There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Colt]

This is the one area where believers make testable claims. Usually, they simply say that God is undetectable so we needn't bother to look for a god, but here they've claimed that their god DOES modify reality if prayed to, which claim has been falsified.

Not in Christianity.

Sure you can. As you've been told, it's been done.

Good sense is also called critical thought. Bringing good sense to the matter doesn't work out well for faith-based systems of belief.

And if "God" doesn't exist, then what you are calling God's ways are the ways of other people, most of whom aren't very wise or knowing, and who don't care about you or me - only this imagined god and what they have been told (and believed) that it wants. Look at what's being reported by believers as God's ways on this thread. People have guessed that they are better ideas than they are because they believe they come from a god, which is the whole point of speaking through the voice of an alleged god. People stop thinking and simply obey. Mission accomplished.

How good a plan is that if this god doesn't exist? The church taught that kings were sitting on their thrones because God willed it, and God knows what's best for us. Humanism teaches that man must decide such issues. We've seen the fruits of each approach. The powerless serf and subject of the Middle ages was replaced by the autonomous citizen with a vote and guaranteed personal rights and freedoms.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches otherwise. It says to stand down, little man. Accept your lot. Meekness is blessed. Longsuffering is divine. If smitten, give your abuser the other cheek. Your reward comes after death. They promise!

My tradition, humanism, said no to this door-mattery, and took up arms against an abusive king. This was the beginning of modernity -the rejection of such books and their received "wisdom."

I went into Christianity thinking that the doctrine made no sense, but I suspended disbelief for several years. That never changed. Once it became clear that Christianity couldn't deliver on its promises, I returned to atheism. I concluded that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist. Does that story support or contradict you?

What a burden they've saddled the believer with - the belief that he needs salvation. If you accept that - and why would you? - they own you.

We call that promise of a great reward following death pie-in-the-sky, the promise that cannot be made in good faith or guaranteed, the promise that cannot be verified, and the promise that need not be kept to continue enticing people to conform generation after generation for some pie.

That's your model for forgiveness? There is nothing admirable about forgiving people as they kill you.

Besides, she's free now - free of that dreadful religion. And forgiveness is overrated if it means anything more than disengaging and moving on. Why forgive anything without a sincere expression of remorse, which is different from mere regret? You paint this picture of people burning with anger and rotting from the inside out because that which they disdained once they still disdain.

Maybe that's been your personal experience, but it's not been mine. The people I actively despised for a time are now people that I merely disrespect and avoid, and my rejection of them and what they stood for is wholesome and nurturing, not destructive. One was a former faithless girlfriend and employee who embezzled from me over thirty years ago. It didn't work out well for her, and it was at my hand.

Am I burning inside because of it? No. I'm still triumphantly telling the story. I still consider her vermin, but only when I think about her, and it gives me satisfaction. I'm sure you disapprove, but you have a different sense of how that feels and how it affects life thereafter and are bound to respect somebody else's values for you - value that serve them, not you (see the Sermon on the Mount discussion above).

I hope she continues to share her story whenever appropriate. Hopefully, she has saved copies of her posts for future cut-and-paste.

I support her choice. It's done her good, and it's helped others understand Christianity in ways you won't get from believers. And she's happy.

This is like the blowback from Trump supporters, who will do anything to inhibit unflattering discourse about Trump, hence "Trump derangement syndrome" and "living in your head rent-free." It's intended to embarrass and inhibit those who express their righteous indignation at that failure of a life. But the argument is impotent there, too.

A person doesn't "need salvation". Its their choice to continue on after death or destroy themselves.

"Material mind is the arena in which human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, choose God or forsake him, eternalize or destroy themselves.

Material evolution has provided you a life machine, your body; the Father himself has endowed you with the purest spirit reality known in the universe, your Thought Adjuster. But into your hands, subject to your own decisions, has been given mind, and it is by mind that you live or die. It is within this mind and with this mind that you make those moral decisions which enable you to achieve Adjusterlikeness, and that is Godlikeness.

