If faith works how every religion says it works......

[Thor]

[quote='Thor' pid='87412' dateline='1281984591']

And none of this answers my question.

No it means you can't be bothered to read the history of revival and how it changed the world. It would take you a month non-stop anyway

No, it means you didn't answer my question. If you asked me a question and I told you to read the complete works of Richard Dawkins, would you consider that to be an adequate response? How about giving a synopsis? Referencing certain passages? What would you think of a debating team that, instead of making an argument, tossed a book at their opponents and said, "Read this!"?

Let's say you're right... how did any of this "change the world"? At most, it changed one nation.

Right, so they mrely got us the U.S. And the U.S. Constitution didn't change the world?

Wow! Now THERE'S a stretch! The US Constitution was the result of "revivals"? Because the Constitution never mentions a deity.

Hmmm Since without the U.S. we'd all be Nazi's or Communists, or dead, I think the world is better in ways few appreciate.

The US certainly changed the world for the better. Trying to connect the achievements of the nation with "revivals" is a stretch of gargantuan proportions.

I know atheists flocked to Russia from the U.S. when the Communists said they would make a paradise, but they found out atheist leaders don't handle skepticism well, and came back.

And this has to do with a tyrannical form of government. It has nothing to do with "atheism". I must also point out that theocracies are probably the most repressive, cruel and intolerant societies on the planet.

BTW, was it secular humanists who elected Washington and Jefferson and Madison, or Christians who believed in stuff like the resurrection??

What is this supposed to prove? If you want to go down this road, then you have to blame Christians for the election of scoundrels, thieves, incompetents, racists and perverts. And I'll bet that would be a longer list than Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

Individuals are responsible for the Enlightenment. Religion had nothing to do with it.

I thought you said Christians were an impediment to it?

I said Christianity was an impediment to scientific advancement. You don't see the difference?

I see, so if some Christian was an impediment, religion had something to do with it.

I guess you just don't get it. Christianity was an impediment because the church had the power to dictate the law. And their laws put up roadblocks to scientific advancement. Also, if some Christian was an impediment because they acted as the church demanded then, yes, the religion must be held responsible.

If not, then it had nothing to do with it. Have I got your position right now?

Apparently not.

And it seems you want to put all the blame for this on Catholics. And how were they "totally ignorant of the Bible"? They read the book and came to certain conclusions. The book hasn't changed. What makes their conclusions incorrect?

No they didn't read it.

NOBODY read the Bible? Not even the priests, bishops, church leaders, etc.? They didn't read from the book during mass?

There were millions of Christians with no Bibles.

But surely there were Bibles in existence....

When they read it the world changed.

Really? Slavery still existed. "Witches" were still prosecuted. Governments were as tyrannical as ever.

Virtually all Enlightenment social activists and political movers were either Chrsitians or lived by Jesus' teachings, including Jefferson.

So what? Did Christianity call for a representative form of government? And Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was divine. And, since Jefferson was a slaveholder, either Jesus condoned slavery or Jefferson did not live by Jesus's teachings. Which is it?

What does poetry have to do with fanciful tales contained in an ancient book of unknown origin?

Similies are prose as well. You just made a straw man argument btw

How is my question a straw man argument?

Now check out a couple of statements of yours and tell me what reason I have to think you are sincere:

No, I'm merely taking what the Bible says and running with it.

Then when I asked you what good it did for God to work miracles for the Israelites, you said

It didn't happen

Like I said, if the Bible fits your agenda you use it, and if it doesn't fit, it didn't happen.

Interesting how you think the Bible can "fit the agenda" of an atheist. You would think that if the Bible was the work of a perfect being that it couldn't possibly be used to support the position of someone who doesn't believe it to be true. You would think the Bible would be without flaws, perfectly understandable and that it would hold up to scrutiny. But it is none of these things. Gee, I wonder why...