[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'd have to disagree with that point. Just because someone is athiest it doesn't stop them believing in nonsense like homeopathey, accupuncutre, or eyewatering expensive hifi cables making a system sound better. Evidence based facts is better described as rationalism and the two things are not the same.

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'm not sure those two bits necessarily go together

Unfortunately, Atheist is a term given to religious non-believers by religious groups, that fail to acknowledge the link between religious non-belief and sceptical enquiry, the latter being the cause of the former, not the other way around.

Atheism is to take the position of not believing in a god.

That's it...

seems to me they might be thinking about their religion, not just blindly accepting, that's a good thing right?

@Woppit

I'm with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a "non" word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology. By using the term we legitimise religion to some extent and give it special status.
We have seen examples of this above when believers focus on the word itself.

Is the bible the word of god?

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I think in Islam, the Koran is the word of God, but I don't think there is such a claim in Christianity. I'm not sure though

not believing in astrology

surely that would be Strology

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No.

edit might have only been gospel readings, not sure

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I

They'd say 'yes'. If they don't then they're not Christian.

Then you would probably know better than I, but I've not heard others claiming the bible was God's words

surfer - Member

@Woppit

I'm with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a "non" word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology.

That other, sadly-missed non-horseman of the non-apocalypse The Hitch, preferred "Anti-Theist".

He always was a combative tyke, though. 🙂

Is the bible the word of god?

I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No

😆

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I hate these STW threads where people try to find and argument when there isn't one. I'm not arguing. But nice try.

Is the bible the word of god?

The correct answer of course, is "no".

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Terms_and_opinions ]Wiki suggests[/url]

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But "word of god" does seem a popular line amongst various christians

As with all groups, there's a range of opinion on the bible. Some Christians believe it is the literal word of God and is all true. Others believe parts are allegorical or poetic, while other parts are literal truth. Some believe that the historical context in which the bible was written must be taken into account.

This leads to lots of problems. Recently, [url= http://www.oasisuk.org/inclusionresources/Articles/MOIabridged ]Steve Chalke wrote about how he interprets the bible to say mean that same sex marriages are fine with God[/url] - he's an evangelical Anglican and so wouldn't be expected to be ok with teh gayz. It's fair to say that [url= http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/01/15/questions-for-steve-chalke/ ]some other Christians don't agree with him[/url].

That is a selective quotation D0nk, it certainly seems more complex than that. I think Leo XII was before second vatican council which chznged a lot of things, dunno about view on Word of God though

A Theory is just someone's idea ((belief based on calculation or supposition)...

That's wholly incorrect in scientific terms. A theory is way way way more than 'just someone's idea'. I suggest you look it up (in something like Chamber's dictionary, not bloody wiki(i can't spell)pedia!)

That is a selective quotation D0nk

it certainly seems more complex than that

An example:

Matthew 19:4-6 is used as a way of saying God disapproves of homosexuality, and as a model of marriage being one man and one woman. Jesus is reported as saying:

at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

To me, that's pretty clear and anyone saying they're a Christian would have to agree that gay marriage is against God's law. So, the church is absolutely correct to be against equal marriage.

But, Jesus was actually talking about remarriage after divorce. Matthew 19:3-9:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

To me, that's pretty clear and anyone saying they're a Christian would have to agree that remarriage after divorce is against God's law. So, the church would be absolutely correct to be against remarriage after divorce. The Anglican church is not against remarriage after divorce.

Surely, something in a gospel which is directly attributed to Christ himself can't be open to interpretation? Of course, he is referring to Genesis verse 2, which is now considered by most mainstream Christians to be allegorical...

To me, the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers.

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But "word of god" does seem a popular line amongst various christians

Yes, if we're being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway 😀

Yes, if we're being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway

It's entirely relevant, as interpretation of the bible has an effect on which laws are or are not passed in this (and other) countries.

the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

Like CofE with their practice of baptising babies - it's not biblical, but it's a key CofE practice. A lot of 'mainstream Christians' go along with this despite it being incorrect biblical teaching.

(Biblical baptism is about an individual [i]choosing[/i] to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice).

