Brian,

Many, on occasion, myself included, point the horrors of Christianity for over 1,500 hundred years. What is often missed is that Christian Church is out of contact with its first and second century Jewish roots. It is not just the god versus science thng.

The Christian Church and the very early Jesus cults were different bodies. The former related to Messiahism, Jewish tribalism and Roman Mystery cults; the latter the transformation of the failing Western Roman Empire into European and English feifdoms, later kingdoms. Jewish Messiahism [especially the zealots] was rebellion against Roman occupation [after Greek occupation]. Paul [Saul] and Constintine [Constintine's mother was a Christian], institutionalised the cults and created creed and doctrine for a Church.

Perhaps, Jesus' [aka Joshua] teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven were at odds with mainstream Messiahism; a new kind of Messiah. It is feasible his posits would have been to say the least, curious.

The Hedodians were Roman puppets and would have quashed opposition. Pilot would have looked on a contender as a pretender, like and the Dai Li Lama. However, I don't see Pilot executing people on the Jewish passover, and, I would have thought as was demonstrated in the 60-136 period, Rome would have had bigger fish to fry.

Perhaps, Hilter, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot [per capita], were more brutal and killed more people. But that brutality was for a reign. That said, Christianity as been more prolifically suppressive over the centuries. Nothing like the Jesus of the NT, be god, human or confabulation

'In other words a scientist will only consider believing in something if there is sufficient evidence. The evidence doesn’t have to overwhelming (although it can be), just sufficient.'

If that statement was half true then evolution would of been thrown on the scrap heap decades ago.

The main problem is that the humanist thinkers ( of which many scientist belong) deny the corruption in all men's heart as so accurately described by the writers in the bible. This is why many in the science field are happy to leave ethics aside and use emotional blackmail on people when it comes to cures for diseases. The philosophy is that the ends justifies the means.

Brian makes a point which criticises the game of dungeons and dragons (religion).The dungeons and dragons players (the religious) miss the point , attacks atheism , science and inadvertantly attacks mathematics - on the internet - a product of science. All of which demonstates astounding ignorance and confirms nicely everything Brian accuses the religious of.

The classificationists of the 19th century would have served the late 20th and 21st century well by assigning the bible et.al to dusty old museum draws where they belong.

The religious position is mind boggling, so much so creates oxidisation as the neurons fire causing swelling of tissue.
Now excuse me as there are no demons nor scorpions in my head a paracetamol will serve me nicely - Thank You Charles!

With all due respects, Boaz, you are certainly no student of history, which means you have poor philosophical reasoning, A reasoning that must always pay due respect to history. Right through history it has always been a philosopher who has pointed the way to the democracy we so much appreciate right now.

Firstly, Socrates, secondly, Jesus, with the Sermon on the Mount, thirdly St Thomas Aquinas, who I have so much bored you with regarding his acceptance of Hellenistic Reasoning from educated Islamics of the time.

So onto the Rennaissance, then the Age of Reason, and the beginning of The Enlightenment, when the English philosopher John Locke motivated the plan which brought on the 1688 Glorious Revolution, when both religion and Royalty were rendered second place to a new people's democracy in England.

Years later, the American Constitution was patterned on Lockean Reasoning, except for the present power of the US President which stupidly broke the Lockean Code, aping the rebellious action of England's George Third, who had unlawfully made use of the wornout autocracy that the Glorious Revolution had discarded.

Might pay you to put your Bible, away occasionally, Boaz, and do more than a bit of historical research.

It is not that I am against you being a Christian, matey, 'cause I'm one myself, but one who likes to balance faith with a generous injection of reason.

Jesus never preached democracy if the NT is to be believed. If anything Jesus preached communism.Certainly the Jesus of the NT preached exclusionism , you have to play dungeons and dragons to be saved.

Democracy has had a long road and owes more to labour relations, business and vetrans rights than any philosopher.In Australia for example workers rights are offered to trade off for tax deductions at the ballot. Democracy is its own enemy. With no incentive to work and automation taking over in a generation or two workers may rise up , mass strike and force the governing power to concede another host of rights.No doubt a generation or two later the superstitious will be attributing those new gained rights to Jesus.

as far as moral standing is concerned many humans such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King upheld higher morals than Jesus could ever claim to have had.

Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and more modernly, Mandela. And also we must remember, Socrates before he developed a love for all kind, was a Hoplite leader, a bravest soldier ever but a killer. As he proclaimed, something made him think deep down, coming out with thoughts like - out with the Gods and in with the Good.

As his roadside teachings were proclaimed as not good for the young, he was ordered to kill himself with a dose of Hemlock, which he did, which as a former soldier he had been ordered to.

Yet all these people died with a caring for all kind, as the young Jesus suggested in the Sermon on the Mount - to even - love your enemy.