P:“Because independent evidence for its occurrence is non-existent.”

T:Not true. I can give you several different lines of evidence for all of the 5 historical claims I provided you with earlier in the discussion. Which particular one would you like me to provide those lines of evidence for?

P:”the event itself has never been explained, except in terms that require a pre-existing belief in the religion that has been built around it.”

T:No pre-existing beliefs are required, just an open mind and the ability to follow the evidence where it leads.
The reason why the event has never been adequately explained, in your opinion, is because you’re not accepting the conclusion to which all the evidence points.

Regarding the Galileo example, I already explained the differences between the scientific method and the historical method which differentiate these examples. You’re going over old ground here, and you haven’t addressed the points I made.

Anyway, that’s not actually the point. If you think the vast majority of scholars are incorrect on any of the 5 historical facts I claimed, then give your reasons why.

P:“You are, of course, automatically assuming the new material will support your view.”

T:I’m not assuming anything. The current evidence supports my view, and that’s what’s relevant in this discussion.

P:”Nor do I need to prove it to you, in much the same way that you don't need to "prove" Christianity to me”

T:Correct.
I don’t need to prove anything. I’m merely providing you with some evidence and telling you where I think it leads.
If you want to reject my evidence or my conclusion, go for it. But I’m interested in finding out your reasons for doing so. And if you aren’t interested in providing reasons, then I’m not sure why we’re even having this discussion!

Regarding the train, you need faith in
- Your memory
- Your brain
- Your watch

What if the train was 1 min late instead of 3 like you said?

If you tell me your train was late, I need faith that your eyewitness testimony’s valid, along with any other evidence

Bugsy and AdamD....read Prof Richard Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler". Darwin's mentor in the natural sciences at Cambridge uni, Adam Sedgwick, in a letter to Darwin 1859 expressed his fears: "....humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history". It was Darwin's book "The Origin of Species....or the Preservation of Favoured Races....." (NB the full title of his book....is that not enough to ring alarm bells?)that appealed to the Nazi mentality. Favoured races? Who are the "unfavoured" races? Did not Darwin state in the introduction that one of the 3 goals of his book was to consider "the value of the differences between the so-called races of man".

AdamD....you over simplify by a long shot. "Artificial selection"? What does that mean. No, Darwin was talking about "natural selection", "favoured races"; "inferior races" etc.....if anyone wrote like that today they'd have the antidiscrimination crowd yelling for their heads! But, of course, Charlie Darwin is infallible! a messianic figure! a genius!

Davidf......you still haven't answered my questions re your contradiction of your own position. Also the internet reference you give refers to Hitler;'s book Mein Kampf published in the 1920's for God's sake. Look at his rantings in the late 30's and early 40's if you're game. Please do not be so selective in your references

Francis wrote:

Davidf......you still haven't answered my questions re your contradiction of your own position.

Dear Francis,

When you keep repeating the nonsense that the Holocaust had nothing to do with religion I feel it is pointless to continue any discussion with you.

Trav, we don't seem to be making much progress.

This is almost certainly because:

i) you are predisposed to believe the stories that you are told

ii) it makes no difference to me whether you believe them or not, i.e. I am not trying to persuade you that you are wrong to believe what you believe

But I would point out that you are relying upon other believers to confirm your story.

If you were able to offer a Muslim historian, for example, I would put some additional weight on his observations.

It is also instructive, for me at least, that you choose not to answer any of the specific points I raised, merely the general ones.

Is Bishop Warburton's assessment of the additions to Josephus credible, for example?

Would he be more, or less credible than your own source?

You do address one point:

>>There is serious debate about this [that none of the gospel writers was there at the time]. Many scholars hold that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry<<

The other half of your statement is that "many other scholars hold that there were no eyewitness accounts".

Including, I might add, Christian scholars.

Non-radical ones.

You believe the ones you want to believe, that's fine. But don't kid yourself that we are dealing in facts here. Just stories.

>>Regarding sources, many were independent<<

Which ones?

Look, there really is little point in continuing this conversation.

You believe, and that's fine with me. I don't, and cannot find a shred of independent historical evidence that would even begin to persuade me to review my position.

The minute there is some, I'll be there.

Dear Francis,

I agree that Darwin was talking about “natural selection”, not “artificial selection”, that was my whole point. Nature works independently, we can’t control it. There is nothing "natural" or "nature-driven" about Social Darwinism.

Darwin’s use of the term “race” was used to describe variety, not human races. But let’s pretend for a moment that Darwin did really mean “human races”.

So What? That has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of natural selection or evolution.

Back to reality though, Einstein’s atomic theory has brought us nuclear weapons, but do the religious complain about him? Do they spread false propaganda about his motivations?

No. Why? Because Einstein’s theories don’t conflict with religious views.

This double-standard is very revealing of the cynical attempts by creationists to smear Darwin’s name simply to create feeling in others of disgust for a field of science that threatens their fragile beliefs.

In regards to Professor Richard Weikart, personally I wouldn’t trust a word he says, and Wikipedia summerises why very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Weikart

“His [Weikart’s] third book, From Darwin to Hitler has been widely criticized by the academic community, but promoted by Christian creationists...”

Promoted by Christian creationists. These are people who couldn’t lie straight in bed. And as if that wasn’t bad enough:

“The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, provided crucial funding for the book's research [From Darwin to Hitler].”

The Discovery Institute. The irony of this organisation’s name is bad enough. Let’s not even get into some of the things this organisation has done.

But you sounded a little too manic in your last post to think rationally, so I’m not sure that any of what I’ve said will sink in, or that there is any point in discussing this with you further unfortunately.

I am disgusted by the repetition of the statement that religion had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In September 1941 the Jews in and around Eishyshok were rounded up and slaughtered.

The Holocaust would not have happened if years of Jew hatred justified by New Testament accounts had not preceded the Holocaust. In my grandmother's village of Eishyshok the local Christians heard a sermon after the slaughter. On page 594 of "There Once was a World":

"On Sunday, September 28, 1941, the tolling of the bells at the bells at the Juryzdyki church called the people to worship, just as it did every Sunday, and the sanctuary was filled to capacity, just as it always was. The pews were lined with people in their Sunday best, which in many cases had been the Sabbath best of their Jewish neighbors, whose homes they had looted. Ostrauskas [the Lithuanian chief of police who had murdered Jewish children by smashing them against stones] was there, and was observed to make confession. While the freshly covered graves were still moving and still spouting blood, the parishioners listened to their priest explain to them that the Jews had at last been called to account for the killing of Christ. The priest himself had not advocated killing them; nor did he approve of the looting of Jewish homes. In fact, at least one account says that he asked any one in the congregation wearing stolen Jewish clothes to leave (although no one did). But he seemed to feel that the murder was understandable. Even if it was wrong, a kind of justice had been done."