Ah ... OK, fair enough, seeing as they have such solid evidence.
Can't stop now though, I've got to go and report the portrait of Mother Teresa that has just formed on my slice of toast.
It's a miracle I tell you.

I'd have to look that up. But certainly there was no general outcry or hand-wringing etc.

Even my father, who himself was on the fundamentalist wing of the Methodist church (although he has mellowed somewhat over the years), never used to preach Creation as being literally what was laid down in [iGenesis[/i: the seven days for him could have represented 7,000 or seven million, so evolution was, in many ways, no great 'problem' in the sense of species developing over time.

And that was essentially the 'old earth' way of viewing things.

As I said, it's only in relatively recent years that US-style Creationism etc has gained a foothold in the UK. And while it's not the sole reason, it's a part of what has been kicking atheists into actually 'coming out' and hitting back against such attitudes. The question of teaching this utter tripe in schools – again, a recent development – is a large part of what got Dawkins active, for instance.

Heheh, he's back, the brainwashed man who will never answer any question.

The fact is the first two questions will be marked "wrong" (nul points) unless the candidate parrots the answer that only brainwashing can instil.

The proposition is objectively a meaningless nonsense anyway.
The question
“[iTrue or false: Our peace – as Christians – is in Jesus Christ[/i”
could only have any academic validity whatsoever if it asked
“[iTrue or false: The religion of XYZ propounds that 'Our peace – as Christians – is in Jesus Christ'[/i”

Though it would beg the question as to why, if we're made in God's image, he waited until a maximum of 200,000 years ago to oversee the completion of our evolution, when his Earth has been around for 4.5 bn years. It also begs the question as to why he only bothered to create the Earth 4.5 bya, when he created the rest of the universe 13.5 bya.

Whilst some of the more 'enlightened' Christians may pretend that science and scripture can co-exist without a problem, they're quite obviously deluding themselves.

Well, as he's omnipotent, I guess he can change time as well.

Anyway, how many times do you need to be told that ...
a) God moves in mysterious ways
b) You must not question God
c) He has his reasons, who are you to question him/her?

Pfft, this fundamentalism is easy innit?

Indeed. But frankly, they're preferable to the nutters who peddle the other version.

that's a contradiction

How so?

The thing about being brainwashed is you never actually [iknow[/i you've been brainwashed. Were this not the case, brainwashing would be hugely ineffective.

So, we can say kirkstaller is brain washed, but we can't really prove it and he won't know he's brain washed, even though he is, because if he knew he had been brain washed he wouldn't be brain washed?

I think you've just summed up religious fundamentalism in one sentence

So could we [iall[/i be brainwashed?

evidence suggests it's more likely in your case

explain to us how you can believe something that has no factual basis?

Nothing like loading the question.

I don't want to go over old ground but I consider there to be a factual basis for my beliefs, as well as a spiritual basis.

yes, and as has been said, that is the evidence of brainwashing that we can all see.

We could, but it's infinitely more likely in those who believe stuff that flies in the face of logic and empirical evidence.

Factual is probably the wrong word, as what constitutes a 'FACT' is, as these boards regularly show us, entirely subjective. It would be more accurate to say that there is no [ievidential[/i basis for your beliefs.

Again, I would disagree and say that there is ample evidence.

brainwa.... forget it.

So, no need for the old 'faith' malarky, then?

Excellent. You won't have any problem linking to the peer-reviewed papers and/or scientific journals that support your claims, then.

No, you need faith in Jesus in order to be saved.

Are you saying evidence only comes in the forms mentioned above?

that's the commonly accepted definition

It can come in many forms but pointing to something like the Turin Shroud is certainly not evidence that it once contained Jesus. All it is, is evidence of a piece of old cloth with an unusual stain on it, that if you were to squint in a strange way, you might "see" an image that resembles an arcane representation of what someone thought Christ may have looked like.