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

Biblical baptism is about an individual choosing to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway

LOL, I think those people that have 'already decided that God doesn't exist anyway' have actually discounted any and all gods, so that's 3,700 according to this site [url=Godchecker] http://www.godchecker.com/ [/url].

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

So, you think remarriage after divorce is adultery?

wasn't that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little 'un dies before they are old enough to decide it's off to the firey pit for them?

In Catholic dogma, unbaptised babies go to purgatory. or they did until the Pope said it didn't actually exist after all.

Original sin is an interesting one. As I understand it, it related to Adam and Eve but they're now considered allegorical. So, does original Sin no longer exist?

babies are obviously unable to make that choice

Fortunately, if you find in later life that you've been forced into something before you were old enough to make up your own mind as to whether you wanted it or not, there's:

http://www.skepdic.com/debaptism.html

You don't have to believe that the bible is the word of God to be a Christian, do you?

no don't think so, tangential issue that came about from ruminating [i]does changing your religion as time goes by improve or devalue it[/i]?

The Anglican church is not against remarriage after divorce.

This is an oversimplification, remarriage is allowed in exceptional circumstances - it is up to the parish priest to determine whether to allow remarriage so I imagine there is quite a wide range of views on who should be allowed to remarry.

wasn't that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little 'un dies before they are old enough to decide it's off to the firey pit for them?

I think the Christian belief around heaven/hell is that babies are not aware of or able to make the choice of accepting/rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ (& therefore God), therefore by default they will be off to heaven.

The 'fiery pit' is reserved for those who consciously make a choice not to accept it.

Purgatory does not exist, it's another misinterpretation/fallacy of some 'Christian' teaching.

You don't have to believe that the bible is the word of God to be a Christian, do you?

I believe the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God) is pretty fundamental to real Christians, those do say not I would suggest have missed something pretty important somewhere.

It depends a bit on whether you are cathlolic or protestant. The whole point of the reformation was that you should be able to decide what God and religion means to you, not have someone else (ie the Pope) decide and enforce it on you.

This thread has become a debate about reformation ideas.

Is the bible the word of god?

Good one, this. If the Bible is the word of god, then we're all disobeying him with our modern-day views and values. If it's not the word of god, then why are we still revering it as though it was? Why are we paying any attention to it at all?

It's another great bit of circular logic too. Why do you believe the Bible? Because it's the word of god. How do you know it's the word of god? Because it says so in the Bible.

the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God)

Sorry, what does that mean?

If it's not the word of god, then why are we still revering it as though it was?

Not all Christians are. Again thanks to Mr Luther it is now considered ok to figure this stuff out for yourself.

It's just occurred to me that any discussion with a religious believer is perhaps THE prime example of the 'Dunning-Kruger effect'. Dunnig and Kruger's research concluded that 'The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own.'

the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God)

Sorry, what does that mean?

Something along the lines of God not literally writing the Bible himself, it was written by numerous people who got their inspiration through God's Holy Spirit (you've heard of the holy trinity thingy I expect). The human spirit can and does 'hear' and respond to the holy spirit. Is what Christians believe.

In the same way as a non-believer reading the Bible might not understand what it all means, or can easily take things out of context or misinterpret things, the holy spirit reveals things in the Bible that are not bullet-pointed in black and white.

you should be able to decide what God and religion means to you

If God is who he says he his, you can't just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

Although I suppose if someone decides God is not who he says he is, then it's their choice to make of it what they will.

I wouldn't put it in terms of lacking skills, Tucker.

It's more a case of circular logic. If I believe in God, then I see evidence for him everywhere, which reinforces my belief. If I do not, then the whole thing seems so improbable that I am unlikely to change my mind.

People do jump tracks, of course, but I think it's a low percentage of the devout. People who don't much care either way will drift into a somewhat central position due to not really thinking about it.

If God is who he says he his, you can't just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

What's wrong with inventing your own religion? All varieties of Christianity were invented at some point.

They pretty much all believe in God and Jesus though, so it's just a question of interpretation, which is my point. You can't logically insist one doctrine is truth when there are so many others.

This thread has become a debate about reformation ideas.

If God is who he says he his, you can't just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

Logical. Would it be logical for me to go back to be an athesist, like I once was?

I could go back to "having it all"... good job, nice house, lovely wife, great kids, no wants ... but still with that sense of imcompeteness... restlessness....like I'm missing out on something.... like...

