Unraveling the Jesus Myth

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric Massive assumption... on par with "Assuming that Superman existed and was assocated with reporters and cops..."

Well, assuming that, you would expect to see something that doesn't exist, whereas I am proving the existence of someone based on some proof that DOES exist.

More 'Superman' logic... trying to evidence the Man of Steel with Lois Lane. The disciples are every bit as fictional as their mythical teacher. Each and every one of them contrived to have multiple death and ridiculous journeys. Take Peter: Anicetus (writing in the 2nd century) invented the idea Peter was beheaded by Nero. The Clementines have Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Origen writing in the third century claims Peter had been crucified upside down.

First mistake, no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome is found in the Bible. If he was, then Paul would have mentioned him in his epistle to the Romans. Secondly, there is nothing but tradition to show how people died. Tradition is what we rely on for most non-royal people's existence. So, instead of following the status quo of historical research you go into philosophical and say that one mistake in one place is a picture of the whole thing.

See above. We have no idea when the Pauline Epistles were written. The evidence apologists use to date them is completely circular: the apostles date the epistles and the epistles date the apostles. You're going to need to do better than fallacies, my friend. So far, you're not even arguing logically; you're just reciting the litany of Christian dogma that was handed to you.

No, I am saying what is true, of the 35000 copies we have in the original language, 8000 of them are dated to before the destruction of the temple. I think you are trying to make something like mt Everest nonexistent. The evidence I posit is based on the same methods professionals use to date ancient documents. If you would like me to explain exactly how that happens.

No. You haven't. They don't exist. I challenged you to prove their existence. You have failed to meet this challenge. We shall consider this point settled from here on out until you can provide support.

Ok, I can give you what I have, but you need to go and find the sources yourself, because I rely on written articles and authorities rather than the internet. Here are my sources:
Dr Scott Carrol, He would be the most difficult to reach, being busy running an archaeological dig in Egypt. He is the one who brought said "nonexistent copies" to my school. You can't say that something you can touch and feel doesn't exist.
Dr Roger Stiles, Philosophy department of TTU.

Oh, how convenient? I see you've switched gears form recitation of litany to making tremendous cop-outs. Interesting.

So actually taking the time to research the culture of the time is a cop-out? or is it just smart.

Papias is dated to the first quarter of the second century, Josephus' work has been tampered with & mentions an entire host of Jesuses (Jesi?) which form the basis of the modern day Christ myth and Tacitus, writing in the later half of the first century / early second century was the first in a long line of people to see Christians and assume a Christ. His writing in absolutely no way evidences the mythic godman.

So if there were a multitude of William Sculley's would that mean that I don't exist? The first point does not lead to the next. Papias wasn't written until then because it was the first part where the Christian's were trying to figure out what was and what wasn't scriptural.

Oh? That's it? That's the end of your list? Well, allow me to add what we really would have seen if your mythic godman had shown up & died circa 33 ce. We'd see mention of Jesus by Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary of the early Essenes (now thought to be the first Chritians) and wrote about Pilate. He was a hellenized Jewish philosopher who would have absolutely leapt at the idea of an incarnate Jewish god showing up in a place we know he visited.

• The Essenes were not the first Christians. And most of what we have from them is BC. That and the fact that the Essenes aren't even mentioned in the Bible would make mention of him by said people who were before his time and not in the same place.
  

  We'd expect to see a lot more about the dead people Jesus allegedly brought back to life. The gospels devote little more than a paragraph to the subject. These individuals would have been (had they existed) living & breathing proof Jesus was the real McCoy. The Romans, meticulous record keepers, would have obviously done something about them. The fact they're mentioned nearly in passing smacks of the tall tales you'd hear on a playground between children. "Yeah! There was this dog so big and.... and it chased me... and it bit me... and I died... but then I came back lol."

  No, this rests on the Romans even caring about the everyday goings on of the Jews and having people in the city at the time. The chances of that are astronomical.
  
  

  We'd expect to see an explosion of Christianity around 33ce. Jesus allegedly existed in one of the most literate places on the planet at the time (having a written religion will do that for you) with Pax Romana ensuring safe passage... there is no conspiracy that could have silenced the news of the godman.

  Not true, when his followers are not of the literate crowd. Only two of the 12 disciples have any reason to be literate, and neither of them wrote a gospel.
  

  We'd expect to see writings from the time reflect much more of Jesus either directly ("I saw Jesus!") or indirectly ("This guy won't shut up about Jesus.").

Most of that was oral for local fame. None of it was written.

