(August 18, 2009 at 3:51 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: BTW, you say you don't discount the existence of other historical religious figures...please tell me, do you discount Hercules or Achilles?I don't know if those Greeks who believed in those myths believed in them as historical (human) persons. It seems unlikely to me.
If they did, I would have no reason to deny that such human persons existed. That doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims.
There are other religions that I do know look up to historical human persons, who are either both divine and human, or only human but with a special contact to the divine, according to them. I have no reason to deny their historical existence.
For instance, according to many, it's very likely that Odin was a historical person, a warrior/shaman, who came to be worshipped as a god.
So anyone who claims to have a historical religious figure, then you must accept them as truth? Come on, this is shitty standards of evidence. And your example of Odin only proves my point. Jesus, if he existed, was no more than a man now believed to be god. There's NO evidence for his godlike characteristics.
And also, calling a statement pessimistic doesn't mean Adrian's point was any less valid. His statement was very much valid, as it what I've been talking about all along.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
