Qur'an is replete with re-writes and repetition, in apparent jumble, without purposeful narrative. Except to re-write it, re-assigning power and authority to Allah, who is so frequently described as 'merciful' and 'all-knowing' that one wonders if the prophet doth not protest far too much. It's a deliberately offensive book to any who have read the Bible, whether they believe a word of the Bible or not. Open the Qur'an anywhere, and you see 'We sent so-and-so,' 'We did such-and-such,' 'Our messengers came to whatsisname' (Moses, Abraham or the like), all at least six hundred years after the event, usually at least double that elapsed time. What sort of deity is so late with the right version of events? The sobering fact is that nobody can believe the Qur'an, particularly after reading the Bible.

Can anyone today really believe that proving that evolution occurred devalues the Bible? I don't think so. That's why, if this research is invalid, it's not invalid for the reasons offered here.

'No other religion is willing to subject its basic fundamentals of faith to such questioning.'

Which is why it has murdered or censored so many, establishing Sharia by force, wiping out all trace of Christianity in many parts, including N. Africa. On average, one battle every other year for its first 180 years is the 'persuasion' of Islam. Without blood, it would not exist.

One lie after another.

'For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas'

Another product of vicious violence and censorship.

Catholicism and Islam would be illegal in a half-decent world.

The fact is the xperiment does work and religion affiliation is often divisive but then again, as a Manchester City i feel the same revulsion towards a picture of Wayne Rooney as some of the believers did towards the scriptures of other faiths. It's human nature to identify with one group and feel repulsed by another - look at Keir. But the religious teachings I like are the ones that discourage this tendency. Maybe all we have to think about is what is really true, beyond doubt, and try to be good people. As the great rabbi Hillel said when asked what is Judaism, relied:"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary." Sums it up for me.

Catholicism and Islam would be illegal in a half-decent world - Keir - now we know what you're really like

I speak as an atheist and devout Pastafarian (or follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Islam is intellectually the cleanest religion. The Koran is the thoughts of a practical philosopher on the right way of living. Until only a century ago Islam could call itself the most modern religion on earth. The abuses that its opponents rage against today were commonplace in Western society, and legally sanctioned too.

But human society has changed drastically, and Islam has not adapted to fit the mores of advanced civilisation. The tribal societies which are home to Islam will soon disappear.

I predict that when a "reform" Islam comes about, with charismatic leaders, it will sweep the planet in a decade or two, succeeding where its predecessor's jihads have failed in over 1250 years.

A decent, law-abiding citizen.

Should we question the morality of those who make money from being professional atheists?

Rather than speculating, if it matters whether God exists or does not exist we should spend more on fundamental research.

I do not agree that the last question about how atheists would react if subjected to similar tests is a gratuitous dig at atheists. In fact, the experiment as described appears very similar in nature to psychological priming, a process whereby a subject is prepared for a particular frame of mind or mood by being subjected to some stimulus. If one wishes to make a subject feel more confident, then one asks the subject think of a situation in which they felt particularly good about themselves. Then pose the subject a question of some sorts to which they don't know the answer. If the subject is then subsequently asked to rate how confident they feel about being right, they would usually report feeling very confident. Contrast this with a subject who was asked to think of a situation in which they felt very bad. They would feel less confident about being right.

The human mind can also be primed without it knowing that it is being primed. Apparently one can be made to calm down from a tense situation simply by placing a pencil (or something similar) between the teeth. The theory is that the very act of forcing the mouth to curl into something resembling a smile tricks the mind into believing it is feeling better, and so responds as if it feeling better.

My take on the experiment is that people who view the Bible favourably, will be primed in a positive manner by being exposed to it prior to the tasting. Those who view Dawkins unfavourably will be primed in a negative manner by being exposed to his writings. In both cases, I think the resultant adjudication of the taste as pleasant or not is influenced by how their minds were primed. As this type of mental process is not limited to Christians, I see no reason why it would work differently for atheists or even why we (I am an atheist) should be offended by it. Perhaps some Christians might be offended at the fact that their minds work just like those of atheists, but they would have to take that up with the creator when they meet her.

As for the effect of 'cleansing', this is quite interesting, but I think it is also to be expected. Consider the very many little actions which give away liars in the act, for example, wiping the air with the hand, as if to wipe away the lie. I think that the act of washing ones hands after being in contact with the offending literature functions in the same way, it provides the believer (or the as yet untested unbeliever I speculate) with some sort of reassurance that they have been removed (cleansed) from exposure to the offending literature or ideas.

In any event, this is fascinating research and I would be very interested to see if follow up studies confirm the results.

There is St David of West Wales though, not David of Israel,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyfXWSVaqUE

Many people of a religious disposition have responded to this report in a manner reminiscient of a wounded animal.

