All Comments (228)

I would have loved to have talked to Paine and Jefferson about their beliefs. I do disagree with you however, concerning the difference between free thinkers and atheists. If a person doesn't accept the bible as truth, that person is a free thinker. A free thinker isn't dependent on the bible, therefore the free thinker is an atheist. By the way, an agnostic is an atheist too. Free thinker and agnostic are evolutionary terms for atheism. Unfortunately its still not safe to be an atheist today, so I can't sign my name. I guess we need a word that sits between agnostic and atheist.

Susan Jacoby seems to me like a nut without a meat, walking the middle road blathering nonsense. "Freethinker" is a label. So is "Christian," so is "atheist." Our human predilection to put people into categories is a basis for bigotry and fuel for intolerance, not to mention a red flag for ignorance.

What we believe doesn't matter, not even when we gather to worship our gods and idols. Ultimately, what we do is what matters. Tell me Susan, what exactly is the difference between the bible and fiction by Dan Brown or Lewis Carroll or Mark Twain? (So sorry, did you miss the word fiction?) Trying to perceive beyond anthropomorphism is very difficult, isn’t it?

No one can prove the existence or nonexistence of any god (including the semi-god Jesus). Perhaps in the future that will change, but in the meanwhile all anyone can do is place their bet and wait for the dice to roll. Some place their bet on no bones will be found, some bet snake-eyes. What amuses me is the tone of fear between the lines when Christian apologists spew their opinions.

I am surprised the forum asked such a pointless question. One could easily predict people’s answers simply based on their religious preferences, so all we get is more pointless blather.

achiever duality spall nonabstention tchai alebench sanguinification hyposternum
Julie Delpy Tribute Site
http://www.ipass.net/teara/vin.html

There is some real un-Christian behavior going on here. Where is the other cheek? Where is the Love? Meekness? Hardly much of that here. Maybe the brainwashing wasn't thorough enough.

I sense mostly lip service being paid to the notion of being an unworthy sinner. I sense Pride in being human, even though that's one of the seven deadly sins. All reasons to believe there is hope yet. If you won't put up with your beliefs being denigrated in the public forum, why accept personal denigration from any organized intermediary between you and God? I've never understood that.

Kenneth_42: "Nonsense" is, thank goodness, simply your opinion. And I'd call it a humble one. Something that doesn't appear to be true of you yourself.

"By the way, are you as relieved as I am that the Number One Pointy Hat has told us that we can stop worrying about Limbo?"

Can people disagree while being courteous? It's abundantly clear you find no reason for hiding your sarcastic contempt not just for ideas with which you disagree, but for people. Does it occur to you that you do nothing to advance your viewpoint among others by speaking in such an arrogant, belittling way? Maybe you don't care about influencing opinion. Maybe you think others (who don't happen to agree with you) are so stupid that we don't deserve a civil tongue.

Have you ever considered changing your tone? If you do, I hope others respond favorably to your intelligent, inquiring mind. But I won't be wasting my precious time listening to your insults. I'm hereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. See ya! (Kinda hope not).

I only condemn non-sense.

*** "...contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged. Does this mean
*** that germs, then, had no place in understanding of human disease? Please! They
*** did once there were detected."

This is a perfect example of scientific inquiry dispelling the need for a supernatural explanation for illness. Man learned that it isn't demon possession or being held in disfavor by the Gods. The meaning of the word "natural" was confirmed by this discovery, not "expanded" as you would have it.

*** "Just because you don't or can't perceive or measure something now, doesn't mean
*** it isn't natural."

We know that there is much to be discovered. There is every reason to expect that beyond the current horizon of our knowledge will lie more of the same natural phenomena and cause and effect we have always experienced. As there has never in history been a confirmed and proven supernatural event, there is no reason to think we will encounter anything like that in the future.

*** "...re: "continuum?" Do you imagine that all the words and concepts you use have
*** crystal-clear meanings?

Certainly not. That's why I have a dictionary and other natural knowledge sources such as yourself to draw on. There is no reason to turn to supernatural speculation.

Kenneth_42: "What would be plug into our math equations?" Please! Plug away. And I'll try not to be as insulting as some of the atheists here are by telling you in a derisive way what unimaginative, "inside-the-box" thinking I think your response represents.

