All this god-link business is almost certainly just the mind making itself comfortable with its moral decisions. This is why one has to learn to believe first and then the keenly expected 'revelation' follows. Gods are protean, reflecting desires. If triangles had gods then they'd have three sides.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I'm not *certain* that a god doesn't exist. I once even took the 'Roman road' and asked 'god' to contact me. Of course there was no epiphany but I realised I was starting to interpret unconnected events as 'answers'; a well-known trait of our species. It was then I realised the danger of all this.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

The thing is, Greg, you have a religious belief in the power of your oft-repeated argument about a particular type of, probably very rare, atheist. Otherwise, you'd consider its weaknesses. Atheism, if it involves a belief at all, is a dispositional belief not the occurrent one of the religious.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"As ever, you misunderstand what belief means in this context. A philosophical background would equip you for that but, unfortunately, you have a theology background which seems to be a terrible disadvantage over meanings."

That is a playground argument: highly ironical, too.

Time to go

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "We scorn you because either you believe that God does not exist" As ever, you misunderstand what belief means in this context. A philosophical background would equip you for that but, unfortunately, you have a theology background which seems to be a terrible disadvantage over meanings.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"As usual, the vitriolic hatred emanates from the devout."

You confuse hate with disdain. We scorn you because either you believe that God does not exist, which is unprovable and means you are irrational, or because as agnostics you should give the benefit of the doubt, but don't.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Alan:"Belief" is not knowledge. It's the very opposite."

More atheist inspired confusions. You should look a little beyond your atheist cage/dictionary, Alan. Typical Alan rubbish:"The concept fo a God is silly therefore he doesn't exist", hmm, yeah, right.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg, as I have said many times, I'm comfortable with the idea of deism. In fact, I think it's quite possible. However, as a practical atheism, I can see no rational reason to accept the likelihood of theism and the Christian god in particular. Like your 'definitions', you adjust me to suit you.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"Come on Greg, admit it. There's no 'knowledge'"

This presumption comes from a)your irrational faith that God does not exist,b)that I haven't given a mechanism of knowledge (which 'a' makes pointless). True agnostics, who lack belief, would not presume, but give the benefit of the doubt

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "Until God 'fully' reveals Himself the choice is balanced." Come on Greg, admit it. There's no 'knowledge'. You've got a feeling or intuition rather like that of a gambler who's convinced he's going to win. The answers to my questions to believers & all the flaws in your thinking point there.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg: "Until God 'fully' reveals Himself the choice is balanced." Come on Greg, admit it. There's no 'knowledge'. You've got a feeling or intuition rather like that of a gambler who's convinced he's going to win this time. All my questions to believers & all the flaws in your thinking point there.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg L "God's proof of himself"

Classic - Good happens in the world - it's God's will. Something bad - God moves in mysterious ways. Religion was a means of establishing morals amongst early societies & is now redundant. We are insignificant. People follow. The Church charges 10% to lead them.

Chris Clark, Bournemouth, England

"Belief" is not knowledge. It's the very opposite. If you know, you don't believe. Eithe/or. The one concept rules out the other.
However, we don't "know". So we can either "believe" the god-tales told to us by equally ignorant humans (preachers).
Or use our own brains to seek true knowledge

alan, germany,

"This is the lord of all creation for sure at the other end if one takes your definition of faith. What temptation could equal that?"

Belief is absolute by assent, but the other side of faith is 'trust' which is by the degree of assent. Until God 'fully' reveals Himself the choice is balanced.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "If the temptation provided is as strong as one's faith then the choice is evenly balanced". This is the lord of all creation for sure at the other end if one takes your definition of faith. What temptation could equal that? Unless, of course, the god link is not as obvious as you claim. :)

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"Anyone who thinks they have an authentic god-link surely wouldn't dare commit a mortal sin."

If the temptation provided is as strong as one's faith then the choice is evenly balanced: so of course one might mortally sin, by free will. You are straying in to theology.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Atheism is not a belief; it is robustly anti-belief! I'm far happier trusting my self and not abdicating responsibility for every area of my life to some blur in the sky. And that ridiculous notion that one person hear sall our prayers and plea-bargaining?!C'mon, wake up!