Now, let's see how you did... As mentioned above, you failed here. All you did was demand I believe your unsupported claim. If there are copies of these documents then surely you can find a photograph of one with a link, yes? Apparently not. You also failed utterly to address critical parts of my argument:

Like I have said many times, I have used the internet only to confirm my beliefs. I spend most of my time researching from written articles, so unless you expect me to take a picture of every page of every book I read.
All the rest of this is dealt with above or is completely pointless.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric I find replies like this particularly problematic. You acknowledge the sources & arguments I gave debunk the Christian myth, but have offered no counter-argument. Why is the reality of Jesus Christ somewhere in between? What is your reasoning behind this? I've offered the many Jesuses Josephus informs us of as an explanation. Is that what you meant?

It is unlikely that you could totally debunk the Christian belief system (myth, as you call it) or especially the existence of a historical figure Jesus Christ, any more than you could debunk Alexander Great or the mythical miraculous events of his life.

The likelyhood of a historical figure Jesus (Yeshua) becomes more likely with the testimony of Josephus that there were so many candidates. There is no reason one way or another that the reality of Jesus Christ would be somewhere in between, but the traditional Christian version is the most unlikely.

What I'm hoping you didn't mean is some strange compromise between myth and reality which becomes it's own myth. It's not, is it?

No I did not define what the reality of Jesus is or is likely to be, simply that absolute debunking would require proof that neither you nor your sources are able to provide.

Consider the claim, "The Wright Brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their first powered glider." Imagine a reasoned argument countering this claim by citing specific facts which make it nigh impossible for a 747 to exist in 1903 (or before). What we do not do is create a story in which the Wright Brothers see a different, yet equally impossible flying machine from 20th century.

Like the traditional Christian synario this would be the most unlikely explanation for what the wright brothers accomplishments, but this argument would not be comperable to the claims of the two cases. What is a better comparison is Alexander the Great and his recorded miraculous events of his life, which are as unlikely as the circus like miraculous events of Christ's life, but on the other hand there is no direct first hand record of either in their life time. Historians nontheless generally accept that both esisted, but do not accept the miraculous events of their lives as fact.

It sounds ridiculous, but it's an argument I hear from Christians and (more often) agnostics.

I think this post clarifies my view and it is far from rediculous.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Zhavric Can you point out a religion... an organized religion... that started out any other way?

To further expand on this, we can look at how more recent religious movements, mostly cults, are born.

Scientology is a perfect, textbook example of how a pile of total crap can be SUCCESSFULLY propagated to the masses, and how ANYTHING, even (gasp) a dude who can walk on water and rise from the dead, can be accepted as a fact if enough people believe it is true.

Ahhhh.... the gullibility of the masses...

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore

One could just as easily say the same of atheists.

They can point to certain books, point to creating definitions and misusing scientific law to create a belief that others can follow.

[Zhavric]

Good to see signs of life in this thread. I agree with what you posted Pikatore... I'm not sure if Shuny is still about, but in case he is...

Quote by: shunyadragon It is unlikely that you could totally debunk the Christian belief system (myth, as you call it) or especially the existence of a historical figure Jesus Christ, any more than you could debunk Alexander Great or the mythical miraculous events of his life.

A) Alexander the Great is attributed zero miraculous events. Taking over part of the world, while beyond ordinary, isn't supernatural. In that regard, it's apples and oranges.

B) If someone alleged, "Alexander conquered parts of asia with the help of laser beams that shot from his eyes" we'd dismiss this. No way are we giving this obvious embelishment any consideration without evidence.

C) If we're wrong about Alexander, so what? If he's a hoax or a group of people no one has placed their intellectual being on the idea he existed and did supernatural things.

So the Alexander comparison is just silly.

The likelyhood of a historical figure Jesus (Yeshua) becomes more likely with the testimony of Josephus that there were so many candidates.

We've already covered that Josephus mentions a lot of people named Yeshua who fit the bill for the bible jesus. We also know the church has doctored Josephus' account.

There is no reason one way or another that the reality of Jesus Christ would be somewhere in between, but the traditional Christian version is the most unlikely.

No, the gospel account of Jesus is impossible. I'm not sure why so many non-Christians tap dance around this word with relation to Jesus.

No I did not define what the reality of Jesus is or is likely to be, simply that absolute debunking would require proof that neither you nor your sources are able to provide.

You've got that backwards.

What my sources show is Jesus was never proven to begin with. All of Christianity relies on fallacies and early childhood indoctrination.

