The new fundamentalists

[JPreston]

so you're saying the single largest system of belief in the world, the 2nd largest subject on the web, the most famous book in history, the person millions of people have died for, is all a fiction? ...

Actually, they are ALL fiction.

If christianity is the '2nd largest subject on the web' (and how is that measured?!?) then I presume the 1st largest is pornography*

What is that supposed to prove anyway?


*at least, it is in my experience. But just try and tell someone you live your life by it's guidance and always carry a little of it in your heart...

[TeePee]

so you're saying the single largest system of belief in the world, the 2nd largest subject on the web, the most famous book in history, the person millions of people have died for, is all a fiction? That the man was never on the planet? Just as a historical figure?

Yep. There is no reliable evidence for his existence. The only references to him outside of the bible are acknowledged, even by christian scholers, to be later additions. Forged. The bible is, of course, not a historical reference at all. The virgin birth, for example, comes from a mistranslation, 'young woman' translated into 'virgin'.

you have REMARKABLE powers of scepticism.

Yes, I question everything I'm told.

You have REMARKABLE brainwashing. Do you question anything?

never asked you to say that. All I said was IF you had seen the man, and the water from his side (which only happens after death), and yet saw him walking around and spoke to him days after, you'd not entertain the idea that something supernatural had happened? Not even for a moment?

I'm not sure what water from his side means, it's not a clinical definition of death that I know of. But for simplicity, say he wasn't breathing and his heart stopped. If I later saw him, I'd be amazed. I'd ask him what happened, how he survived. I'd look for natural causes, like the sudden invention of a defibrilator 2000 years early. But with no explanation, I'd assume I had been wrong when I checked his breathing and heart rate, since that's the most likely explanation.

you say it doesn't happen to people ever because you have a closed mind. Yes, you do. Just because the possibility of it happening conflicts with your world view, you reject it.

Not at all, I'm prepared to change my world view as soon as new evidence comes in, thats what the scientific method is. What I'm not prepared to do is accept a ridiculous world view to some on religious doctrine based on no evidence whatsoever. It is you who has a closed mind, because your brainwashed world view will never change.

that's the irony: many people view Christians as the close-minded ones, the ones who have been brainwashed, when in fact it's usually the other way around. In my experience, the non-believers don't simply say that they do not believe in a God, but that He does not exist. They close their minds off to the possibility that He might exist even though they have no personal experience of Him.

It's not ironic at all. Most believers don't say they beieve in god but that he exists. They try to say there is proof, and then call people who disagree closed minded. The point is that scientific thinking about the supernatural and the christian religion are exclusive. To be a scientist is to define the world into laws based on empirial evidence and deductive reasoning. Proof, reason and logic are the only things which can and do change a scientists world view. To be christian is to follow religious dogma and to exclude reality. Which is more close-minded?

As I said before, supernatural events happen all the time. It is your perogative to disbelieve them, to reject them, to avoid them. I can bury my head in the sand and steadfastly believe there is no light - it does not make it so. If I really was keen on the truth, I'd raise my head out of the sand to check out the situation for myself, not keep it underground.
no, am not trying to insult you.

My head is not under any sand. I'm interested in finding out more about all of these 'supernatural' events. But I live in the real world, where most of these events have a far more obvious natural explanation, and for those which don't, it's far more likely that the natural axplanation just isn't obvoius, rather than leaping to the assumpton that because one thing can't be explained yet, the entire christian religion must be true.

How much did you pay/donate to the arm-growing shysters?

[Byatt]

It's a theory with overwhelming support, but it is still a theory. Moreover, it's impossible to prove evolution in a scientific sense. Most scientific theorems that are verified empirically simply cannot be proven in a rigorous sense of the word and I suggest that the theory of evolution will always remain as such. Think Einstein's theories of relativity - these have been experimentally verified but remain theories as objective proof is impossible.

That said, I prefer to refer to Intelligent Design as a conjecture rather than a theorem. It keeps it on a lower plane of 'trueness'...