Lynda Franklin, Malaga, Spain

Anyone who thinks they have an authentic god-link surely wouldn't dare commit a mortal sin. It's supposed to be the lord of all creation at the other end. Therefore, these paedophile priests the Church has protected cannot be 'authentic' Christians and should have been excommunicated as frauds.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David:"One can tell that you have a theology background and not a philosophy one."

What are you really trying to say, David? Does a theological background disqualify my observation about the "I"? And which I have heard from the mouth of an atheist.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "Atheism has many consequences, one of which is that the 'I' can only be a delusion of a collection of brain cells [...]".

One can tell that you have a theology background and not a philosophy one.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg: "This is silly: you already presume their non-validity."

I'm just trashing another of your 'arguments' (the one where you think we should give you the benefit of the doubt over your ethics rather than condemn them if we're rational by your measure) by showing the flaws in its application.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

alan:"Everybody is agnostic. Nobody knows the ultimate truth. "

A supreme being hypothetically could have the power to give us objective knowledge of Himself, and since God's nonexistence is unprovable then your assertion/belief is without foundation. Even more so as there are many believers.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg - please think carfeully about the word "agnostic". Everybody is agnostic. Nobody knows the ultimate truth.
But we can believe in some imaginary god or other and claim to know the ultimate truth.
Or we can admit our ignorance and be intellectually honest enough to remain atheistic.

alan, germany,

It all comes down to whether you believe in a master creator or just by chance. If you believe the universe and life just happened or was created. The human body itself is a give away. Do you think your brain which can process millions of pieces of information wasn't created by a designer. I do.

Darrell Hurt, Ripley Ms., U.S.A

David: "we have no way of validating their varying subjective religious experiences"

This is silly: you already presume their non-validity. Or are you confusing 'atheist' and 'agnostic' again? Error and division is inevitable in free agents.

Authentic religious knowledge is objective.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David:"As a practical atheist and moral agent I have a problem.."

Atheism has many consequences, one of which is that the 'I' can only be a delusion of a collection of brain cells.There is no 'you' to be a moral agent. 'You' are wriggling with contradictions.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Bob:"It is much more likely that God was made in the image of man by man."

God creates the world and marvels at it: very unlikely.

God creates a being made in his image, that He loves, and free even to reject him. Even God might be interested in that.

But you presume otherwise.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Presumably, Greg, the practical atheist must give the benefit of the doubt to both 'deluded Christians' and 'authentic Christians' and not make moral condemnations of the ethics of either type even if they're different as we have no way of validating their varying subjective religious experiences.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

DG, the Christian myth exists for people today and they link their subjective experiences with it. Yet non-Christians have experiences too. You have no way of validating the myth if the 'god link' imparts no explicit knowledge. If it did impart knowledge then church schisms/debates wouldn't exist.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Atheism" does not exist, it's not an -ism, because it's not a set of beliefs or a structured theory (beyond the non-existence of gods). One can be an atheist, but there is no -ism. Some atheists follow humanism, that's an -ism with a structured set of principles. Others just get on with life.

Sam Centipedro, Shrewsbury, England

Greg, as a practical atheist and moral agent I have a problem because I have no means to choose between your Christian ethics and those of a liberal CofE Christian yet I have to act anyway. I think you're probably mad as a hatter but you say I must rationally give you the benefit of the doubt.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

It is much more likely that God was made in the image of man by man. Why would God need two arms and two legs.? Wouldn't they end up limiting his devine powers of movement?

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

at 68I lost my faith by reading the Mat 27;50 nonsense about mass resurrection of Jewish saints and prophets. The mass killing during xmas tsunami , cyclone and quake by'The Loving" Jewish God also helped me to become agnostic/atheist

Jan Kamola, Greenwich CT, USA

David Jones, you have missed the point about Christianity. Its central point is that God took the initiative and spoke, supremely in Christ. The religious side is the way humans organise their response. So it is simply not good enough to talk about human inclinations alone.

David Grieve (Rev'd), Cockfield, Bishop Auckland, UK

Presumably, Greg, the practical atheist must give the benefit of the doubt to both 'deluded Christians' and 'authentic Christians' and not make moral condemnations of the ethics of either type even if they're different as we have no way of validating their varying subjective religious experiences.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"...many religious theories can be partly explained by quantum theories." -Stella, Beijing , China

You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Despite what Deepak Chopra would have you believe, couching your religious beliefs in scientific terms does not automatically validate them.

