In any case, I think the three theories that are most commonly advocated, Nothing, Another Universe, God are all equally unproven and unprovable. As such, those of religion act on Faith and choose God. There is nothing stupid there, just a choice based on their believes.

Frequency, as in "commonly advocated", is no indicator of quality. As a theory to explain the Universe, one which says that a particular religious book, one of many in history, the Hebrew one, while in no other way distinctive among them, happens to be true, is pretty silly.

IMP.

What troubles me about the responses on the site linked above is the absence of intelligent comment by Christians. To an unbeliever, that a majority of Christians should be vicious, stupid and mad is only to be expected: any large sample of humans selected for anything other than lack of vicious stupid lunacy will contain as many vicious, stupid lunatics as any other sample, or the whole, and of course Christianity - by appealing to unreason, and being promoted relentlessly and on an overwhelming scale to the young and impressionable - is going to attract vicious, stupid lunatics disproportionately. But the same reasoning, and some appreciation of the particular weaknesses and needs which breed religious faith, suggests that there should be at least a few Christians who, while possessing these weaknesses and needs, are not vicious, stupid or mad. So where are the saner Christians, who should be saying to the majority, "Please stop being vicious, stupid lunatics. People will think we're all like you"?

I can think of only three reasonable explanations:

There are no Christians who are not vicious, stupid and mad (I think this unlikely, but perhaps I'm naive);

There are, but they're intimidated by the vicious, stupid and mad majority (I find this hard to believe, but perhaps I'm naive);

There are, but they don't think it's a problem.

If the third is true, I can only guess that it's connected to my observation that increasingly, and assisted by satellite TV and the internet, Christians are constructing a world for themselves in which contact with secular ideas and people simply doesn't have to happen, and that they don't care what non-Christians think of them because it doesn't affect them.

IMP.

Or there could be option four, Ian: It is not the majority of Christians who are vicious, stupid lunatics. But unfortunately, there is a vicious, stupid minority of people who claim to be Christians (and may even think themselves as such) and get all the attention.

Or there could be option four, Ian: It is not the majority of Christians who are vicious, stupid lunatics. But unfortunately, there is a vicious, stupid minority of people who claim to be Christians (and may even think themselves as such) and get all the attention.

This is what I'm saying, Matthew. If others exist, why are they almost silent? I've been reading page after page of those comments this evening: there are hundreds typing incoherent hatred with their elbows, and two saying, "We should be more tolerant". The point that the VSLs make Christianity look bad is made only by atheists, not by their fellow Christians.

IMP.

Edited for font size.

What you have a hard time believing about the universe is exactly what you believe about God.

Still don't see the problem?

No matter how complex or "agnostic" these theories may seem, people of faith can always work God into the equation.

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and Heaven but maintains that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist – yet they do not embrace true atheism. Perhaps you meant "gnostic?"

And who's to say that science and belief cannot go hand in hand? Science is the quintessential pursuit of knowledge and understanding. It isn't some rambling witch hunt to disprove spiritual faith.

I prefer to think of myself as "di-agnostic," where I am uncertain if there is a divine being or not, but I like to leave my mind open to the possibility.

Edited because of a word change.