To me god is something I feel, it's not an intellectual experience. I know about it because I can feel it, I can sense it and everything, good and bad is part of it. I haven't read Dwarkins but I suspect he rationalises god out of existence. I think it's folly to think the human intellect is the ultimate measure of what can and can't be - I see my intellect as a muscle, like a bicep, which I enjoy excercising and using alot, but it does not define who I am and how I see life.

Yes I do believe in God. Look around yourself, do you honestly think everything you see in nature came from some random reactions or some other bollocks like Big Bang Theory? I dont think so, it appears to me everything exists by intelligent design who I believe is God. I also dont think the assumption that PhD students are more intelligent than all other people is misplaced. I know a good number of smart people (than me) who are not PhDers or even interested in post graduate studies. Read Big Bang Theory Exploded by the Standish Brothers. I cant remember their names

Mercifully, when you die you'll cease to exist and you'll never be disappointed that there is no God - in my very modest and feeble opinion. And if there is a God (no chance), I want a fxxkin word with him! He's a backseat, lazy freeloader who needs to pull his finger out and start mediating. Having said that, I would feel sorry for him. People from time immemorial have been blowing themselves up and fighting like school children over him, and it's all his fault. He must feel terrible! No offence intended to religious people. :-)

I am agnostic. That's besides the point. But this post above is unnecessarily harsh, IMO.

Walminskipeasucker - Maybe I'll die and it will turn out there is no God. But, although I don't mean to suggest that you have to believe in God to be a good person - that's obviously not true: I'm often not a particularly good person and there are plenty of very unpleasant people who do believe in God - I do believe that my faith will have helped me lead my life in a better way than had I not had God to ponder on, turn to, give me hope, etc, whether real or not (and of course sometimes I doubt: I'm only human). So at the end of the day, will I have lost anything through my faith if it turns out to have been misplaced? Not as far as I can see it: I'll only have gained from it during my life.

Very true Megra_9191. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I think you answer the question of why the need for religion is so immense - hope, security and reason. After all, it's awfully big, lonely and complicated out there. I was being rather facetious with my post but the intention was not to make it inflammatory. It's just, it does seem that the odds of there being a God seemed to be stacked against that eventuality. We can create the building blocks of life in a test tube, we can genetically alter species and we're capable of changing the face and environment of the planet with geo-engineering. Now I'm not one of Dawkin's bitches - I think he's an arrogant, stuck-up and self-important plank.
I am a man of average intelligence with full mental faculties and in terms of my own personal reality, which is the only way I think we can judge whether there is a God, he just doesn't seem to be there, and I see all our capabilities and what goes on in the world as contrary to a divine presence. That's what many other people think too - many of them extremely intelligent.

Hey Walminskipeas - maybe you can answer something for me? It always amazes me when atheists become angry and or passionate about people believing in god - why does it bring out so much passion? I mean if I didn't believe in something I just wouldn't bother about it and get on with my life.

Oh, and I can see why religion can p people off - because of the wars faught in its name (although I don't agree because wars are fought in the name of many things - the two worst in history, the 1st and 2nd WW had nothing to with religion). So I'm not asking why religion makes people angry, just the possibility of the existence of god - two seperate things. If it's working for someone, why try to rain on their parade, why not just get on with your life? It's something which has perplexed me for a long time. I've had some angry reactions from atheists, much more so than from religious people whose views I don't share.

Can't speak for Walminski, but I also get quite frustrated when people talk about their religious beliefs. There are two main reasons for me feeling like that... as a scientist I think that there's a natural explanation for everything. So when people invoke some kind of supernatural entity to explain the world it's a bit like an attack on science, which I take quite personally because it is so important to me. I think a lack of evidence for something is more reason to believe that it doesn't exist than it does, but organised religion seems to take the opposite viewpoint...
Secondly, it would be easy to ignore the fact that I don't agree with religious people if I wasn't in contact with them. But the fact is that the two largest monotheistic organised religions, Islam and Christianity, take the view that proselytising is to be actively encouraged. So such people bring their views into contact with me, and this kind of dialogue is never going to be productive. One side taking the view that a belief is to be maintained despite the facts, and the other taking the view that it is constantly up for revision dependent on the facts.
I agree though that atheists often do not differentiate between organised religion and spirituality (if this is the right word), but again I would turn to the evidence. I feel amazed when I consider the complexity of the world, but (based on my psychological background) I don't trust my feelings to tell me anything about the state of that world.