Mortal mind is a temporary intellect system loaned to human beings for use during a material lifetime, and as they use this mind, they are either accepting or rejecting the potential of eternal existence. Mind is about all you have of universe reality that is subject to your will, and the soul—the morontia self—will faithfully portray the harvest of the temporal decisions which the mortal self is making. Human consciousness rests gently upon the electrochemical mechanism below and delicately touches the spirit-morontia energy system above. Of neither of these two systems is the human being ever completely conscious in his mortal life; therefore must he work in mind, of which he is conscious. And it is not so much what mind comprehends as what mind desires to comprehend that insures survival; it is not so much what mind is like as what mind is striving to be like that constitutes spirit identification. It is not so much that man is conscious of God as that man yearns for God that results in universe ascension. What you are today is not so important as what you are becoming day by day and in eternity.

Mind is the cosmic instrument on which the human will can play the discords of destruction, or upon which this same human will can bring forth the exquisite melodies of God identification and consequent eternal survival. The Adjuster bestowed upon man is, in the last analysis, impervious to evil and incapable of sin, but mortal mind can actually be twisted, distorted, and rendered evil and ugly by the sinful machinations of a perverse and self-seeking human will. Likewise can this mind be made noble, beautiful, true, and good—actually great—in accordance with the spirit-illuminated will of a God-knowing human being." UB 1955 IMOP

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Sermon on the Mount teaches otherwise. It says to stand down, little man. Accept your lot. Meekness is blessed. Longsuffering is divine. If smitten, give your abuser the other cheek. Your reward comes after death. They promise!

Qualities the Romans would have loved to see in their conquered subjects, which is probably why they had a lot to do with the formation of Jesus' philosophy of meekness and turn the other cheek.

Agreed. That passage is undoubtedly what made this religion appeal to Constantine. The believers see those passages as beautiful and loving, but they're not. I see it as I described it. So did Napoleon. What better statement of what the people teaching these thing actually have in mind for those who will take their advice than this? :

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I'm particularly fond of this quote from Ghandi,

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”​

I like the Gandhi quote too, and I like this quote by Brendan Manning as well: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's your model for forgiveness? There is nothing admirable about forgiving people as they kill you.

Besides, she's free now - free of that dreadful religion. And forgiveness is overrated if it means anything more than disengaging and moving on. Why forgive anything without a sincere expression of remorse, which is different from mere regret? You paint this picture of people burning with anger and rotting from the inside out because that which they disdained once they still disdain.

Maybe that's been your personal experience, but it's not been mine. The people I actively despised for a time are now people that I merely disrespect and avoid, and my rejection of them and what they stood for is wholesome and nurturing, not destructive. One was a former faithless girlfriend and employee who embezzled from me over thirty years ago. It didn't work out well for her, and it was at my hand.

Am I burning inside because of it? No. I'm still triumphantly telling the story. I still consider her vermin, but only when I think about her, and it gives me satisfaction. I'm sure you disapprove, but you have a different sense of how that feels and how it affects life thereafter and are bound to respect somebody else's values for you - value that serve them, not you (see the Sermon on the Mount discussion above).

I hope she continues to share her story whenever appropriate. Hopefully, she has saved copies of her posts for future cut-and-paste.

I support her choice. It's done her good, and it's helped others understand Christianity in ways you won't get from believers. And she's happy.

This is like the blowback from Trump supporters, who will do anything to inhibit unflattering discourse about Trump, hence "Trump derangement syndrome" and "living in your head rent-free." It's intended to embarrass and inhibit those who express their righteous indignation at that failure of a life. But the argument is impotent there, too.

Thank you, my friend. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Windwalker]

We'll have to agree to disagree, wind. The best relationships I've seen do not involve diversity. A classical music lover can never be happy with a hard rock teenybopper. But this is miles off the topic of the thread.

So, when you read that article I link to explaining the difference between unity and uniformity, what did you think? Do you "agree to disagree" with that as well?

