Does a God exist?

[Veritas_Vincit]

Are you even reading my posts? Lying is not the only option.

Fact: people constantly lie, cheat, steal, defraud, and are otherwise untruthful for all manner of reasons.

Fact: people are fallible, and are easily fooled, tricked, conned, deceived and manipulated

Fact: people make up stories, and have made up hundreds of myths and legends and religions over thousands of years.

Fact: we can't meet the people who wrote the NT. We don't know much about them. We can't say for sure who they were. We can't confirm their testimony.

Fact: no one alive today witnessed any of these alleged miracles. We can't see for ourselves, we can't speak to anyone who did.

Fact: the Bible has been edited over the last 2000 years with different bits added and subtracted.

Fact: we have no confirmed accounts of miracles taking place, and for every report of a miracle there are better, simpler explanations for what happened or was reported.

Fact: people can hulucinate for a number of reasons

Fact: some people are just crazy and make shit up

And what's worse for your argument:

Fact: even if Jesus could perform what appeared to be miracles, it doesn't prove he was the son of a God, or they his teachings were moral. It could have been Derren Brown style magic, it could have been aliens, they could have had food poisoning or been on drugs, they could just be gullible hippies.

Bottom line - there insufficient evidence in favour and ample explanation for alternative happenings.

[SteveII]

Are you even reading my posts? Lying is not the only option.

Fact: people constantly lie, cheat, steal, defraud, and are otherwise untruthful for all manner of reasons.

Fact: people are fallible, and are easily fooled, tricked, conned, deceived and manipulated

Fact: people make up stories, and have made up hundreds of myths and legends and religions over thousands of years.

Fact: we can't meet the people who wrote the NT. We don't know much about them. We can't say for sure who they were. We can't confirm their testimony.

Fact: no one alive today witnessed any of these alleged miracles. We can't see for ourselves, we can't speak to anyone who did.

Fact: the Bible has been edited over the last 2000 years with different bits added and subtracted.

Fact: we have no confirmed accounts of miracles taking place, and for every report of a miracle there are better, simpler explanations for what happened or was reported.

Fact: people can hulucinate for a number of reasons

Fact: some people are just crazy and make shit up

And what's worse for your argument:

Fact: even if Jesus could perform what appeared to be miracles, it doesn't prove he was the son of a God, or they his teachings were moral. It could have been Derren Brown style magic, it could have been aliens, they could have had food poisoning or been on drugs, they could just be gullible hippies.

Bottom line - there insufficient evidence in favour and ample explanation for alternative happenings.

So your argument boils down to "it could have been other things than what was reported" and "we can't interrogate them to be sure". Since the series of events surrounding Jesus and the first century church are some of the most attested events in ancient history, it would take a some evidence to overcome the very reasonable practice of believing the 8 authors in their 27 documents and the widespread churches that predate them. What evidence do you offer to support any of your 10 'facts' that matches the data? You must think one a leading contender--otherwise I am going to assume you are just throwing objections at the wall to see which one sticks. 

I'll revisit #7 about miracles at a future point after we discuss your evidence for your leading contender.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Steve are you related to Karl Pilkington?

I'm already spoon feeding it to you, I can't blend it any smoother than this. You are like the Knight in Monty Python where he's had he arms and legs cut off and he's still saying "Come on, I'll bite you!"

I don't care how many people supposedly said they saw a miracle. I don't care if 1000 people came up to me today and told me they saw a 'miracle' - it doesn't prove that a miracle happened.

Even if I thought I saw a miracle, I would be more likely to conclude that it was either a coincidence, or I was either tricked, drugged or otherwise hallucinating, because it is infinitely more likely.

I hate to have to break it to you, but magic isn't real. Neither is Santa, neither is the tooth fairy. And neither is God, or magic Jesus.

[SteveII]

Sure, I was raised in a Christian home. My father was/is a pastor in fact. There was never really a time I did not believe what I was told. 

However, decades later, I see no reason to stop believing what I believed back then for other reasons. It is not special pleading because there are compelling reasons to reject Smith's and Mohammad's claims and they do not have to do with whether miracles happened or not. I treat the NT claims differently because they are different.

How are the NT claims significantly different than those of the Quran or the hadith?

BTW, I have read the Richard Carrier article previously. I looked up the 3 "major evidence" individuals and did not see more than a few similarities to Jesus or the foundations of Christianity. Looking those people up independently shows how Carrier was stretching to make a point.

If you think his point was that these individuals resembled Christian narratives beyond the point that both involve incredible claims of miracles and other incredible acts, then I think you must have approached his article with a great deal of bias.  It appears you missed his point completely.

I understood the point Carrier was trying to make: people are gullible. My point was that I felt the circumstances surrounding these examples were stretches. For example, Apollonius - other than the Adana Inscriptions, written around 220AD, 200 years after the guy, we know next to nothing. So when Philostratus wrote it, he would have had access to the gospels and the life of Jesus. Read the Historical Fact part of the Wiki articles. 

In addition, what has changed til today? People still believe all kinds of things and will follow anyone who offers hope or a better ____.

[SteveII]

Steve are you related to Karl Pilkington?

I'm already spoon feeding it to you, I can't blend it any smoother than this. You are like the Knight in Monty Python where he's had he arms and legs cut off and he's still saying "Come on, I'll bite you!"

I don't care how many people supposedly said they saw a miracle. I don't care if 1000 people came up to me today and told me they saw a 'miracle' - it doesn't prove that a miracle happened.

Even if I thought I saw a miracle, I would be more likely to conclude that it was either a coincidence, or I was either tricked, drugged or otherwise hallucinating, because it is infinitely more likely.

I hate to have to break it to you, but magic isn't real. Neither is Santa, neither is the tooth fairy. And neither is God, or magic Jesus.

So if a 1000 people told you that a man who was crucified 3 days earlier rose from the dead and they saw him and spoke to him, you would not believe them?

[Cyberman]

Well I certainly wouldn't; not without corroboration.

Would you?

[Angrboda]

In addition, what has changed til today? People still believe all kinds of things and will follow anyone who offers hope or a better ____.

You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories. You seem to be treading water here. How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible?

[Mr.wizard]

I wouldn't believe such a claim without evidence no matter how many people told me. With the resurrection story you don't have witnesses, what you have is one person who wasn't there telling you there where witnesses.

[Minimalist]

Well I certainly wouldn't; not without corroboration.

Would you?

Um, yes.  He would.  He's already admitted that.

He believes what he is told.

[robvalue]

The issue is not whether or not the authors are telling what they believe to be the truth.

The issue is whether what they are saying actually happened.

These are two different things. People can be mistaken. People can misremember. People can hear stories that aren't true, or at least not completely true, and believe them to be true.

Theists use a different standard of evidence for their holy book than other holy books, and for everything else in life. It would be better, in my opinion, to admit that the belief is not based on the book itself. The belief comes first. By trying to rationalise the belief and make the text into credible evidence, you're trying to square the circle. It can't be done.

If you could just as easily choose to not believe the stories, then you haven't been convinced by them. You can't just un-believe stuff at will. Or rather, if you can, you're an extremely unusual person. One I'd be very worried about, in fact.