I have no respect for your undisciminatng accusing of Christians for sophistry and fuzzy thinking meant to muddy the issues. And how can you judge who's "honest" and who isn't? Don't you see you come off as just as close-minded and arrogant as those you condemn?

Oh, and you were there when the word "horizon" was defined? It's a pity you seem to understand it only in a literal sense.

Please don't lump me into the category of KKK "Chrisitans" (an oxymoron) or those who participated in the Crusades.

Things that can't be measured are of no use in understanding the natural universe? Don't use see that it may be possible to expand the meaning of the word "natural?" Just because you don't or can't perceive or measure something now, doesn't mean it isn't natural. As I said in another thread, contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged. Does this mean that germs, then, had no place in understanding of human disease? Please! They did once there were detected.

"Why blur its meaning" re: "continuum?" Do you imagine that all the words and concepts you use have crystal-clear meanings? There's no blurring here...Just recognition of what's real.

Of your post, I would respectfully say, "there's nothing profound here." Mostly bigotry, which you can keep.

Atheist Bias? My experience has been that atheists, being a small and vulnerable minority, are far more likely to be respectful of other people and their "soap box" rights than are "believers". Most of the horrors visited on the human race have been imposed by people on a mission from God. From the Crusades to the KKK. Organized religious dogma and myth passed off as history or as a rational construct of reality is what doesn't deserve respect.

*** "... the distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" -- an essential point
*** being argued here -- might be considered a construct of limited human minds"

Of course it is. It is a perfectly logical distinction to include in our definitions of reality based on everyday experience and common-sense. Things that can't be perceived or measured are of no use in understanding the Universe. A claim that God created it in one way or another just begs the question. If God is part of the natural world, what symbol and value do we plug into our math equations?

*** "...Has anyone heard the saying, 'An horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight?'
*** Just because our perceptive capacities don't allow sight beyond a horizon, doesn't
*** mean there's nothing there."

Nothing profound here. We knew that there is something beyond the horizon when we defined the word as we did.

Frankly, I think that Christians are the worst for sophistry. They constantly try to fuzzy-up definitions and distinctions to cloak their non-rational argument with "logic". The honest ones I've known don't claim more than their "faith".

*** "Why should it be so hard, then, to view total reality as a kind of continuum -- some
*** of it governed by principles men and women can observe and measure, and some of
*** it not? Might such an understanding give many of us some kind of common ground?"

Any kind of continuum is something that can be measured. Why blur it's meaning? What common ground? A shared belief that the supernatural can be included as part of a rational scheme of things?

Surely you didn't think it would be that easy?

Some of the exchanges here are thoughtful, helpful and stimulating. Some are eye-popping. I can see where many of us (especially those of us who hold Christian or some other faith) would be intially drawn in to these discussions and then become really turned off. Not because we are afraid of our faith being destroyed by "evidence" submitted by atheists...Our repugnance for atheist bias, which can be just as strong as the bias exhibited by fundamentalists of any religious tradition...But due to the lack of basic respect some of this dialogue shows. And realizing that, amongst many of us, there's little way to bridge our differences.

I am not a Biblical scholar. I am not a scientist. I am ignorant by many standards here. I do wonder, though, if it's occurred to many of us that the distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" -- an essential point being argued here -- might be considered a construct of limited human minds. Has anyone heard the saying, "An horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight?" Just because our perceptive capacities don't allow sight beyond a horizon, doesn't mean there's nothing there. Contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged.

Why should it be so hard, then, to view total reality as a kind of continuum -- some of it governed by principles men and women can observe and measure, and some of it not? Might such an understanding give many of us some kind of common ground?

Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm needy ("why can't we all just get along?")...God forbid such a stance in our society! Some of the talk here reminds me of something of a very good, and very smart, minister said in a sermon at Washington Cathedral when I was a teenager: "How we cherish our enemies."

I'd like to address the comment that Ms. Jacoby made on Rand.

I don't think that she could be classified as a social Darwinist; while she did believe that society would ultimately become the best it could be with a laissez-faire approach, I think that social issues were incidental to her main idea of individual freedom. The Objectivist ethics aren't about forging an uncaring Darwinist society. They are about people not controlling other people.

*** "...The Church teaches that one can believe that evolution happened, provided
*** that we remember that, at some time, God elevated primative Man, creating
*** him with a soul."