Jay K, Colorado, USA

David:"...brought up in isolation of religious teaching would now arrive at Christianity even if they 'sincerely ask' their concept of a god to make contact?"

Without the detail of our having been made in the image of God - Genesis - (and therefore knowing enough to ask correctly) probably not.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Does anyone really think people brought up in isolation of religious teaching would now arrive at Christianity even if they 'sincerely ask' their concept of a god to make contact? 'Gods' are protean. They exist in whatever form because of the wishes of people inclined to believe these things.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

alan:"Christians..believe..god created himself.."

Not true. Existence is self-evident. The real question: is it self-aware? Nothingness never existed. To reason from nothingness is to think a nonsense: reason perverted like atheism. Reason begins with faith aka knowledge: God's proof of himself.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

AlanB:"As an atheist...I do not assert that a God does not exist."

Atheism is "To deny the gods/God": your definition is a form of agnostic. A true agnostic gives the benefit of the doubt: but you betray your true atheism since you you do not. To believe that God does not exist is irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

All talk about "god" by believers pre-supposes the existence of a god.
We, who don't believe in any god's existence, admittedly have no views about something non-existent.
But we do have views about a belief in something non-existent.
And about the arguments of the believers.
Is that clear now?

alan, germany,

Alan B is inaccurate to say that theists believe that God exists, because that is a quality of creatureliness. God is beyond existence, by definition. Alan is also disingenuous to suggest that he has no view about God when clearly he has, even if it is a retreat from the challenge of revelation.

David Grieve (Rev'd), Cockfield, Bishop Auckland, UK

David Jones:"Theirs may be the authentic contact from god rather than yours."

I don't know these people: your reply is quite unfair, and my previous reply more than adequately covered BOTH scenarios: false faith AND ignorance of the nature of faith (even if authentic): the latter you ignored.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

So Greg, you appear to be saying that there any many Christians, presumably the ones I have questioned, who are deluded or mistaken because their subjective religious experiences are markedly different from yours. How would you know? Theirs may be the authentic contact from god rather than yours.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Theists have a belief in the existence of a god, so muvh so, that they assert that their god actually exists.
As an atheist I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God. I do not have to offer proof nor do I have to determine absence of proof since I do not assert that a God does not exist.

Alan B, Birmingham, UK

David:"..their religious experiences..not at all consistent..[or] definitive as you claim"

Very few Christians know why they know God (the mechanism behind faith), and many Christians do not have in fact have any faith. They are like Pascal or Kierkegaard: irrational belief, like atheists.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

belief in God? It's just our covert death - phobia as we are temporal and egocentric .

Arunas, Vilnius, Lithuania

David:"..their religious experiences..not at all consistent..[or] definitive as you claim"

Very few Christians know why they know God (the mechanism behind faith), and many Christians do not have in fact have any faith. They are like Pascal or Kiergaard: irrational belief, like atheists.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Eric Skelton, i am with you, it makes me very sad and angry when none pasterfarians question the existance of the Flying Spagetti Monsters, "May we all be truly touched by his Noodly Appendage".

When will they see the light?

Yours in pasta....

Ray, Tunbridge Wells, UK

Christians may believe that god created himself - and could prove his existence if he wanted to. Well, Christians must realise that this argument pre-supposes the existence of god.
But there's no evidence, let alone proof, that any of the thousands of gods invented by humans have actually existed.

alan, germany,

Greg, I've spent a lot of time asking people about their religious experiences and the nature of this mechanism they're *taught* about as proto-Christians. The descriptions are not at all consistent and the nature of it is not as definitive as you claim. Wishful thinking has a lot of power you know.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones:"It's just a 'knowledge' of god existence and the best explanation for that phenomenon is delusion."

..or that He exists and is revealing Himself, as claimed by many.

Your presumption follows from the assumption that God does not exist, which is unprovable. The irony is delightful.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

If religion is delusional, I wonder where the good that it does comes from (assuming that atheists agree that it does any good that isn't outweighed by its faults)? Isn't it just a wee bit shallow to say that delusion is behind it all?

