This issue of New Scientist is called the God Issue. I read it because I have issues with the idea of a God, since I believe human kind uses the existence of a God as an excuse for its failings, rather than taking responsibility for the things that we do. Let me say now I am passionately against religion and the idea of a God, but am open minded enough to concede that if the evidence exists for any religious argument I would be prepared to listen. Having said that I do agree that some of the ideas that form the cornerstone of many religions i.e human kindness, love, equality, friendship, appreciation of our world, are all things I do endorse as they help us function together. These things do not need magic (religion) to be important and do not need indoctrination (brain washing) and control to be relevant. I find most religions are not open to discussion or argument. That’s my point of view, now to some of the articles.
In the end I neither want nor need a God. I don't need an after life, what I need is to live the one life I have as fully as possible. Or as Rudyard Kipling put it "To fill every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run"
I believe Carl Sagan said You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.
Finally if you are interested in this type of debate, here are a few youtube offerings from Stephen Fry
