I've been purposely trying to stay out of this debate since there's no way it'll end nicely, but I had a very interesting discussion with a priest at my mother's wedding.

This priest had previously been a professor of quantum physics, and spent around 10 years studying it in depth before coming to the conclusion that everything was just too perfect for there to be no God, and that there were too many coincidences in nature, biology & physics for there not to have been an intelligent force behind it. I wish I could explain some of his theories better, but to be honest I'd had a few glasses of champagne and most of it was going right over my head.

Take that for what it's worth as I don't want to get dragged down into this debate as there are already people a hell of a lot more intelligent than me discussing it.

This thread brings the LOLZ. Hard.

there are a lot who are perfectly willing to accept that there is far, far more to the universe than we know and understand or may ever know and understand

Deep physicists very often have a much more nuanced approach and while there aren't a lot who are religious in the way I am, there are a lot who are perfectly willing to accept that there is far, far more to the universe than we know and understand or may ever know and understand, and so they are open to the idea of some kind of "greater power."

I don't think you'll ever find any scientist who disagrees with the above statement. In fact, the reason science exists in the first place is to try and discover and understand the unknown. It's religion which suggests that it has all the answers.

Woyzeck - I would steer clear of accusing someone of being an intelligent design proponent that easily. Those two words might as well be "paedophile beast" for some people, and it's not terribly fair without knowing exactly what the guy's beliefs were.

a professor of quantum physics, and spent around 10 years studying it in depth before coming to the conclusion that everything was just too perfect for there to be no God, and that there were too many coincidences in nature, biology & physics for there not to have been an intelligent force behind it.

That's pretty interesting, Corey. Do you remember his name? With a background like that, he's probably one of a couple of pretty well-known guys.

It's a surprisingly common thing, in fact. You tend to find that biologists veer away from religion as they see evolution as the be-all and end-all, completely discounting anything other than a wholly literal interpretation of the creation story (thanks largely to crank lunatics in the American south.) Deep physicists very often have a much more nuanced approach and while there aren't a lot who are religious in the way I am, there are a lot who are perfectly willing to accept that there is far, far more to the universe than we know and understand or may ever know and understand, and so they are open to the idea of some kind of "greater power."

I disagree. Most scientists will agree that there is plenty still to be explored. Not many outside of deep physics will argue that there are things that may never be understood.

Also, religion doesn't claim to explain everything. God, His nature and the fullness of His plan for us are all mysteries.

That's pretty interesting, Corey. Do you remember his name? With a background like that, he's probably one of a couple of pretty well-known guys.

I'll tell you what Kenny, it's difficult to believe that the guy who posts in other threads with a degree of intelligence is the same guy who posts in this thread.

whilst im here, i'll ask the religious types what they think about this......

....im aware as a non-religious person, that one of the ten comandments (i think) was that there is one god, and one god only.......and not praise false idols etc. Now i undertand that jesus was also supposed to be god in some sort of form, but in the same respect.........should we be praising him if hes not god? I hope that makes sense, im trying to say that either way if he is gods son or not, he isnt actually god is he.....therefore making us sinners for praising him?

Sorry for beign a bit stupid on this subject, and ive probably opened up up a "Holy trinity" thing here, but i just thought id ask about that.

While there are some moderate religious followers who see the bible as metaphoric, mistranslated stories or mysteries, to most (especially in the US) the Bible is the unquestionable word of God, to be followed to the letter.

I'm not going through 31 pages of this to find this out so I have a few questions for you Kenny.

1: I'm guessing you following the good book by the book so, let me ask, are you celibate or a virgin?

2: If the answer to the above is no, have you used contraception?

3: If not, why not?

Reason I ask is I could have sworn I've seen you make crude references to "girls I want to plug" in other threads. Seems a tad odd coming from someone of your apparent beliefs.

Cheers m8.

I'd also make the general point that using American nutters to generalise about all religion is like using Stalin to generalise about all atheists.

Baz - no, I doubt it. Dogs don't have souls.

Baz - no, I doubt it. Dogs don't have souls.

The word "fact" has no business in a thread about Religion. You cannot debate factual accuracy or logic in a discussion about something as fundamentally illogical as peoples beliefs.

Any Religious debate, especially one on the Internet can be summed up in two lines:

Atheist: "You can't prove that God exists."
Theist: "You can't prove that God doesn't exist."

Stalemate. There is nothing more to discuss because none of the points can be proved right or wrong.

Seven - I'll answer your point once you can make a cogent statement of why it's remotely relevant to this thread.

Absolutely pathetic.

For the record I asked it for a few reasons.

1: This has turned into the "Ask Kenny about religion" thread, so when in Rome eh?

2: I genuinely want to know the answers, and sure I was hoping to catch you in a web of hypocrisy for the lolz.

3: I knew you'd dodge it.

So thanks for confirming my opinion on you, chiefly that you're a know-it-all fuckwit and I'd get more coherant conversation from the mentalist who stands outside the local church screaming about burning and hell and the like. So yeah, I'm going to take the high road and leave it with this (unless you wish to debate it further but we all know you're a coward) and for a crazy bonus olive branch, I'm not going to do something awful like accuse you of being a paedophile, a gesture I'm sure a good Catholic like yourself would appreciate and acknowledge the maturity of.

Oh wait.

I'll tell you what Kenny, it's difficult to believe that the guy who posts in other threads with a degree of intelligence is the same guy who posts in this thread.

