Dear runner,

The faults associated with most religions are:

1. The belief that there is such a thing as religious truth.

2. The belief that a particular group has that truth.

Pope Francis seems to be an exception who grants legitimacy to other beliefs and to non-belief.

How do you know that what you believe is Truth?

oh poor Mike Runner is on his side... I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

The problem isn’t that there are no “early” sources; it’s that there are no contemporary ones. It’s possible there was an historical Jesus. The evidence is so vague and weak that it’s also possible that there were many people upon which the legend of the divine Jesus was based.

That Christ Mythicists are such a minority has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence, but a cultural bias. Even by their fellow non-believers it is merely assumed that he must have existed. Ask one of these people who assume the existence of an historical Jesus if they think there was an historical Hercules or Horus, and they would probably dismiss the idea out of hand.

The consensus argument is weak. Much of the alleged evidence is assumed from past Christian teachings. As Richard Carrier said:

“A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase “the overwhelming consensus says…” Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth.” (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/08/car388028.shtml)

There is no reliable evidence for an historical Jesus. I also don’t think there’s any solid evidence that an historical Jesus didn’t exist either, so if you want to believe in a divine Jesus, then why should stretching your credulity that tiny bit further, to account for the lack of evidence for an historical as well Jesus, be such a problem? Any credibility one may have had was gone with the belief in a divine Jesus. Worrying about salvaging some from an historical Jesus seems as pointless as wondering whether one should jump from the 18th floor or the 20th floor. The result is still the same.

"'Theologians' are often pretty good at this nonsense also."

Runner, this is an interesting thing for you to say. Care to elaborate on which theologians you are referring to and their errors of reasoning that worry you?

Btw, like Minister Morrison and PM Abbott who keep referring to "illegal" boat arrivals as if their repeating it endlessly will somehow make their accusation true, you still seem to think that "secularist" connotes someone who is anti religion. It would be civil of you to find out what it really means and to begin using it correctly.

Davidf you state

'The faults associated with most religions are:

1. The belief that there is such a thing as religious truth.

I suggest the absence of truth is what makes the secular world so immoral and based on lies. I don't know what you define as ' religous ' truth but I assure you truth exist. Deep down every human being knows that. They are the first to scream when a terrorist kills innocent people.

2. The belief that a particular group has that truth.

If you were to read the Scriptures you would find that Jesus Himself claimed that all who came before Him were thieves and robbers and all who came after Him likewise. Either He told the truth, He lied or He did not exist (as claimed by many pseudo historians). No the truth does not belong to a group. It is available to anyone who wants to know it.

' How do you know that what you believe is Truth?'

Because it comes from the only Man who never lied. Why do you think dishonest historians deny His existance.

Dear runner,

You make statements which are at variance with the facts. The secular world is most moral. It is based on science, democracy and the separation of religion and state. Religion may be based on lies since believers will believe the incredible. Science cannot be based on lies since scientific results are discarded if they cannot be replicated.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results takes you to the corruptions perception index for 2014. According to that index the least corrupt country is Denmark. As you go down the list you will see that faith, religious or non-religious is correlated with corruption. The Scandinavian countries in general contain people who are skeptical of religion and are much less corrupt than most of the world.

You merely state your beliefs as though they are facts. Most religions have scriptures. I have read the Bible. It was written long after the events in it took place. There is no reason to place the Bible above other scriptures such as the Buddhist Tripitaka, the Muslim Koran or the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. I am sure you believe in a man who supposedly never lied. However, belief no matter how sincere and how deep does not make the belief true. I have no doubt that there are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus who have as deep and sincere belief in their religion as you have in yours. That illustrates one problem of religion. Faith breeds atrocity. The Inquisition saw sincere Christians murder people, and ISIS has sincere Muslims murder people.

Possibly none of the words Jesus is quoted as saying were actually said by him. The New Testament was written after his death and incorporates many of the feats performed by other wonder workers of his time. I think scriptures of all religions have accounts of miracles. I think it is reasonable to doubt all such accounts.

I wish you could admit facts rather than rely on superstition.