Like the traditional Christian synario this would be the most unlikely explanation for what the wright brothers accomplishments, but this argument would not be comperable to the claims of the two cases. What is a better comparison is Alexander the Great and his recorded miraculous events of his life, which are as unlikely as the circus like miraculous events of Christ's life, but on the other hand there is no direct first hand record of either in their life time. Historians nontheless generally accept that both esisted, but do not accept the miraculous events of their lives as fact.

As we've established, Alexander did unlikely things, but nothing attributed to him is impossible or supernatural. He didn't raise his fallen soldier from the grave. He didn't turn his army's water into wine. The two are not comparable in this regard and only show how absurd Christian claims really are.

As for historians? They assume there was a historic Jesus because most aren't interested in the ire questioning Christianity brings them.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH They can point to certain books, point to creating definitions and misusing scientific law to create a belief that others can follow.

And I totally agree, on certain levels. Once again, I stress the importance of you being speific when addressing atheists. Unlike Christians, atheists can differ on thier very idological foundations for rejecting the possibility of a god.

My type of atheism points to no books, creates no definitions, and uses no scientific 'proof'. It relies on an incredibly simple and untampered logical method that while being one of the pillars of scientific method and reasoning, is in itself an incredibly reliable and pure way of thinking. It's how most courts around the world now operate when considering a crime, it's a method that philosophers and thinkers would adopt to keep thier feet on the ground whilst they explore the world around them. It requires no premise to work, and can't be used to brainwash or twist people to someone's will. I don't pray to it, I use it and apply it. It's a hell of a lot real to me right now than some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that all religions tend to consist of.

So if you have a problem with weak atheism, give your reasons. You are only referring to strong atheism in that quote, where the atheist will believe NO gods exist because of whatever sense they might make of observations of the world around them, and many will actually attempt to DISPROVE the existence of a god, which I find to be just as silly as believing the claim 'God exists' to begin with.

I am adopting the most reasonable stance a human being can possibly have on the claim. Regardless if you think I am right or wrong, I am using perfectly sound and flawless reasoning to come to my conclusion. So if that means that I'm heading for hell, then your god if you believe in one doesn't seem to like people who wont take such a ridiculously huge leap of faith.

Next time, please be specific.

Commenting on the whole Jesus issue, I don't really care if there was a Jesus or not. Mother Teresa was a saint, yet she spent her whole life tottering around and helping people. Where are the crazy miracles that the magical Jesus of Nazerth could perform? Is the whole walking on water thing out of fashion nowadays? Why is it ok now to not ask for miracles because we would be tempting god, which is bad, but all these weird and wonderful things were being applied so liberally in the time of the bible? Has god run out of pixie dust mabye?

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore

You wanting specificity on the whole "which type of Atheist" thing is the same as someone wanting you to be specific on the "which type of Christian" thing.

There is more than one kind.

In fact, you can be a Christian if you believe Jesus was the Messiah... you don't have to believe anything else about Christian dogma if you don't want to.

I find it interesting that you said:

My type of atheism points to no books, creates no definitions, and uses no scientific 'proof'. It relies on an incredibly simple and untampered logical method that while being one of the pillars of scientific method and reasoning, is in itself an incredibly reliable and pure way of thinking.

You sound like a theist when you say that.

The point is that you say you derived your belief on your own and without outside influence. Some people need to quote others to defend their side of theism. You don't, and I respect that.

But just keep in mind that your reasoning is pure for you and in no way means others are less-than-capable thinkers.

Your theistic equivalent is someone who truly believes they witnessed God in their lives. I respect them just as much as I respect you.

So if you have a problem with weak atheism, give your reasons. You are only referring to strong atheism in that quote, where the atheist will believe NO gods exist because of whatever sense they might make of observations of the world around them, and many will actually attempt to DISPROVE the existence of a god, which I find to be just as silly as believing the claim 'God exists' to begin with.

I agree with you. If "weak atheism" is an atheist who believes because they haven't seen otherwise, then I have no problem with it. In fact, the only difference between my belief and "weak atheism" is that I choose not to make any conclusions whereas a "weak atheist" says there is no God.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You wanting specificity on the whole "which type of Atheist" thing is the same as someone wanting you to be specific on the "which type of Christian" thing. There is more than one kind. In fact, you can be a Christian if you believe Jesus was the Messiah... you don't have to believe anything else about Christian dogma if you don't want to.

