I DO doubt that, in an age awash in miracles and superstition and messiahs, this one particular fellow was the real deal. …particularly since THIS messiah shared soooo many narrative features of many previous deistic fables.

Or, you could read literature that states otherwise… “The Jesus Legend” is one such book you could try…

One might naturally think - “Did Jesus really come back to life…??” -
valid question … and this really amounts to “Myth” to a lot of people… the fact that Jesus was crucified however, isn’t so controversial(fair enough)- let me bring up another question to investigate this..

What happened to Jesus’ disciples?? We know that they all deserted Jesus when he was being crucified… So if Jesus died - all these guys who were literally running out of fear, should have denounced their faith and gone back to fishing, tax collecting …

But they all faced death as martyrs… What happened between the events of them denying Christ,while He was being crucified, and their own deaths?? It was because of what they Witnessed (In case of Thomas - Touched… )…

How do you expect the world to leave Medical research (Or for that matter - anything) into your hands…??

As a Christian; I presume that you do not believe that Mohamed was the last prophet (superseding Jesus’ as the most authoritative messenger of God). I also presume that you do not believe in all the Hindu gods (Shiva, Krishna, Brahma, etc, etc). If practitioners of these other religions ask that you come to their religion, you would need some evidence of their validity. If practitioners of these other religions will gleefully kill and demand respect for their beliefs; you would require some evidence of their validity. You, nor anyone else, can disprove the existence of Mohamed or the Hindu gods…and that is my point. The non-believer cannot be asked to disprove your god and to ask someone to believe in your god based on dogma is ridiculous.

Let me make something very clear. I don’t care what anyone believes. Believing in either the Christian narrative, or hanging your hat on Dianetics is not a thought crime. Everyone has their methods that make the world work for them. My only problem is when society (as a whole) is demanded to adopt the values of their belief system without evidence.

In our secular society, we cannot allow religion to dictate appropriate medical research, dumb down science education, or otherwise dictate public policy. If one has an opinion on matters such as these, the argument has to be framed in universal values…not the values of mythology.

Furthermore: I find the mode of thought invalid, yet fully support the right of an individual to believe what they want. It does not demand that (nor should I) I respect that belief system if it creates victims or divisions in society…which religion is uniquely suited to do.

Have a good day.

let me rephrase this…

“Since I don’t know what unicorn’s are (And in some ways I do not care to find out) - I SHOULD/CAN not try to refute their existence”

so for you..

“Since I don’t know what God is (And in some ways I do not care to find out) - I SHOULD/CAN not try to refute His existence”

so in ways u are right, and we agree in PART … You cannot and need not refute the existence of God… but then what is this whole discussion about then? Do you agree that atheism does not need to prove God does not exist? If you agree

About rationality - its genuine humor to find people following what i call “Recently Updated Rationality” .. So “Plato” (Please do not start a literal debate on Plato -He is just an example taken from another age/time… was just as lost as You, and would be just as lost as someone 2000 years from now (if we survive) …

so whats the point in all this??? what gives the “rational” the arrogance of proof… if its ever-changing…??

I only offered the “stone tablet” analogy as representing some immovable, absolute reference. In real life, on most every topic, no such reference exists…nor should it exist. A reference that does not change in the light of improved knowledge becomes that most insidious of things….dogma. We should always apply our best and most current knowledge to arrive at the our positions. Some might call that flip-flopping or waffling. I call it pragmatic.