Yes, quite a bit more personal... lucky I don't have a face

The relevance of the nature of people had nothing to do with proving there was a god and more to do with your claim that this is a different age where there's fewer gaps in knowledge that need to be explained by supernatural things. Not sure which bible you're reading there, mine says that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless among the people of his time", which would suggest to me that he treated other people well and they didn't have a gripe with him, and neither did God. I don't think the bible claims that people are perfect. As for getting drunk - sleeping is a sensible thing to do in that event and I think the story is demonstrating something about his sons, not him. A little context doesn't go astray.

"Have you read the bible at length?" I don't know if "at length" is the right phrasing, I've read it a lot. I haven't read all of it - I'd never read that bit about Job and his daughters and I find it interesting that you noticed that he offered his daughters up. I noticed that the town he lived in wanted to have sex with the men/angels staying at his house. What the heck? I'd have to read that more closely and with a bit of context.

From what you've said, I'm not sure that you know a great deal about scientific method. There's actually a great deal of faith in science. When you perform an experiment you have to trust that what you already know is true (and things have been changed before). You have to interpret what you see (according to what you already knew) and move on to the next question. Investigating the next question assumes that you got the previous one right. You have to trust that the commonly accepted interpretation is the correct one and there are often alternate hypotheses that other scientists have proposed.

"a book, which has been edited and translated so many times by so many different people that it cannot be considered the work of god anymore (if it ever could)" That's quite incorrect. It has been translated many times, and perhaps some translating and editing has led to unfortunate things (in the 1500s), however known manuscripts of the bible go back further than most historical documents (within 50 years of the life of Jesus) and when translations are made they go back to the closest they have to originals to make sure they get it right. Many "facts" of history that people don't even think the question, for example events in the life of Julius Caesar, only have evidence about 200 years (or more) after his life - not even two lifetimes. If the distributions of the gospels and letters about Jesus had been lying it would have been known because people who'd heard him speak were still alive.

"Religion causes people to picket abortion clinics and murder doctors. Vote for bad presidents. Lobby against stem-cell research. Keep sick and dying people alive until god chooses to take them. Stone women to death for being the victims of rape." No, extremism causes those things. Everybody who is religious isn't the same as someone who would murder or fly into buildings. I think people that have done those things give me and other believers a bad name. They haven't entirely missed the point, but they've missed the balance. As well as rejecting sin the bible calls for "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Gal 5). Obviously they missed some of those. People aren't perfect.

"You say that you can't think out a simple thought experiment because of your upbringing." Not fair at all. I said I couldn't "predict" what I would think, which is true. No one can truly step out of who they are and what they've learnt because they would be a different person and it's useless to hypothesise about such things. Many of my successful scientific lecturers would agree that hypothesising about the past can't come up with definite answers because we weren't there. While they assume evolution works out and say that a protein from two species "probably" evolved from the same place, they don't say it's definite. That's why I wouldn't bother hypothesising what someone (even myself) would think. Thought processes are complex enough without introducing fantasy.

"Isn't it better to do something on your own than because you fear punishment?" I don't think I've ever done anything out of fear of punishment. "Hell" is not a place you get sent to for being naughty. It comes back to the summary I said of what I believe - we want to rule our own lives, which is exemplified in your question "on your own". When we do that it separates us from having a relationship with god and as the life-giver and creator, separation will eventually mean being separated from life and the good things of creation. I doubt it will be the classical fiery pits and pineapples up bottoms. Obviously that's all irrelevant to you because if you deny the first point, God created the earth, nothing else from there could possibly make sense.
"But how can it be so that a loving god decided the best way to dispatch those naughty sinners was to sweep such a large stroke that it would end the lives of so many innocents?" It's a question that many people ask "how can a loving god..." It's a bigger discussion. I would never claim that a disaster happened because of someone's sin...
I read someone's account of their experience as a believer in a church. They got an infection on their hand (some kind of rash or something). He tried praying for it to go away, people told him he mustn't be praying faithfully enough or he must be committing a sin that's preventing his prayer from being heard. What a load of crap! He should have gone to the pharmacy and gotten some hydroquartisone cream.
A bit of a digression, but I just mean it's not the way god works and maybe those people were trying to do the right thing by telling him that, but they damaged him and people are just not perfect.

"And on being wise - how does one get wise reading the same book over and over?" Again, if you don't believe god created the world, it can't make sense. Obviously I do think god created the world and that he is wiser than us. As his word, the bible is where we find wisdom.

I think if you want scientific answers you go to science, if you want questions about god, you go to where god has revealed himself. You've said nothing that convinces me that they're incompatible because they're different. Science isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Sit through one of my cell biology lectures and count the number of times they say "we don't know how that happens, but it seems to". I don't know how god works, but he seems to.

--
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus" ~Mark Twain

This response has become a bit more personal, since I've been responding directly to some of the things you've said - but please understand I still harbour no hostility towards you, no matter the language I've used. Imagine me responding to a faceless 'believer' if you will Apologies also for it's length

Science and religion are incompatible subjects insofar as science is about what we can observe and prove - and religion is made up stuff. Science and god are incompatible because if something cannot be proven to exist, if something cannot be observed (directly or indirectly) ... it doesn't exist. It's no help when there's all these rules about god and such that make it so that even if we devised a test, there'd be some way for him to still explain his way out of it. For instance if we where to run a study into the effectiveness of prayer, that could be explained away by god knowing we where trying to trick him. Funny that when a group of researched did just that (on three groups recovering from heart surgery), they found when people knew they where being prayed for they got worse - those that weren't being prayed for, and those being prayed for on the other hand, showed no difference.