There are different flavors of Christians, but they all believe that a Jesus died on the cross. That feature defines a person as Christian. Atheists aren't simply people that don't believe in a god, because that definition would stretch across many agnostics as well. Atheists can go from making the positive claim to making a negative assumption. That very spectrum and STRENGTH of belief doesn't exist in Christianity, because all Christians share fundamental similarities. Atheism is a much more flexible state of mind, which is why many people can have a hard time discerning exactly what kind of atheist they are, or if they are indeed an atheist at all.

Quote by: ZNFYRH You sound like a theist when you say that.

ROFL!!! What kind of theist would say that? Come on. Conversion and religious persuasion in itself is rife with fallacies, and coats everything with a thick serving of appeal to emotion. You can't think clearly in such a brainwashed state. You can only think you can. Talk to scientologists who are 'Clear', they will tell you thier mind is free and in perfectly in tune with reality.

Quote by: ZNFYRH But just keep in mind that your reasoning is pure for you and in no way means others are less-than-capable thinkers.

I never implied that. I was simply stating the undeniable truth of the matter - that my path of reasoning is indeed, the most reasonable. Did I say what I thought was neccessairly, by definition, correct? No. I do believe however that it is the best road of thinking to take, seeing how we apply that same principle in just about every other facet of reasonable thinking. Religious beliefs shouldn't be immune to it.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Your theistic equivalent is someone who truly believes they witnessed God in their lives. I respect them just as much as I respect you.

I don't believe anything, I came to a logical conclusion, pure and simple. The advantage that I have is that there doesn't need to be a premise for my reasoning to work. Theists have that glaringly obvious premise, that a god exists. I could invoke Occam's razor here if I wanted to.

What theist says 'i came to the logical, perfectly reasonable conclusion, that there is a GOD IN THE SKY THAT CREATED THE PLANET AND IS WATCHING US AND HEARS ME WHEN I PRAY AND ANSWERS WITH SIGNS...... etc.....?? What theist would say that? Mind you, I'm talking about one that hasn't gone batty with religious fervour.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I agree with you. If "weak atheism" is an atheist who believes because they haven't seen otherwise, then I have no problem with it. In fact, the only difference between my belief and "weak atheism" is that I choose not to make any conclusions whereas a "weak atheist" says there is no God.

Well, I wouldn't say that, it is slightly more complicated than that. I reasoned, came to my conclusion, and made a logical assumption that I would apply to any other extraordinary claims, such as the existence of unicorns. I say 'unicorns don't exist', though TECHNICALLY i am remaining open minded and leaving that minute gap for the possibility to occur. But my reasoning kicks in and renders that gap as negligible.

My way of thinking treats the elements of religion (and more specifically theism) like any other faculty of thought. THATS what makes me an atheist.

I'd have to agree with Zhvaric on this one, because they say Jesus lived like 2,000 years ago. I mean like, no one lived back then. People like Aristotle, and Alexander the Great didn't exist either, Jim Henson created a story about them in the 1970s, and retrofitted the idea that they lived long ago in the world's mind, at the time. It was all a hoax though, because it's 2007, I mean what does that even mean. I'd have to totally say that since Jesus lived so long ago, in a place where people spoke many different languages and technology was limited to scrolls, and stones. I mean, yeah like scrolls and stones are gonna last that long. And dude, all the people who hear the stories, they are prolly gonna change it and make it there own and stuff. But whatever man, I doubt anything really happened previous to 1776, cause these people in blue opened up a big can of worms, and it ate through the Gospel of Jesus.

[Jack]

Atheism is a much more flexible state of mind, which is why many people can have a hard time discerning exactly what kind of atheist they are, or if they are indeed an atheist at all.

True, that. Atheism is a negative label, it only relates what we don't believe. It says nothing about what we do. Atheists do believe in all manner of things, some even spiritual and touching on religious.

[Zhavric]

If you guys want to discuss atheism, start another thread.

This thread deals specifically with the (lack of) existence of Jesus.

Quote by: Gambr1nus I'd have to agree with Zhvaric on this one, because they say Jesus lived like 2,000 years ago. I mean like, no one lived back then. People like Aristotle, and Alexander the Great didn't exist either, Jim Henson created a story about them in the 1970s, and retrofitted the idea that they lived long ago in the world's mind, at the time.

Next time, try addressing the actual arguments I make rather than failing to be clever in creating straw men.

We've already addressed the difference between the claim of the gospel Jesus and Alexander the Great. Aristotle is attributed zero supernatural claims.

Address the argument or don't post.

And dude, all the people who hear the stories, they are prolly gonna change it and make it there own and stuff.

