Dawkins says of the Bible: "To be fair much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed ,revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries."

I guess he put it rather bluntly, but I would also agree the basic proposition he puts across. Try as I might, and I have over the years, I cant accept passages from the Bible as incontrovertible evidence that a Supreme Deity exists, therefore I have an additional issue with the Bible in a traditional sense. Evidence, that dreaded word which causes so much debate. Clearly if an individual has Faith (of whatever flavour) then the Bible has profound meaning to them, and I can well understand the joy many feel when they study it - great stuff, more power to their elbow, don’t have a problem with it.

Drilling down to the Bible itself, I certainly have a problem reconciling in a logical manner the disparate way it has been put together. Of course things evolve, clearly, but to evolve over such a time frame? No, sorry not for me. For sure explanations can be given, but none that in my eyes ring true, to me its more a case of how do we justify this, than giving chapter and verse. Then to top it all there is the hypostatic union concept to which all the Major Christian Religions signed up to in 451AD - a fact which many are not aware of, let alone know what was agreed. It was a fudge, as the agreement at the Council of Chalcedon states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ, they also immediately went on to say that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. Today’s Spin Doctors would have been proud of that one, especially as it rewrote the whole basic concept of Christianity that had previously been held as "The Truth" at a stroke.

There followed over a thousand years of argument as to how to interpret this interpretation .... the great schism with Orthodox Churches in the 11th and 12th Centuries, which despite various attempts to revoke mutual excommunication still exists to this day. So we have a situation whereby the major Christian Religions are really not in full agreement over very key issues, have rewritten the whole basis of Christianity from what it originally was stated to be, yet in both pre and post hypostatic union eras the same Bible was used to justify fundamentally different concepts of Christianity at the very Core of what it stood for. Hairy Stuff .....

Amidst all this I am meant to take as the word a book collated (arguably) over nine centuries, spanning a huge argument about the basis of Christianity, and calmly take it all on Faith? With the best will in the world, I cant do that. Those that do, that’s fine, I support their right to do so, Religious Freedom is a tenant that should be respected and fought for with determination. Equally individuals should not be surprised at others holding opposite views amidst the previously described "carnage" in basic doctrine and belief amongst all the Leaders of all the Major Religions spanning - now - 1500 years.

I hope those who posses a deep Faith do not take offence, I certainly do not mean to give any, and I chose my words carefully (hopefully) to avoid that - if I didnt avoid it, I unreservedly apologise, no slight is intended, implicitly or explicitly. Its hugely complex, and the combined weight of all Major Christian Religions have not solved it in 1500 years, I doubt we will, but as always I will listen with interest.

Please what do you mean and believe when you describe yourself as a Darwinist?

Darwin, and anyone else who tries, will only ever be able to prove micro-evolution, and never the macro-evolution that says 'We came all this way from single cells!'

Why? Because, the only reason macro-evolution came into being was that someone said, 'If this species of bird can have different characteristics based on where it lives, having started from just one type of bird, then species can change into different species!'

Well, look around you. Humans are all different colors, races, etc, whatever you want to call our in born traits. We're not all the same, yet according to the Bible we all started from two people. Therefore, during that time, there was only ONE color/race/whatever. Now we have a lot. So Darwin basically proved that, having started from one race, you can have multiple races. Which is what the Bible says. So Darwin proved the Bible. People then theorized, "Hey, if it can go that far, why can't we have come from apes too?"

Well, if that was the case, then why don't apes evolve into humans now? Why don't the things everything evolved from now evolve into them again? Did it only happen once? Must have happened at least twice, in order that those two evolved that way could reproduce, and they had to be in the same general area. But I'm guessing, theorizing if you will, that these macro evolution proponents are wrong. And they can never prove we came from apes, because an ape won't evolve into a human.

The Darwin theory will indeed rumble on, as it challenges the very core of some peoples beliefs. As has always been the case as science moves on, Religious theories move their foundations into areas not yet explained by science. The latter ultimately resting on the unique premise that as the new theory cannot be proved to be wrong, it is acceptable – yet in all other aspects of our lives the usual standard is to prove a theory before acceptance.

To say that clear evidence concerning carbon dating etc is not sufficient to show Humans have existed for millions of years, when the technique is widely accepted in other aspects of our lives, is illogical. Prior to Darwin, we were held up by the major Religions as having been created in seven days, and that was accepted literally. Once science came along with carbon dating techniques (amongst others), that blew that apart as it verified the major thread of Darwin theory.

So Religious Theory shifted once more – there quickly grew the theory that seven days was allegorical, in fact a day could be a million years long in the Bible (for example). Such timescales did not fit other time frames implied in Bible texts previously held to be literal. We are now at the stage where the major Christian Religions no longer hold the seven day theory to be literal – yet for 2000+ years it was held as literal on pain of blasphemy.

Same happened with “earth is flat” era which only changed in the last 200/300 years. Prior to that Heaven was “up there”, and Hell was over the edges of the flat earth, to say otherwise was held as Blasphemy. That quickly changed as a round earth was shown to be the case.