BTW, I loathe that saying. You cannot speak for the other person and say "we agree to disagree". It's a really patronizing thing to say to someone who has not agreed to this, to speak for them. I don't agree. You are simply in error. But I suspect in most cases, those who say this say so in order to not have to seriously examine their views. It's a cop out, in other words.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Without doubting your experiences, my own are very different. I had a "rush of religion to the head" some years ago, and attended a United Methodist church for many years. (I got better!).

I found that people like that were conspicuously absent from those I knew. Mainly they were good hearted folks that concentrated on the more loving side of Jesus. There's a saying that men create god in their own image (reversing the Bible quote). To sum it up, people have their own natural feelings about what is good, and find a church that reflects those feelings. This applies to both the Christians that made your life so miserable and those that I knew. If you are filled with love, you will gravitate to a church, and set of beliefs, that you feel comfortable with. There, the loving side of your nature will be supported and validated. If you are hate filled you will find a church that tells you that god is hateful and wants you to be the same.

I know a few Christians who are genuinely kind and decent people who strive to live what they profess, but based on my interactions with Christians over the years, I consider them to be the exception rather than the rule. My beloved husband of thirty-and-a half years is one of these kind-hearted Christians.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know a few Christians who are genuinely kind and decent people who strive to live what they profess, but based on my interactions with Christians over the years, I consider them to be the exception rather than the rule. My beloved husband of thirty-and-a half years is one of them.

My wife is the same.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

My wife is the same.

I can honestly say that I would absolutely detest Christians if it weren't for my husband and the few other kind-hearted Christians I know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can honestly say that I would absolutely detest Christians if it weren't for my husband and the few other kind-hearted Christians I know.

Well, I am from one of the most non-religious countries in the world, so religion is not that big of a deal. I get it is different in other parts of the world, but the majority of our problems are secular.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Because we have free will as individuals, as religions, as governments etc. Human wisdom must evolve. God didn't even inter fear with the Lucifer rebellion becuse he was afforded time to repent.

For many Christians their faith in God is greater than their knowledge of the scripture books.

Free will again. Can't escape it. Calvin be damned.

 

[Trailblazer]

And if "God" doesn't exist, then what you are calling God's ways are the ways of other people, most of whom aren't very wise or knowing, and who don't care about you or me - only this imagined god and what they have been told (and believed) that it wants.

I don't have to worry about that because I know that God exists. Some of what people are calling 'God's ways' are ways of other people, since most of whom aren't very wise or knowing, since they misinterpreted the scriptures, created false doctrines, and thus they imagine things that are not true, such as our need for salvation. Saved from what?

How good a plan is that if this god doesn't exist?

Again, I don't have to worry about that since I know that God exists.
How good is your plan if God exists?

The church taught that kings were sitting on their thrones because God willed it, and God knows what's best for us.

I don't care what the Church taught, because not only was it false, it is now old news. Why are we still talking about old news?

I went into Christianity thinking that the doctrine made no sense, but I suspended disbelief for several years. That never changed. Once it became clear that Christianity couldn't deliver on its promises, I returned to atheism. I concluded that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist.

Why would you 'go into Christianity' if you thought the doctrine made no sense? I was never a Christian and I cannot see myself having ever been one.
You were an atheist, then a Christian, then 'returned' to atheism? That's a new one on me. I thought most Christians were raised as Christians.
I know some Christians who were 'born again' in adulthood, but they stayed with Christianity.

Does that story support or contradict you?

That's your story and it is different from my story. It neither supports of contradicts me.
I was an atheist who became a Baha'i and I remained a Baha'i. I never had anything to do with Christianity.