Christians claim that's not the case. They claim that if we had a time machine and we went back to 33ce Judea, we'd see a guy named "Jesus" wearing a crown of thorns getting whipped by Romans and eventually coming back from the dead. We're not dealing with an embelishment of actual events. We're dealing with outright invention based loosely on individuals and existing mythology.

Again, address the argument or don't bother posting.

[Temp 09]

and while I don't necessarily agree that Zhavric has definitively proven that Jesus is a myth

lol. okay.

So I've just read everything posted here. Very interesting.

But essentially, the reason I find the above comment funny, is that it is all but laughable to think that just through comments made by an avid poster on online forum, that the biggest "myth" in the history of the universe has been debunked.

Can we not agree that if (and when) the existence of Jesus is falsifiable and then proven false, that this would be a monumental discovery that the world would hear about?

Because falsifiability is a very important issue here. As a matter of fact, it's already been touched on earlier in this thread:

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why do you think a lack of evidence of someone's existence is proof that they never existed? "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a nonsensical question because both "yes" and "no" imply you beat your wife. It's not a question I'd expect you to answer. It's a question I'd expect you to clarify with a proper answer. While the one you posed to me isn't the catch 22 of the wife beating inquiry, it is no less invalid & incomplete. Allow me to complete the question: "Why do you think a lack of evidence of someone's completely unsupported and absurdist existence is proof that they never existed?"

Zhavric wanted to specify Jesus as the someone in this statement. We will do that for him, to keep him happy.

So, he demands that we heavily bias a reasonable question in his favor and asks, Why is a lack of evidence of Jesus' completely unsupported and absurdist existence proof that Jesus never existed.

Unsupported. That word means...without support. That means...there is no support for the fact that Jesus lived. At all. The world currently has 2.1 billion Christians. He can use any flawed or bullying argument he wants, copying and pasting text up and down and individually refuting every point like an avid poster should, but, the fact that 2,000 years after the life of Jesus, 2.1 billion people believe he lived, does constitute support. The life is Jesus is not completely unsupported.

Furthermore, the way Zhavric sets that quote up is redundant. "Lack of evidence" and "completely unsupported" mean the same thing, which is unnecessary unless he is using the qualifier of "completely unsupported" to say there is no support for Jesus' "absurd" existence; absolutely erroneous, as noted by the billions upon billons of supporters of Jesus over the past 2,000 years. And wait…would one EXPECT a “normal” existence of Jesus if that was God coming to earth? Would it have been possible to have this many followers with an existence that was NOT absurd?? Since Christians believe God CREATED the world, shouldn’t it be easy for them to believe that God can intervene in his creation in pretty amazing ways?

Haha well that was a darn good myth you 5 Jewish rabii came up with...gold stars for all of you.

yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

lol. yeah. history is silent alright. Try searching Christian history...see how many hits you get. Clearly Jesus made no impact on history.

One Solitary Life - an essay on the life of Jesus Christ

To be fair, Zhavric’s quote is asking for "volumes" of details of the life of Jesus from years very close to when Jesus lived, and he is not just asking for history about how much Jesus has affected the world in the years after his life. Keep in mind the printing press was invented in 1440.

But wait. I'm hearing crickets. Of the people doubting the existence of such a man from the period as well. Because it has got to work both ways. We need "volumes" of people crying Zhavric’s "this is completely unsupported and absurd that people believe in Jesus" from those very early years as well, or else the life of the Gospel Jesus is NOT(currently) falsifiable.

Essentially, Zhavric cannot prove

The gospel Jesus never existed

and thus, loses this debate. He makes a lot of great points and is clearly the owner of a very good brain, which he puts to great use, but one cannot just make that statement, site a few examples in your favor, and think you've solved things. Life is far, far more complex than that. The smartest men and women in the world can spend their entire lives trying to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus, and, presently speaking, fail.

Good night and good luck. I won’t even check this thread again. Zhavric can call me a coward…he doesn’t effect my life in the least. I just want everyone to know that, without a sliver of a doubt, that “The gospel Jesus never existed” cannot be proven true as of August 24, 2007. And that’s a fact. God bless.

[arielmessenger]

"There are different flavors of Christians, but they all believe that a Jesus died on the cross. That feature defines a person as Christian."

Not true at all. You atheists are attacking Pauline Christian beliefs and seem not to know much of anything about the Gnostic Christian beliefs. So you create this Pauline Christian strawman who cannot logically defend himself to "prove" your points. Yet not a one of you can defeat this Gnostic Christian's accurate appraisal of your philosophy:

Atheism is not scientific and never can be as it predicated on a given conclusion--no God is to be found. So in effect, the atheist is as biased against God as any fundamentalist believer is biased in favor of God. Both ideologies rest upon rejection of any contradicting facts.

