@d31, each of the gospel accounts, plus the book of acts, plus the letters of Paul, were not part of one document but were separate documents. And there are many other sources besides Christian accounts, the most famous of which was the historian Josephus. Of course, anyone can say that they don't accept those accounts either, and many have, but anyway here is what Josephus said:

Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. (from Wiki)

Whenever I see someone quoting scripture it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the people worshiped the Constitution.
The Yang I think they were.

Ahem.

I am going to pompously assume no one has espoused the skeptical agnostic position as yet and offer that up.

There is insufficient evidence one way or the other about a metaphysical claim like that of God's existence. Indeed, the definition sometimes used for God may even preclude such evidence from ever becoming convincing one way or the other.

Therefore the only reasonable reaction, that is to say, reaction based only on truth and knowledge, is to suspend judgment and make no claim one way or the other. How you choose to then live is a question you must answer in some other way without asserting whether God exists.

The existence of god is relative to the person being asked of his existence, I'm happy for those who prefer to believe in something bigger than humanity to 'guide' them in their right and wrongs, personally to me, god exists in the minds of a large portion of humanity that, possibly just subconsciously, have felt the need to appoint an entity 'greater' than themselves.
Thank god (doh!) we don't all have the same belief structure.... what a boring game of Diplomacy that would be....

Darn...

Torn between my strong desire to take on one of the ideas I loathe the most--organized religion--and the realization that even if I DID wade through all 150+ preceding posts...

Someone's likely already made that point...hmmm...

Also, just because it's funny and it seems fitting given the title of the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol55z_7LXhE&feature=related

semck, you said: "if God doesn't exist then the very concept of evidence would make no sense"

This struck me as the weirdest statement in the thread so far. ...and being that you don't believe in evidence, I am entirely unclear how you came to such a conclusion. ...or any conclusion at all.

If evidence is untrustworthy, then surely you cannot depend on the evidence that you have for your beliefs. Including, by the way, any "conversation" that you might have with God. Surely you have no way of knowing that you aren't hallucinating. Any evidence to the contrary is untrustworthy... because you don't believe any evidence is AND you are hallucinating.

Let's suppose for the moment that all evidence - all sensory input, all assumptions about the universe are suspect. Where does that leave us. Well, for me I simply continue and go with the imperfect information I have... you, on the other hand, appear to take the leap to having faith without evidence... i.e. you decide to believe what you want to believe simply because you like the picture it paints. This is the very definition of dogma... "[usually religious] beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence"

@Putin: You wrote, "Nobody outside of the Judeo-Christian milieu has any serious access to 'knowing' your god because is culturally alien to much of the world...." There are Christians in almost every area of the globe, and from the majority of cultures, because of the command to go "and make disciples of all nations, even unto the ends of the earth." The amazing thing is that the good news of the gospel message makes sense in every culture. I refer you to the book Peace Child by Don Richardson for an account of how a group of tribes in what was then Dutch New Guinea was able to receive the gospel once it was explained to them in a way they could understand. He makes the point that "hidden among tribal cultures, there are usually some practices or understandings, which he calls "redemptive analogies", which can be used to illustrate the meaning of the Christian Gospel, contextualizing the biblical representation of the incarnation of Jesus." Wikipedia, Don Richardson.

Delusion also fits: "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence."

@ Dexter, that leaves us with "cogito ergo sum," "je pense, donc je suis," or in English, "I think, therefore I am." And that leads us to this one: "I am, and I'm not my own creator, therefore my creator exists," or "Cogito, ergo Deus est." And your comment on delusions is so right.

@semck, you are correct in surmising that I have no way to 'know' what will happen in the future. There is a probability that physics might be uprooted as we know it. I have three choices --

1. Anything might happen. Quit living. I'm not this type.
2. Things will happen as they have because God makes them so.
Evidence in Favor - Zilch.
3. Things will happen as they have because they've always continued as they have.
Laws of physics have largely held, with minor corrections, mostly forever.
Evidence in Favor - Years of physical observation, 14 billions years of universe.

Logic dictates that I reject 2 and accept 3.

Logic is one kind of proof; evidence is another; personal experience is another. And of course we can't take anyone else's word that their personal experience, which we don't share, proves something absolutely. But if I hear the same thing from enough people, I'll start to consider the possibility that the experience is real, and start looking at that aspect of it--If I'm really searching for the truth. But if someone is just trying to avoid the truth and all its ramifications, he'll just keep his mind firmly closed.