Evolution occurs when an organism acquires a trait that helps it better adapt to its environment.
Is the Church saying that a soul came about as a result of natural selection? We came to have one and the other great apes did not? What are the advantages that would cause a soul to be a useful mutation? Is there a "soul" gene that is passed along to our offspring?

As evidenced by my numerous posts, I'm not afraid of an argument. Don't plant the flag when you haven't taken the hill. I have responded to almost all of your questions(some are too silly). I saw the futility of trying to talk sense to you after reading that you wouldn't want to spend you eternity with Love Itself, the only true, God (the other, FYI, are stone, etc.) who created you to be with Him in Heaven (the only alternative for everyone is Hell.) . Sadly, I'm not surprised that you have claimed, and most likely will continue to claim, victory. Back to reality.

I see no reason to conceal my sarcastic contempt and lack of respect for nonsense. One advantage of this attitude is that allows for a quick exit of those who need to claim personal affront in order to avoid defending a weak , circular argument. Which is understandable. None of us wants to waste any of the precious time that we have left.

Sainthood or Bust!
http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X

By the way, are you as relieved as I am that the Number One Pointy Hat has told us that we can stop worrying about Limbo?

You are truly a hateful man, who is obsessed with conspiracy theories, who is woefully ignorant of history, and woefully ignorant of the teachings and the beliefs of the Catholic Church. You obviously aren't a real atheist. You don't mind pagan worship, but despise Jesus Christ and his Church.

Your despicable ranting about mother thesesa (which are rationally baseless) and the Supreme court justices ( men who are highly regarded by the peers) is stunning. And yet, I'm to believe that atheists aren't hateful, self-important people. You've been superb example of self-deception, and self-worship. Godspeed.

*** "...He became man to save us from eternal separation from him"

Or else!

What point could there be to an eternal bond with God? What causes you to think that would be something desirable?

*** "...the most charitable group in the U.S. is Conservative Christians"

I wonder why? Any insights into what might be motivating them. What percent of their charity is going to organized religion?

***"...Michelanglo. Leonardo. Thomas More. Mother Theresa..."

Mother Theresa was a fraud. A pittance was spent on the hospice care that they provided. The young Nuns complained that rather than focusing on their wards, they were sent out onto the street to put on a dog and pony show of begging money, when the real money rolled in by the millions from all over the world.

The art and music is impressive, but was produced by talented people who would have done good work anyway. I think of the time wasted over the centuries by people on their knees talking to God, when they could have been up and about doing good for themselves and their fellow man.

The fact that organized religion has permeated our culture, society and institutions doesn't mean it's a good thing. Look at how the Catholic church controls Poland, bleeding it's treasury like a leech. Look at the direction the five Catholic Fascists on our Supreme Court are taking the country in their interference in our individual and family privacy rights.

And I don't like them buggering the children.

*** "I expected better, even from an atheist."

Surely you meant to say, "I expected better, especially from an atheist."

Is a God that wishes to be worshiped, worthy of same?

Would you worship the following hypothetical God?

He concedes that there are other gods and that he himself is jealous, one of the most petty of human traits. Yet he threatens your family for generations to come unless you choose to worship him. He demands that you pay him for your freedom from slavery. You've learned that he's wrathful, one of the Seven Deadly Sins among humans. He claims to love you but it's like the love of an earthly father who is a manic-depressive gangster.

Would you not want to see what the other gods have to offer?

"Cavemen were grunting around the campfire using the Socratic Method,as are we, long before that old fraud came along and took credit for it."

Uh huh. I don't want to know how you developed that opinion. I supposed it had to do with your grunting around your own place.

"As for the condescension; you're welcome."

I expected better, even from an atheist.

Kenneth,

This will probably be my last post, because this conversation has gone on MUCH longer than I was willing to participate.

"If man is a sinner and is nonetheless being provided for by God, he would probably feel that God held him in great esteem and found him no more unworthy than is a child. "

Slightly incorrect. God Does love man, so much so that He became man to save us from eternal separation from him. But we, of our own merits, are unworthy of him. IT is he who makes us worthy.

Unless you can show me photos of animal designing war machines, you haven't proven that they are rational.

"Doesn't stupidity worry you?"

Yes. But Catholicism isn't stupid.