Science is not a belief system. It is reality - there is no faith in science. If you believe in god, you believe in something that cannot be proven to exist - it makes about as much sense as my believing in a orbiting teapot. In other words, the fact that it cannot be proven false, because your beliefs place it outside the realm of reality, does not make it true - otherwise the world would be a very odd place indeed. Therefore you must accept that it holds as much ground as any of the other religions (present and past) or myths and fairytales. The fact you where brought up being taught these stories, makes it hard for you to see it this way, it causes you to place your beliefs on a pedestal compared to rational thought. Atheists are often accused of lacking an open mind, but I must point out that we are most open minded of all - we just refuse to 'believe' in things. For you, this is the foundation of your thinking - being able to have faith and believe in something for no reason at all other than what's been told. It's no use quoting scripture - that was all written by people, and there is plenty of written history for other religions - so which one is it?

The only physical evidence (if you could call it that) is a book, which has been edited and translated so many times by so many different people that it cannot be considered the work of god anymore (if it ever could), but rather the work of many faceless people with all sorts of agendas - who chose which scriptures they wanted to include. I was cautious not to go into a critique of the bible in my last comment because I wasn't sure if you leaned that way or if you where more of a believer in the mystical 'creator' god that created us and went on his way and left us alone. Belief in a biblical god though, that makes things more interesting. Have you read the bible at length? I haven't myself, but I have read many excerpts, and it strikes me as a bizarre book to base one's life off. It's hardly the basis for morality that people say it is.

I don't assume that belief in god = religion, as I've shown already, I can seperate the two. But as soon as you wonder into genesis territory, and the son of god, that's religion. At best, I'd say those who have an 'inactive belief that he's out there' are agnostic, and haven't been given the chance to think otherwise.

My example with Galileo was just an extreme example - religion can get on fine in that sense without the establishment. Religion causes people to picket abortion clinics and murder doctors. Vote for bad presidents. Lobby against stem-cell research. Keep sick and dying people alive until god chooses to take them. Stone women to death for being the victims of rape. etc etc etc. Yes, people can be bad with or without religion - but the important point is that people can be good without religion too - and when they're good without religion, they're doing it without the fear of going to hell or bait of going to heaven. Hence there not being a need for religion - it makes no difference, we aren't peasants that need fairytales about right and wrong.

You yourself illustrate my point about children being taught to believe in santa and god. You say that you can't think out a simple thought experiment because of your upbringing. I'd say that's a negative aspect of religion right there. I was saddened that you quoted the bible next - you played out the thought experiment by quoting the myth in question.... using the myth to support the myth. I didn't intend for it to be a trap, but apparently it was

The world is an amazing place, and actually, not a lot of it is random chance - it would be ignorant to state it as such. In my eyes, it's sadder to think some 'god' created it, than to marvel at the observable workings of the natural world. There's beauty in nature, and god is not needed to witnesses or appreciate it. Seen those fractal broccoli? I mean, how is there more rhyme and reason to god creating us? Nothing in the bible satisfies me - it doesn't answer the why-are-we-here question. We're here because some superpowerful supernatural being decided to create everything, including the universe (which by pure probability has life on other planets) and our home planet, plonk us on it and then give us a choice to be good and go to heaven, or bad and go to hell? How does that answer anything? Why did god do that? I mean, if we can't find the point of living in this life, what's the point in living the afterlife? Doesn't make an ounce of sense or reason. And don't go quoting the bible - that's cheating!

Yes, we're going to die. That's what happens to all organisms. Happens to bacteria, plants and animals... all living things. Does a plant question it's purpose in this world? How about an animal? The reason we exist is the same as any other animal. To say it's a test to see if we can live eternally in heaven is not very satisfying... what's the purpose of us living eternally in heaven? The why-do-we-exist question remains unanswered. I don't think we exist for a purpose defined by some superior being. The purpose is our own to make, the reason to live is life itself. That to me is more beautiful. I find more comfort in living this life as a good person because I want to, than living a life of confusion and imposed morals and thoughts thanks to religion. Isn't it better to do something on your own than because you fear punishment?

I don't understand the relevance of you point about the nature of people. If I may quote the bible this time, of Noah: Genesis 9:21-9:22 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." Not so bad, I'll admit - if it wasn't for Genesis 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." All the other bad behaiviour you mentioned I could no doubt find some place in bible. Oh - how about Lot, described as just and righteous in Peter 2, but in Genesis 19:8 is found offering his virgin daughters to the mob to be raped. I'll admit though, that those are cheap snipes, and I'm guilty of 'cheating' myself - but you're the one who believes this stuff. The fact remains however, that the behaviour you described will happen regardless of whether people are religious or not, and again, it doesn't make religion, god, whatever, any more real. Same with people that claim god has visited them. I'm sure you'll find lots of people who think they're Napoleon too

And on being wise - how does one get wise reading the same book over and over? Wouldn't that lead to an inbreeding of thoughts? How does one get wise pondering made up stories? I see that as no better than a trekkie!

I was brought up as a somewhat Greek Orthodox that went to Sunday school. I say somewhat because my family was never very overbearing about it, and my dad was an atheist (though I didn't realise this until I was beginning to question things myself), and had a scientist uncle who made it a point to leave me alone in regards to religion but fostered the development of my thinking and thirst for knowledge and understanding (again, once I started turning atheist I discovered he was an atheist). Having had both perspectives, lived as a believer, I really have to say that my life led as a Humanist is much better and fuller without religion.

Another reason why I think education, or intelligence, and 'modern times' negates the need for, and shows the flaws in religion is the religious response to such things as natural disasters - like Katrina or the Boxing Day Tsunami of '04. How does one adequately rationalise that? Many people blamed it on the sins of themselves and the people. But how can it be so that a loving god decided the best way to dispatch those naughty sinners was to sweep such a large stroke that it would end the lives of so many innocents?