it is sad pericules you need resort to this

<<'If you were to subtract the miracles..from the man,
what exactly..are you left with?>>

we indeed are left with plenty..of wisdoms
wether or not written by the actual messengers
or wether its some collected work of thomas bacon

collectivly there is much wisdom
just in not casting pearl before swine

or casting seed on stoney ground...
or ammoung the dross[thorns]..

where it gets smotherd and dies
there is more collectiove wisdopm ..in the new testiment..that the old

just the serman on the mount..contains more than this topic

shame shame per-ridicules..
leave the children have their faith
whats it to you..?

they largly arnt hurting anyone[except the blairs/busches of the world..]

often only fooling only themselves...
or others even dumber than themselves

[and who is to say..that they believe wrong]
i gave up judging foolish things
let the children play

some need miracles
cant see how drinking blood
and eating flesh..isnt what christ died for

but its better than them
blowing others into their early graves

by our works..are we revealed..not our words

@Pericles
>"The site you led me to was - I am sure you will be the first to admit - solely intended as an information source for people who are already devout Christians, intent upon "refuting the myth that Jesus never existed". It contains nothing of any significant weight, certainly insufficient to persuade even the most gullible non-believer."
- No, I do not agree that it was written for such an audience, that is an unwarranted assumption. It was certainly written to refute the Jesus Myth theory but that does not mean it was written for 'already devout Christians' anymore than an article refuting YEC is written for 'already devout Darwinists'.
You may very well find the arguments presented unpersuasive, but is very telling indeed that you seem to assume that anyone who accepts the existence of Jesus is simply gullible.

>"My reference to the KKK site was in the same spirit: unlikely, I would have thought, to recruit new members. But a source of reinforcement for existing believers."
- It remains just as spurious to avoid dealing with the actual arguments and falsely writing them off as propaganda. It is a kind of ad hominem fallacy. Again, if you don't find the argument persuasive, fine - just deal with the argument itself.

cont...

Cont..

>"That's pretty circular, isn't it. If you believe that the "canonical sources" have any validity, then they have indeed been "falsely excluded"."
- No, it's not circular - it's a valid logical progression, as you yourself point out! It's not just my belief that they have validity, nearly all scholars, even the non-miracle believing ones treat the documents as though they have a valid historical core (because they do). To disregard them entirely because they contain things that don't gel with your philosophical assumptions is circular. For the sake of establishing the historicity of Jesus, they are more than sufficient and corroborated by non-canonical sources (that they are 'canonical' is actually irrelevant). So your statement is right - if they are valid sources, then you are falsely excluding them; it just so happens that historians do think they are valid sources thus, according to mainstream scholarship you are falsely excluding them. The onus is on you to show why they should be completely disregarded (in a manner which you can consistently apply to other ancient documents as well).

>"Surely the issue is the totality of Jesus' life, not just the possibility that he may have existed, since it is the rationale behind an entire religion. "

The debate here is purely about the existence of Jesus - it grew out of a fairly off-handed and neutral comment in the original post. We might well go on to talk about the supernatural claims (though I have no desire to at this point) but the issue at present, and which must first be established for further discussion is his existence. I think your comment here actually betrays the kind of prejudice that I think underpins most of the scepticism regarding Jesus' very existence: the real issue is supernatural claims that go against philosophically naturalist assumptions. Most historians manage to separate the two issues, however.

@Pericles

Interestingly, I just noticed this article pop up on Twitter: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/12/the-scientist-pope-who-lit-up-the-dark-ages.html - it has nothing to do with the topic except that I thought it very interesting to see the same writer (James Hannam) writing for New Scientist.. when was the last time you saw a KKK propaganda merchant doing that? ;)

Yes Dan, very pithy, almost makes sense.

Now, all those with things to very specifically not be thankful for, their comments can go to the *same* address, no?

Can't have your cake and eat it too you know. Or is your "god" like a public servant, not really responsible, just hitching a ride on the odd good thing not causally of their doing?

Athiests don't need to make up an imaginary daddy. That's all.

Rusty.

Rusty writes

'Athiests don't need to make up an imaginary daddy. That's all.'

No they just have to make up silly little chance stories to deny the obvious.