The trouble is, and come on, you know this, the criteria a religious person such as myself would use to argue against the DVC is quite separate from the criteria we would use to validate the Bible. Actually, that's the whole point of what you're saying here. "Pink unicorns don't exist, but pink elephants do? Come off it". To the teetotaller, neither exists. To the LSD freak it's unicorns; to the alcoholic it's elephants. A debate is impossible on these terms, unless we're both on the same drug to begin with. And no-one ever became an alcoholic by first deciding that pink elephants exist; they only start seeing them once they're already hooked.
...if that makes any sense?

> A debate is impossible on these terms

Yes, but that doesn't rule out piss-takes.

To continue my analogy, sure, to the non-Christian, a cup of wine being somehow transformed into "the blood of Christ" is just as ridiculous an assertion as anything in the Da Vinci Code. But the thing is, a Christian has most likely trod a long path of "relationship" with this "God" before he has accepted (never mind begun to understand) such deep things as transubstantiation. The Christian was never "talked into Christianity" on the basis of such issues, to start with. Don't ask me to explain what us Catholics call "the Eucharist" (or what Protestants call "communion") - heck, we don't even agree upon it amongst ourselves, never mind understand it! But that is cool: we agree that it is beyond understanding yet that it is real. Just like cosmologists accept that black holes can exist. But get this - they had to learn a lot of other, more basic stuff before they got that far in their understanding. It's like me saying "quarks cannot exist" when I haven't even completed my study of protons and electrons yet. Christianity is the same.
If you want to argue about Christianity, then instead of trying to deconstruct its deep things, start with the simple, down-to-earth stuff which is accessible and understandable by anyone. Most Christians can talk about their initial experiences, how they first went from being agnostic or whatever, to having a basic belief in the Christian God. That's where to start from. I have posted my story on my blog, you may have already read it. All I'm saying is, that is the point from which to start debating, as it's where we are (or were) at the same position in life. it's no use starting a book from Chapter 23!

Sorry, posted my second comment before I saw your reply to my first one. If it's just a piss take then fair enough!

If you want to argue about Christianity, then instead of trying to deconstruct its deep things, start with the simple, down-to-earth stuff which is accessible and understandable by anyone.

Well, no. If you cut straight to the big, striking, obviously false claims, rather proceeding incrementally from the bottom, then you'll save yourself a lot of time and effort.

> But the thing is, a Christian has most likely trod a long path of "relationship" with this "God" before he has accepted (never mind begun to understand) such deep things as transubstantiation.

You mean indoctrination? Why, yes, I believe that does happen.

Yes, Larry, that is the sensible approach to investigating any subject. If only Einstein had worked like that ("E=mc² ? Naaah, sounds stupid!") then we wouldn't be so worried about Iran right now.

Tom,

Your first comment points out, correctly, that scientific and religious enquiry use completely different criteria. So it's a bit rich to try and conflate the two now.

Stop me if I'm on completely the wrong track here, but I thought religion (at least Christianity) was based on faith, not evidence. The process of building up from lots and lots of small facts to a really big one is reaching a conclusion based on evidence. Your religion has a two-thousand-year history of denying the validity of that method when applied to metaphysics.

And, come to think of it, you know what?

> But the thing is, a Christian has most likely trod a long path of "relationship" with this "God" before he has accepted (never mind begun to understand) such deep things as transubstantiation.

Bollocks. Most Christians are told to accept things like transubstantiation by their parents at an age when they believe their parents to be infallible. People who tread a long path before they accept such things are generally converts, and they're a small minority.