all the jesus/faith stuff

windood, thanks for the info on the physicist - Polkinghorne i was wondering who the religious scientist were as i would think they would be few in number, and many would not want to risk the wrath of the 'establishment' even in the time of darwin, one of the founders of evolutionary theory was sidelined for his beleifs.

Great post Winwood very informative related RS stuff their, thanks ! So glad when I read your posts, their intelligent, always intelligent, and I respect that a lot.

@windood feel sorry for you..anyway arguing about religion online is a waste of energy.. to the people who compare it to pursuing dreams, that is entirely different. The wright brothers and deep space explorers have some kind of scientific data before they begin their journey. They don't just one day decide "I choose to fly" or "I choose to believe there is life out there" No they do the science before hand and then try and expand that knowledge with field experiments this is COMPLETELY different to ridiculing someone who believes in God..Their source of information for this great truth is "it is how I was raised" "everyone else is muslim"..whatever...no logic whatsoever Now dont get me wrong, one CAN be spiritual and be an atheist too..I personally believe in a quantum connection of all human brains, but I will not go about preaching this as the absolute truth until I see the data

oh and the scientific community has like 1% religious people..they are the exception not the rule..

not all religious beleif is founded on 'blind faith' it may ask for that. but many times religious beleifs are there to answer the ultimate questions. this film explores that to a degree. an 'uncreated being' a God being the creator of the universe seems more rational to many peoples minds than the counter intuative thoughts of some scientists that suggest everything in the universe came from nothing. or a quantom field which came from? the answer of who created god - also leads to an infinite regress and seeing that we do all exist, there must be a first 'uncreated' first cause - so that is the logic used by some to believe in God. in the same way all atheist are mot experts in biology or physics.... not all religious nutcases use that form reasoning. they just beleif - the point is - the foundations of beleif do have rational behind them

Punx: "TWILIGHT A GIRL WHO chooses between a Werewolf and a vamp - beastaphilia or necraphiphilia (did no-one see that?))." Ahhhhh, you made me laugh with delight. True, Twilight chick is all about being bitten or sucked. lol. we call those Twilight movies "morde e chupa" [bite ad suck], BTW.

thomask, really scientific community has 1% religious people?? according to discovery magazine, 50% of scientist claim to be religious http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/13/are-top-scientists-really-so-atheistic-look-at-the-data/ so where did you pull that 1% number from? and i figure a couple are deistic but not religious but FEAR being ridiculed by people like GLS. The advent of aerodynamic physics explained by the wing foil came AFTER the wright brothers, the wright brothers had no scientific or engineering background they were lowly educated business men who owned a printery, they just tried and tried until they got something to work. But they were ridiculed.

@Winhod Your argument is weak considering you haven't read any hitchens or the evolutionary biologist of Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins.. Read it and come back to me.

@thomask since when has the majority counted for anything regarding the truth or reality? most humans havereligious beleifs most humans alive today are christian, does that make it fact most scientists who are atheist were educated in secular organisations and with teachers which have fear over churches having influences in negative ways over education. this is true more in the west. in saudia arabia i would doubt you'd find the same proportion of scientists who are atheist. so that figure of 1% doesnt mean much when you look at in contect of time and place. scientists from other times that figure would be higher. from other places and that figure would be higher again. then theres the taboo factor which i mentioned earlier also effected one of the founders of darwinian theory.

@red..yes Saudi Arabia, the pinnacle of technology

lawrence of arabia will look great in 3d that's my conclusion

Sorry for a bit of melodrama here... My ex-wife ran off with our savings a couple of years ago. Had to sell off everything to survive. Lost my job soon after. Then started a biz venture with a buddy who has since screwed me, leaving me jobless at 40 years old. Oh hell yeah, I did pray like crazy for help. No resolution, except that the hole's getting deeper. So in this movie, when the Engineers wanted to destroy us, their creations, made me think God does indeed hate us all... LOL!

BLASPHEMOUS RUMOURS DEPECHE MODE ? seems fitting with your situation reaper lol hope things get better for you i'm sure they will the trials of life get to us all at times no one gets through life without some form of upheaval at some stage or other .

@red5 i would have thought they'd be a miniscule minority too, but surprisingly not, certainly not as low as 1%. I don't know what the figures would be like in the US where people tend to be of a more fundamentalist and a literal view of the bible is taken (it's not quite like that in the UK). i work with scientists and about 40% are religious. Mostly chemists. And out of the 2 Physics PhDs i have as colleagues, both were senior members of their church. How do they square their beliefs with science? Fuck knows. But, you won't find any answers to that in anything hitchens or dawkins write, because they exclusively deal with strawmen arguments, the lowest of the low in writing. @RH "Your argument is weak considering you haven't read any hitchens or the evolutionary biologist of Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins.. Read it and come back to me." This is what makes me think you are a bit of an imbecile. You jump to conclusions, just like your two named favourite writers. I have read Dawkins. As an athiest i read some of his books 20 years ago. Never had much of an issue with them besides them being very very dull. Of all the pop science writers, he's the one that will get me snoozing fastest, and not because of the content, but because he is a poor writer. Hitchens i won't read, because whenever, and on all occasions i have seen him, he only talks about strawmen arguments, same as Dawkins. Those strawmen arguments do not reflect reality at all, except in some midwest and deep south parts of america. But both of those writers duck and dodge talking to intelligent men that might actually tell them what they really believe in, which is not a literal interpretation of the bible, they do believe in evolution, and they don't believe in a talking snake. One of my favourite comedians is Bill maher, but he couldn't be more inept when it comes to making something balanced. Another one in the hitchen mould who just goes straight to the default strawman, and ends up with nothing much to say other than painting a funny picture of what some dumbo's in america believe (i notice they're allways unintelligent people that they interview, they seem to shy away from talking to theologists. On the one occasion maher met one in the vatican he was stumped as to what to say when the priest told him that most of what people believe are fairy stories. maher didn't push on with deeper questions, because he wasn't interested in any real picture, he was only showing what he thought would strengthen his case, not all the available data. Highly unscientific that. If it had been a written paper it would have beenn burned as the work of a moron. So RH, my argument was based on having read Dawkins, and watched a lot of his programmes, pretty much all of them on religion and evolution, and having seen a lot of Hitchens over the years too before the fat fool karked it. So, now that your assumption is totally wrong, what was wrong with my argument? You shied away from it. Am looking forward to your reply.

Ridicule of any kind, for any reason, is a sign of immaturity and insecurity. So what if I believe in fairies? You believe what you want, I believe what I want. I happen to think it's absurd and laughable that our Universe, composed of incredibly complex functions and mechanisms, could have produced itself from absolute nothingness and then programmed itself with such precision. The last time I checked, the atom didn't evolve. You think what I believe is goofy and unrealistic, and I think what you believe is goofy and unrealistic. But I don't feel the need to mock and ridicule.