Boaz, it is not at all important to me that you have convinced yourself that the Bible stories are true.

And it is abundantly clear that your position on this is unlikely to be shaken by me, let alone the hundreds of learned historians who happen to share my opinion.

My only objective here is to point out the inconsistencies that you persist in, when using your own religious texts as a weapon against other religious texts, by pointing out the flimsy base upon which they stand.

If you were to be content to hold your own faith, which no-one begrudges you in the slightest, in quiet and personal contemplation, then there would be absolutely no need for anyone to indicate that the Bible is itself an article of faith, and not an eye-witness account of historical events.

Instead, you continue to wave it around, making the most questionable claims for its ineffable goodness, quoting its contents as if they were ineluctable truths.

There is really no benefit in discussing on this thread the holes in your argument, as you will, as you always do, simply pretend they do not exist, and ignore them.

But I do not question your belief, or your need to believe, nor do I think you would necessarily be a better person if you did not believe.

If only you allowed your religious enemies the same right.

I believe, hallelujah, I believe!

The evidence is irrefutable.

Polly exists, therefore trolls exist.

Still waiting for the hobbits.

Fraccy.. thanx for pointing out indirectly that Perilous is want to play with words in a way that says "I know more words than you do..ner"

He used "ineluctable" (how many people knew the meaning at first glance?) but you used the more common and appropriate term "irrefutable". You get a tick for that :)

Now.. back to the man in peril.

P, your opinions about the veracity or reliability of the Witness statements are yours..and ur welcome to them. Of course there are those who share your view.. and many who do not. I repeat my assertion that the issue which divides the 2 camps is not the value or reliability of the evidence but a self chosen attitude in the case of those who reject it.

If....you noticed I invited Sancho to spill the beans on how Jesus is in any way like Mohammad on the issue I mentioned. I totally allow..no..I boisterously invite... any opponent of Christianity to find anything of a questionable sexual nature about Jesus behavior or his teaching.

There is not the slightest hint..not even a whisper of sexual misconduct or self serving in his life or word....

Perhaps that's why those who claim to follow him at Westminster Cathedral were humble and gentle while the 'other' mob were calling for blood?

I think EVIDENCE which should persuade people is the dramatic contrast between the word and work of Jesus of Nazareth and any other alleged religious identity either before or since.

Porkycrap: << There is not the slightest hint..not even a whisper of sexual misconduct or self serving in his life or word.... "

Well actually, as Porky well knows, there is the business about the nature of Jesus' relationship with his "Beloved" John:

"Since the 16th century, some have interpreted the relationship between Jesus and John the Apostle, the Disciple whom Jesus loved as an erotic, homosexual romance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_readings_of_Jesus_and_John

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but I think Porky and the other fundies would regard the posssibility of Jesus having had an "erotic, homosexual romance" with John as constituting a "hint..[or] a whisper of sexual misconduct".

As far as Porky's atrocious English is concerned, as in other areas of intellectual endeavour he seeks to make a virtue of his ignorance - which is rather strange for someone who spends an inordinate of time trying to express himself by writing in the language..

Now I'm just trying to be helpful - it is a lovely sunny day and I extend my goodwill to all.

Polly,

"ineluctable" means inescapable.

"irrefutable" means cannot be disproved.

You can decipher the fine distinction between these two words, can't you? They are not necessarily interchangeable. If this distinction is lost upon you (and trolls are not noted for their intellect), then I politely suggest that your entire interpretation of the Old and New Testaments may be entirely erroneous.

Indeed your raison d'etre is at the very least based not only upon misinterpretation but upon a fallacy.

Capiche?

mjpb: "Finally what do people hope to achieve by saying that atheism has no hope or that there is absolutely no evidence that god exists and pretty good evidence he doesn't? Aren't such absolute assertions obviously problematic? If belief is so darn obviously one sided why are we having this discussion?"

I said the latter, but I defend it as relevant. The discussion is partly about what evidence a religious person would need to lose their belief. My argument is that religious people already believe without evidence, and that makes the question problematic. (And consequently, does make the discussion pretty silly.) I'm NOT arguing about the existence of any god(s) here, simply pointing out that religion is already belief without evidence.

mjpb: "Sorry if I'm being slow but surely belief that there is no God is a belief. If someone hadn't formed a firm belief on the issue wouldn't they be agnostic?"

No, it's an absence of belief. God isn't a presupposition. I am an atheist about the judeo-christian god for the same reason I'm an atheist about the gods of classical Rome or Shiva, or follow ancestor worship. I don't firmly believe they don't exist, I simply have no belief in them. If I had considered religion and wasn't sure if I believed or not, I'd be agnostic. As an atheist, I am simply absent of belief.

If it was somehow revealed to the entire world tomorrow that Muhammad really was the prophet, and the god of Islam was really the true god (can't quite imagine how this would be revealed, but just supposing), then we would all be Muslims whether we liked it or not. I would not like that god, just as I don't like the god of Christianity or Judaism, but I would believe in it.

So again, the other part of GW's question doesn't really work. If it could be demonstrated that god exist, then we would all believe.

For an atheist, a lack of belief in god is quite neutral. Evidence could challenge it at any time