David Grieve (Rev'd), Cockfield, Bishop Auckland, UK

Greg: "If God created us free then error is inevitable."

The 'mechanism' is fundamentally error prone by the look of it. In fact, the religious details appear to be entirely socially transmitted. It's just a 'knowledge' of god existence and the best explanation for that phenomenon is delusion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Buck, Dave Madley, Alan Hay: read the previous comments. All your concerns have been already addressed.

James Whyley, perhaps you would like to define the word 'rational', and try some logic on us, rather than just making statements. Parallels between God and fairies, perhaps?

Try again.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"No longer did I have to worry about a surveillance camera in the sky watching my every move." -WOW

Heaven forbid that us as humans should be held accountable or feel convicted about unethical and wrong behaviour. True freedom lies within Christ. He is a not a set of "rules" or "Do Not's".

Damon, Southend On Sea, England

David:"People have defined the Abrahamic god as something incomprehensible"

Yes, but knowable. To the genuine seeker of Truth God makes reveals Himself. As God he is able to give us objective knowledge. 'Understanding' is to relate parts to each other. Knowledge must come before understanding.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones:"Guys, Christians have a hotline to god so they know they're right even if it leads each other to different ethics, dogmas, and interpretations."

Most religions are not truly exclusivist, not even Islam. Really only protestants. If God created us free then error is inevitable.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Guys, Christians have a hotline to god so they know they're right even if it leads each other to different ethics, dogmas, and interpretations. Atheists cannot know they're right yet they're certain by definition therefore they're irrational. See? It's simple really. We can't possibly win here..

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

God does not believe in atheists.......................

Liam McGurrin, Chesterfield, UK

Can anybody tell me which god we are talking about? I have a book which names 2,500. Does that mean that we have invented 2,499?

Alan Hay, Seville, Spain

Greg, you are in cuckoo land I have never heard such an absurd argument, you have argued for the non existence of a god through your logic if you reverse it. It is not necessary to prove a negative, but there is no proof whatsoever in a God which is the invention of an irrational and primitive mind.

Dave Madley, Alicante, Spain

To Martin from San Francisco. Quoting the Bible to support your argument against an atheist is rather missing the point. We don't believe in God so while the Bible may be factually correct in some instances, atheists see it as not much more than a work of fiction.

Phil, Baar, Switzerland

Gods need us more than we need them. Notice how animals get along without them just fine.

People have defined the Abrahamic god as something incomprehensible, which means that any effort to describe it is pointless and misleading. Better to leave the question aside.

David, Birmingham ,

"Atheism is irrational since it is not proven that God does not exist, so your belief has no rational basis"

It's impossible to prove that the Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist: the burden of proof lies with the ones saying He does. Greg, you have issues.

I feel blessed that I'm an athiest.

Buck, Stoke,

I used to believe in Isis - but that just sounded silly so I started believing in Thor, after pondering on the theology behind Zeus & his band of merry men & women.
I have since been tempted to believe in God but really, a person should have some limits.

VB, London, UK

"Comparing the concept of a supreme being to fairies or spaghetti monsters is atheist dishonesty."

No, it's comparing one abstract, subjective concept to another. If the parallels upset, perhaps it's time for folk to re-examine their beliefs.

James Whyley, Nottingham, UK

Comparing the concept of a supreme being to fairies or spaghetti monsters is atheist dishonesty, rather like comparing mathematics to numerology (superstitious use of numbers) .

The history of philosophy is much more sensible. At least agnostics are honest with themselves.

Greg Lorriman, LEatherhead, UK

"A God could hypothetically prove His own existence, which is what Christianity claims, and so religious belief is rational."

Tasks for today:
1. Look up the word rational.
2. Explore the concept of logic.
3. Try again.

James Whyley, Nottingham, UK

I have no time for these people who deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I wish only that His Noodly Appendage could touch them as it did me. Still, I suppose I should be mollified that at least they don't follow one of the myriad false religions who's absurd doctrines mock Him.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Renzulli:"Not only is religion irrational, it is also anti-life"

Atheism is irrational since it is not proven that God does not exist, so your belief has no rational basis. A God could hypothetically prove His own existence, which is what Christianity claims, and so religious belief is rational.

