Some years ago, I asked a believer what he would do if it could somehow be proven to him that there was no such thing as 'god'. His reply was interesting: he said he would kill one of his neighbours who he found intensely irritating. I asked if he truly had no internal moral code (as I have) that says it's wrong to take another life and he assured me he has no such internal code, his entire knowledge of right and wrong came from his biblical teaching. So, belief in a deity does perhaps after all have a use - it prevents a possibly unstable person from doing anything he wants to do, assuming he can get away with it.

I'll sit back now and enjoy the popcorn while I wait for our deluded friend to share his opinion with us!

The answer depends on your belief. As JBH said above:

Those of us who are not deluded by fairy tales are free to enjoy life without some imaginary deity allegedly telling us what to do and not do.

I'm pleased to say that I live in England, so whatever the donny boy does is not likely to have a very big effect on me. Pity about Charles, I used to enjoy his posts, full of facts quoted from a wide variety of publications. I hope those Neptunians return him soon.

I quite agree, but religion, as such, is a harmless activity for those involved. Indeed, many religions raise money for the poor and needy in society, or for cancer research, so although the belief itself is a delusion, some of their activities are of benefit for the needy.

A cult on the other hand is devotion towards a leader, and quite often those sucked into the cult are unable to just change their minds and leave of their own free will. At least a member of a religion can (genereally) change their mind and worship in another church. Christians convert to Islam and vice versa, with little problem (in most cases). If you're in a cult there is no way you can just say, "This isn't for me, so I think I'll go back" (to wherever you were before you joined).

Are you sure? Someone supports the trump? How can that be true? Bring Charles back!

The discovery of the first planet to orbit a sun like ours has now resulted in a Nobel Prize for those involved in the discovery.

Assuming that such planets are numerous, what chance is there of 'intelligent life' (whatever that means!) on at least some of these planets?

Yes, you can see where this is going! Do they believe in a god of any type which might be recognisable by those on this planet who believe in that nonsense? Perhaps they are all deluded, believing in the most strange ideas? Or perhaps when we finally meet them they will laugh at us for our ideas?

What do people think?

It seems illogical to say that there is a design but no designer. A design by definition is something that has been designed, and therefore requires a designer.

I do not accept any form of design as far as the universe, this world or the beings on it are concerned. It is all the result of random chance and of course there is no god, that is a man made concept suitable for the deluded!

Are you really saying that human beings existed at the start of the universe? I have always thought that the universe was about 13 billion years old. After that the stars formed, and then the planets formed and eventually some sort of life got going - all of that a very long time before that life evolved into what we would recogsnise as a thinking human being! I think I misunderstood you?

Coincidence and chance are very strange phenomena. A few people (very few) have won the lottery more than once. Are they 'lucky' people? No. Did they have some sort of system to win? No. It was nothing more than coincidence.

There is no evidence of design, just random things happening. Remember, we are talking about very long times. They say if you give enough monkeys with typewriters enough time they will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare - and here's the funny thing: They *might* take many thousands of years of typing to get there; that's what people would expect. But chance says they might do it all in a few months only. In other words the day that they succeed does not have to be a long time in the future, it could be a lot sooner than people expect!

Rather like conspiracy theorists, the deluded will all too easily find a pattern and then call it a design. They are all wrong and guilty of lazy thinking.

Queen Victoria didn't believe sex between two women ever happened, so although her reign produced laws about sex between two men, there were none about sex between two women!

This might be one of those things that are dependent on how you are viewing this site. I use a Windows 10 desktop and the system works exactly as Di says.

As you say most of them come from those 'unsuitable' people who are only here for a short time before they are removed by the site. I find that the thing to do is click on Nudges then look at the pictures. If she is young and not wearing much, then clearly this is not someone who would find an oldie like me irresistable. This person will soon be removed by the site, so it's not worth the time and effort to delete or block them. If someone my own age looks at me and she seems interesting, then I can click on the profile to see more about her.

I think the 'purpose' is for our younger members to 'flirt' with those they find attractive. At least I think that's what it might be for. I'm too old to remember how to flirt

How very sad to hear that in the 21st Century.

Indeed, the Vatican has many priceless art treasures, while people in poor countries are putting a few cents into the collection plate. That's all they can afford but there are so many of them the church can maybe buy a few more beautiful pictures. Not sure why it is necessary for the headquarters of a religious denomination to own art and other treasures wirth a vast fortune but if you ask them I'll sure they will have a convincing answer..... maybe.

