The evidence is the New Testament. Someone, who went by the name of Jesus had 4 separate accounts written about himself, I mean did daffy duck make up the stories that has moved billions worldwide? Someone existed as it is blatantly obvious that the 4 gospels were written by 4 different people. Period. Because of the way you speak to Christians in particular. As per previous answer... religious faith not so special on average, but spiritual faith is special.
Ahh - you have some basic/further studying to do. The gospels were written by many different unknown individuals - that's been known for a long time. None were known to have been eye witnesses to any of the events written.
It's like not being into the pageantry of Christmas but finding the notion of Santa to still be special. Whatever floats your boat but it's all just fantasy.
You never did lose your patronising way of words, but I guess you won't change. You're missing the point. If Jesus, or say we call him Frank, didn't exist then why did thousands of people get killed in horrific ways back then and to this day, the book contains wisdom and a message that we should all try to love one another. Why would someone just make all this up? What would they have to gain? The fact of the matter is the Dead Sea Scrolls contains New Testament papyrus along with other extremely interesting things that at least date the New Testament 100AD. My question, who wrote the New Testament? and Why? Because they have made one hell of a difference to modern civilisation and at least deserve a pat on the back. And no, I don't want to talk about religious wars as those were so far away from the message written in the book, human beings used carefully out of context scripture to cause wars, PEOPLE did it.
Every breath you make every step you take is based on faith, in your case simply subconscious faith, that you will remember to press the crossing button so that you cross the road safely. Everything we do is faith based. Once you understand that there is indeed someone more intelligent than you, it is a start. Once you believe in something much bigger then anything you could imagine then anything becomes possible. I argue with God quite a bit, but He never lets me down.
Power, wealth, prestige, sexual access to attractive men or women, are all common human motives available to explain the compilation of the stories in the NT and the promulgation of them. Because the New Testament was not written as the New Testament. The NT is a controversially edited partial compilation of a great variety of stuff. It is that compilation one must discover motive for, as well. You might want to be a bit careful turning your back on some of the people the rise and reign of Christianity as the world's most wealthy and powerful religion "made a difference" to. Most of them, like most Christians, find great virtue in forgiveness - but you're asking a lot.
So someone wrote the New Testament to get their leg over? That's a new way to look at it. yeah, right on.
It's more a case of me blaming God for my favourite football team losing, or other things like that. I don't hear God's voice per se but I do feel His presence from time to time. It's a bit like when you get goose bumps.
Hmm, good point - I know I don't need to do that. I don't disagree, and much of the messaging is strong, valuable, and admirable. And much of Chinese and other eastern philosophies have great wisdom as well. But to attribute the wisdom to a supernatural source and worship that source is without merit and demeaning to the creativity and wisdom of many great thinkers. But most of the wisdom in the bible is not new, most if not all has been simply borrowed from earlier times and wrapped in a new political/religious wrapper for the time at hand. To a large extent the source of a wisdom is irrelevant, it is what we do with it and apply it that should be our focus. The downside to Christianity and other religions, is that they downplay the role of human thought, and want only to follow ancient dogma without acknowledging new discoveries and knowledge. Throughout Christian history the leaders fought hard against science only to eventually capitulate, and usually very late and with great harm to many. If we could separate the religious gibberish from the wisdom then we could gain much more from these ancient texts.
So, a repeat of the faith definitions is needed again. The word "faith" is misused most of the time. There are two main definitions and most dictionaries will show this. They are quite distinct and cannot be meaningfully interchanged. 1. Faith - used mainly in an inductive manner to mean trust. E.g. I trust my doctor, I trust this chair won't collapse when I sit down, etc. This form of faith is always based on evidence - inductive logic. It is a statistical process - where something has been repeated so often that there is a strong possibility it will occur again. My doctor has certificates, and has been referred to me because of his past good advice, etc. In every case this form of faith/trust is based on some form of identifiable evidence, although in every statistical probability scenario there is always a chance that something might fail - e.g. my doctor made a rare mistake, the chair was very old and did collapse, etc. But most of the time these things do not go wrong and we simply live as if they never go wrong and are very surprised when they do fail. 2. Faith, as in religious faith - this is the conviction that something is true beyond doubt - without any form of evidence. What the religionists usually try to do, and what you are doing here is to mix the two definitions as if they are interchangeable. When I refer to "faith" in these discussions I usually prefix it with "religious", to highlight the specific distinction. But yes in every day life we place this form of faith (inductive trust) in almost everything we do. It is nothing similar to a religious belief, and you are quite wrong to assert that everyone is using your type of religious faith in their everyday lives. Perhaps, but there remains no evidence that anything like that exists or might exist and it makes no sense to imagine there is something and then create a fantasy about what that thing might want from us and how we should treat it. Not quite, you argue with a personal fantasy, and then rationalize (make something inherently irrational appear rational), so you can continue to feel content with the delusion.
I agree and disagree. Yes, other teachings are valuable, but look at the state of their countries now? What has their belief done for them? and where is the proof that it was "borrowed"? "borrowed" being the keyword. Religion is all about power and/or money. If Isaac Newton didn't spend half his life trying to predict doomsday what else would he have given humanity? Many Saints were beheaded or crucified to get us the message from Jesus, those at the very least have to be admired and not scoffed, so yes, we need to ban religion and promote true free thinking(something you are not capable of because of your belief system holding you back).
Now your tactic is to discredit me using your intellect as usual. Every step I take I recognise that I without God I might as well be a zombie, I mean is there a point to life? Maybe you have questioned this. I know we will never see truly eye to eye therefore I kept this short, not out of disrespect.