"It's the cupidity and moral depravity of organized religion that I worry about. "

Such as? The efforts of Catholic Charites in third Countries is extremely beneficial. You may recall that a recent study showed that the most charitable group in the U.S. is Conservative Christians.

"Christianity is the bane of Western civilization."

Yeah. Michelanglo. Leonardo. Thomas More. Mother Theresa. These people were the bane of western civization. oh, wait a minute. They contributed to it. Western Civilization was founded on the ideals of Christianity. "The prinipal of Subsidiary" is a term which was coined by Leo XIII. You may not know, but the Electoral College, which ensures that the majority cannot trample upon the rights of the minority, is based upon the structure of the College of Cardinals, which elects the Pope. There are countless other examples.

"Optional question out of idle curiosity about your take on Genesis: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?"

The Church teaches that one can believe that evolution happened, provided that we remember that, at some time, God elevated primative Man, creating him with a soul.

I think that there is nothing to be gained, on either side, from further discussion. You obviously have a deep-seated problem with Christianity, and must find a way to overcome your distaste for it.

Goodbye and God Bless.

*** "...seems arrogant of you to dismiss thousands of years of philosophy from the likes of
*** Socrates..."

*** "...You've only ingored my answers to you, and attacked religious people as
*** irrational (even evil), and condescendingly told me time and again that you
*** want to save me from me stupidity"

Cavemen were grunting around the campfire using the Socratic Method, as are we, long before that old fraud came along and took credit for it. As for the condescension; you're welcome.

If man is a sinner and is nonetheless being provided for by God, he would probably feel that God held him in great esteem and found him no more unworthy than is a child. Why think any differently? Organized religion lays on the guilt trip in order to defraud the suckers of as much of God's bounty as it can. Ten percent minimum.

*** "...Are you blaming nature for murderers?"

Who made Hitler? I don't confuse sin and law-breaking.

In your opinion, can a non-theist live a noble and ethical life observing widely accepted moral precepts and be left alone after he dies, or must he be brought to God's judgment?

*** "...If they did [contemplate the concept of payback], don't you think that they would've
*** rebelled against us?"

Have you noticed in the news all the berserk elephants killing their handlers? Remember Moby Dick?

http://www.amazon.com/Loss-Essex-Whale-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140437967
"Book Description
In 1820, the Nantucket whaleship Essex, thousands of miles from home in the South Pacific, was rammed by an angry sperm whale. The Essex sank, leaving twenty crew members floating in three small boats for ninety days. The incident was the Titanic story of its day, and provided the inspiration for Melville's Moby-Dick. The Narrative of the Wreck of the Whaleship Essex, by the ship's first mate, Owen Chase, has long been the fundamental account of the Essex's doomed voyage. But in 1980, a new account of the disaster was discovered, penned by Thomas Nickerson, the fifteen-year-old cabin boy who was steering the ship when the whale attacked. Now, Nickerson's harrowing tale can be read alongside Chase's in one authoritative edition, which includes more than a dozen other accounts from articles and newspapers, many of which have never appeared in book form."

*** "...If you think that Christianity is so stupid, why are you so worried about it? Perhaps you
*** don't really think it is."

Doesn't stupidity worry you? It's the cupidity and moral depravity of organized religion that I worry about. Christianity is the bane of Western civilization. We have barely advanced more than the poor Arabs and Indonesians, mired in the Middle Ages under the yoke of Islam.

Optional question out of idle curiosity about your take on Genesis: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

"*** "The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual."

"It shows that he is curious. God is a metaphor for "All that is Unknown". "

That is silly. curiousity doesn't cause one to believe in God. Great thinkers have believed in him, and wern't convinced of his existence because of curiousity. You are naive to think that curiousity caused belief in God. Is seems arrogant of you to dismiss thousands of years of philosophy from the likes of Socrates, etc, and hold your own wisdom in such high regard. Do you think that you have discovered the truth, when brilliant men who devoted their lives to learning the truth came to believe in God?

You really haven't given answers to my arguments. You've only ingored my answers to you, and attacked religious people as irrational (even evil), and condescendingly told me time and again that you want to save me from me stupidity. If you think that Christianity is so stupid, why are you so worried about it? Perhaps you don't really think it is.

God Bless you.

"If God were a part of the natural world he could be measured as anything else in our world can be."

he isn't prat of the world. He is out side of it. He created it. being natural isn't being created.