Go further back, to the most serious case of rewriting Religious facts. In 451AD the whole foundation of Christianity changed by a huge shift in belief in the very nature of Christ himself. The infamous Hypostatic Union signed up to by all Major Christian Religions, changed the very nature of Christ, and the whole Foundation of Christianity. A change so huge that even now there is great reluctance to talk about it, as it destroyed at a stroke what had previously been held as an unshakeable truth in the nature of Christ himself. Even to this day the major Christian Religions avoid the topic, and the infamous “Great Schism” in the 11th & 12th Centuries was caused by this issue, and the dispute still prevails.

So is there a supreme deity, for my part – maybe. I still don’t know, because as the in vogue comfort blanket of successive generations of Religious theories is disputed by scientific fact, so the previously held “truth” is changed. The latest anti-Darwin theory says that we had to start out of something, couldn’t just come out of thin air 12Billion years ago, and there is a strong logic there. However I cannot make the convenient jump to say therefore there has to be a supreme deity to make it happen, that’s taking an unproven leap of Faith too far.

It also acknowledges the fallacy of a literal seven day Creation, which is the ultimate irony.

It all boils down to either you have Faith or you don’t. To attempt to prove the unprovable with ever shifting theories and baselines to areas where, conveniently, the science of the day cannot verify, and then move them yet again as science proves a prior theory unviable, is not the road to go down. The latter clearly evidenced by the dramatic decline in Christianity during the 20th Century.

I am not an expert on Darwin but I believe that, although he was an expert on evolution, he did not turn away from God. In fact (my own comment), there is evidence that Darwin was a believer. However, as for Dawkins, it would be vain to suggest that he is an atheist. I think, rather, that Dawkins is a Realist who "pooh poohs" traditional old-fashioned beliefs and tries to look logically at the religious trends that have swayed man over the years.

After the publication of "The God Delusion", Dawkins has become involved in a TV series that seeks to portray astrology, spiritualism, clairvoyance and TV evangelism as false, harmful, misleading and plain "money grabbing". This is why I like Dawkins. He is probably not an atheist and may not be a good Christian, but he is certainly a logical realist who is not misled by the bulls--t that passes itself off as truth or hides behind the bible.

I'm generalising I know but how many televangelists do you know who do not have question marks behind their names?

This world is full of charlatans and if a guy like Dawkins brings them down, I'm with him. I see no evidence of Dawkins trying to bring others o.ver to atheism. I see him trying to cut the crap out.

Why would you get credit for reading (probably skewed Christian) reviews of a book? Do you want me to refresh my knowledge of Catholicism by reading a Catholic book or by reading atheist reviews of the Catholic book? It's the same thing.

No points for you.

I'm just saying, go to the source. Anything else is unreliable.

And I've done exactly that - read it (the bible) many times. And, you know? The bible is the reason I don't believe in God or organized religion.

Well . . . that, and my experiences with the Catholic Church.

I believe that, whether we support Darwin or Dawkins, or not, there is no evidence to suggest that they are atheists simply because they theorise on evolution or the birth of man. Modern Christians need to question reality more and decide whether they need to abide by SOME of the bible's teachings or not. I am certainly not an atheist and I have a God who stands by me at all times, holding my hand and I thank him often, but I am loathe to believe that "flaky history stories" should be subject to the intense scrutiny we seem to read into them just because we wish to.

The New Testament appears to have more philosophical teachings until we learn that "impossible" miracles and transformations take place. I am not being blasphemous when I suggest that Jesus, a good, ordinary man, becomes a Jerry Falwell at times, and a Harry Houdini at others. I'm serious--we need to pull the Bible apart and find out what really happened rather than hanging on every word and reading things into it that probably never happened. Bible students study what: A History book, a book that is out of date, A book with good stories but little explanation on why deeds occured, a book that treads warily close to the afterlife without explanation, miraculous deeds without explanation, impossible transformations without explanation?

The Bible is out of date and we need to revise it thoroughly and properly so that it makes sense to modern man.

Jythier, what is blasphemous about calling Jesus a "good, ordinary man"? Explain yourself.

Jesus himself would have liked to have been called a "good, ordinary" man for I believe He was humble.

The Bible is God's written Revelation to mankind. The Bible is God's Book. It's the pre-eminent Book that tells of all ages and is for all ages and therefore will never be "out of date".

It's not that it doesn't make sense, but more that it's difficult to understand, which should challenge modern man all the more.

I hear the sentiment, but from an objective stance I believe that would cause more issues than it solves. Its hard enough to try and "believe" a book put together over nine centuries, and that contains a large number of illogical and inconsistent parables. The Leadership of the major Christian Religions have already canned the literal sense of the seven day creation, that in itself calls into question large parts of the remainder of the Bible, but if the rest is rewritten as well, it will just verify its contents as a collection of various opinions, not a collation of Faith.

Last but no means least, Christians already avoid the topic of the Hypostatic Union as it destroys totally the Faith they currently practice, many refuse to acknowledge the events in 451AD despite their Religous leaders signing up to it. If the Bible is also conveniently re-written because of the gaping holes of logic in it - that will set the seal on any possibility of rebuilding the drastically reduced number of practicing Christians.