@Mujus, these "redemptive analogies" - these practices or understandings in common to all cultures I would argue are symptoms of who we are as people... our genetic and cultural DNA, so to speak - that serve not only as a basis for morality and religion, but also agriculture, language, tools, burial practices, love, social behavior, observances about the natural world, use of symbols, etc. To put an emphasis on Christianity's particular folklore, language, and dogma over other somewhat parallel folklore, language and dogma is arbitrary and not rational. Simply because there are similarities between cultures about certain practices and understandings certainly does not necessarily lead to the thought that any of these practices or understandings are objective rather than subjective, much less that such similarities go on to substantiate one of those sets of practices and understandings as the "real" one that the others are somehow reflecting. Put another way, correlation does not prove causation. The fact that missionaries could convert people in other cultures also proves nothing... people have been converting foreign people's to their beliefs for all of history. The fact that Christianity is widespread does not prove anything other than its marketing appeal.

abgemacht: At your original reply, that's a very funny way to look at it. :-) I like it. Though, personally, I have never really considered the existence of God. I have the fortune of being a life-long, complete atheist.

Mujus, you assume a creator in your syllogism. I do not.
I did not create myself (retroactively, as would have to be the case), but my cells did organize themselves... and within those cells, the nucleic acids and amino acids organized themselves according to predictable chemical reactions. I have no need at all for a creator going back to at least the big bang. Further... even in the case of an ultimate creator (prime mover) that got could be hypothesized to get the universe rolling... there is no evidence that such a possible creator has a particular set of human qualities that cultures normally endow the creator with. (Ever notice how cultures always make their god fit themselves? Accident or not?) Besides, physicists such as Stephen Hawkins say that there is no need at all for a prime mover... that it is completely consistent with what we know of physics for the universe to pop into existence on its own due to quantum fluctuations... and indeed, that it is essentially inevitable that it did.

@JECE

That's interesting, given the ubiquitous nature of the belief in god. My parents don't believe in god, and they're both firmly anti-established religion. Despite this (mostly because they never pushed their views on me), I would have to say I started out believing there was a god. At a rather young age, though, I realized that the only reason I thought god was real was because I wanted him to be real. After thinking that over for a while, I decided that wasn't a very good reason. So, you'll note that I didn't decide there is no god, merely that I'll act as though there isn't one until some real proof presents itself.

@semck

I think santos summed up what I was going to say to you pretty well. Besides that, the only thing I can say is, even if I agree that there must be a power outside this universe, why would I ever chose Yahweh?

@abgemacht,
I wonder what would constitute "real proof" of there being a god. Seems to me that there could be no such proof. Any candidate for god could just as easily (and more likely) be a pretender with a level of technology or evolution sufficient to fool us or sufficient to be to all appearances, omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent or whatever quality we assume god has. Not to mention that the appearance of a god-like being would not prove that they created the universe nor that they are the only one or are good or are a reflection of the god presented in the bible as being crucified for our sins, etc. i.e. being that god is by definition outside of the rules of our physical universe, there is no way as beings of that physical universe that we could adequately judge the veracity of the claim.

the Cargo Cult comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
As does Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

abgemacht: Now you see I would say that is interesting. My parents (1 atheist, 1 agnostic) didn't force their views on us either, but neither my brother nor I (and we're polar opposites of each other) ever believed there was a god. In fact my parents would have supported us if we ever chose to believe in a god. Of course I assumed that it was quite unlikely for someone to develop a belief in a god while growing up without external stimuli of some sort. Your case does not negate that assumption because you still ended up growing up without a belief in god, but I still find it quite odd that you would develop a belief in God on your own. Perhaps there were significant outside factors that influenced that, like where you live? Of course, you didn't say that your parents themselves were atheists. By the way, not that I know a lot, but that's some impressive reasoning for a young child!

I personally found, as I said, that the existence of a god is too absurd to even consider. Of course I've debated the existence of god with people before, but I was never even in the slightest bit daunted or made to even slightly question my disbelief. I mean, it's not just that there is utterly no lack of evidence and absolutely no way to ever obtain evidence that resolves the question for me. There is just no logical similarity between gods, spirituality or the like with any real pattern or dynamic. How could I say that in another way? Maybe: "Does not compute."?

This thread reminds me of the conversation between the bomb and the captian of the Dark Star.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luaRtGn2tsI The entire sequence and conclusin of the movie

Draugnar: Ha ha ha, those are pretty funny clips. Do they come from a movie?

@Draugnar: Comment win.

Never mind, that answers my question.

Mujus: "But if someone is just trying to avoid the truth and all its ramifications, he'll just keep his mind firmly closed."

So - why do you keep your mind firmly closed? Are you trying to avoid the truth and all its ramifications? I suspect so. After all, it is not an easy idea to swallow... that the universe does not revolve around us and our uniquely human concerns, that we are mortal, that the idea of a soul is invented/imagined, that meaning is self-created... The fact that we've built our temples and our stories and our dogmas has no power over the impersonal, vast universe. I can certainly understand your motivation to bury your head deeply and desperately into your book and clench you eyes tightly repeating your wishes, hoping that there is a vast sky parent listening and getting you toys for Christmas. But wishing really hard does not make it so. Sorry... but that's the mood I got into after being told that, after more than 40 years of contemplation, reading, conversation, debate, even prayer that I have my mind closed. Considering that the evidence (as well as the personal experience of many millions) lines up against your pet theory, it seems that it is you with the closed mind.