I'm really quite late to this thread, but this post really does need some more attention, because it's absolutely bang on.

Rigorous proof of any side of this debate is simply not going to occur - although interestingly no-one's got on the ID-bashing boat quite well enough: If you're claiming ID is scientific (has anyone done this? I hope not) , presumably we can hear some of the predictions it makes? Perhaps someone could suggest a way that it could be disproved?

What is really in debate here is the validity of a theory, i.e how much evidence there is to support it, and really, when you look at this measure, evolution beats I.D by knockout after about 4 milliseconds.

Woodchuck2000: Your label of conjecture is decent, but I dislike the fact that some far better (mathematical) ideas which have now been (mathematically) proven were once called this, and many similar ideas still are!

Oh, and I'm intrigued - what the hell have you studied/are you studying (formally - guessing degree level by the quality of what you post)? Theology? Philosophy? Mathematics?

The postulate 'X created everything that exists, X exists, and therefore X must have created X' is both atemporal and logically watertight.

Agreed. An atemporal, anthropomorphic God? The mind boggles. Add another one to the "I can't believe that people still think genesis is literal in this day and age" tally for me, please.

To end, an honest question (this has bothered me for some time). Where precisely do non-nutty Christians fit God in with Evolution? Is he still the creator of the universe, or what?

[G4Z]

Fuddam, if these events happened at all I would expect there to be at least a before and after photo, how about that for evidence? show me that and I will consider thinking about how it could have happened. Until then I treat it as hearsay, it is not incumbent upon me to find the evidence or go to a church to find out, these are your claims, you do it.. Incidentaly, I suspect that you are hoping I would go and find somthing out that would amaze me so much I would convert or maybe you just know I wouldnt go to a church like this in the first place, either way if I did go, I can say 100% there is nothing there that would amaze me at all, do you think I have never seen these churches in documentaries?

Another thing, I am not saying people of faith are idiots at all, but I would propose the idea that people who take these texts litterally are idiots and are flying in the face of all the evidence and scientiffic reasoning.

This thread is going the same way as the other one where you posted, I think its rather rich for somebody like yourself to call sceptics closed minded. Fact is, give me some real evidence and not a quote from the bible or total hearsay about limbs re-growing and statues crying and I will consider it, you however are not going to question your own faith because of anything I say.

[G4Z]

Byatt, you are bang on yourself sir.

i made the same points earlier but I think its appropriate to reitterate them at this point.

I am now going to post some actual evidence for evolution and evidence for the earth being over 6000 years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

I also came across this regarding the spiral galaxy commenta couple of pages back, has some good links on it.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

[Woodchuck2000]

Oh, and I'm intrigued - what the hell have you studied/are you studying (formally - guessing degree level by the quality of what you post)? Theology? Philosophy? Mathematics?

Bizzarely enough, I'm a musician studying mechanical engineering in an attempt to get a job! But I've got a bit of a philosophical streak too...

To end, an honest question (this has bothered me for some time). Where precisely do non-nutty Christians fit God in with Evolution? Is he still the creator of the universe, or what?

Back in my Christian days (I like to think that I was a non-nutty Christian), I would have suggested that evolution was the mechanism used by God to create life as we know it. To interpret Genesis literally and suggest that God just created things out of thin air seems both unjustified and illogical to me.

[Mike Fishcake]

Is it time for the bi-monthly hexus religion debate to finish yet? Have we all made all the exact same points we make every two months yet?

[JPreston]

Is it time for the bi-monthly hexus religion debate to finish yet? Have we all made all the exact same points we make every two months yet?

From dictionary.com:

bi·month·ly Audio pronunciation of "bi-monthly" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-mnthl)
adj.

1. Happening every two months.
2. Happening twice a month; semimonthly.

The word is meaningless!!!

FLAME THE HERETIC!!!

[Mike Fishcake]

*jumps on jet powered crucifix and zooms away*