As for any real spectrum of atheistic beliefs I guess comparing the thousands of religious beliefs with your few atheistic differences makes your heads spin so you think there's more facets to rejection of spiritual phenomena than the main error but that's only your narcissism speaking--not reality.

[phoenix_fire]

They're ignoring Gnosticism because no one really cares about it anymore. It is mostly dead and has been so for centuries. There are a few of that very endangered species barely hanging on, but like most endangered species, their non-adaptive behaviors and habits guarantee that they will soon die out. In fact, it is not uncommon for most people in a room to never have heard of this animal, so rarely, if ever, is one encountered in nature. Even among the ones that are extant, their stock is so diminished from unequal commerce with such species as the Aristotelians, the Neo-Pagans, and the eastern mystics that most have lost the characteristics that used to define the subgroup.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Temp 09 Unsupported. That word means...without support. That means...there is no support for the fact that Jesus lived. At all. The world currently has 2.1 billion Christians. He can use any flawed or bullying argument he wants, copying and pasting text up and down and individually refuting every point like an avid poster should, but, the fact that 2,000 years after the life of Jesus, 2.1 billion people believe he lived, does constitute support. The life is Jesus is not completely unsupported.

So the fact that hundreds of millions of children believe in Santa is support for the existence of Santa? People believing something is true is not in the least bit evidence for the existence of that thing. I agree with your statement that the life of Jesus is "not completely unsupported" but to say that people believing in it constitutes support is absurd.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Muckraker So the fact that hundreds of millions of children believe in Santa is support for the existence of Santa? People believing something is true is not in the least bit evidence for the existence of that thing. I agree with your statement that the life of Jesus is "not completely unsupported" but to say that people believing in it constitutes support is absurd.

I believe that Temp was saying that the fact that so many people believe in Jesus would seem to point to the fact that He does exist. After all, it is hard to get that kind of following with something that was entirely made up. Even Santa Claus had an origin. And beyond that, who Jesus is is colossally more incredible than the myth of Santa Claus: we have two very different degrees of credulity here. Obviously the fact that there is a belief is not proof positive of the contents of said belief. But it is a starting point.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: arielmessenger "There are different flavors of Christians, but they all believe that a Jesus died on the cross. That feature defines a person as Christian." Not true at all. You atheists are attacking Pauline Christian beliefs and seem not to know much of anything about the Gnostic Christian beliefs. So you create this Pauline Christian strawman who cannot logically defend himself to "prove" your points. Yet not a one of you can defeat this Gnostic Christian's accurate appraisal of your philosophy: Atheism is not scientific and never can be as it predicated on a given conclusion--no God is to be found. So in effect, the atheist is as biased against God as any fundamentalist believer is biased in favor of God. Both ideologies rest upon rejection of any contradicting facts. As for any real spectrum of atheistic beliefs I guess comparing the thousands of religious beliefs with your few atheistic differences makes your heads spin so you think there's more facets to rejection of spiritual phenomena than the main error but that's only your narcissism speaking--not reality.

Though what he said, there is as much proof for your brand of belief as there is for green men running around in the middle of Jacksonville Florida.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Muckraker So the fact that hundreds of millions of children believe in Santa is support for the existence of Santa? People believing something is true is not in the least bit evidence for the existence of that thing. I agree with your statement that the life of Jesus is "not completely unsupported" but to say that people believing in it constitutes support is absurd.

The story of Santa is perpetrated by people who have never met Santa. However, the disciples were in a unique position to have known Jesus personally. They also were unable to collude with eachother on the facts of the story when they wrote their gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all outside of Judea in seperate countries, and John was in Jerusalem. Seperated by that much space, the odds against them all getting a fantasy as well put-together are too high against them for it to be anything other than a true story. Santa stories are similar based on the fact that the story is well based in our culture. Jesus's story was not well known to most other than the pharisees, who never once denied his existence or his death. They also did not deny the empty tomb.

The next difference between the two stories is that Santa is placed in a location far from public sight, while Jesus' story is set across Judea, Samaria and Israel. All the places were inhabited or well-traveled places wherein witnesses were available.

Those are but a few of the differences between the gospel and Santa. I can list some more if you like. However, given basic rules of logic, the premises above lead to a valid conclusion that the Jesus story was true at least in his existence and the beliefs of His followers.