Greg Lorriman, LEatherhead, UK

Jesus Speaking: "Ask, and it will be given, Seek, and you will find, Knock, and the door will be opened unto you....." Unless you are too proud to admit you could be wrong about the non-existance of God. The Bible says a contrite heart God will never despise, but He resists the proud, arrogant.

Martin, San francisco, USA

I admire atheists for their great faith in the non-existence of God! Personally my faith is not that strong, so I am a Christian.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

The most liberating experience of my life was after being a devout Christian for most of the 37 years I was one was to become an atheist. No longer did I have to worry about a surveillance camera in the sky watching my every move. Not only is religion irrational, it is also anti-life.

Mike Renzulli, Phoenix, USA

There is no objective evidence for the existence of a Christian God. Christians, and other religious adherents, however, do not require proof in order to believe.

The simple answer, whatever the truth is, is to let everyone believe whatever they want. Problems only arise when belief is enforced.

Joe Izumi, Staffordshire, England

God, for Christians, is very clearly defined.'He is as he is in Jesus' (David Jenkins). The Incarnation. Such a truth is timeless, rather than 'Contemporary' Some people deride this, others ignore this, and there are some who say they reject God yet have not carefully enough weighed the evidence.

David Grieve (Rev'd), Bishop Auckland, UK

Greg I think you are defining your god. Your God does not "do nonsense". Aren't you putting limits on His sense of humor? Lewis Caroll must be very unhappy in heaven. I agree the example is trivial but if we converse long enough there will be others.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Bob: I'm an educated Catholic: If a person's will is aligned with God then they are saved, but the help that facilitates that comes through Christ's body whether they know it or not. An american bishop was excommunicated in 1948 for teaching that one had to be of the *visible* Church/body.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

What is "Contemporary Christianity"?
It changes day by day!

alan routledge, chester, england

Peter: ""If God doesn't exist, why fight against him?"" We're not in atheistic state, Peter. Some of the adherents to these ideas aren't happy living side by side with us in a secular state with a guarantee to protect their religious freedom. No, they want to extend the reach of their ethics to us.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I'm actually much more comfortable with the notion of deism rather than theism. I mean, the idea of a god being particularly interested in the paltry concerns of our species, and especially in what goes on in our bedrooms, given this enormous and glorious universe is truly and fantastically absurd.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I am put in mind of the person who , when given opportunity to question an official in an atheistic state about his assertions that there was no God, asked "If God doesn't exist, why fight against him?" If he doesn't exist, then there is no one to fight with." It seems a pointless exercise......

Peter S.Lewis, Bidford-on-Avon, UK

Greg: "[You] don't give religion the benefit of the doubt: you betray your genuine, irrational atheism."

I allow the possibility of a god or gods or god-like things but practically it's not relevant to me. However, rationally, the likelihood.of *your* particular god existing is almost zero.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Kant: "God is my own thought, not a thing extant outside me. It makes no sense [ist ungereimt) to ask if there be a God."
Tillich: "God does not exist." He is the Ground of being.
"Theology is anthropology."
"God or Nature."
"Mysterium tremendum et fascinans."
"In him we live & move & are."

Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY, USA

Human mind is not strictly rational and therefore rational (scientific) thinking is not able to satisfy it fully. We need other things: hope, justice etc. But the only justice there is is human, quite crooked one. If there was no God we would have to invent him - and that's precisely what we did.

milan, Brno, Czech republic

David:" I say: typical of Christians to want a trite...definition"

Until everyone realised that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God atheists were keen to state that "God is Dead". You, David, don't give religion the benefit of the doubt: you betray your genuine, irrational atheism.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "Your definition is effectively to be an agnostic. Typical of atheists to muddle and muddy distinctions"

Presumably you mean: typical of agnostics like Dawkins et al to muddy distinctions? I say: typical of Christians to want a trite and trivial definition to understand the real world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Aquinas tried and failed":
True and Aquinas acknowledged this. Following a profound religious experience during mass, he never wrote anything again, declaring that all of his written work "seems like straw". He died four months later. As Michael Polanyi put it "we know more than we can say"

