Maybe we are just missing each other.

The original proof was never predicated on god or gods communicating to ALL minds of men.

If that one "priest" points to the sunrise and says "Sun God", it takes only some encouraging and faith for a follower to agree.

The "priest" then is basing his supposition on the rising of the sun as god's "communication".

AND, if true (that god or gods are communicating to the minds of men...not all men), then all religions of all kinds would AT LEAST get one thing right. That being how many gods there are.

They don't. Therefore, god or gods are NOT communicating to the minds of men, making religion nothing but a man made construct.

Does that make it clearer?

Ahhh, okay, I see what you're saying, but I still don't think it holds up logically. All you can prove is that at least some religions are a man made construct. Just because a god or gods are not communicating to a particular person who makes claims about religion, it does not mean that he/she/it/they are not communicating to another individual or individuals.

That doesn't explain how a man like Abraham, in an age before science of philosophy, comes to believe that there is only one God.

And, just to be clear, I don't mean that this proves religion to be correct either. Just that it's not possible to prove it either way.

wonderllama is correct. You cannot prove faith, either that there is or is not a God. This is why I became a Calvinist really, the idea of the elect. Not every person has the capacity to have faith, and the capacity has nothing to do with intellect or wealth. Some people hear and believe, others don't.

McCain; those ideas sound very sensible to me, nice to hear from someone with slightly more moderate views!

"If god or gods do NOT make their presence known to men (or at least the priests who make that claim who then convince others based on faith) then there would be no religion. Period."
Darwyn, it is interesting you should say that, because, conversely, since there IS religion, God must exist (else he could not make himself known to man.)

As far as that all goes, God does make himself known, but not in a ridiculously conspicuous type of way of which atheists like Carl Sagan love to point out the absence. It has been said, but I don't think it has been elaborated on enough. For instance, for God to give every newborn a sort of "introductory" lecture about himself, or for him to place a giant banner in the sky saying "I am God and I am real," or any other grandiose means of making himself known, while fully capable of doing so, would go against his entire purpose for making everything in the first place. To be sure, he could do it, but it would make us little more than automatons. Instead he is much more humble about it. Read Christian literature for just a few minutes and you'll hear about how "humble" Christ was to come in the way he did. He could have just taken over the world, and the Jews would've been like "Yeah, freakin' awesome!" But the rest of the world would become puppets, or slaves, or robots, or insert any non-human enitity here. Instead, the message was carefully crafted to be one of choice, believable, but doubtable also.

Exactly, Thucydides. In fact, the timing of Christ just makes my faith stronger. Christ made sure to come in an age where there were history, records, and roads, but not late enough that it would be more verifiable.

wow i just read the entire convosation from start to finish.

I think the perhaps most amusing aspect of christianity is that so many people view jesus as white. He was either black (unlikley but possible) or middle eastern (almost certainly). it's like you stole his religion and painted him white

And no I don't shoplift form small stores, where I know I would be hurting someone. I'm beleive it or not a good person.

Thucydides:
Absolutely nothing from the Bible is an original concept or story. The Bible borrows it's entire existence from previous religions. And those religions borrow from previous religions, etc, etc, etc. Many "prophets" before Jesus were humble. Many of them even born of a virgin. The list goes on and on...

If have the time or inclination:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&hl=en

Religion was and always has been a tool of power and control. From the moment man gazed upon the stars and studied them, patterns of movement emerged...and those who understood those patterns assigned them stories and fed them to the remaining public.

Being able to predict precisely where the sun will drop or where a star will be at any particular moment is no different then, then what Chris Angel wizardry is today.

The only reason Angel isn't ruler of the world is because today, we have the scientific method.

I don't have any delusions of being able to convince you otherwise, just trying to put some perspective on things.

Hell, why not worship Chris Angel?! I've seen the man walk on water! And he seems humble.

If only he brought forth a message to the masses.

That's another falsehood. Jesus has no parallel in previous history. He was the only person ever to claim to be God.

yeah that worked out well for him didn't it.

I'm an Atheist.

Horus parallel's him almost exactly. Including the claim of being the son or the lamb of god, the light, the alpha and omega, the king of kings.

Horus is not a historical figure, nor would a carpenter's son in Roman Galilee know much about him.

Tell that to ancient Egyptians. Now you see my point.

And why would Jesus need to know much about him? He didn't write the Bible. Hell, the Bible wasn't even written until at least a hundred or so years after his death.

And not ONE mention of him in Roman history.

You'd think the Romans, an empire very anal about their records and history, would mention a man who defied an empire, walked on water and turned water into wine.

Religion = power and control. Nothing more.

Josephus, who wrote about Jewish history for the Romans, mentions Jesus. There is little doubt about his existence.

As for the Bible. Most of the Bible (NT)was written within 50-60 years of his death, and written by his contemporaries.

I wish I could sage this shit.

Um, Darwyn, you're quite wrong about "not ONE mention of him in Roman history." We have, among other things, Josephus, Execution records, temple records, etc. And how did he defy an empire...? He specifically told people to do what the Romans said. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render also unto God what is God's."

And to reply to Pandora a long time ago about hte dragons thing, we actually have found fossil evidence of flying creatures capable of breathing incendiary chemicals...

dude you need to back that shit up.
who is we?
where did the name jesus even come from? is it a roman translation that got carried over to english or what

Jesus is a latinization of the hebrew name "joshua" which can also be translated "yashah" when this word (yashah) is used as a common as opposed to proper noun, it means "One who Saves"

and "we" means humanity as a whole

ah thanks. now I know.

I dint hear about it. what do you have to back it up

you have, no doubt, heard of the "flying dinosaurs", exempli gratis pteradon, pteradaqtyl, etc. Perhaps you have heard of cavities in their heads that were connected to the throat, and, heretobefore, unexplained. Chemical tests indicate that these cavities were actually used to mix incendiary gases producing a result not unlike that produced in the bombardier beetle, though, of course, on a much larger scale.