There's more to life.

There is

I've got involved and am loving it.

But then again... not sure love is logical either, aye ?

Given that the god you now believe in was presumably always in your life before you believed it to be in your life, how do you account for your feeling of relentlessness and missing out beforehand? - because that god would still have been there?

chances are whichever religion you follow has had some editing done in it's time

Of course. Since the Enlightenment, religion has been dragged kicking and screaming along, behind improvements in secular ethics.

The deluded "voice-hearing", "presence feeling", holy "spirit" convulsed followers just cherry-pick the matching bits from whatever ancient book of nonsense they are supinely genuflicting in front of, as convenience allows.

I've got involved and am loving it.

This has been my point all along! I'm with you Ro5ey, even if I'm not.

I could go back to "having it all"... good job, nice house, lovely wife, great kids, no wants ... but still with that sense of imcompeteness... restlessness....like I'm missing out on something.... like..

Been there, done it. Without having to subscribe to any belief system.

It's a cliche, but we call this 'finding ourselves'. To quote 'The worst loneliness is not to be comfortable with yourself.'

If one looks at the talking therapy parts of any mental health treatment, you'll see it is very similar to religion in many ways. And of course belief religions are themselves mentioned in mental health circles both as being a mental health issue (hearing voices, seeing apparitions), and actually causing mental health issues.

All varieties of Christianity were invented at some point.

The original Christianity was what JC started, it wasn't "invented", it was JC fulfilling Gods plan.

They pretty much all believe in God and Jesus though, so it's just a question of interpretation, which is my point. You can't logically insist one doctrine is truth when there are so many others.

I think you can. The truth can't be the truth if it's not specific.

Many elements of the Bible are pretty black and white (like the baptising babies bit, and the non-existence of purgatory), but Christianity has still been corrupted through history (either deliberately or innocently).

whichever religion you follow has had some editing done in it's time, of course if the head of your religion at the time was working on instructions form god that may make it ok

This is why, as a Christian, you should not just blindly go along with whatever the guy preaching at the front says, they can and do get it wrong (after all, they're only human) - you should always sanity check what you're taught against the Bible for example, and your own experience & understanding of God ...

Something along the lines of God not literally writing the Bible himself, it was written by numerous people who got their inspiration through God's Holy Spirit

If they started getting ideas seemingly out of nowhere about a supreme being, I'd suspect a different kind of spirit entirely might be involved. (-:

The human spirit can and does 'hear' and respond to the holy spirit. Is what Christians believe.

Essentially then, it's theological WiFi?

More seriously; I thought the 'holy spirit' idea was restricted to a specific branch of Xtianity? Or am I misremembering? Isn't that one of the tenants that split Catholics and Protestants?

they can and do get it wrong (after all, they're only human)

Presumably not getting it directly from the "holy spirit", then eh?

I wonder how they get the job, then.

Given that the god you now believe in was presumably always in your life before you believed it to be in your life, how do you account for your feeling of relentlessness and missing out beforehand? - because that god would still have been there?

Yes, he's always there, but won't force himself or impose himself on anyone ... we've all got freedom of choice to acknowledge him or reject him ... he's basically waiting to be invited into peoples lives ... is what Christians believe

The original Christianity was what JC started

Well, he didn't actually decide to start anything. He was Jewish, not Christian. He just preached stuff, his followers started churches after he died.

I think you can. The truth can't be the truth if it's not specific.

Well that's doing a great disservice to Coptics, Orthodox Russians etc etc isn't it?

you should always sanity check what you're taught against the Bible for example, and your own experience & understanding of God

But you're contradicting yourself there, aren't you?!

Many elements of the Bible are pretty black and white...

Seriously? 😯

So are many parts of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I trust you're not suggesting we all go on a pilgrimage to Diagon Alley?

I wouldn't put it in terms of lacking skills, Tucker.

Don't shoot the messenger. 😉

The original Christianity was what JC started, it wasn't "invented", it was JC fulfilling Gods plan.

Well, no. Assuming for a moment that all this stuff is true, ol' Jeezy didn't "start Christianity", he went around being nice to people. The religion came a few hundred years later, and was 'invented' if you like, when people started writing some of it down.