 

[dybmh]

If you read the whole thread then you know my whole objection with Christianity is that Christianity is built on a non-existent man god that churchmen tried to turn into a human being to appease the people they were trying to appeal to. They erected all sorts of false doctrines such as salvation by faith, purgatory and "believe in Jesus or go to hell for eternity" to entice or bludgeon people into joining their faith. After they grew powerful the bludgeoning turned into actual threats of death if pagans didn't join. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's nothing honest about Christianity--all their doctrine is manufactured exclusively to benefit them and not their constituents. So of course they exaggerated and outright lied in the gospels--because it served their purpose. It was never about saving people; it was ALWAYS about accumulating wealth and power for themselves. Most of them didn't believe in Jesus, anyway. He was just an avatar tool to further their own ends, a figurehead to identify themselves.

I think you'll find that your objections were added by the epistles and revelations? The enticing of followers, yeah, I hear ya. But, again, that comes after. The exaggerated promises, moving mountains, you can ask for anything and get it, look what I did to figgy-tree, you can do that too, exorcising demons, etc... All of that was spoken and promised to a specific small group. Not to everyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong though. Are we talking about the gospels, or are we talking about the ones who setup the recruitment operation. I don't think they're the same. IF they were the same, then those doctrins you mentioned would be in the gospels, an there wouldn't be the debate that exists among Christians.

 

[dybmh]

????????

You introduced a 2006 study which was supposed to disprove prayer as effective for faith healing. The study did not test prayer, it tested something closer to witchcraft by treating God like a light switch that can be turned on or off. People don't realize that.

Another poster tried to enlighten you to this and said, "you can't test prayer". You asked why not. I explained to you that prayer is supposed to be an appeal to God's will, and if God permitted a person's words to react in a testable way, then the person becomes the god, and God becomes the servant, and that will not be permitted.

Then you objected citing the promise made by Jesus ( to whom????? was that to everyone???? was it even to a large group????? ) that anything asked for would be fulfilled, and you said, and I quote: "I don't see anything in there about asking for God's will to be done."

Well, sure, you're looking in the wrong place. And I'm kind of surprised that I need to point this out to you. That quote you;re using to justify "I should get anything I want", is not prayer. Let me say that again. It's not how Jesus instructed to pray. Prayer is defined clearly and explicitly. Its supopsed to be simple, it's supposed to be short. And it literally says, "Thy will be done."

So you can't say that there is nothing in the gospels, that instructs how to pray, and that appealing to God's will is not specified.

9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Matthew 6. This ^^ is how you should pray. No asking for anything except the simple essentials for that one day. Ask for forgiveness, ask for distance from temptation and the evil one. That's all.

Now, as an ex-fundemantalist, sure, it's hard to stomach the idea that all those Christians who want to use God like a credit-card are wrong. But, you have been arguing along those lines already. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that people are going to want all that power and glory that was promised to the disciples to be bestowed on them. And IF there are dark forces, then... well.... that explains quite a lot too doesn't it. Once a person makes their currency known, all that's needed is for something to swoop along and offer it, pretend to be holy, pretend to be Jesus, an angel of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.), and start handing out stuff. It's easy to corrupt people if you know their price. And almost everyone's got a price.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can honestly say that I would absolutely detest Christians if it weren't for my husband and the few other kind-hearted Christians I know.

All the Christians I have known were good people who really lived according to the teachings of Jesus. That includes the two bosses I have had during the last 13 years and all my coworkers who were Christians. I never went to Church since I am not a Christian, but I have been attending a GriefShare group at a local church since last February. The attendees and facilitators are all Christians, and they are all kind and caring people.

Of course I do not agree with the Church doctrines of heaven and hell, salvation, the rapture, the resurrection, Jesus is the only way, etc., but I think it is good to be able to separate the doctrines from the people who believe them.

 

[Trailblazer]

You introduced a 2006 study which was supposed to disprove prayer as effective for faith healing. The study did not test prayer, it tested something closer to witchcraft by treating God like a light switch that can be turned on or off. People don't realize that.

Another poster tried to enlighten you to this and said, "you can't test prayer". You asked why not. I explained to you that prayer is supposed to be an appeal to God's will, and if God permitted a person's words to react in a testable way, then the person becomes the god, and God becomes the servant, and that will not be permitted.