"If this all seems rather silly, remember it's your premise."

It's your misinterpretation of my words.

"How do you know that whales and elephants don't have abstract thoughts? How do you know they don't hold to a concept of justice in which God will someday punish Man for his predation?"

Let's see. If they did, don't you think that they would've rebelled against us? Don't you think that researchers would've seen monkees praying by now? Really, some of this is very amusing to me.

" Gorillas can be taught to use our language machines to talk to us."

Gorillas can's design or build bridges. They cannot imagine abstract thing. they base their lives only on what they can see, kinda like you ;)While machines can talk to us, they are incapable of willing anything, or of choosing to do something which they haven't learned from man.

"... what logic would cause a believer to think he is unworthy of what God has provided?"

Men are unworthy of God because men are sinners. If you don't believe in sin or in sinners, what do you think Hitler did and Hitler was? If we are just highly intelligent animals, then we will always operate according to our nature. It is not natural to murder, but thousands (if not millions) have done so. Are you blaming nature for murderers?

"This is not necessarily true but so what if it is for some? "

You say that only arrogant people believe in God. I say that only humble people can truly believe in God, and that only arrogant people can truly not believe in Him, and thereby hail themselves as the highest intelligence.

This conversation has been stimulating, but no matter what evidence I present, both logical and philosophical, I cannot force someone to accept what I know to be true. God Bless you, and keep you.

If God were a part of the natural world he could be measured as anything else in our world can be. Since the natural world began with the Big Bang, your argument would imply that God did not exist until that event occurred. If such a God existed prior to the Big Bang as a natural part of a material world, what was he composed of? It couldn't be the stuff of the material world since that is not yet created. If this all seems rather silly, remember it's your premise.

How do you know that whales and elephants don't have abstract thoughts? How do you know they don't hold to a concept of justice in which God will someday punish Man for his predation? They manifest love. Gorillas can be taught to use our language machines to talk to us. If a monkey was praying, how would you tell? Maybe they are praying for success when they use tools to catch ants to eat.

You shouldn't mix your dogma and your logic. Except for brainwashing by organized religious cults, what logic would cause a believer to think he is unworthy of what God has provided? The cults are like the Army or Communists; they must break down the recruit and convince him that he can only be rehabilitated through them.

*** "The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual."

It shows that he is curious. God is a metaphor for "All that is Unknown".

*** "Those who refused to believe in a power higher than themselves, in a wisdom greater than their own, are prideful.".

This is not necessarily true but so what if it is for some?

Kenneth,

"you grasp the supernatural solution, which is the least likely based on our experience. "

I have not experienced death. Yet it happens. It is not a supernatural solution. It is natural. You seem to think the believers are a bunch of failures who seek to comfort themselves with the thought of an afterlife.

Infinite regress, such as "Z was caused by X was caused by Y was caused by W", presents an infinite line of zeros. None of these has existence of itself. They must have recieved existence from a being who IS existence. This is NOT a supernatural explanation. God is a natural Being.

Even the inanimate universe exists. The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual. Animals can't consider the abstract. Yet man can. All creatures operate according to their nature. Have you ever seen a monkey pray?

"In part, man created God because of his own inflated opinion of himself. "If someone as smart as I can't explain things, then it must be the work of Gods." "

Believing in God is NOT prideful. Those who do must admit that they have received EVERYTHING from him, and are unworthy of it.

Those who refused to believe in a power higher than themselves, in a wisdom greater than their own, are prideful.

Nonsensical answers for nonsensical questions.

The fundamental problem with your logic is that when faced with a question that our body of human knowledge can't yet answer, you grasp the supernatural solution, which is the least likely based on our experience. Less and less a God is needed to explain things. Thunder and lightning for example.

There simply is no evidence to support your claim that life can only have a supernatural origin. Your claim that "...If life exist today, then it always existed..." is easily refuted. Life did not exist in the early universe because it's needed elements had not yet been synthesized in supernova and other processes. It arose through a process that is not yet fully understood. But we learn more every day.

The claim that the proof that God created life is the life itself is circular and absurd on the face of it. If you include a supernatural domino you ultimately have to explain where it came from.

In part, man created God because of his own inflated opinion of himself. "If someone as smart as I can't explain things, then it must be the work of Gods."