This is why, as a Christian, you should not just blindly go along with whatever the guy preaching at the front says...you should always sanity check what you're taught against the Bible

So when the priest says, for example, that current thinking is that homosexuality is ok, you've got the Good Book to fall back on and reaffirm that actually he's wrong and we should be putting them to death as per Leviticus.

This is why, as a Christian, you should not just blindly go along with whatever the guy preaching at the front says, they can and do get it wrong (after all, they're only human) - [b]you should always sanity check what you're taught against the Bible for example, and your own experience & understanding of God ...[/b]

Which bits of the Bible?
Why for example, is the bit about homosexuality sacrisanct, but the dietry laws and bits about hitting children not?

You're just as human as your priest/pastor.
How do you decide who's right?

I thought the 'holy spirit' idea was restricted to a specific branch of Xtianity? Or am I misremembering? Isn't that one of the tenants that split Catholics and Protestants?

True, some denominations don't believe in a holy spirit. But it's mentioned endlessly in the Bible and what-not, so I don't understand how you can miss it. (I don't know the history of why some denominations don't teach the holy spirit).

Presumably not getting it directly from the "holy spirit", then eh?

I wonder how they get the job, then.

Yep, considering their position/authority, getting it wrong is a big issue, but who doesn't screw up now and then? Hopefully the responsible ones correct things if they realise.

This is also one reason (other than it being biblical) why a church should have a leadership team, not just one guy doing what he wants - helps keep each other in check and should help prevent/reduce the chances of incorrect teaching occurring.

(On the other hand, there have been many 'christian' leaders/preachers/organisations who deliberately corrupt the message for their own end.)

Which bits of the Bible?
Why for example, is the bit about homosexuality sacrisanct, but the dietry laws and bits about hitting children not?

Cherry-picking to fit modern secular ethics. (See above)

This is also one reason (other than it being biblical) why a church should have a leadership team, not just one guy doing what he wants - helps keep each other in check and should help prevent/reduce the chances of incorrect teaching occurring.

Oh right. This all powerful god needs help from his creatures, then?

Don't much see the point in worshipping incompetence.

But it's mentioned endlessly in the Bible and what-not, so I don't understand how you can miss it.

You know the books of the bible were cherry picked from the available literature to suit the purposes of the churches don't you?

I really don't understand how anyone who lives in the modern world can believe in gods. Can I ask someone who does believe, why exactly they do? Perhaps I'm missing something, I'm not asking for evidence as we know I can't have it but just why? What leads you to think that there is something "more"?

On the other hand, there have been many 'christian' leaders/preachers/organisations who deliberately corrupt the message for their own end.

Do you ever wonder how high that goes? Or how far back? People are fallible as you say. Who can we really trust?

The people who write modern translations?

The people who did the original translations?

The people who complied the original manuscripts?

The people who [i]wrote[/i] the original manuscripts?

Can I ask someone who does believe, why exactly they do

Research has shown, the vast majority believe what they believe because they copied their parents and/or peers.

Research has shown, the vast majority don't believe what they don't believe because they copied their parents and/or peers?

I expect there are more people who are brought up religious and later reject it than there are brought up secularly and subsequently find god. I wonder if there's any stats on that?

And of course, the only way you can find religion is via other people. If no-one told you about god, it's highly unlikely that you'd spontaneously come up with a religion on your own. In isolation, 'not believing in god' is the de facto position. You can't really compare the two directly like that. Nice try, though.

I expect there are more people who are brought up religious and later reject it than there are brought up secularly and subsequently find god.

This seems say the peer influence reason is flawed

Research has shown, the vast majority don't believe what they don't believe because they copied their parents and/or peers?

Not my experience at all (both my parents were religious, my father no longer here, my mother still is). Let's have some peer reviewed court admissible fact based evidence to support that then.

yeah, but there will be lot's who don't believe because it wasn' in their family

yeah, but there will be lot's who don't believe because it wasn' in their family

Can I ask someone who does believe, why exactly they do

I chose to believe after many years of beng taken to a decent church by my Mum.

Initially went because, as kids, you do what your parents tell you and I was too young to be left home alone anyway.

As I got a bit older it was more out of habit, had some good friends there, got lunch and played footy etc, treated it more like a social club I guess.