Then you objected citing the promise made by Jesus ( to whom????? was that to everyone???? was it even to a large group????? ) that anything asked for would be fulfilled, and you said, and I quote: "I don't see anything in there about asking for God's will to be done."

Well, sure, you're looking in the wrong place. And I'm kind of surprised that I need to point this out to you. That quote you;re using to justify "I should get anything I want", is not prayer. Let me say that again. It's not how Jesus instructed to pray. Prayer is defined clearly and explicitly. Its supopsed to be simple, it's supposed to be short. And it literally says, "Thy will be done."

So you can't say that there is nothing in the gospels, that instructs how to pray, and that appealing to God's will is not specified.

9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Matthew 6. This ^^ is how you should pray. No asking for anything except the simple essentials for that one day. Ask for forgiveness, ask for distance from temptation and the evil one. That's all.

Now, as an ex-fundemantalist, sure, it's hard to stomach the idea that all those Christians who want to use God like a credit-card are wrong. But, you have been arguing along those lines already. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that people are going to want all that power and glory that was promised to the disciples to be bestowed on them. And IF there are dark forces, then... well.... that explains quite a lot too doesn't it. Once a person makes their currency known, all that's needed is for something to swoop along and offer it, pretend to be holy, pretend to be Jesus, an angel of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:14 ), and start handing out stuff. It's easy to corrupt people if you know their price. And almost everyone's got a price.

*WINNER*

 

[Subduction Zone]

You introduced a 2006 study which was supposed to disprove prayer as effective for faith healing. The study did not test prayer, it tested something closer to witchcraft by treating God like a light switch that can be turned on or off. People don't realize that.

Another poster tried to enlighten you to this and said, "you can't test prayer". You asked why not. I explained to you that prayer is supposed to be an appeal to God's will, and if God permitted a person's words to react in a testable way, then the person becomes the god, and God becomes the servant, and that will not be permitted.

Then you objected citing the promise made by Jesus ( to whom????? was that to everyone???? was it even to a large group????? ) that anything asked for would be fulfilled, and you said, and I quote: "I don't see anything in there about asking for God's will to be done."

Well, sure, you're looking in the wrong place. And I'm kind of surprised that I need to point this out to you. That quote you;re using to justify "I should get anything I want", is not prayer. Let me say that again. It's not how Jesus instructed to pray. Prayer is defined clearly and explicitly. Its supopsed to be simple, it's supposed to be short. And it literally says, "Thy will be done."

So you can't say that there is nothing in the gospels, that instructs how to pray, and that appealing to God's will is not specified.

9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Matthew 6. This ^^ is how you should pray. No asking for anything except the simple essentials for that one day. Ask for forgiveness, ask for distance from temptation and the evil one. That's all.

Now, as an ex-fundemantalist, sure, it's hard to stomach the idea that all those Christians who want to use God like a credit-card are wrong. But, you have been arguing along those lines already. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that people are going to want all that power and glory that was promised to the disciples to be bestowed on them. And IF there are dark forces, then... well.... that explains quite a lot too doesn't it. Once a person makes their currency known, all that's needed is for something to swoop along and offer it, pretend to be holy, pretend to be Jesus, an angel of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.), and start handing out stuff. It's easy to corrupt people if you know their price. And almost everyone's got a price.

That test was organized largely by believers if I remember correctly. Do not try to blame atheists for the failure of that study. The Bible also says that a person will be able to accomplish such deeds.

Frankly if prayer works there should be a way to test it properly. I am not really fond of that study either, but the problem is that it is believers that claim that prayer works and they never support that claim properly. Prayer may allow the prayer maker feel better. But no one has been able show that it does anyone else any good nor does there seem to be a valid reason to believe so.

 

[Trailblazer]

How are any of those less plausible than an almighty God existing? Couldn't an almighty God make all those happen?

Even if an Almighty God could make those things happen that does not mean He would make those things happen.
An Almighty God could also destroy the whole earth in a heartbeat, but He does not do that.

If believers are willing to believe anything on faith why not believe everything on faith?