Correction: if one were to assume that every thing was caused by something else, [and thereby] exclude the possibility of a Supreme Being, then one would have to believe in an endless domino effect, and an unceasing, yet (according to you) uncaused evolution."

"Existence from non-existence? Sure, non-existence is where babies come from."

Babies rise from the life of the father and the mother. It is impossible for a baby to mature inside a dead woman, or be concieved by a dead man.

""Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?" Certainly. It was the state of affairs until infinite time and quantum mechanics combined to yield the Big Bang."

There is no such thing as 'infinite time.' It is contradictory. Time has a beginning and an end.
Matter and anti-matter didn't always exist. No scientist will tell you that. Therfore, it was brought into being.

"If you are reaching the conclusion that a supernatural supreme being exists based on faith rather than evidence,"

The evidence is the existence of life. If life exist today, then it always existed. It once there was no life, then there would be no possibility for life to ever be. Therefore, A self-existing Being who is uncreated Life itself, the source of all other life, MUST exist.

"All life that adapts to it's environment is intelligent. Can sentient live evolve? Yes, it clearly has."

That doesn't deny that an intelligent being caused the evolution. In the beginning, evolution had a cause. This is indisputable. if one were to assume that every thing was caused by something else, but exclude the possibility of a Supreme Being, then one would have to believe in an endless domino effect, and an unceasing, yet (according to you) uncaused evolution. It makes no sense.

*** "You are essentially saying that as long as I believe in a Supreme Being, I am irrational."

If you are reaching the conclusion that a supernatural supreme being exists based on faith rather than evidence, then yes, your belief is not based on reason and is by definition as irrational as buying land in Florida sight unseen.

The insult is that you seem to think that an adult unbeliever might be gullible enough to accept such untestable nonsense with a straight face.

Existence from non-existence? Sure, non-existence is where babies come from.

Life rise from nothing? I doubt it. I do think it's likely to evolve almost anywhere that warm water is found in the Universe .

"Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?" Certainly. It was the state of affairs until infinite time and quantum mechanics combined to yield the Big Bang.

All life that adapts to it's environment is intelligent. Can sentient live evolve? Yes, it clearly has.

Kenneth,

"Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness? A hell in and of itself. "

You think of Eternity as in a time continuem. Eternal Means outside of time. Unchanging. One can't be bored outside of a series of 'time-bound', chronological events.

"My only goal is to help the rational person inside you de-program your mind of that self-serving supernaturalistic nonsense that has you in its grip."

You are essentially saying that as long as I believe in a Supreme Being, I am irrational. Don't you think that's sounds insulting? Where did you get the idea that one can persaude another to agree with him by immediately saying his idea is logically backrupt? At least be respectful.

I'd like you to asnwer this questions: can existence rise from non-existence? Can life come rise from nothing? Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?
Can intelligent life rise from life that was unintelligent? (even in Evolution, God would be the original intelligence which caused the evolution of an unintelligent life into intelligent life)

See, you've got me spouting self-contradictory drivel..."Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness?"

That should say: I've never heard a coherent argument for eternal life.

DAVID B., I try to avoid ad hominem attacks for the usual reasons. It's usually an indicator of a weak argument on the issue at hand. It invites retaliation, and I live in a glass house.

I do judge your arguments and beliefs but I'd never presume to pass judgment on you personally.
My only goal is to help the rational person inside you de-program your mind of that self-serving supernaturalistic nonsense that has you in its grip. Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness? A hell in and of itself.

Might you rephrase your comment about non-believers fear to take responsibility for their actions? I can't figure out what you mean by that.

And now it comes. I was glad to see that you, unlike many others, were not engaging in personal attacks. You can't judge me. You don't know that my belief in God comes from fear of destruction. I love Jesus Christ. Why shouldn't I? He became man, (though he could've saved men in may other ways) suffered humiliation and death, and grants Eternal life to those who know, love, and serve him. What did I do to deserve that? Nothing. I sinned against him, wounded myself and others, and often rejected his grace. I do not serve God out of fear of hell. I serve Him out of love for Him. I think that many (I'm not judging you) who disbelieve God's existance are afraid of taking responibility for their actions.

The number of historians who dispute the existence of Jesus Christ or the historicity of the Gospels are in the extreme minority. But for some, no amount of evidence will suffice.