The distinction between genuine religion and cults as far as I can see is that genuine religions are full of people who sincerely worship some sort of god creature. Deluded as they are, the continue to fall on their knees of a Sunday and put something in the plate, maybe not much sometimes. I have a lot of time for the Quakers. The last thing they would want or need is anything that is worth a lot of money. Their top person occupies that position for (I think) ten years. The person who is their deputy beceoms the next top person. These top people live in their own ordinary house. These are genuine and sincere people. They don't 'worship' their top person, he or she is only an administrator and they are humble people.

In contrast, people in a cult have a very visible leader and it would appear that he (always a man!) is the one who gets worshipped. These cults are nothing more than money making ventures run by people who know how easy it is to delude people into parting with their money in return for promises made. No sane person would part with their money for nothing more than a 'promise'!

Tom, I agree with you and understand that this is how you see things. I see that 'disagree' was the wrong word to use. Instead I will say that I see life a little differently. I have no need to believe in an idea to test it. All I need is to think about this idea and wonder what would happen if I test it. Quite likely the first attempt will not work. So that will hopefully help me to understand what I am doing wrong. Out of curiosity, I might well think that if I do the test again but make a change or two maybe that will work. I still do not 'believe' that it might or will work. I just hope it will and am intrigued as to what test is needed to prove my theory. While testing I keep an open mind and when it doesn't work I have to guess whether that is because my test method isn't right or perhaps the idea won't work at all. If I keep testing I will soon find out if the error is in my testing method or in my original idea.

If and when I finally make it work, I can then demonstrate to others this this is a valid test to prove that my idea works. It is only at that point and not before that I will make the statement that says I believe this works.

The difference lies in the meaning of 'I believe'. It is sometimes meant in the sense of 'I think', as in, "I do believe you're right". That statement really means I *think* you're right and can occur before any proof is offered. For example, "I do believe it will rain today". That is not a statement of fact because the rain has not yet come. Its arrival, or non-arrival, is an event in the future. So that statement really means, "I think it will rain today".

I don't think I have ever said, "I believe it will rain today" I would always use an expression like, "looks like it might rain today".

So we don't need the three Bs

Will we? won't we? That is the question! And it might become clearer in the coming week. Many times have observers referred to 'crunch time' but I think we can truly say that this week coming will be that crunch time. The EU has said that we have had our last extension. If they stick to that we will have to leave with no deal, but that will be illegal. Not sure how we can leave if it is illegal. Can the law force us to remain, i.e negate the decision to leave? I don't know!

I have always thought that desirable though it is, actually leaving is not possible. This is because of the Good Friday agreement which said that there will never be a border between the north and the south. The current plans are for the UK, including Northen Ireland, to leave the EU, but the south will remain in the EU. There has to be a border between the EU and any neighbouring non-EU country. So how do you square that circle? Not possible! All the attempts thus far are just fudges and one party or another will fiercely resist them.

If Ireland could decide to unite and become one country (but they won't) that country could then decide either to leave the EU and remain part of Britain (but the south will never do that), or remain in the EU and no longer be part of Britain (but the north will never do that). As far as I can see, those are the mechanisms by which the UK could leave the EU. But of course none of that could happen.

Seems the only option is to cancel Article 50, return to being as we were and continue the discussions about leaving as we should have done in the first place.

It's all stupid Cameron's fault, offering the country a chance to leave without taking Ireland into account. He was confident his remain option would win but he guessed wrong and then the coward ran away from office. May did her best but the EU knew she was really a remainer so they called her bluff about leaving on 31 March, and again, knowing she would cave in each time.

I think Boris is made of sterner stuff and it is to his credit that he is standing up against those who trying to stop him carrying out the stated will of the country.

We shall see what happens this week.

I think a religion is a belief system, in which a god, or gods, are worshipped, often by constructing buildings in which prayers may be said to worship that being. All well and good if that's your thing.

On the other hand I think a cult is a group of people who while claiming to worship a god, actually 'worship' one man who is the leader of the cult and for some reason is usually seen driving around in an extremely expensive car. This leader collects money from his followers and promises salvation or other desirable wonders. See what happened at the WACO cult and what is continuing to happen in the Scientology cult. Yuk!

