Religion is a complete load of crap.

You do realise that many religious people believe in evolution? And who are you to say what they should or shouldn't believe in, there is no definite evidence to disprove the possibility of God. Anyway, I'm not going to rant.

People far smarter than you will ever be have believed in God, so the idea that to be thinking freely and rationally must instantly mean they take the same viewpoint as you is simply retarded. I also find it strange you have managed to meet any fundamentalists who deny the theory of evolution, as I have been to many churches and have yet to meet one. Were you by any chance raised in a religious household? I smell teen angst.

Well I wouldn't say too many actually can. I mean, for example, any Christian who believes in evolution is contradicting their scientific beliefs with their religious ones. And you are correct to say that there is no definite evidence to disprove God's existence, but logic is good enough for me personally.

I know alot of Christians who believe in evolution, infact every single Christian I know does. Many believe that that God used evolution to create the entire universe.

Evolution explains the development of life once it has been 'created'. There is no scientific theory which explains the creation/ origin of life with clear evidence.

Creationism is rife in America more than it is in the UK that is true, however that does not mean it is not staggeringly ignorant, and I cannot come to terms with god being a rational explanation for the creation of the universe, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence at all for this, and therefore I cannot understand how believing in god can ever be rational. Science cannot answer how the universe was created, but that does not mean that god is the only logical explanation, it means we just don't know yet why the universe came into being.

Anyone else SCARED by those who blindly follow a religion without ever really thinking freely and rationally?

People with religious beliefs have no evidence, and follow ONE book, which supposedly sets out gods will.

When you have a debate with a religious person they also say that only a "higher being" could have made the universe, and say that something must have been around to cause the big bang. However this argument is flawed as ultimately someone must have created a "higher being" who then created the universe

You should do some research into the history of conflict between science and religion, it is a relatively new conflict contrived, exacerbated, and perpetuated by people like Richard Dawkins to try and add legitimacy to their own personal atheist campaigns. The main reason America has far more creationists is because they decided to be creationists post-WWII. They decided to become creationists because they saw a direct link between Hitler's eugenics policies and the theory of evolution. There was of course a creationist movement prior to this. I don't really understand how this has an affect on your life though? You are in Hull, what do you care if someone in Tennessee doesn't think evolution happened?

Most religious people do not primarily look to God for an explanation of how the universe was created. You will also find that religion is almost always a personal thing for the believer, and their evidence is more of a feeling or an experience they have had. This is of course no use to you because it is as unquantifiable as it is unprovable, but the fact they are willing to spend so much of their lives in worship because of this feeling should quantify for you how strong it is for them.

I am also a strong atheist, but your post is almost hypocritical. What your post read to me was as a summary of the God Delusion by Dawkins. Therefore, your views, whilst not based on this book, use this book as an evidence and follow closely the criticism that Dawkins presents - is this not reminiescent of a religious activity to you? Religion is not simply the belief in God, but the following of a Ethos and morals. To literal meanings in religion are all but eradicated in modern society - for a closer example look towards Buddhism.

Richard Dawkins is a poor excuse for a social scientist, and whilst some of his book (such as the selfish gene) are informative and accessible, The God Delusion is a prejudice and stagnant example of anti-monotheism.

To criticise religion, you need to be prepared to understand it, and be specific - every religion is different and cannot be tarred with the same brush. The best critic for religion is the person who knows it inside out - the theologist.

Lastly, you should allow people to have faith, if it helps them to live a better, more fulfilled life, then who are we to criticise. Speak to any modern person who follows a religion, and you will probably be surprised by their reasons and method of following. Media reports only on the extremes of religion, not the vast majority who are sensible, objective citizens. How much better are you then those who preach about their religion, if you preach about atheism?

I am also a strong atheist, but your post is almost hypocritical. What your post read to me was as a summary of the God Delusion by Dawkins. Therefore, your views, whilst not based on this book, use this book as an evidence and follow closely the criticism that Dawkins presents - is this not reminiescent of a religious activity to you? Religion is not simply the belief in God, but the following of a Ethos and morals. To literal meanings in religion are all but eradicated in modern society - for a closer example look towards Buddhism.

Richard Dawkins is a poor excuse for a social scientist, and whilst some of his book (such as the selfish gene) are informative and accessible, The God Delusion is a prejudice and stagnant example of anti-monotheism.

To criticise religion, you need to be prepared to understand it, and be specific - every religion is different and cannot be tarred with the same brush. The best critic for religion is the person who knows it inside out - the theologist.

Lastly, you should allow people to have faith, if it helps them to live a better, more fulfilled life, then who are we to criticise. Speak to any modern person who follows a religion, and you will probably be surprised by their reasons and method of following. Media reports only on the extremes of religion, not the vast majority who are sensible, objective citizens. How much better are you then those who preach about their religion, if you preach about atheism?

I am also a strong atheist, but your post is almost hypocritical. What your post read to me was as a summary of the God Delusion by Dawkins. Therefore, your views, whilst not based on this book, use this book as an evidence and follow closely the criticism that Dawkins presents - is this not reminiescent of a religious activity to you? Religion is not simply the belief in God, but the following of a Ethos and morals. To literal meanings in religion are all but eradicated in modern society - for a closer example look towards Buddhism.

Richard Dawkins is a poor excuse for a social scientist, and whilst some of his book (such as the selfish gene) are informative and accessible, The God Delusion is a prejudice and stagnant example of anti-monotheism.

To criticise religion, you need to be prepared to understand it, and be specific - every religion is different and cannot be tarred with the same brush. The best critic for religion is the person who knows it inside out - the theologist.

Lastly, you should allow people to have faith, if it helps them to live a better, more fulfilled life, then who are we to criticise. Speak to any modern person who follows a religion, and you will probably be surprised by their reasons and method of following. Media reports only on the extremes of religion, not the vast majority who are sensible, objective citizens. How much better are you then those who preach about their religion, if you preach about atheism?

What I cannot understand is why religion is the one aspect of life which should NEVER be scrutinised, when it is something which is based upon no evidence whatsoever. If I told you that I believed that unicorns existed you would no doubt scrutinise and ridicule my beliefs, but just because it is someones religious beliefs you believe that I am in the wrong to scrutinise something which is inherently illogical.