I'm a biologist and an atheist. Religion is a powerful influence on culture. You cannot just ignore other people's beliefs because they have consequences. Many aspects of law and politics are heavily influenced by the dominant religion of that culture. I don't want to be goverened by rules influenced by other people's beliefs in a personal god that has no credibility to me. There is probably next to nothing to seperate my views from those of, say, a liberal christian - but liberal religious believers legitimise the concept of a personal god that is so abused by so many.

I've known a great many people with extreme views, including my own parents. Dawkins commented that religion is a form of child abuse and I'm inclined to agree. I cannot see it as just a harmless, cosy blanket to shield people from the harsh realities of life, suffering and death. Of course mean and intolerant people may be so with or without religion - but it is so much easier to legitimise irrational behaviour in the name of religion and so much harder to reason against it.

Smilodon and Melsie, thanks for your responses. I think though, you got the wrong end of the stick to a large degree about what I was asking. I'm NOT asking why people get angry about religion - organised or otherwise - I do absolutey understand that, I come from a long line of catholics - most of them lapsed (sorry to any catholics out there, I'm sure things have changed since the 1950s).

Melsie, thanks for answering my question to some degree - but I don't understand why you feel the existence of god would be an insult to science. Could you explain that in more detail?

I do, very much trust my feelings, I have come to learn over the years that my instincts are my best guide in life, and I'm absolutely sure I got them from nature/god.

Sorry Melsie, I understand what you're saying a bit better now - I think you mean that it's because you're separating god from nature, as some detached entity, and that you feel (or probably, you think!!) that intellect is more trustworthy than instinct or none tangible experience. Is that it? oh, and that god is none existent until proven so by intellectual means. This does make me think of electricity though - there was a very long time when there was no way of proving its existence, but it does exist.

So, I can see why scientists might get annoyed about the possibility of god, but again, I don't agree, I think nature and god are the same thing, and I am part of it, and all three of us are in tune, headed in the same direction - hence my reliable instincts and those of dogs, cats, door mice, jelly fish etc. I also see science, including darwin (in my book - a strong voice of god - and I'd bet he used his instincts a lot), as part of that picture. I know a lot of people feel this way about god and it has nothing to do with religion - so maybe people are getting confused and reacting to religion and not god. I've never tried to make anyone think/feel like me so it can't that making them angry.

I've never read Dawkin, but to me god and religion are very different things, and I don't experience god in some restricted ideological way, many people don't. I hope he looked at this kind of belief.

You don't think that having a personal belief in a personal god has anything to do with religion but I do - it is the basic requirement that legitimises religion. That's where we differ. I'm not sure that your belief is in a personal (rather than an impersonal) god. To me this is a very important distinction as it is the personal, i.e. listening, watching and intervening aspect that leads to the major problems arising from the ensuing dogma.

I have no (well very little...) problem with beliefs that are basically more mystic.

Hey Smil, thanks for that. But, although god is always part of belief in any religion - religion is NOT always part of belief in god.

I do think god is aware of everything - but don't believe in the 'judgement of god'. I don't have a grand narrative for this or set of rules, I just feel it, and if I had to choose a word for it it would be spirituality, not mysticism. Lots of people feel this way and it does not have to do with religion. I know this may make me sound like a wishy washy person to some of the scientists out there but I feel myself to be a spirit on a human journey, not the other way around, and to me religion is a human, intellectual, invention/construct.

Hi Eska, you seem to be a very profound, considerate and spiritual person. I personally don't believe in a God and hate the concept of religion as it goes against my ideals and who I am (you've probably already gathered this, so sorry if it seems I am repeating myself). I am a human, so a complex and sentient being. I exist in my own reality. By the same token, you have your reality and therefore no-one can dispute the existence of God as you see him and what he means to you personally.

I'm now glad I saw this thread, cos I've made my peace with the existence of God and the concept of religion. I still don't believe in any of it, think religion is a system of control akin to heroin, but I don't feel myself getting passionate or angry any more. Thank you
:-)