Daniel Heslop, Bournemouth, UK

'Real proof would be Jesus' coming again. But don't hold your breath.' That's a very weak thing to say, Alan. Try, rather, examining what the philosophers and church Fathers have said about the probability of God. I prefer the hypothesis of God to incoherent attacks on religion. Blessings to you

David Grieve (Rev'd), Bishop Auckland, UK

Alan:"Belief can be justified as hope for a life hereafter. "

Belief is justified by God revealing himself, which He does spiritually. This is the Christian claim. God's self-revelation makes "they MUST give a rational reason for it" irrelevant: we know Him but only He can understand Himself.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Believers must not prove a god's existence. But they MUST give a rational reason for it. And there is none. Aquinas tried and failed.
Belief can be justified as hope for a life hereafter. But that's no proof of its truth.
Real proof would be Jesus' coming again. But don't hold your breath.

alan, germany,

Bob:"Also if your God is almighty ..claim any actions you wish.."

Except that which is a nonsense, like your aforementioned. But no one has proven that a God could not give objective knowledge and being 'almighty' means that you must, for now, assume a God could. Sincerely ask, stop presuming.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Bob: making up what exactly? I studied theology: how would you know that I didn't. Ironically your attitude to God's existence appears to just as unfounded. Catholics recognise that Muslims worship the same God (JPII&Benedict). Be sensible: be an agnostic and give the benefit of the doubt.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg You are making this up. If you have a personal God then you define it by making your choice from the Gods available. Also if your God is almighty omniscient and eternal then you can claim any actions you wish. Black can be black today and white tomorrow. If you are happy with this so be it.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Bob: I'm an informed Catholic: If a person's will is aligned with God's then they are saved, but the grace that facilitates that comes through Christ's body whether they know it or not. An american bishop was excommunicated in 1948 for teaching that one had to be of the *visible* Church/body.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Bob: hinduism is very close to Christianity: personal God, trinity, God is love, angels and demons (the minor gods), sin/cleansing etc. Some disagree on the personal God bit. Buddhism has the spiritual but not personhood, so is effectively spiritual atheism: but some may know God anyway.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Bob: I don't see how God being almighty guarantees the noises are not in my head.

Only because you don't know the mechanism. But that a God is almighty is an adequate philosophical argument. If you really want the mechanism then investigate baptism. And it isn't noises: rather pure knowledge.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

gibson:" I need real objective proof"

An almighty God can hypothetically give it, obvously. This is just too obvious.

Ironic that science is used against religion since science does not give real objective proof: you could be dreaming all this, or in a 'Matrix', or insane. Same problem.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Gibson:"Faith is defined as belief without proof."

That bogus OED definition was invented by modern philosophy. It has no etymological basis (hebrew root is 'steadfast').

An almighty God proving His own existence obviously trumps scientific knowledge. You are bananas to suggest otherwise.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg Are you making this up as you go on. If I am a sincere Buddhist or Hindu are you saying Christ will save me? What happened to brand loyalty? I don't see how God being almighty guarantees the noises are not in my head. After all I might be schizophrenic. I need real objective proof

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

All those atheists screaming about the incompatability of religion and science seem to be shockingly ignorant of the great scientific contributions of priest-scientists such as Mendel and Lemaitre.

Either that, or they're deliberately ignoring them.

Robert, York, England

I dare say so-called New Atheism is essentially a reaction to a more vocal, assertive and political Christianity which is partly a reaction to a more visible, assertive and political Islamic presence in countries like the UK. Careful secularism would probably sort it all out for everyone concerned.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I dare say so-called New Atheism is essentially a reaction to a more vocal, assertive and political Christianity which is partly a reaction to a more visible, assertive and political Islamic presence in countries like the UK. Careful secularism would probably sort it all out for everyone concerned.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

It is not the purpose of religion to give us worldly information, that is the job of science. Religious practice gives us procedural knowledge or 'know-how'. Religions try to teach us to 'embody the truth', to be 'in the world but not of the world'; not that we do it very successfully of course!

Daniel Heslop, Bournemouth, UK

David Jones:"you define atheism to suit yourself "

The definition I gave is authentic. Look it up. Even the Enc Brit. (latest) agrees it means "to believe that God does not exist". Your definition is effectively to be an agnostic. Typical of atheists to muddle and muddy distinctions.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

B Gibson"How can I say for certain that the God(s) are not just in my head?":

If God were almighty then this isn't a problem, obviously. I've covered this already.

