"God is also supposed to be “incomprehensible”, is he not?"
Not true. For Bible-believing Christians He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures and through His Son, Jesus. That doesn’t mean God is totally comprehensible, but most aspects of His character are abundantly clear.

"Moreover you blunder into philosophical questions, such as freedom of choice, that still haven’t been resolved after centuries of earnest thought."
I’m not blundering, I choose to engage in trying to understand this enigma. As I said before, from everything else I understand about the Christian worldview, unless there is true freedom of choice, life is pointless. I also do not understand whether light is wave-form or quanta-based, but I don’t lose any sleep over it. I know light "works" and that is enough.

"Miraculously, you transform the sheer brute pointlessness of so much human misery into something cosy to yourselves while you prate about miracles—none of which has ever been substantiated."
That’s just precious - an “absolute fact” from someone who believes there are no absolutes! I guarantee that you have never undertaken even a simple study into this topic of miracles for yourself yet "miraculously" you can state categorically that they cannot be!
Study the amazingly complicated process of the birth of a child and you’ll see how there are so many interactions with such small tolerances for error that it’s a miracle we even exist!

"Science has no interest in God; it only leaves the lab to confront creationists because they retard the enlightenment process and continue to infect emerging generations with their voodoo."
Again, dead wrong. Many of the first scientists/inventors of note were in fact Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Many Christians are PhDs in almost every current field of scientific endeavour, so that is just another ridiculous platitude offering no proof, just your own opinion.

So as far as offering no real answers (just personal attacks) on this subject, right back atcha Squeers!

Oneundergod, with respect, how do you KNOW God gave life to the dust?
Why would anyone/thing decide he/she wants to give life to dust?
Doesn't sound very inspiring does it?

Who gave life to God?
I reckon it was his mother. Can you PROVE this is not so?
And no, I don't want to read any more holy websites!

MartinsS: "many christians..."

...and for every one of those willing to publish, there is a working scientist named "Steve" who has a contrary opinion, the majority with a PhD. Look up "project Steve" sometime. That's not to mention all those not named "steve", including the vast majority of Nobel Prize-winners, particularly in the biological disciplines. Best of luck.

(Bronx Cheer).

Rusty.

Suze

Following on from your thoughts about god's mum, it is way past time she sat the nasty child down and explained that his behaviour is self centred, greedy and the celestial equivalent of pulling wings off flies; god is simply a very naughty boy, who shows every indication of growing to be a full blown psychopath.

To those who claim to speak for god - ego? MUCH! And therefore, you are vexatious and to be avoided as much as possible.

"That doesn’t mean God is totally comprehensible, but most aspects of His character are abundantly clear."
Agreed. Ruthless, vindictive, vengeful, jealous and cruel. What sort of a father allows his son to die slowly and horribly to demonstrate his loving compassion?
It appears God is very much one with the 'men of religion' mentioned in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He appears to spend all his time crossing to the other side of the road.
I would suggest even if the Christian God did exist, It is simply not worthy of respect, let alone worship.

Sells,

An interesting contribution. One problem though; you assume the Creator to be the Christian god, a priori. Tens of thousand of religions would have creation myths, I suspect. The case for the selection of this particular god is unclear.

As you very well know, the OT was written by various authors over centuries and the current Bible is a selected works (Mack). Is it really more valid to only compare this biased configuration, rather take a more generic stance of Creator and Science and have Christianity, an example, one of several religions?

Triadis notes that culture is a response to the environment and Skinner asserts "man isa product of his environment". What you have a penchant for doing in your aricles is, to qualify the environment according to a predetermined authority (Christian scripture), rather than face the environment, as it is, a hotch-potch of cultures developing societal constructs consistent with their ecologies and time-lines