Let's just consider your objections to people's reasons for not believing in your god as read and so avoid the discussion from deteriorating into irrelevancies. I assure you that I, and many other atheists, find your religions very compelling and very interesting if not entirely convincing, but the issue at hand here is the subconscious workings of the human mind and not the veracity of religious claims. So, could you limit your responses to what is relevant, perhaps start by pondering the implications of the as yet unexplored workings of the unconscious mind on the conscious experience of the world in the mind of a religious believer? I don't think that is too much to ask for, considering that in Isaiah 1:18 god invites us to reason together. So let us reason, and not muddle.

Forget all the atheist, agnostic, dithering labels. Define yourself as human and let others call themselves Christian, Muslim etc

God is dead.

Whatever delusional fantasies keep you happy, Keir. But don't tell other people's delusions are evil and have no place in a "half decent world".
I am sure the early Christians were very sweet peace loving hippies but they are not the ones who spread the religion around the globe. What did that was the might of the sword and the abuse of power and abominable cruelty.

'Religion's deepest appeals are irrational'

Is it irrational to prefer a sober husband to a drunken one? Is it irrational to prefer a conscientious wife to an idle one? Is it irrational to prefer a respectful teenager to a boorish one? Is it irrational to prefer an honest fuel supplier to a dodgy one? Is it irrational to prefer an honest banker to a corrupt one?

Excuse me if I'm irrational. It's just the way I am.

Interesting article spoiled by the gratuitous dig at atheists at the end.

@Keir:
You have (seemingly) inadvertently critiqued yourself quite effectively.

It is entirely RATIONAL to prefer all those things you question, from the sober husband to the honest banker.

(One of) The only area(s) where otherwise perfectly rational people seem not to employ any of their rationality is religion.

Usually because faith trumps all when it gets to that point.
And as any 'non-believer' will know, faith is unquestionable, irrational, and held in higher regard than any logical process of reason.

'It is entirely RATIONAL to prefer all those things you question, from the sober husband to the honest banker.'

That is my point. I think you too hastily misread.

A couple of points I wanted to comment on:

First Point:

"Inter-faith activists pin their hopes for a more harmonious world on members of different religions getting together and realizing how much they have in common. They stress that different outward forms and theological structures matter less than what all faiths share -- compassion for others as expressed in the "Golden Rule". Mr. Faith himself, Tony Blair, urged a conference in 2009:

Love your God; love your neighbor as yourself. These simple admonitions are the guiding light of our faith. They give us the possibility of 'A Common Word.' When we lose our way, Christians or Muslims, this is the light by which we re-discover our true path.

Is Mr. Jones advocating a one-world religion like Tony Blair? True Christians have nothing to do with religions and have everything to do with the truth. They are truth seekers not blind followers of a blind faith. A Christian's faith is reasonable, logical, based on evidence and history.

Second Point:

"But it's perhaps misleading to find the common core of religion in moral precepts that religious people share equally with humanists. Religion's deepest appeals are irrational, and they reside in strong feelings of belonging and attachment to particular stories and to fellow believers."

I agree with your statement completely, all religions are dead religions, stories of man earning his way to salvation. But the truth is, their is a God, you have been eternally separated from Him because of a choice you made, and their is only one way back to Him, that's through the risen Lord Christ Jesus. On a side note I do find it interesting that Mr. Jones links humanists as being moral and separate from religions. He might not have come across the Humanist Manifestos which started in 1933 declaring itself a religion (there were three total manifestos written since that time). As far as being moral, is he advocating the Humanist stance of willing murdering your unborn child moral(abortion)? Is he advocating suicide as moral (euthanasia)? Is he advocating the killing of the weak as being moral (eugenics)? If he is not aren't these stances of different sects of Humanists?

Last Point aimed at MattyG and moronamid:

MattyG, any "true believer" will know, that some of the most religious people in the world, such as atheists in their new found religion called evolution put their faith in a completely illogical and unreasonable process. Substituting the word "God" out and replacing it with their new god called "Time". Also replacing authority and order with chance and probability. A true believer (a born-again Christian) his/her faith is based on reason and logic. It's not based on millions of years, random chance, and primordial soup scum (just to clarify).

moronamid, is absolute truth relative? What faith can you have for eternal salvation in yourself? Do you believe your a god?

Alex:

I disagree with you brother. The scientific method for proving their is a God is like trying to use hand-held binoculars to study the universe. God is transcendent, He created the universe and everything in it. The evidence that their is a God from a scientific method point of view can be found in His creation. The order of it, the masterpiece that it is even in its fallen state. Alex Jesus Christ walked this earth a little of 2000 years ago. Thousands had either heard or seen Him heal the blind, cleanse the leper, make a lame man walk, and raise a man from the dead. He fulled prophesies, and is fulling the ones yet to come. What did this world do with Jesus? We crucified Him... This world whats nothing to do with God, all the evidence you'll ever need to have to prove their is a God is found in Jesus the Messiah. So how can the scientific method prove anymore than God the Son literally coming down to earth in the form of a man, to take your place and mine on that cross at Calvary.