God manifests in many ways, but all of good-will are saved through Christ whatever they call themselves.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg, you define atheism to suit yourself so that your argument to atheist irrationality is valid. However, it is not a sound argument because its premise is clearly false for almost all atheists. Even Dawkins fails to meet your criteria. It's hardly a riposte to claims of religious irrationality.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg I took your advice and now have a God. How do I know my God is the same as yours? Does it matter? Suppose I have multiple personalities how do I know I don't have multiple Gods? How can I say for certain that the God(s) are not just in my head? Faith is defined as belief without proof.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

B Gibson:"the probability that God exists approaches zero"

The probabilities of a universe able to sustain order are so extreme that this has spurred multiverse theories by atheist scientists as the alternative is an intelligent creator. So right now the probability is 50/50.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones: the word atheist was not coined by atheists, and is defined as "To deny the gods/God". Plain english: to believe there is no God. It hinges on belief. 3 states: to believe there is no God, to believe there is a God, to have no belief: athiest, theist, agnostic: believer, believer, null

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Gibson: "If you wish to presuade others that God exists, then you must prove it. "

...or persuade them to ask God (sincerely) whether or not He exists. For the true atheist this is impossible as they truly believe that He doesn't (despite frequently claiming only 'unbelief'). Which is irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones: the word atheist was not coined by atheists, and is defined as "To deny the gods/God". Plain english : to believe there is no God. It hinges on belief. 3 states: to believe there is no God, to believe there is a God, to have no belief: athiest, theist, agnostic: believer, believer, null

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Grieve: "What's the point of Atheism?" What a strange question. That said, there are certainly benefits to being atheist. I'm naturally upbeat and optimistic so I find it gives me a sense of freedom and capability and I live for the moment. I also feel like I'm an integral part of Nature too.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Gibson: "If you wish to presuade others that God exists, then you must prove it. "

...or persuade them to ask God (sincerely) whether or not He exists. For the true atheist this is impossible as they truly believe that He doesn't (despite frequently claiming only 'unbelief'). Which is irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Dearing:"According to religion, knowledge is gained from faith"

No: faith *is* objective knowledge. God reveals himself and by almighty power, with our assent, gives objective knowledge of himself. Catholic catechism (chap3:150):"Assent to divinely revealed truth".

Science offers much less.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

What's the point of Atheism?

David Grieve (Rev'd), Bishop Auckland, UK

An atheist is responding to a proposition: that a god defined thus exists. He's not saying that no gods or god-like things exist. Simple, really. And really rather rational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

If you wish to presuade others that God exists, then you must prove it. The scientific atheist says that based on the information he has, the probability that God exists approaches zero. So, he must take issue with those who claim God exists, but present no real proof. This is being illogical?

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

According to religion, knowledge is gained from faith, sacred texts, authority, divine revelation, dogma, and creed. According to Humanism, knowledge is gained only from the scientific method, using reason, evidence and repeated experimentation.

Theism and atheism are incompatible.

John S. Dearing, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Does "new atheism" even exist? I suggest not.

What we certainly have is a "new audience" (especially post 9/11) and "new media" (lots more TV channels, hungry for content and in need of interest to attract viewers) and especially the web: YouTube, forums, more ability to communicate opinions.

Barry Pearson, Stockport, UK

b Gibsn: the atheist is truly illogical: he is inspired to believe that there is no God (OED: to deny the gods/God), and yet that is unprovable. At least religious inspiration could, hypothetically, come from a God, almighty and so capable of giving objective knowledge. Not true for the atheist.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

The mystery is something that can be known but not understood.

Anything that has no parts cannot be understood, only known. To understand is to relate the parts to each other in order to perceive the whole.

The Holy Trinity has no parts, but we can know God. It is the nature of true faith.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Heslop:"Mystery is a euphemism for 'we cannot know . . . ever!'

This is not true. Mysteries can certainly be known: what they cannot be is understood.