Comments like this are pointless to the thread. Don't bother to post here unless you can keep the personal attacks out.

I'm assuming that the personal attacks ultimatum applies to dribbling simpletons like Bobbins as well?

Have a look a few pages back. I have no idea what Bobbins problem is, but he needs to sort himself out.

The point I made about Kenny has been made by at least one other person in this thread, and it wasn't even a "personal attack", just an observation that religion can make someone who is generally intelligent and reasonable believe in fairy tales and stories without questioning them at all.

Unless referring to someone as intelligent is a personal attack these days?

Have a look a few pages back. I have no idea what Bobbins problem is, but he needs to sort himself out.

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

The statement concluded: "As the Catholic church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it."

The Holy See launched its counter–attack after an international representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Keith Porteous Wood, accused it of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Porteous Wood said the Holy See had not contradicted any of his accusations. "The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children's organisations must unite to pressurise the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities."

Representatives from other religions were dismayed by the Holy See's attempts to distance itself from controversy by pointing the finger at other faiths.

Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, said: "Comparative tragedy is a dangerous path on which to travel. All of us need to look within our own communities. Child abuse is sinful and shameful and we must expel them immediately from our midst."

A spokesman for the US Episcopal Church said measures for the prevention of sexual misconduct and the safeguarding of children had been in place for years.

Of all the world religions, Roman Catholicism has been hardest hit by sex abuse scandals. In the US, churches have paid more than $2bn (£1.25bn) in compensation to victims. In Ireland, reports into clerical sexual abuse have rocked both the Catholic hierarchy and the state.

The Ryan Report, published last May, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. A nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse.

Surely scientific fact has to come into play somewhere along the line though? Don't get me wrong, I see what you mean Vito.

Baz - no, I doubt it. Dogs don't have souls.

that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

I only responded to you because I was truly amazed that you couldn't see that this thread was irrefutable proof of Kenny's intelligence. And that's coming from someone whose atheism is as fervent as Kenny's catholicism. My mouse hovered over "report" before I decided to reply to that post. I'll know better next time.

There's no point in trying to combat fairy stories with scientific fact though. Fundamentalists who believe in sky faeries and wizards already live in a convenient fantasy world shaped by thousands of years of dogma and indoctrination and aren't going to have their entire belief system shaken by heathen science.
Trying to teach fundamentalists about science is like trying to teach a hardline Atheist how to be a Christian, the two are totally incompatible, science is built on rational thought while Religion is built on ancient works of fiction.

I could pick up one of Tolkiens books off of my bookshelf right now and claim that this book explains how it all happened, and doing so would have no less merit than picking up a Bible and making the same claim. I believe therefore it's true. That's how it is.

The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950-2002).[21] The report found that, over the 52-year period covered by the study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities."[22]

As for the tone of that article, imagine if the world's media were exclusively attacking, mocking, deriding, criticising and insulting Israel for having nuclear weapons. Virtually no mention was ever made of other countries. Wouldn't Israel be justified in thinking it was a little bit racist and point out that other countries have more warheads in their arsenals, so maybe the focus of the criticism ought to change a little bit?

NO-ONE is saying that sexual abuse of children (and teenagers) isn't a very, very bad thing. The Church is going to be paying for the sins of a (very small) number of priests for a VERY long time. Most of those priests are now either dead or in jail, contrary to Loki's suggestion that they're all dancing in a field somewhere. I can accept that the Church deserves a certain level of criticism and increased scrutiny over its child protection procedures. But you have to wonder - if it's actually a worse problem in other faith groups, why is only the Catholics who get it in the neck from every media outlet going? Couldn't be a wee bit of bigotry creeping in, could there? Surely not. Not from the liberal intellegentsia. They know better than to be narrow-minded bigots, don't they?

It's also absolutely repugnant to hint that ephebophilia isn't as bad as paedophilia.

The tone in that article is completely disgusting, Kenny. The fact that other religions have fucked up on this issue is not a defense for the Roman Catholic Church doing the same. It's also absolutely repugnant to hint that ephebophilia isn't as bad as paedophilia. The age of the victim is completely irrelevant, the victim was still raped. The offenders are still sexual predators that should be dealt with by the law. When you point the finger elsewhere and try to muddy the issue on pointless technicalities, don't blame people for thinking that you're still trying to cover up something and still don't take the issue completely seriously.

Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that anti-Catholicism is football related (specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant.

I disagree. Paedophilia implies "fucking babies" like Loki suggested earlier. That's not the same as gay men hitting on youngish teenagers. Fuck, in Queer As Folk, that was lauded as being an honest portrayal of gay lifestyles and within the show it was never suggested that there was anything wrong with it. I'm NOT saying this is the same thing, but it IS important to make sure that the nature of the problem is properly understood. I think it may have been when this scandal was first coming to light, but I remember Bobbins talking about the differences between ephebophilia and paedophilia on here and stressing that they weren't really the same issue. Clarifying what the problem actually is is surely the first step to addressing it.

I know "they were doing it too" isn't a great defence

And seriously, next time you read, see or hear an article in a somewhat reputable outlet regarding Catholicism, try analysing it for a few minutes. Check the facts, check the terminology, check the implications that are sneaked in, look for the snide editorial comments - I found examples of problems with all of those within two clicks of that Guardian article Bobs linked to in the first place - and tell me you don't see any bias.