You point out:
"Religion isn't just about being generally nice and loving one's neighbour. It's also about the claim that particular beliefs are true, and (just as importantly) about other beliefs not being true."
Wouldn't the same apply to atheism? Isn't the belief that there is no god,, too, about other beliefs (in casu deist religions) *not* being true?

The Untamed Religious Faiths of America's "Christian Republican Party"

The 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Candidates

One of the trends I find "exceptional" about the USA today is the number of religious sects and cults participating directly in the electoral process. The leading contender for the Republican nomination for President, Gov. Mitt Romney, is a Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a religion considered heretical by many mainstream Christians like nearly all mainstream Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas began his Presidential campaign by organizing a “Christian only” evangelical, and "dominionist" prayer meeting called “The Response: a call to prayer for a nation in crisis.” “Dominionism” is the belief that holds the Holy Bible as dominant over laws made by man. For an examination of the relationship between Gov. Perry and the controversial “New Apostolic Reformation” movement, see the Texas Observer’s article “Rick Perry’s Army of God” http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god. “The Response” was a gathering of the different tribes of American fundamentalism – Christian Zionists, prayer warriors, apostolic and prophetic types, etc. – under the umbrella of political and spiritual revival, see Rachael Maddow’s special report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/44098787#44098787

Like Governor Perry, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann espouses a "dominionist" religious perspective and spent her student years in law school studying the "dominionist" approach to society, law and government, see John Chait’s article in the New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90014/michelle-bachmanns-worldview.

Gov. Sarah Palin is a member of a "The Wasilla Assembly of God." The “Wasilla Assembly” is a member of the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Christian denomination founded in 1914, in the United States. The ‘Four Core Beliefs’ of the Assemblies of God are Salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing and the Second Coming of Christ. A dramatic insight into Pentecostalism is found in the 1997 film, The Apostle written, directed and starring Robert Duvall, as a charismatic “Pentecostal” preacher. Pentecostals are known to “speak in tongues:” see a clip from Duvall’s movie, The Apostle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwMu9WW_bg.
The Apostle’s main character” Sonny” is what social scientists once politely referred to as “Other Protestants.” Sonny was actually a preacher in the traditional holiness movement, distinct from the Pentecostal movement, which believes that the baptism in the Holy Spirit involves speaking in tongues. Many of the early Pentecostals were from the holiness movement, and to this day many "classical Pentecostals" maintain much of holiness doctrine and many of its devotional practices, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement.

Modern “dominionism” is largely unknown to most Americans. The list of unknown schismatic sects, cults, groups, exotic beliefs and churches, which the contenders for the Republican nomination belong to or are in agreement with, is "exceptional." The religious fringe, it seems, has become the Protestant mainstream.

Today’s Republicans could be rebranded the “Christian Republican Party.” The center core of Protestant faith has migrated from “Liberal Protestantism” to an entrepreneurial-style, evangelist and fundamentalist faith, which votes heavily on the Republican Row. It was once believed that such sects originated mainly among the religiously neglected poor. Clearly, this is now no longer the case. It has been argued by social scientists that insecurity, differential status and anxiety characterize these religious movements. The effects of the Great Recession and the affects of geographic relocation and workplace displacement have contributed to a sense of anxiety and anomie among the American middle-class.

Ernst Troeltsch, the major historian of sectarian religion, has characterized the psychological appeal of fundamentalist religious sects in a way that might as appropriately be applied to extremist politics. A direct connection between the social roots of political and religious extremism has been observed in a number of countries. It was observed by the American sociologist S. M. Lipset, as early as the 1960s that, “the point here is that rigid fundamentalism and dogmatism are linked to the same underlying characteristics, attitudes, and predispositions which find another outlet in allegiance to extremist political movements.”

Many western democracies have “Christian Democratic Parties,” the US, because it is “exceptional,” has a “Christian Republican Party.” The candidates for the Republican nomination have made their religious views of scripture known, by degrees. To discover what these candidates deeply and sincerely believe requires the investigative work of a "large metropolitan newspaper."

The ascendancy of the “nouveau fundamentalist Protestant elite” to high leadership positions in the Republican Party needs to be understood as a serious step toward a profound redefinition of church and state in America. The ascendancy of hard-core chronic “know-nothing-ism” and “anti-intellectualism,” so eloquently written about by Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter, and sectarian belief systems, is undoubtedly "exceptional" for a modern mass political party with governmental responsibilities. While it is argued that Europe is experiencing a “crisis of faith,” the United States is experiencing a revivalism parallel with the Second Great Awakening of the 1800s.

The decline of mainstream Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Episcopalians as forces affecting the direction of the Republican Party, has been statistically significant, and the rise of “Other Protestants,” and sects, has marked a realignment of voting patterns and political commitment.
Is it possible to image Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy organizing a 30,000 person “Catholics only” prayer service as a campaign launch? One of the famous quotes from Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, during the 1960 national election, was, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.”