Why should we believe everything that is in the Bible? There is no reason to believe everything since the Bible is not inerrant.
Also, much of what is in the Bible is not literally true but rather figurative truth, a demonstration of spiritual verities. For example, faith cannot literally move mountains. That s just a way of saying that with strong faith we can do what would otherwise be impossible. I can testify to that.

 

[dybmh]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion but it's all speculation.

Agreed.

Do you have any actual citations from well-known theologians, preferably secular ones to bolster your hypotheses?

Not really. But I still think it's equally plausible. I don't spend a lot of time researching Christianity.

I deal only in facts as dictated by the secular historical record and I'm not the only person who believes the Jesus of the gospels is a mythical creation.

OK. Totally fair. But I think you're speculating too.

Have you ever seen this, dy? What's your opinion of the Rank-Ragland mythical scale

I've heard of it.

Lord Raglan, in 1936, developed a 22-point myth-ritualist Hero archetype to account for common patterns across Indo-European cultures for Hero traditions, following myth-ritualists like James Frazer and S. H. Hooke:[2]

OK, I'm going to copy and paste the list and go through it one-by-one.

• Mother is a royal virgin - / - not royal
• Father is a king -
• Father often a near relative to mother -
• Unusual conception - - duplicate of virgin birth
• Hero reputed to be son of god -
• Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather -
• Hero spirited away as a child -
• Reared by foster parents in a far country -
• No details of childhood - /
• Returns or goes to future kingdom -
• Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast -
• Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor) -
• Becomes king -
• For a time he reigns uneventfully -
• He prescribes laws -
• Later loses favor with gods or his subjects -
• Driven from throne and city -
• Meets with mysterious death -
• Often at the top of a hill -
• His children, if any, do not succeed him -
• His body is not buried - /
• Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs - /

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank–Raglan_mythotype#cite_note-In_Quest_of_Hero-2

When Raglan's 22 point outline is used, a Hero's tradition is considered more likely to be mythical the more of these traits they hold (a point is added per trait). Raglan himself scored the following Heroes: Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), JESUS (20 points) Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points), Watu Gunung (18 points), Nyikang (14 points), Sigurd (11 points), Llew Llawgyffes (17 points), King Arthur (19 points), Robin Hood (13 points), and Alexander the Great (7 points).[2]

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Jesus shares 20 of the 22 points of other mythical gods?

I came up with:

2 solid matches
4 maybes, where there's a slight match, but also not really
15 no's

I think people have reduced their standards on here. The example that sticks out is "Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast"

Jesus doesn't *actually* do battle with anyone, including Satan. Jesus's temptation by Satan wasn't a real battle, not like other mythical heros. Same with the royal connection. Sky-daddy is not a King in the way the other mythical heros have royal lineage. And Jesus wasn't a king like other mythical heros. I mean, this is kind of like your objection to the claim "But, but, there is evidence of a historical Jesus, while at the same time ignoring what is intended by that, and the historical Jesus, is not the gospel Jesus they are talking about." Again, most repsectfully, you are doing the same thing in reverse. Jesus isn't a mythical hero like Hercules. I mean, please. That's a totally false comparrison.

 

[dybmh]

That test was organized largely by believers if I remember correctly. Do not try to blame atheists for the failure of that study.

I'm not blaming anyone.

The Bible also says that a person will be able to accomplish such deeds.

To whom were those words spoken?

Frankly if prayer works there should be a way to test it properly.

That would be witchcraft.

I am not really fond of that study either, but the problem is that it is believers that claim that prayer works and they never support that claim properly.

Agreed.

Prayer may allow the prayer maker feel better. But no one has been able show that it does anyone else any good nor does there seem to be a valid reason to believe so.

Certainly not in a scientific setting. And that is probably for the best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not blaming anyone.



To whom were those words spoken?



That would be witchcraft.



Agreed.



Certainly not in a scientific setting. And that is probably for the best.

You still cannot debate properly. Here is a hint, there was no need to break up that post excessively