Eventually got to the point where I had to decide whether all the Christian stuff was for real or not.

Based on what I'd heard from people and seen in people over the years I was convinced enough to say 'ok God, I believe'.

Based on what I'd heard from people and seen in people over the years

Just hearsay, then...

This is an oversimplification, remarriage is allowed in exceptional circumstances - it is up to the parish priest to determine whether to allow remarriage so I imagine there is quite a wide range of views on who should be allowed to remarry.

But Jesus said divorce was only permissible in the case of adultery and that all remarriage is wrong.

I don't believe.. but sitting here right now, looking out of the window and looking at everything that I see out there..

If I imagine for a second that it was all put there for us, for me, by someone or something who loves and cares for me very much, it instantly all looks a lot friendlier and safer and more comforting..

I can easily see why people would choose to believe rather than weigh up the evidence

I thought cougar was questioning the switchers

Essentially, yes. It's a guess though, I don't know.

This seems [to] say the peer influence reason is flawed

Either that or it's not as strong as the nurture aspect. I would hazard that the vast, vast majority of believers have parents of the same faith (or a similar offshoot). I'd hazard you don't get many Orthodox Jews with Muslim parents. And if this is in fact the case, then you're not actually thinking this through for yourself are you, you're just subscribing to a belief system you've been brought up to believe in.

Now, I'm sure some people will analyse all the different faiths, critically weigh up the pros and cons of each, and decide which one sounds the most plausible / appealing. But I'd expect they are in the minority. (And I expect the ones who don't then pick 'none of the above' are fewer still.)

The single easiest way of creating new believers (and so ensuring the survival of your faith) isn't conversion, it's procreation by your existing flock. The Catholics knew this and banned masturbation and contraception (and sodomy, and homosexuality), with readily predictable consequences.

A bunch of committed, intelligent Christians have looked at scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and decided that same sex marriage should be allowed.

A different bunch of committed, intelligent Christians have looked at scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and decided that same sex marriage should not be allowed.

If I imagine for a second

There you go.

is that banned list going to get much longer cougar? 🙂 Did they specifically ban every pregnancy free sex act or did they just say "anything that doesn't involve a wee wee going into a foo foo until you get a tingling in your tummy is naughty"?

woppit - is it specifically a grudge you have against imagination then..?

This world looks pretty cold and cruel and remorseless through the calculating eyes of science and fact, why not take the edge off it with a pinch of imagination..?

is that banned list going to get much longer cougar?

(-: Sorry, I'm the world's worst for hitting [Send] and then post-editing.

This world looks pretty cold and cruel and remorseless through the calculating eyes of science and fact,

Doesn't look that way to me... perhaps it's just your imagination? 😉

Edit: Actually - I do know what you mean. Nature is red in tooth and claw, there's no meaning to it etc etc etc...

The Weald still looks beautiful from the top of Holmbury Hill, though. Without adding anything imaginary.

If I imagine for a second that it was all put there for us, for me, by someone or something who loves and cares for me very much, it instantly all looks a lot friendlier and safer and more comforting.

That someone or something who loves and cares for you very much also made [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eye+parasite&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JVIBUc7UIPGr0AX03YCwCQ&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1152&bih=773 ]eye parasites[/url]. How much friendlier, safer and more comforting does that view look now?

an eye for an eye and all that

This world looks pretty cold and cruel and remorseless through the calculating eyes of science and fact

"I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…"

"I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

why not take the edge off it with a pinch of imagination..?

No-one (well, apart from Woppit who seems to be determined to be controversial) is saying that imagination is bad. It's when imagination then gets trotted out as fact and pressure groups try to get it taught in science lessons that we have a problem.

I take your earlier point and sure, I can understand why religion is attractive. Aside from the fact that it's attractive by design(*) otherwise no-one would follow it(**), there are a lot of appealing concepts to religion. Easy to understand answers to complex questions, the promise of an afterlife to ease the fear of mortality and the grief of loss; the idea that some other force is at work to make things better; and so on. Modern religions are so very convenient like that.

[i](* - there's a joke about Intelligent Design here somewhere, I'm sure)

(** - two ways to coerce people, either bribe them or threaten them; many religions have used both to a greater or lesser extent)[/i]