ANONYMOUS, you and so many others have been the victims of an elaborate con game. It was conceived originally by the earliest shamans and has changed little in its iterations over the millenia.

"Con" is short for "confidence". Some victims of a con game have put so much faith and trust in the con man that they refuse to accept that they have been duped, even though their pockets have been emptied.

Con men coined the phrase, "you can't cheat an honest man". That's because the con only works on the greedy. Greedy for money usually, but greed for salvation makes it work even better. In that case, the old saying among the con-man priests is, "you can't cheat a rational man".

And the con works the very best when it's run on children. But any frightened person looking for something as pointless and irrational as immortality makes a good mark.

David B.:

"I'd like those who point to books written by 'learned' men, who say that Jesus didn't exist..."

Take a deep breath, pal. Saying there is no historical evidence that Christ existed is not the same thing as saying he didn't exist.

Of course, when the lack of evidence keeps piling up....

Sorry. Try this for Josephus on Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporaries of Jesus. At best it can only be argued that they are reporting the claims of late 1st and early 2nd Chrisians who never knew Jesus. They are unreliable. Read on in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum.

Your fractured logic concerning the implications of similarities between pre-existing God-man myth and the "Jesus" story is hilarious. The early "Christian Fathers" attributed it to a mischievous dirty trick by the Devil.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't find a shred of hard evidence?

Kenneth_42,

"What do you make of the fact that the Vatican sits atop the Temple of Mithra, granted to The RC church by the Emperor around 300 ad."

I think it was a nice.

" Are you aware that Mithra is a Persian god worshipped thousands of years before Jesus who has the same biography as this most recent iteration of the God-man myth?"

That merely illustrates who the idea of God becoming man wasn't foreign or unimaginable(though only Jesus ever claimed to save men for thier sins). It actually makes the case for Jesus existence. Jesus Claimed to be God. Unlike the pagan gods, he existed and proved that he is God.

Since you trust Wikipedia, I, too, shall quote from the website:

"Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[33] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[34] though a few have raised doubts.[35]

"More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

More:

"Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

"Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings." "

CHIP, you said, "...My mom is an excellent example of someone I consider to be a typical religious person. She enjoys comparing beliefs with me but when I raise logical inconsistencies, biblical contradictions, questions of historicity, ethical considerations, and so on, they are invariably things she's never considered before...."

It was the same with my mom until one day she looked at me and said matter-of-factly, "Don't destroy my faith." We never spoke of it again.

She was a well adjusted person who enjoyed life but I believe the organized religion thing (Protestant) increased her death anxiety rather than mitigating it. Deep down she knew, as do most, I think, that she was choosing to believe in an Adult Santa Clause world. Her normal ego and sense of self-worth and uniqueness convinced her that the death without immortality of such a special creature would be an unthinkable tragedy. Her intelligence and rationally that she routinely used in all other matters tried to give her the truth but she repressed them. The conflict created anxiety. She was less able to just relax and enjoy the magic for as long as it lasts. And that is the real tragedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome
"The first large-scale catacombs were excavated from the 2nd century onwards" - wikipedia.

What do you make of the fact that the Vatican sits atop the Temple of Mithra, granted to The RC church by the Emperor around 300 ad. Are you aware that Mithra is a Persian god worshipped thousands of years before Jesus who has the same biography as this most recent iteration of the God-man myth? Virgin birth on the Winter Solstice, twelve disciples, same mission, executed and arisen three days later. Check out the biographical details of the other ancient God-men, Horus, Isis-Osiris, Budda, Vishnu, et al. If you've been thinking that "Jesus" was the first God-man with that story, then I'd suggest you be sitting down when you inform yourself.

You didn't answer the question. Without playing "Dueling Scholars", are you aware of any direct evidence?

You said, "The writings of the time indicate that persecution of the followers of Jesus continued after his death". What writings?

"who tortured the hundreds? When, where? Romans? Where are the interrogation records? Where are stories the Roman soldiers carried home and wrote into their memoirs? "

I did not mean to say that all of the first disciples were martyred. St. Paul was martyred, and all but one of the apostles (John) were slain. I can't believe you seriously doubt the facts of the matter. The Persecution of the Christians started immediately upon their appearance. The writings of the time indicate that persecution of the followers of Jesus continued after his death. This is not disputed.

