So if we act in accordance with the Gospels, then the Gospels must be true, because we act in accordance with them -- not TRUE true, of course, but just truthily true. Sort of true-ish, to paraphrase Jonathan Miller.

Or perhaps Dr. McCoy: "It's truth, Jim, but not as we know it."

Honestly, Peter, do you try this stuff out on your parishioners first? Do they manage to avoid bursting out laughing? They must have iron self-control.

Oh, and by the way, it's "Hobbes", not "Hobbs", and "whether", not "wether". You must be spending too much time with your flock.

Just because your faith has become indistinguishable from atheism, that's no reason to abandon orthographics too.

>> "When we dispense with the old argument about the existence of God as supernatural being and begin to understand that *God is truth* then we can make some progress. God is the truth expressed in the life and teaching of Jesus and death of Nazareth. As truth, God does not require supernatural being because truth speaks for itself." <<

The "truth" claims are a major point of contention, Peter. A major 'sticking point'.

The misleading assertion of "God is truth" is often classically conflated with "the life and teaching of 'Jesus' and death of Nazareth" (sic).

All the classic 'teachings' about the alleged life, teachings, and death 'Jesus of Nazareth' are from, and about, the supernatural - the son of God - as highlighted by Galatians 1, Mark 1, etc.

You can't have it both ways - sometimes proposing a human basis for the faith, yet sometimes proposing a supernatural basis - to propose a human Jesus is a classic Christian heresy! Moreover, there has been an ongoing search for an historical human Jesus for over 200 years - one has not been found.

"that Christian faith has content" is increasingly being dissected and criticised.

The problem with starting an article with a false premise, is that the only direction it can then take is inexorably downhill.

"It is a great pity that the new atheists are so fixated on a futile question: the existence of a God as immaterial supernatural being."

Pure baloney. It is the religious who are fixated on the existence of God. It features nowhere in atheism. The whole point of atheism (why is this so difficult for some to understand?) is the absence of belief in a supreme being.

More confusion:

"It would be far more productive if the debate about the existence of God were directed towards whether the gospel was true"

For theists, this might well be accurate. But in no sense does it involve atheists.

There is no "debate", Mr Sellick.

I know that you would like there to be, and can understand why it is important to you. But belief is a purely binary position. Do you believe, yes or no? You say yes. I say no. You don't have to prove your position to me, nor I to you.

You can justify your stance with a firm belief in the words of the Bible. I can justify mine with a categoric dismissal of their claims to divinity. Your search for "evidence" starts and ends with your view on the message that the Bible carries. I need no such evidence for my views, as they are firmly founded on precisely the lack of evidence.

And before you waffle on about the "evidence that the gospel is true cannot be tested by scientific means", I totally accept that. But if your evidence is "the quality of the community that arises out of that revelation", then you need to remind yourself of the many Christian communities that have spent so many generations killing each other, and perpetuating a culture of violence in the name of their "saviour".

There would be a few more working kneecaps in Belfast if the quality of their community had been less influenced by their "encounter with the crucified and risen Christ."

As an atheist I do not set out to prove god does not exist. I do not set out to prove unicorns do not exist either.
I have grown weary of people who have not taken time to learn what atheists motives are, making assumptions based on their best guess which is usually over-run with bias.
There simply is no proof of a god. Anyone who tries to gain knowledge about life from the bible is likely to become bi-polar. The bible contradicts itself time and time again.I find it funny that a person can only get the 'valuable' lessons taught by the bible when there is someone pointing out what a valuable lesson is and what should be disregarded or has been "taken out of context".
I remain unimpressed my the bible in any way except as the author mentioned, a work of art. Still if it were displayed as such I would not find myself paying much more attention to it than I would a Dr Seuss book....

Pericles and Reap

Well said. My view entirely