beigemaster

That's a really good question because it is relevant to what I believe. In short I would say, yes. BUT, would I say the "Church of old" (or lets be honest, the Catholic church) was REALLY a Church...no. I'll try and make it as clear as possible. By definition, Christianity in its most pure sense would be the teachings of Christ (kind of in the title really). Christ's definition of a church is a collection of people who understand his message. Would the church who oppresses people/free will/philosophical and scientific development fall under this definition, no. The problem lies with people, humans have an amazing ability to take pretty much anything and use it for a selfish end and obviously one of these things can easily be religion. Little example, the welfare state, brilliant principle in theory and it helps a lot of people out. However, it's easy to think of countless ways that people abuse it and thus create evil out of a good concept.

Although once again Ben has rather annoyingly answered this in an intelligent and reasonable manner, the only point I would add to his response is that all of what you have recalled came AFTER the development of Christianity rather than during it. As he said, it wasn't until Luther and the Reformation went back to the Bible's original meaning when all of the obvious corruption was taken away. In fact if you read about the original Church (not long after Christ) they actually adopted much more of a communistic society. I find it genuinely difficult to discuss the concept of religion, mainly because (believe it or not) I actually share a huge amount thoughts and feelings that a lot of Atheists hold, mainly because I think "Religion" is a man made concept BUT the form of Christianity I believe in I wouldn't put under the banner of religion. As I have said before (and someone else mentioned it before) Jesus also hated religion and religious leaders.

You actually raise and interesting point. If I were to write a book claiming MLK performed miracles and died for us ect ect, no one would believe it (I'm assuming that's why you put "in 1000 years) and it would be nipped in the bud pretty quickly. The original copies of the Gospels were written as early as 40AD, the interesting factor here is these were written within the life time of original witnesses. That is to say that people who would read the original Gospels were around when Jesus was also around. It seems therefore that if any of the accounts of Jesus were completely fictional, then the Gospels would have been rejected or modified fairly early on. This is one of the points I will address when I have time to write up a decent post/essay on this topic. For now, I will simply say that is a blatant straw man fallacy which is often used by the likes of Dawkins to convince the ignorant.

Ah yes but it's SO much easier to blame it all on religion and to live in the ignorance that a completely secular society would be 100% free from any from of evil and intolerance.

That is, by a long long way, the best/strongest point from this entire thread. Once my exams are over, I will go through this whole thread and attempt to write something coherent based on a lot of the arguments that have been brought up. All I will say for now is, the levels of absolute blind ignorance (on both sides) is actually making me angry. I study Philosophy and am also a Christian so consider myself a Christian philosopher, some people will see that as an oxymoron (I know Bertrand Russell would) but it means that in all things (including my faith) I want to put objectivity and truth as the be all and end all. I will talk about this in more detail at a later date, but for anyone who thinks Science entails any kind of concrete proof you are very mistaken (so please stop saying "we have proofed evolution to be true). If you want to know why this is the case, read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In short, anything you believe from scientific understanding can NEVER be proven to be true. Furthermore, even if you try and say that some claims are more probable, even this is fails as you entail begging the question and circular reason. In short, you try and use an invalid form of argument to prove your invalid argument is more probable. One thing I should say (before I get slated) 1) I do beleive in evolution based on the current evidence and hypothesis 2) I don't think it's prooven to be true. For now, will people on both sides (although anti Christians more) try and be bit more open minded and less dogmatic with certain accusations without even giving any form of reason to back up your case.

Green, the lesser of many many evils

Man up you pansies Bear Grylls style

I agree that it seems to be some kind of solitary wasp, maybe a wood wasp?

I wasn't suggesting that it was the sheet that covered Christ, I was simply pointing out that its original carbon date age was inaccurate so it could well have originated around the same time. Not sure I understand how it being "appearing in the 13th Century" makes it any less valid, aren't all historic relics discovered a while after their original date or they wouldn't be relics? I may have misinterpreted what you meant though. Don't really think I would put the faith and security of the entire Christian community on one piece of cloth though, think if it was categorically disproved to be anything of any value, Christians wouldn't renounce their faith. For that reason, I completely agree that the Vatican should allow it to be studied in more detail. There is a lot more interesting and compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus (the historical figure) did exist.

Mate, I appreciate what your trying to do, but for the reasons that I put in the previous post you are never going to win over people with evidence like that. It wont work because they will assume it has some kind of explanation within their own belief system. It would be like trying to convince someone who sees in black and white that red is a colour by showing them a tomato. On a side note, I was under the impression that the original carbon dating for the shroud was hopelessly wrong because they sampled a bit which had been re patched after fire damage- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm It's not in anyway proof that it’s anything special, but it does suggest it could easily originated from the same time as Christ.

Good point, but you did learn fairly recently (within a few years). I bet people who have been on the road for longer (and passed when the tests were easier) wouldn't be able to pass the modern one. On the subject of annoying driving habbits, I can't stand it when people don't signal in good time. This annoys me because it effects me if I'm driving, cycling or walking and it only requires pulling a little lever.

Wouldn't the cost of a new gearbox be more expensive though? The test is so difficult that I guarantee if every driver in the country took it today maybe 95% would fail, the 5% that pass would be either people still learning or who only passed their test a few months ago. I think they should have re tests every 5 years or so, obviously not as strict as the main one but maybe 2 hours with an instructor and if you get so many majors then you have to have a compulsory lesson. You could also go on a basis of if you do consistently well, you would get lower insurance premiums (no matter what age) rather than the assumption that because your fat, middle age, have hairy ears and drive a Jag that somehow you are a much safer driver.

Cheers Ben, it's nice to know someone has taken the time to think about the kind of ideas I'm trying to put across. Although I'm sure you wouldn't want to put a label on your belief system, would you say it was similar to a variation of Pantheism? You do have some genuinely interesting ideas and it's nice to know that there are still people out there who aren't necessarily seduced by the notion of absolute physicalism having all the answers. Having ducked out of this thread for a while, it seems to be drawing to quite a nice conclusion, mainly that neither side of this debate will be one over by the other. This is mainly due to how you see/understand the world. If you have been brought up with the world view of materialism (that nothing exists outside the system of physical nature) then no evidence any Christian or theist will win you over because you will assume that there is a physical explanation (even if we don't know what it is yet). Therefore, before looking at any evidence for anything beyond the physical world, you need to look at a philosophical (rather than scientific or empirical) question of whether anything can POTENTIALY exist outside the physical world. Of course, you can/should flip the whole of this question for those who belief in God or any other supernatural (that is outside of nature) idea. Obviously a lot of people on here make the claim that organised religion will essentially brainwash this notion of super nature onto you as a child, so you will be brought up with this intrinsic idea. I have to say that I agree with this and I believe that it is always wrong to not treat a child as a potential rational agent (guess I'm a bit Kantian here). On a quick side note, it may interest you to know that according to the Bible, Jesus hated religion and religious leaders, in one passage he calls them cheats, liars and hypocrites repeatedly and so if he were to be here today, not sure what he would say. Having said all that, this philosophical brainwashing that religion gets accused of also occurs outside of religion which is why, as it stands, the general consensus at the moment is an absolute/no questions faith in science. I'm not criticising science here, only when it gets ideas above its station and it boundaries (which are set by its own standards). Another little side note, interesting to know that the majority of early and great scientists were religious (as a lot still are) and the reason they expected uniformity and the building of scientific truths, was because they believed in a God that would make such rules and laws in creation. I'm not saying that they are right, but it's a nice illustration of how religion and science can easily be united. Personally, I have come to the conclusion (as stated a while ago) that materialism is self defeating therefore it is not intrinsically impossible that something can exist outside of nature even if maybe intrinsically improbable. I reached this without religious brain washing but reading various philosophical arguments on both side. I urge people to not just take anything (even the physical exploration of science) as given, question your own beliefs as well as other people's.

Spybot is excellent. Also, Ccleaner is a programme you should be using to stop your PC clogging up.

What are you actually referring to by that? I'm not being funny its just I'm not sure how to offer a possible response is I don't know what it's in reference to. If that hypothesis was true, why would they create a Jesus character in the first place?

The Bible by its own definition is an evolution of religion, hence the old and new testaments. One was written at a time before Christ and one after, which is why there are apparent inconsistencies and it would actually be logically impossible to follow the entire Bible on a literal scale. Furthermore, the Bible (whether you believe it to be the word of God or not) is a) Written word and b. Written/translated by man ergo it is impossible for it to be infallible AND impossible for it to not be interpreted. Some parts are metaphor and others are historic account, it doesn't take much to work out the difference. On the subject of metaphor and analogy, I wouldn't want people to believe that this is a wishy washy interpretation on any random truth, we speak in metaphor all the time (no one would take everything literally) For example, in the sentence "I see your point" doesn't literally mean I can view a sharp object that you are holding. Of course that is begging the question, the same mortal man claimed to be God, so if what he said was indeed true then actually he would have the right of a deity to change the teachings of God. I'm sorry, but I can't stand people who think Jesus was "a nice man" or "a great leader". He claimed to be God, sorry but he was either God in human form or a complete and total nutter, feel free to choose which one.

Could that be because when they do, as I said before, they get accused of re fiddling their belief system? Maybe this is the difference between religion and faith, faith is open to reason and rationality whereas religion is obviously very dogmatic. Personally, I believe if there is a God, and we are made in his image, then this must be a God of reason. Rationality is the quintessential feature that humans have over animals so one could assume if God were to exist, this is a feature he would share. Therefore, religion as an institution does seem somewhat self defeating. However, the same blind dogmatism can be found in scientific thinking, people assuming science will provide all the answers even though (by its own definition) it will never be able to answer the "why" questions.

Not really, but that’s what your own argument was based on which is clearly false. However, this can lead to a good illustration. Why is it if someone builds a general argument or makes a point (like the one you did) and then if it changes due to new evidence/opinion (like I did to yours) we would call that evolution and progress. However, if the same process happens within Christianity, we call that Christians picking and choosing various interpretations?

A bit like what people in this thread seem to be doing. Sorry to piss on your chips, but all three theistic religions all stem and are linked (and refferenced) to one man, Abraham.

I agree with you that none of those ideas are required (or should even be considered!) to be a CHRISTian because many of them are misinterpreted human ideas (mainly due to Aquinas) and the others have nothing to do with what CHRIST said eg, He who is without sin cast the first stone as directly against stoning someone to death, people see these apparent contradictions in the Bible and so believe the Bible to be wrong. I think people miss the point that the Bible's Old Testament is so different from the New Testament because one was written before CHRISTianity was actually around (before Christ). What Christ did teach was how important the scriptures (Bible) really are and hence why I think a Christian (someone who follows Christ) should hold the same values. I apologise if I have misinterpreted what you mean in terms of how important the Bible is. Another point which I think people miss is the fact the Bible is a collection of different books (rather than just one) and so a lot of it is written in different styles. Some books are obviously meant to be historical testament and others are obviously metaphoric or poetic. Eg, I don't think even the most fundamental hardcore American "Bible Basher" would believe that God is literally a "Shepherd", a man with a stick who goes around moving sheep over mountains, it's obviously a metaphor. Personally, I think the creation story is exactly the same kind of idea, it's a metaphoric account of how the world was formed so that people (who lives thousands of years ago) could understand the key ideas such as there being order in the world, existence being formed over time ect. Let us imagine God really does exist and Genesis really was written by him, he would hardly give a complex account of the evolutionary process to people who were living thousands of years ago. I think when people try and put Genesis on the same literal truth as the Gospels claim, science gets rather annoyed. To quote Cottingham: In relation to dark matter, to be honest it's not really a subject that I know much about (outside the Pullman books!) but I think your best bet would be to read the actual argument in full and then judge whether you think it would be an adequate response.

I'm not going to make a big contribution to this topic as I would just be repeating myself from the "R.I.P Intelligent Design Thread" but this "debate" pretty much summons up my views from that thread, mainly the somewhat lack of intelligent and tolerant rational thinking on both sides which is probably why (as Lewis points out) world views of a society change over time all the time. Hence, a couple of hundred years ago, religion was the given belief of the majority and currently it's materialism. You only have to look further back in time to see this trend ranging from pantheism to paganism. I would say a couple of things though: Firstly, Hannah, I'm not sure I understand how on earth someone can claim to be a Christian but have no reference to the Bible. If you look at this logically and assume that Christ is the founder of Christianity (which seems to make sense) then even he said how important it is/was to "read the scriptures" which I assume means the Bible. If I claimed I was a mechanic, but had never worked on a car, then you probably wouldn't think I was really a mechanic. Seems to me that belief in the Bible is a necessary condition of being a Christian. Secondly: If you really appreciate view points based on logic (I know I do) then you will have to question whether materialism is defeated by its own credentials because materialism doesn't allow logical and rational thinking. I can't explain in full detail this argument, if you want to find out then read C.S Lewis- Miracles, Chapter 3- The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism here To summon it up very briefly, 1. If materialism is true then everything that exists is a physical event. 2. Every event has a physical cause and a physical effect. 3. Therefore mental events are physical events with a prior cause. Therefore, no mental event has any justification in being true or correct because it is simply following a prior chain of uncontrolled events. It would be like trying to say a sneeze has meaning. Therefore, if materialism is true then logic and rational thinking (which are mental events) have no justification. Materialism is an argument that there are no such things as arguments. This is obviously nonsense. In sum, to dismiss anything outside the realm of the physical (such as God) on the grounds of logic is actually completely self defeating. It is similar to people saying "The Bible is the word of God because is says so in the Bible" (I guess this did turn into a long post!) If you don't believe in God, Christianity or any other religion then that’s fine. But, there are ignorant people on both sides and atheism (as a world view) does have its own problems (as does theism) and is by no means infallible. Read "Zeitgeist" or "The God Dellusion" (Dawkins) but if you are really open you should also read "God's Undertaker- Has Science Burried God" (J. Lennox) and "Miracles- A Premliminary Study" (C.S Lewis) On my bookshelf, I have a copy of "The God Delusion" next to a copy of the Bible, don't think either authors would be too happy knowing that!

JT, you should have a look at this This is only a brief summary of Peter Unger's paper about how certainty entails dogmatism but I think it's enough to get the basic idea across that myself and (if I have understood him correctly) Ben are talking about.

I was really referring to the idea of religion vs evolution/science rather than religion versus the world. You do make some very good points, I don't think the problem lies with religion as an entity but with people who use it as an excuse/method of evil. The reason being that there have been thousands of atrocities and general evil acts that have been committed in the name of ideologies out side of religion like communism, ethnic cleansing ect. It seems to me that there are evil people who will use anything they can as an excuse and obviously religion is one of those excuses. Again, it’s a very interesting point about the gay marriage example. I don't know the entire mechanisms of the US political system but if you boiled it down to its roots then obviously it’s supposedly a democracy and therefore the laws are set by the majority. Without wanting to go into a whole chain of thought about whether democracy really is a good system, it seems to be the most effective we have. If you don't want to live in a place that has a lot of religious laws governing its system (and I know I wouldn't want to!) then move to a place where the majority agree with you or campaign to justify your own views, that’s just the nature of a democracy.

Why does there have to be a war? They both address two different things, one addresses the physical and the other the metaphysical. To put another way, science looks at the "how" questions and religion (amongst other things outside of scientific study) the "why" questions. Furthermore, someone with a faith in God or religion could easily appreciate the wonder of evolution the same way they may appreciate the beauty of a sunset. I guess its even better when the media/scientific community (i.e Dawkins) use Christian fundamentalists as easy target practice to demonstrate how the principle of materialism is so superior to the theistic world view. Of course, wouldn't want to mention or represent any of the top scientific and philosophical minds who have theistic views such as Lord Winston, Prof Alister McGrath, Dr John Lennox, Richard Swinburne, John Cottingham and C.S Lewis. I guess the point I'm trying to make is yes, there are a lot of ignorant and rather stupid people who try and defend a view point with no real rational arguments (the creationalists) BUT there are also a lot of ignorant people on the other side of the fence who blindly believe that science has all the answers, all people who believe in God are nutters and a materialistic account of the world is the best explanation. I'm not saying any of these views are false, but like religion, they also need questioning and defending by rational argument, which a lot of atheists will simply dismiss (a bit like the creationalist nutters) Couldn't agree with you more there, but why not do that with your own worldview even if you’re not religious? Sorry for that rather long rant, I'm not trying to defend religion or science, I just can't stand ignorant views on either side and I also fail to see why science and religion aren't compatible, as long as religion sticks to its own ground in the "why" questions and science sticks with the "how" questions.

Pretty much, but rather than teleogical based on life (which we can explain through evolution) a teleogical argument based on the order and uniformity of existence as a whole, eg the correct amount and union of physcial forces/laws ect