[FenianKiwi]

>Absolutely and I agree completely! I hope that my response didn't seem to suggest this about Charlatan. I was merely pointing out that the information that he was basing his post upon was highly speculative and/or imaginative. Rarely can we arrive at logical conclusions if we start with faulty assumptions.

Actually, I thought you were suggesting it about me. And I think you were. No matter.

>There are very big differences between the two, don't you think? The tenets of the Christian faith are presumed to be based on fact. Santa Claus (or, at least, our modern concept of him) is presumed to be fictitious.

No, I honestly don't see the difference. Very good arguments can be made that the stories about Jesus in the NT are a case of historicizing a myth, sort of the opposite of what happened with Nicholas of Myra (mythicizing an historic figure). And presumptions of fact or fiction are just that...presumptions. They have no bearing in a discussion of historicity.

>I readily admit that the exploits of Jesus may seem ever bit as incredulous as the feats of Santa. This is irrelevant, however.

How can it be irrelevant? If we accord all fabulous stories equal weight, then the historic record becomes meaningless.

>All of our beliefs are based on assumptions, presumptions, and deductions...logical or otherwise.

Actually, this is untrue. There is also personal experience (I've seen a tree), commonality of experience (everyone agrees on what a tree is) and definitional consensus (no one seriously argues that trees have fur, four legs, and chase cats).

>There is no proof that Abraham Lincoln ever lived, I just assume that the historical account is correct. In the same way, I accept as fact the story of Jesus.

You're either having me on or you're being wilfully ignorant. The case for an historic Abraham Lincoln is far, far better than the case for an historic Jesus of Nazareth. We have photographs of Lincoln. We have things Lincoln wrote. We have responses to what Lincoln wrote by people who refer to him as 'Lincoln'. We have records of his birth, life and death. We have none of this for Jesus (to forestall the inevitable compalint, no...the Gospels do not qualify as historic documents. they are hagiographies, quite a different kettle of fish).

>I think that I am like most people in that I don't want to be fooled (a fool). If Christianity was as ridiculous a myth as Santa, I wouldn't believe it. My experiences have shown the Christian faith to be a reality and Santa not.

But that's just the point. Looked at objectively, there's not a lot of epistemic difference between a jolly fat man who comes down your chimney and leaves you gifts and an itinerant rabbi who can walk on water and raise the dead. I do, however, agree with your last point...the Christian faith is undoubtedly real. whether it is true or not is another matter.

>I am a thinker and a skeptic. I don't blindly follow any beliefs without question. God and the Bible have sufficiently 'proven' themselves to me many times over. That's a lot more than I can say about other 'truths' such as evolution. To a logical thinker like myself, evolution just hasn't measured up.

You're an odd sort of skeptic, I'll give you that much (Keep in mind what Hume had to say about miracles).

Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can rationally deny that.