"How is it that none of the hundreds built a shrine, inscribed odes on pottery, wrote a song or left any evidence whatsoever that such an unusual and noteworthy event occurred?"

The catacombs in Rome have many depictions of Christ which go back 2,000 Years.

"Have you aware of ANY piece of archeological evidence of Jesus, his mother, his father or any of the twelve disciples? "

You ARE kidding, right? Virtually NO reputable scholar disputes tha Jesus existed here on earth.

In addition, ANONYMOUS, who tortured the hundreds? When, where? Romans? Where are the interrogation records? Where are stories the Roman soldiers carried home and wrote into their memoirs?

ANONYMOUS,

*** ..."How could twelve men (most of whom who were uneducated) invent such a Man as
*** Jesus?"

The same pagan stories had been around for millenia. What was there to invent?

*** ..."Secondly, how, (if in the extreme case that they did lie) could it be that
*** not ONE of the hundreds who said that they saw Jesus after the Resurrection
*** did NOT cave under torture and death threats, and reveal the truth?

How is it that none of the hundreds built a shrine, inscribed odes on pottery, wrote a song or left any evidence whatsoever that such an unusual and noteworthy event occurred?

Have you aware of ANY piece of archeological evidence of Jesus, his mother, his father or any of the twelve disciples?

Questioning the truthfulness of writings does go both ways. I'd like those who point to books written by 'learned' men, who say that Jesus didn't exist (respectable scholars don't say such things), or that Jesus didn't rise from dead, to please assure me that these men aren't lying. (the only way to be sure it to martyr them. Thankfully, that is illegal.)

"Regardless of whether one views Jesus as a good teacher and a historical figure (as I do); "

As C.S. lewis pointed out, this is a silly statement. Jesus proclaimed Himself the Son of God. If this isn't true, then he was either a deceiver(and therefore wicked. But how could such wisdom, Love, and knowledge be convincingly taught by an evil man?)or a lunatic (which isn't possible. Lunatics aren't effective preachers. Their insanity shows through).

Therefore, the only possibility for those who wish to deny Jesus' Divinity MUST be that the apostles were liars. Think about this for a moment: How could twelve men (most of whom who were uneducated) invent such a Man as Jesus? Secondly, how, (if in the extreme case that they did lie) could it be that not ONE of the hundreds who said that they saw Jesus after the Resurrection did NOT cave under torture and death threats, and reveal the truth?

I will let you give the answer.

"The Pope was offended because the idea of a married Jesus vitiates the Catholic Church's defense of a celibate priesthood. If Jesus was married, it surely follows that it is all right for priests to marry as well."

That isn't the only reason he was 'upset.' By virtue of the Hypostatic Union, every fiber of Jesus' body is part of His Divine Nature. Therefore, if he had fathered a child, the child would have been "part" Divine and "part" human, which is logically impossible.

" Perhaps that dates back to the beginning, maybe because his followers were shocked that he was reported to die such a horrible death -- so much so that they had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves. "

Bull. They didn't believe he rose even when mary told them. Suppose, for a moment, that they DID. Wouldn't ONE of them 'wake up' and tell the truth?

Just thought I would pitch something in here. First off the word Virgin in the time period of the bible specifically referred to an unwed or unattached woman, so YES Mary was a Virgin for the birth of Jesus. Secondly, I thought that one had to be married in order to become a Jewish Rabbi at that time. If that was the case, and I believe (not positive) that Jesus was a Rabbi, then he was married. If I am wrong please let me know and give me the references that show this. I myself am not Christian but I enjoy the study of faith and am working on a Degree therein. Peace to All.

BTW: I know that my First point is a FACT. It is the second I am unsure about.

Oops. My thanks go to EFavorite, not to Chip. Thanks, E.

Chip:

"[I]n 41-65AD I'm pretty sure the terms Christian wasn't used - they were Jews who were followers of Jesus."

You're probably right. Thanks.

My post: "realm of Tiberius" should have been "reign of Tiberius."

My theory is that Mary was abducted by beings of higher intelligence from another world. Her insemination could explain the virgin birth and her son Jesus could have inheritied his higher powers from the paternal side of his gene pool.
In any case, this man or the legend of this man who is/was the best teacher has made a major positive impact on the world and it is sad that there are now those like Robertson, Dobson, Falwell et. al. who now use his name to spew their exclusion and hatred.