The faithful know God, but they will never understand God.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

All inspiration requires work. My problem is the
claims made for religious inspiration. How do you ensure you are not deceiving yourself or others, if there is no need for verification? Particularly, when we can show that religious beliefs or inspirations are known to lead to logical errors.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

"Magic-eye" pictures require faithful looking before the 3D image can be "seen". Unfamiliar music sounds like a dirge, but faithful listening to crack the new musical code allows the music to be "heard". Such perceptual shifts require 'practice' and religious insight is analogous to this process.

Daniel Heslop, Bournemouth, UK

Its economics! No leader can build a following by saying I do not know. So religious mystery is invented.
We are told that problems are solved by the head. Mysteries need the head and the heart. As yet we have no evidence that the heart thinks. How does it do it? Ah! thats a MYSTERY!

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Good day folks! Hope it is Good for you as it is 'ALL WAYS' excellent for me!!

True Belief, preachings etc are best taught by Example.
Should be natural from within.

If you know Me, you will know my faith.
If you like me - Join me!!

Stella H Howell, Wokingham, United Kingdom

I agree with David Grieve about "the heart".

There is at the heart of existence, a depth of mystery (to which the religions give various names, God, Tao, Brahman, Sunyata, etc), a hidden reality that can be truly apprehended (though not comprehended!!) only through 'spiritual' discipline.

Daniel Heslop, Bournemouth, UK

I feel that Bob Gibson and others are inaccurate about mystery. True knowledge is never as simple as that. Unlike problems which can be solved, mystery is more like an experience to discover and involves the heart as well as the head.

David Grieve, Bishop Auckland, UK

You said it, Daniel:- Mysteries cannot be solved.
How then is it possible that the pope (and all the other professiona religion-touters) can know the answers to the mysteries of our existence in the universe?
I admit I don't know the answers. Why are we atheists attacked for such honesty?

alan, germany,

New Atheism like New Labour well past its sell by date.

Malcolm Uren (Rev'd), Hayle, UK

The same old athiest caricatures are reheated yet again. Please allow me to retort. Dawkins and Dennett are anything but angry, though I know it suits religious types to pretend they are. Neither do either of them say that religion hasn't done anything good for humanity. Did J.G read their books?

Nick, Rotterdam, Netherlands

It is useful to distinguish between 'problems' and 'mysteries'.

'Problems' can be solved. Problems shrink and dissipate on closer examination.

'Mysteries' cannot be solved. Mystery expands and deepens on closer enquiry.

Mystery is a euphemism for 'we cannot know . . . ever!'

Daniel Heslop, Bournemouth, UK

John Gray argues that the new atheism is basically re-worked 19th C Positivism (so not so new at all). Like many Christians I am able to embrace both the rationality of science and the mystery of faith. Both are stimulating and rewarding.

James, Hemel Hempstead, UK

John Gray's thesis in this lecture is that the new atheism is basically a re-presentation of 19th C Positivism. There are many types of atheism - this one holds to the doctrine that science drives out religion(s). Like many Christians, I don't see any threat in sceientific progress. Great poscast!

James, Hemel Hempstead, UK

@ Bob Gibson of NYC: Well said. I would only modify your last comment to "'Mystery' is a euphamism for 'I really don't know, nor do I want to.'"

Stephanie, Bristol,

Religious faith is, per se, irrational. At best it is opportune.
Defending an irrationality runs counter to rationality (rational thinking).
This is the basic reason why non-believers find religion so abhorrent.
(There are other reasons, of course.)

alan, germany,

What is truth?

Is truth simply a matter of quantifiably provable facts, of balancing equations or is there something deeper, more humane, even transcendent about it?

When we talk about truth... what do we mean?

If "A" is true what truth is revealed?
Isn't the real truth: why "A"?

Nathan, Cambridge, UK

Essentially, both science and religion are trying to reach the same truth. The attempt to separate the two weakens the holistic picture of reality. The two need to work together...many religious theories can be partly explained by quantum theories. All the other 'fluff' arises from ignorance.

Stella, Beijing , China

Simple ideas. Language is a poor medium for expressing exact ideas. Science approaches truth heuristically. Religion talks of absolutes. Many religious claims can be proved untrue or illogical. Science looks at probability to measure possible truth.

Mystery is a euphemism for I really don't know.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA