Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35839391)

I think that increasing materialism is to blame: When a religeons version of heaven doesn't have facebook, twitter, mobiles, tablets etc, just herding goats all day, it's not a very attractive offer to the younger generation. ;)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35839418)

You make it sound like a lifestyle choice ..

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35839430)

Isn't religeon just that? You choose to believe there is a God or not, go to church or not, believe in the afterlife or not...

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35839379)

Which religion are you? or have you got a religion? as UK loses faith in religion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nd-wales-study

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35839391)

I think that increasing materialism is to blame: When a religeons version of heaven doesn't have facebook, twitter, mobiles, tablets etc, just herding goats all day, it's not a very attractive offer to the younger generation. ;)

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35839430)

Isn't religeon just that? You choose to believe there is a God or not, go to church or not, believe in the afterlife or not...

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35839459)

i thought it was chosen for you by your parents .

Originally Posted by dilli-theclaw (Post 35839460)

maybe in some cases but mine certainly didn't choose for me and I've never made the choice for my son either.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35839461)

mine had me christened but i turned out atheist ;)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839433)

It is no surprise that religion is less of a thing in rich, Western countries. Those who are rich, have no need to ponder whether they need an eternal saviour. They feel like they're fine as they are so they don't trouble themselves with thoughts of religious obligation.

Jesus himself recognised this when he said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35839475)

That's interesting. So would you say it means that a materially rich man is debarred from heaven by God (presumably because accumulated wealth is unacceptable in that it should have been put to an altruistic purpose) or that a rich man excludes himself from heaven by virtue of his own failure to believe in God?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35839489)

The rich man so often is blind to his spiritual poverty because he is proud of his accomplishments and has contented himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel is to crawl through the eye of a needle.;)

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35839509)

According to the last Census, I'm Jedi ...

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35839489)

The rich man so often is blind to his spiritual poverty because he is proud of his accomplishments and has contented himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel is to crawl through the eye of a needle.;)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839495)

Well said that atheist :D

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839433)

No, it isn't.

For those that practice a faith - and I mean those that seriously believe and act upon the teachings, not people who wear a nominal label - they do it because they believe there are serious consequences, in this life and in eternity. To call it a "lifestyle choice" puts it in the same category as the brand of coffee you prefer, and that very seriously misses the point.

So far as Christianity goes, evangelical denominations are growing, but the larger, established and in most respects theologically liberal ones (the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, mostly) are shrinking at a greater rate.

This is because society no longer pressurises religious conformity, so those of a nominal belief are less likely to go out on a Sunday and practice what they say they believe.

It is no surprise that religion is less of a thing in rich, Western countries. Those who are rich, have no need to ponder whether they need an eternal saviour. They feel like they're fine as they are so they don't trouble themselves with thoughts of religious obligation.

Jesus himself recognised this when he said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35839520)

There's just not enough time to believe in anything. Everyone works/goes shopping Sundays now....
I blame Thatcher.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35839520)

There's just not enough time to believe in anything. Everyone works/goes shopping Sundays now....
I blame Thatcher.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35839551)

I blame reality and modernity. To each their own explanation. :)

Plenty of time to do the earlier morning Eucharist, etc, still though. My mother in law finds time to attend every Sunday without fail.

So I blame pretty much everyone since the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35839520)

There's just not enough time to believe in anything. Everyone works/goes shopping Sundays now....
I blame Thatcher.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35839552)

You can probably add Education to this list .. being presented with credible non-deist explanations on how we & the Universe came about didn't help.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839565)

That explanation only works if you're trying to say that only Western Europe is educated.

And seeing as I'm sure you're not saying that, I'm sure you'll agree your explanation doesn't work. ;)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35839567)

Nope, I don't understand your point. Education is not restricted to just Western Europe. Can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839577)

I can.

You suggested an inverse correlation between education and religious belief. I suggested you are wrong, because the West is the only place religious belief is waning, while it is not the only place with access to unversal education.

In response, I offer again the explanation I posted earlier. It is wealth that depresses religious belief, because having a comfortable life tends to lessen an individual's imperative to wonder what it's all about, compared to someone for whom making a living is more of a struggle.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35839639)

So we got Education and Wealth.
sounds like politics again.

Can we add Common Sense?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35839640)

Gary, you are talking Common Sense? ;)

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35839570)

I think I'd agree that "religion" is on the wane in the sense that membership for the sake of membership is dropping. But faith is growing as evidenced by the increase in attendance at, what I describe, "alive churches".

I know that other Christians on here would also not describe their faith as religion but as relationship. It's more about being in relationship with God (through Jesus) than attending services or following rules.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35839639)

So we got Education and Wealth.
sounds like politics again.

Can we add Common Sense?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839433)

So far as Christianity goes, evangelical denominations are growing

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35839577)

In response, I offer again the explanation I posted earlier. It is wealth that depresses religious belief, because having a comfortable life tends to lessen an individual's imperative to wonder what it's all about, compared to someone for whom making a living is more of a struggle.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35839567)

Nope, I don't understand your point. Education is not restricted to just Western Europe. Can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35839724)

I think I'm getting the point you're trying to suggest but I can't say I see the validity - for example although he doesn't post here much these days forum member Salu is a doctor and a Christian. Two of the solicitors - one has just qualified as an HHJ judge - at the company I work for are Christians, both belonging to a 'happy-clappy' church around here.

From my own experiences of Christians education levels vary from one end of the scale to the other just they do with all the atheists/humanists I know of.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35840687)

Is christianity suffering at it's churches? - Yes,

Originally Posted by Matth (Post 35840765)

Religion exists in the unknown, and science is making the unknown a much smaller place and correcting mistakes in a way which was at one time called heresy.
The "heavens" do not revolve around the Earth. We have sent spaceships up and there is nothing up there, while "down below" there is a pretty good approximation to hellfire.

I think religious education, if trying to be inclusive, should also cover the perfectly valid points of atheism and agnosticism, after all, any religion is only someone else's interpretation of unreliable non-information.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35840776)

This is to assume (mistakenly) that the purpose of religion is to explain the material universe. It's a common misconception, and to be fair, religious leaders down the ages haven't helped their own cause. The medieval Roman Catholic hierarchy was particularly bad at this, but let's not forget that the Renaissance and the Christian reformation went hand in hand - Christianity began to re-focus on the actual teachings of the Bible and this freed up the arts and sciences to begin thinking and exploring, unencumbered by spurious notions of the forbidden.

The Bible establishes God as creator, his creation as fallen, and his intention to redeem (save, rescue) human beings from an eternity banished from his presence. Science has nothing to say about any of these things, nor can it. Science explains the mechanics of the material universe. It can say what happens, and how, in extraordinary detail, but it cannot say why. Sadly, some have come to the conclusion that anything science can't address is irrelevant, or non-existent. That, I think, is a real pity. However I agree that a programme of religious education should address that and attempt to explore people's reasons for believing it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841029)

How is it sinister? Every school in the UK offers a programme of religious education. It's called a syllabus and it leads to a GCSE or whatever.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841045)

I agree. Who suggested otherwise?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841052)

You did :)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841062)

Eh?

I'm agreeing with Matth, who suggested that RE classes should also cover atheism. I even quoted him.

Context, dear boy, context. ;)

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841124)

Modern physics is not at all at odds with people who believe in creation, that the Bible is Divinely inspired and that God is in control and knows the end from the beginning. God knowing the end from the beginning explains why, although the Bible was written over a period of two thousand years and by over forty different authors, the whole of the Bible gives an integrated message; the authors were divinely inspired. Therefore the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy should not be a surprise and we can have confidence that those not fulfilled yet (end time prophecies) will be fulfilled.

The discovery by modern science that we live in at least ten dimensions; four we physicaly know of, and six we can’t see, makes the sudden appearance of Jesus in a closed room after his resurrection, not in any way at odds with a scientific perspective. It’s interesting that someone studying Genesis, hundreds of years ago, came to the same conclusion; that we live in a ten dimensional world.

There is a time consuming but interesting four part study on this, available on Youtube, by Dr. Chuck Missler. It covers from early science to quantum theory and also covers mathematical statistical probability.

Chuck Missler has been a Bible believing Christian for over sixty years, and has also worked in the fields of science and technology.

Each of the four sessions were originally in two parts, but have been combined in each youtube video

First video: Beyond Space and Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIre...ftQIOHVNxU3L5n

Second: BEYOND COINCIDENCE - The Boundaries of Our Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQbr...ftQIOHVNxU3L5n

Third: Beyond Perception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8g7...ftQIOHVNxU3L5n

Fourth: Beyond Newton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy_w...ftQIOHVNxU3L5n

The videos were made in 2010.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841135)

.....followed by The Dawkins Delusion......

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841170)

Sounds like confirmation bias...surely a better idea to get both sides before making up your own mind rather than being influenced by others?

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841124)

The discovery by modern science that we live in at least ten dimensions; four we physicaly know of, and six we can’t see,

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841124)

There is a time consuming but interesting four part study on this, available on Youtube, by Dr. Chuck Missler. It covers from early science to quantum theory and also covers mathematical statistical probability.

Chuck Missler has been a Bible believing Christian for over sixty years, and has also worked in the fields of science and technology.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841178)

Neither of which Dawkins' book addresses but if you're going to suggest someone reads his book then I'm sure you'll agree it's only fair in terms of balance that you also recommend a book that counters all his points.

Either way it's probably not a good idea to promote the idea of a book written by a man who defends mild paedophilia.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841190)

I agree that books where positions that are backed up by facts should be read whether by Dawkins or not.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841190)

As to the definding paedophilia accusation, from what I have read he did nothing of the sort ..

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841179)

I have no desire to get into this thread too much but superstring theory is not a discovery. There is exactly zero experimental evidence for the supersymmetry it relies on. The LHC has actually excluded a number of theorised partner particles.

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------



I will also point out that Chuck Missler's PhD is from an unaccredited on-line university and a very brief look into him indicates he has the kind of credibility one would expect from someone who has a PhD from such an institution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peanut_butter_argument

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841203)

The quick Google you just did should have shown him backtracking pretty rapidly but still - it's Dawkins right? So anything he says must be good.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841222)

Wow, you seem to have a problem with the guy or maybe it is his opinion on religion?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841222)

Let's leave Mr Dawkins to one side then: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Adams, Mark Twain, etc. Take you pick .. there are many talks available on youtube (well maybe not Twain ;) ) that attempt to explain why religion is not a necessay part of the human condition.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841244)

I have a very big problem with anyone who decides they want me to lose my faith.



And there are plenty of talks available that explain why it would be - what's your point?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841252)

Just do clarify, do you see "evangelism" as synonymous with "forcing" faith on someone?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841248)

My point is that when I cited a source that you didn't like, introducing accusations of paedophilia of all things, I gave you other sources that can explain some of the reasons behind the OP's point.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 3584124)

I don't see that Dawkins is against personal faith

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 3584124)

It is when they try and force that viewpoint on others that I, personally, have a problem with.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841212)

Did you actually sample at least some of the video, or just go looking for negative aspects on Chuck Missler?

Thankfully, God isn't as judgemental on peoples' credential as you seem to be. He will use anyone who has a heart for Him and believes fully in his Word. Some, God gives the gift of teaching to via the Holy Spirit and I believe Chuck Missler is one of those (1 Corinthians 12 V 27-28) . I have listened to his teaching on some of the books of the Bible and never had a check in my spirit regarding anything I've heard from him.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841135)

.....followed by The Dawkins Delusion......

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.



From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841257)

Evangelism (as a purely Christian concept, from the Greek word for "good news") is conceptually different from "forcing". If force is used, it's not evangelism, it's something else.

FWIW, while I believe the door knocking approach is often counter-productive in our culture, it, too, can hardly be called "forcing".

Forcing is kidnapping ethnically Christian Nigerian school girls, making them profess Islam and marrying them off to Muslim men.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841278)

Though if you don't hear it, how do you know if you're going to agree or not ...

Sorry, I don't mean to be facetious. I happen to believe that in postmodern, western and westernised cultures, evangelisation is more effective as a primary means of communicating the good news - basically, that's the approach where Christians live different, sacrificial, serving lives in their communities, resulting in other people wanting to ask them why this is, rather than them standing in the high street yelling about hell and damnation.

But I still don't agree that a Christian cold calling your front door is "forcing". "Highly irritating" quite probably. But forcing? No.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

Dawkins is not forcing you to buy or read his book.
Dawkins is not making your children read it at school.
Dawkins is not knocking on your door asking to believe his book as a divine truth.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

There are Christians that would equally believe that atheist readers of the Bible would be believers after they have read it.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

As I said, Dawkins is just one person presenting an argument against a religious explanation of the Universe.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841283)

In the very same postmodern, western and westernised cultures, all the information on said "good news" is instantly available and accessible should you *want* to listen.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.



From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.




From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841299)

Nobody is forcing you to buy or read the Bible, if you disagree with your children's syllabus as school then vote appropriately at the next election (or at least bring it up at the next parents' evening) and as Chris says I'm pretty certain if you're being honest with yourself you won't call knocking on someone's door 'forcing'.

After all, if a Sky salesman turned up asking you to sign a contract would you then ring the police to report them for forcing you to go with them?



And if that's the case I'm sure you now understand and agree with my disdain for Dawkins.



No, he's not. He is one person on a campaign against religion and beliefs with the intention of turning as many believers as possible in to atheists. My faith has helped me through difficult times over the past few years and anyone with the arrogance to decide I need that to be removed is not someone I can or want to respect.

---------- Post added at 05:23 ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 ----------



You could say the same about the current 'remain' or 'leave' campaign but I've not seen anyone complain either being 'forced' on them right now.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841302)

just look at atheism as a faith and you will see that mr dawkins is only trying to introduce people to the good book he's only doing his religious duty and trying to save people whats the harm in that .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841302)

just look at atheism as a faith and you will see that mr dawkins is only trying to introduce people to the good book he's only doing his religious duty and trying to save people whats the harm in that .

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

I guess atheism is an anti-faith but your point is a good one.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841283)

Here is an article that make my point I feel:

Isn’t evangelism unloving?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

I must admit to finding Dawkins a tad over-zealous in this regard.

I went through a similar phase but grew out of it. I'm not that big on evangelism in either direction. If a truth is really that self-evident people will find it on their own if they wish. If they don't who am I or anyone else to shove it in their face.

I happily present facts as truth, I'm quite comfortable pointing out BS when I see it, but things like where I presented evolution as fact, which it is, are perfectly compatible with mainstream interpretations of Christianity. Those who would reject it and consider the Bible literal are a minority, most consider the 'good book' allegorical.

Let's not look at atheism as a faith. It's a faith in the same way that 'Off' is a TV channel. The only people who can be described as having a 'faith' in atheism are those who think they know there's no higher power and they are being ignorant. Even Dawkins himself doesn't claim that.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------



It's an absence of faith, not an anti-faith. It is a basic human right to permit someone to follow a faith. All who are anti-faith are probably by definition atheists, far from all atheists are actively anti-faith. For right now it has a place and is key to many people's lives. Some base their entire life around their faith and, regardless of my view on that, that is their absolute right.

I am anti- a few things that are related to faith for sure. I'm against those who misuse science to present a warped version of reality, usually for material gain. I'm against those who misuse faith to justify inhumanity. Faith itself? Meh.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------



Interesting article. The take-home there, for me, is that it's probably not possible for someone with faith to understand why someone without could not see evangelism as anything other than an act of love.

One person's self-evident truth is another's self-evident untruth.

EDIT: Can't you tell work is quieter than normal today?

EDIT 2: Which actually makes me think my time would be better spent studying than commenting on a religious thread. Russ / Chris, remember when I used to go all-in on these? I don't miss that version of me. Age clearly mellowed me a little even if it did up the cynicism count a bit. :D Well, age but most of all humanism. Once you find a group of like-minded people and are able to learn from them you feel far more secure in your own belief system, it becomes far more rounded and as a result feel far less inclined to try and, essentially, impose it other people by telling them how ridiculous anything different is.

Man I was a real Richard at times with that stuff. Still a tad evangelical over science, mind you, but happy to admit I don't know and science doesn't know when we don't - see abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841345)

A good reposte to Dawkins in God's Undertaker - John Lennox.

I've found this to be a well written and ordered volume. It is far less "foam at mouth" than some for both sides. The essential premise is that even if Dawkins' science is right it doesn't prove the non-existence of God. It also argues that the science isn't proven either.

(There are detractors to this book claiming that Dr X work on something shows that the book is wrong in this fact. But that will always happen as the book is published at a point in time and science continues, this is true on both sides.)

----
Atheism isn't absence of faith, it's more absences of an object (person) of faith. And it's often those atheists who want to impose their belief on others citing freedom to prevent others expressing their faith. It's a small step between avoiding harassment and denying rights.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

I happily present facts as truth, I'm quite comfortable pointing out BS when I see it, but things like where I presented evolution as fact, which it is, .

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841367)

How can you be so sure? There seem to be many scientists who believe in creation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...cientists.html

I am not in a position to argue either way. But personally, I don't need to. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and therefore believe in creation.

Yes, that is a faith position, a faith that is bourn out of my walk with Jesus. But given that there are qualified scientists that believe Evolution is wrong and Creation is right, your belief in Evolution also becomes a faith belief. A faith belief you are entitled to hold.

My view is that as scientific discovery increases, Bible believing Christians need not fear that those discoveries will negate what the Bible says in any way at all.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841372)

I would think that scientists that believe in Creation especially in the Biblical definition would be a contradiction. To be a scientist, you would demand proof of theory and you would assess any evidence against the proposed theory in order to reach a conclusion as to the veracity of the theory.

I can see that some scientists could ignore evidence of the age of the solar system, evolution, etc but I doubt that any have proof of the alternative, biblical, alternative.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35841383)

Don't understand why topics like this always have to end up confrontational and divisive.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

OK,



Agreed



So you agree that Religion is mandated for our children even when it is now a minority belief in this country



The Sky salesman is not trying to tell me what to believe or save my soul



Agreed, Dawkins can be a pompous ass at times. As you find him personally offensive, this is why I gave you a number of other sources.



How is that any different from Christians, Muslims, etc. doing exactly the same thing? Dawkins won't knock on your door asking you to become an atheist .. Evangelicial Christians will.

---------- Post added at 08:15 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------



I guess atheism is an anti-faith but your point is a good one. He is no worse or better than anyone who is trying to pursuade you of their viewpoint.

It is however, your personal choice whether you choose to listen to the man

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841385)

TBF, on the whole, I don't think it has. No forum member has disrespected any other forum member's belief. I don't think there is anything wrong with respectful disagreement.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841376)

It seems that from a science perspective, without absolute proof on a specific matter, it's a case of 'what model fits best'. Some believe Creation fits best and some believe Evolution fits best. That's why Creation and Evolution are both a belief/faith issue; each person chooses which set of scientists to believe.

The integrated message of the whole Bible, given it's authorship timespan of 2000 years by multiple authors, shows 'intelligent design' to me.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35841383)

I'll be happy when Dawkins isn't held up as some representative for all atheists out there as the man only represents himself and his own ignorance and prejudice, majority of atheists are like me in my experience in that we have made our choice and respect others to make theirs whether they are the same or different. As for the rest of it Bible or science doesn't really matter individually follow whatever one makes you happier or just seems more acceptable. Don't understand why topics like this always have to end up confrontational and divisive.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841392)

Isn't it more the case of "what model fits [the evidence] best"? You can believe any model you can imagine but until you have objective, demonstrable evidence as proof, you would not have be able to present the model as a viable scientific theory.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

So you agree that Religion is mandated for our children even when it is now a minority belief in this country

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

The Sky salesman is not trying to tell me what to believe or save my soul

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

Agreed, Dawkins can be a pompous ass at times. As you find him personally offensive, this is why I gave you a number of other sources.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

How is that any different from Christians, Muslims, etc. doing exactly the same thing? Dawkins won't knock on your door asking you to become an atheist .. Evangelicial Christians will.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841413)

No I don't agree anything of the sort but I do think Religion is too important a subject to not be taught about in our schools given the amount of religious ignorance in the world. Be careful you're not falling in to the trap of assuming RE equates to ensuring all pupils believe

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841413)

Yes he is, he/she turns up uninvited and is trying to make you believe Sky is your only/best option.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841413)

If you believe what he's doing is the same then I'm assuming that means you can see the delicious irony in his actions.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841403)

I'm not a scientist, and don't know what is the norm in these things. The scientist in my quote seems to think 'established facts of science' is a parameter. Maybe because evidence is likely to change with new discoveries, whereas, established facts don't change? I don't really know.

Talking evidence, which obviously you have to decide the validity of yourself, there are 353 Old Testament prophecies that had to be fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

Statistically impossible if Jesus wasn't the true prophesised Messiah, especially the genealogy ones.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures....rophecies.html