Any person who claims to believe in the big bang theory has more faith than most. The denial of that defies all mathematics and all logic. 'Scientist'who claim not to have faith and yet beleive in the big bang are either very deceitful or blind. The reason Julia and other so called athiest speak of praying is they know that creation screams every day of a Creator. It takes a lot more faith to deny the obvious than to hold to ever changing scientific dogmas.

Runner, can you please explain what you understand of the 'big bang theory' and exactly what you disagree with regarding this theory. I have always wanted to hear an opposing point of view on theories such as this, so please do not respond with some sort of attack on the 'pseudo-science of the secular communist hippies' but rather explain to me your reasoning so I can understand your point.

What is it that people want to be taught in schools that is currently provided by religious groups, and why can this not be provided by the non-religious? Is there something they can teach that other can't?

Same thing Einstein believed in, that indeterminate something between what is understood and what is known. Religion & Science are not mutually exclusive, faith does not prohibit the quest to understand more, in fact the narrower the gap between what is understood and what is known, the closer you must be to god, thus:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My beliefs are mine, I respect the right of everyone to their own beliefs, provided they are willing to respect the rights of others to learn (freely, not channeled into catechism of any stripe), and I will fight to protect that right from those who would prevent/restrict them from so doing.

The three major Christian churches preached that same evil through much of recorded history. The belief was eradicated viciously by the Catholic Church (the eradication of Gnosticism & the Cathars), who violently rejected the concept that no church was needed between a person and god. Other religions are trying to pursue the same crusade today.

No human has the right to impose religious strictures on another. No human has the right to say that I must impose some imperial mandarin-like figure between my beliefs and what they presume god to be. They do not have the right to impose that evil on anyone, they have the right to offer, but that is not the way of religion is it? Their very power comes from being able to direct/deflect/control the beliefs of others. That way lies the re-imposition of the inquisition and the middle ages, no thanks. This country is built on the backs of those who would not be dictated to, that is our strength. At least Gillard has the guts to take a stand and show that it is ok to express a disbelief in the "religious" sideshows.

As to god, if god as an entity exists "he" is a cruel b@st@rd...

I believe there is something, that I do not understand, but which I know to be true. I certainly don't worship prophets/profits.

To put it more bluntly, true agnosticism (essentially gnosticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism - without the lip-service to a specific deity, so necessary to survival at the time) is a belief system that believes that knowledge and understanding can be two very different things, knowledge that there is "something greater" than us, without the imposition of artificial strictures/restrictions/sanctions upon the seeking of knowledge other than that which is imposed by a religion, is very real.

Religions have long sought to vilify/outlaw/punish the very concept, that one can quite comfortably exist and learn without their control, without the restrictions upon learning, upon personal experience, because that is the source of their power, position and wealth. WWI did more than any other event to shatter ancient myths and strictures, the "religions" have never really recovered from it. Too many people realised that prayer to specific deity's was incapable of preventing evil done in the name of those self-same, specific deities.

I can't speak directly for Julia Gillard, but I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that her line 'we all pray for Kevin Rudd's speedy recovery' is figurative.When you say 'I'm going to kill that' whatever when someone or thing makes you angry, is that literal or figurative? Also, if we look at the realities of Julia's thread-like hold onto power, wouldn't it seem prudent to appeal to believers by use of their language? Basically, I think you're clutching at straws.

I've scanned quickly the Pew study you refer to. The first point is that it was done in the US. Generally, the US is considered quite a religious nation by comparison to modern European countries and to Australia. Thus percentages represent in the study won't be transferable directly.

Reading the copied results, one can only hope they were typographical errors.

'21% of atheist expressed at least some certainty of belief in God..'

If I may explain, atheists don't believe in God. Therefore, if 21% of people said they have a certainty of it they are, by definition, not atheists.

In addition, clearly the writer doesn't actually know much about Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is a practise originating as a philosophy, not a religion per se.

PS. To those who bring out the old canard 'There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.' I say a) The desire, out of fear, to have a power looking after your safety doesn't actually mean the power exists. b) Following the logic, if a foxhole creates belivers/followers, then foxholes would result in no one ever getting killed from a foxhole occupant. re: 'thou shalt not kill.'

Ah that old line, but hang on...

If one truly believed in a loving, munificent and kind god, why on earth would that person be digging a hole and hiding in it anyway? The only people that would be hiding in holes would surely be those who had serious doubts about the power of prayer, wouldn't they?

There is an old Arab saying - "trust in god, but tie your camel..."