We have to disagree on that one. Maybe it's a language difference between American and English?

In electronics (my subject) I have many times said, "What if...?" which doesn't mean I have any belief, but does mean that I *think* there is a possibility...... so I need to conduct an experiment to find out. For example, is this transistor a substitute for the faulty one? I can think of reasons why it might be but before I solder it in to try, there is no belief that it will work, just a hope that it might. If it doesn't, nothing has changed, I don't have a failed belief, only a failed experiment.

On the other hand I totally agree with you about belief in the area of religion. That subject is based on an unquestioning belief and you can be criticised, even punished, for having a belief that goes against the official teaching. Poor old Copernicus was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because he dared to suggest that the earth is not the centre of everything that is. As if that detail would make any difference to a belief in a deity - but it did to the people of that time! It's not many years since the Catholics finally admitted that he was right.

I often attempt to prove something I don't believe. For example if someone told me that this transistor really will work as a substitute for the faulty one. It has happened that I don't believe my colleague. The only way to prove which of us is right is to test it. We might even take bets on who is right! Belief doesn't come into it, just a theory held by one person and a different theory held by another.

Belief comes only after the experiment when we can say we believe this to be the case because we have tested it.

OK sorry, chaps this is off topic.

It's only a small quibble, Tom, but you say:

I don't agree that a scientific mind starts with a belief. If you don't know something you can't 'believe' it is, or might be, true.

I would say instead, that science starts with a theory, which says, "I have a theory. This *might* be true, it looks quite likely to me, so lets do some experiments to find out...." There cannot be belief until there is convincing evidence. When the atom was successfully split, observers could see what happened and people believed.

Just a small point.

How soon, I wonder, before a working battery is built to test the theories.

I cannot see how a car battery can ever be charged in only minutes. That would require thousands of amps, which I don't think is practical given the health and safety laws currently in place.

My thinking about car batteries is that the battery could be on a tray under the car. When it needs to be recharged, the tray drops down and a new fully charged one takes its place. That would take less time than filling a petrol or diesel car. The garage would put these batteries on charge and when ready they would join the pile of fully charged batteries waiting for customers.

Yes, you're right, it did just happen. Get over it!

Seems to me that some people start by assuming an unprovable opinion as fact. From that, they bend the facts of life simply to try to make them fit with their opinion. If necessary, they might even include conspiracy theories to 'prove' their versaion of 'facts'.

Very sad.

My assumption is that scientists are people who try their very best, not to try to prove their pet theory, but to try to disprove it! They are honest people. Granted there is the odd 'black sheep' among them who look only at the evidence that seems to support their ideas, conveniently ignoring any evidence that appears to point in a different direction. This happened a hundred or more years ago but these days there is much competition and many people looking at each of the various theories. To suggest that non believers among scientists might try to 'hide' evidence suggests that religion is so weak that it needs to be justified by the believers to the non believers. This is a nonsense. People of faith that I know are quietly certain of their beliefs and have no need to justify anything to anyone else. Likewise scientists will have no need to justify their evidence in some attempt to twist it. All they do is honest reseach to try to find out what is happening in their particular field of research.

Gone are the days when a single person experiments in their own home or simple laboratory and finds something interesting. These days science involves large teams of people in specially equipped laboratories - the LHC at CERN being a particularly outstanding example.

I don't recall being taught at my Catholic school that 'god' claims that the laws of physics are invisible to our eyes. The exact opposite was taught. Physics is being discovered as we speak. It was being discovered during my years at that school and we all relished new discoveries when they happened.

To suggest that scientists are ignoring some evidence because it does not match with their belief system is putting the cart before the horse. Scientists are not people who start off with an assumption and then bend the facts when they don't appear to fit their theory. Instead, they modify their starting point and check again to see if they now have a better fit with observation.

I respectfully suggest that it is believers of god who start off with the unproven assumption that there is a god and then go on to try to find 'evidence' of that existence. That would make a mockery of true science and it is not possible that this would happen in todays world.

As I said before, new discoveries are constantly being made. The current 'best estimate' of the age of the universe is about 39 billion years. However recent discoveries have suggested that this figure might be too big - or it might be too small! Come back in a hundred years and we might have a more accurate estimate. Scientists continually evaluate potential new methods of making this measurement.

The doppler effect is well known and plays a vital part in helping understand this number. There is nothing new about the doppler effect!