"I really don't get people who cite modern scientific understanding as a reason for disbelieving fundamental Christian tenets. Events like the Resurrection are described as 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' for a good reason - by definition, they don't conform to natural laws. You wouldn't bother founding a religion over something that could have happened naturally."

But what reason do we have to believe they happened at all? 'Somebody says so...' OK, but given that we have millions of proven examples of people telling lies, and zero proven examples of miracles, which is more likely? Does your tolerance for 'miracles' extend to those witnessed by Joseph Smith, and the thousands carried out every day in India by 'holy men'? To those of the Buddhist faith, Islam and Hinduism? When every religion claims to have miracles, then either the claims are false or miracles don't actually tell us anything about the divine. And if you take the miracles away -- as I pointed out earlier -- you don't really have much left.

Phenologist claims that Phil’s article was sensible. However, Mark Duffett has very succinctly explained why it was not.

There were many other aspects of Phil Dye’s article that were not very sensible. I’ll just mention a couple:

Why would an article that is entirely contemptuous of the Christian religion and religion in general want to conclude by bothering to give advice to the leaders of that religion? If the religion is false then better advice for its leaders would be to toss their pointy hats and go and get a proper job.

If someone is going to bother writing an article on miracles and the Christian faith (or any other subject) it would be good if they were at least a little familiar with their subject matter. For instance, Dye mentions the reformation. The reformation was not concerned at all with miracles.

One last point, Dye talks about the decline in Christian belief over the last thirty years in Australia. I’m not sure which country Phil is living in, but by many measures which can be observed, the opposite is true. Granted that church attendance is not what it was in the 1950s, but a lot of that was very nominal. These days, despite Christian belief being non-PC, and religion still largely taboo in polite conversation, many churches have attendances numbering in the thousands, and increasing, filled with quite fervent believers.

Miracles are defined in Noah Websters BIG dictionary, as something wonderful. Something which seems to go beyond the known laws of nature; And is held to be the act of a supernatural being. It is wonderful that little children have already started to think for themselves by nine, but by nineteen it is a miracle if they are not already overtaken by the herding instinct.

The Holy Bible is all about miracles, and to invent such a story, defies imagination. It is rather a pity that Constantine burned all the Roman records, of the time, but actions speak louder than words, and there was no shortage of people willing to die for their beliefs, as Jesus Christ willingly died for his. The very fact that Jesus Christ went to the Cross without a whimper, when given a clear choice of life or death by Pontius Pilate is a miracle in itself and is an an inspiration.

The miracles that were heaped on the British Empire in World War II are almost beyond belief as well. How come the Germans did not just sweep into Dunkirk, and wipe out the British Army as they had done up till then. In the end the wartime casualties of the British Empire, were a small 512,000 both civilian and military. 100,000 of those were Australians. WWII cost the world that did not believe in miracles the total casualties of sixty million, according to Google.

Somehow, the Christian nations of the United States of America and the British Empire prevailed against very efficient and destructive fighting machines acting in concert against them. Then the winners of the war turned their backs on the miracle worker.

Christianity is all about miracles. It is a miracle that the society we live in has not disintegrated, as the secularists and atheists have dismantled the system of miracle government that used to deliver justice, and put a system in place that delivers law without justice. Easter is but one of the miracles. Love is a miracle in itself. Christianity is practical applied love, and delivered practical efficient justice

dan, do you have any evidence that christian belief in australia is as prevalent or as strong as it was 30 years ago? you claim to observe this, but do you have anything to offer beyond the anecdotal?

“The miracles that were heaped on the British Empire in World War II are almost beyond belief as well. How come the Germans did not just sweep into Dunkirk, and wipe out the British Army as they had done up till then. In the end the wartime casualties of the British Empire, were a small 512,000 both civilian and military. 100,000 of those were Australians. WWII cost the world that did not believe in miracles the total casualties of sixty million, according to Google.”

The above is another example of why logical thinking people don't believe the stories of the bible. Those who do, try to create miracles by manipulating facts to suit their agenda, even though evidence they provide, can be easily debunked. So their credibility suffers by their own hand as does their belief.

The civilian and military casualties in WW2 were, United Kingdom 449800, Australia 41200, Canada 45300, India 1587000, NZ 11900, Singapore 50000 and that's not all the commonwealth. The world total was 72754900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Completely different to “Peter the believer”, who may be a believer, but not to be believed.

The reason why Hitler didn't invade the UK was a very rational one, he didn't have sea or air superiority over the channel, so couldn't support or supply his invading troops or successfully navigate the channel and was suffering heavy loses of aircraft trying to subdue Enlgand. No miracle at all, just common sense logistics.

It's the same with the use of Pilate and Herod, there is ample historical, chronological, government, local, jewish and Roman written records' plus archaeological and anthropological evidence, showing this never happened. Yet there is not one piece of evidence supporting it. The biblical evidence is contradictory as pointed out, with varying un-witnessed accounts, so all hearsay. Just like every miracle claimed.

Earlier today I attended an Anglican funeral service. The minister used the occasion as an opportunity for a bit of preaching, and read out the bit from the bible where Jesus claimed that the only way to God was through him. What struck me was that the good reverend cited Jesus' purported resurrection as evidence that this claim is true, i.e. that Jesus differed from other claimants to divine authority specifically because he had been resurrected.

It seems to me that Christians who believe literally in miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus are on very shaky ground here - the corollary being that if there were no actual miracles then Jesus is just another wandering cult leader. I'm no Christian, but I think that's what Phil Dye is trying to get at in his article, and I tend to agree with him.

Christianity would be much improved by the removal of its hocus pocus aspects. Not to mention stodgy protestant preachers.