Burden of proof

[moobu2]

Believers (of whatever religion) require absolutely no proof whatever for their religions outrageous claims while at the same time they demand, but will not accept, mountains of evidence from someone offering perfectly ordinary logical explanations for the old fairy tails they say they believe are real. No offence but I call all stories that are based on magical violations of the physical laws a fairy tail.

Watch this video from Acharya that talks about that phenomenon.

[John1956PA]

1. I am a follower of Acharya's blog at Freethought Nation.

Acharya is a proponent of the "mythicism" school of thought which holds that the Jesus of the New Testament (as well as his disciples, the apostles, and Paul) are fictional figures. She and a few other mythicists have authored a 2013 book entitled Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The book is in response to Bart Ehrman's 2012 book entitled Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

I am impressed with Acharya's claims that she has traced the manuscript sources of the New Testament books as far back as she was able to do so and that she compared them with ancient manuscripts of certain non-Biblical works. She professes to have knowledge of the languages in which the manuscripts were written. I think that this is an area which is appropriate for further scholarly research.

[cleanhippie]

2. Careful, you'll be tarred as a bigot for criticizing people's beliefs here.

But that's really just more ignorance from the ignorant.

[longship]

35. Is it really necessary to paint with such a broad brush here?

I like the Religion forum best when people try to get along. I disagree with some here, but I always try to do so with respect.

Please help make this place to be a safe haven to discuss a topic which often inflames passions without such characterizations as are in your post.

All are welcome.
Much appreciated, my friend.

[cleanhippie]

52. Is it really necessary to pretend that it doesn't happen here on a regular basis?

Because I won't.

[Bravatravels]

3. the new era of consciousnesses

The world is waking up to the lies and propaganda of religion.
All organized religions are scared of the movement.
It is our job to educate our future generations to become free thinkers and to question everything.
The enslaving of humans must stop and freedom will find it's place in our planet

Great video

[hrmjustin]

5. Welcome to DU my friend!

[Bravatravels]

10. thanks

I hope this become my home since we been foreclosed in current.com

I never heard of this site before but I am glad am here; There are many interesting post and discussions.

looking forward

[hrmjustin]

11. Well we are happy to have you!

[struggle4progress]

4. she's certainly popular with the larouche crowd

[struggle4progress]

6. Summary:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Hercule's life resembles that of Jesus in many ways
There are no physical artifacts from the first century
We don't have any real evidence Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really lived
Even the persecution of Christians by Saul doesn't make it into the historical record
Philo of Alexandria spoke of the Incarnate Word, the Logos
There's that special pleading again

Bottom line: This is a largely rhetorical plug for one of her books, hitting a number of one-liners that by now are so familiar that they approach mind-numbing banality

I suppose I should say clearly, that anyone who thinks carefully about Christianity must admit that traditional Christian theology cannot be proven in any scientific sense, and I think somewhat more is true: any Christian who thinks carefully about Christianity must admit that any attempt, to provide scientific proof for traditional Christian theology, really rather badly misses the target

My objections to "Acharya" have nothing whatsoever to do with her view that Christianity has been cobbled together from other pre-existing ideas: in fact, I would think we should be very surprised indeed, if we did not find in the early Christian texts abundant traces of the cultural world that spawned Christianity. My objections are somewhat different: I think when she is right, she is boring and platitudinous, echoing triumphantly as great insights banalities that have been long recognized, and that when she is wrong, she exhibits clearly her complete lack of real scholarship and her reliance on nineteenth century crackpot sources that no one takes seriously, while maintaining the same tedious triumphant tendencies

The view, that Christian ideas are a variety of mythology, is probably an idea that comes very naturally to modern thinkers, and in some sense, any scientific approach to Christianity might be forced to regard the religion as mythology, at least for the purposes of the scientific investigation, since I cannot imagine (say) how science can treat miraculous claims, except by rationalizing them away. So her views in this regard seem uncontroversial to me. But she goes astray, of course, because she lacks the background and training for the scientific investigations she purports to do and is therefore reduced to reliance on secondary materials -- which she lacks the critical instincts to sort out. A prime example is her Horus=Christ hypothesis, which she has cobbled together from dusty old books lacking any scholarly merit. It is indeed interesting and informative, when someone actually tells a coherent story, based honestly on actual facts, linking aspects of some ancient culture to early Christian thought, and so the story "Acharya" wants to tell about Christ as being modeled on Horus would be interesting and informative, if it had the slightest truth to it -- but sadly it is complete bullshit, based on one false claim after another

And that seems to be her modus operandi, again and again, evidenced in the video here as the nonsense "Hercule's life resembles that of Jesus in many ways." One can like or dislike the Jesus narratives; one can regard them as based on fact, or one can imagine them as fantasies based on wishful thinking; but it really requires a special idiocy to imagine that Jesus is modeled after Hercules

The natural conclusion that I reach, whenever I examine anything from her, is that she is a babbler with little regard for historical niceties. Her assertion here "Even the persecution of Christians by Saul doesn't make it into the historical record," for example, may sound convincing to someone who doesn't think too much or doesn't know too much. But in fact it betrays how little she knows about the actual paucity of our knowledge of that time. Pontius Pilate was a figure attested to only briefly here and there in our surviving copies of copies of copies of Roman texts, and yet we did not know the actual title he held in Jerusalem until it was reconstructed from a fragment of a stone inscription found in the early 1960s. What does "Acharya" think remains? If you want to read something written by a Pharisee, for example, the texts of Paul (formerly Saul) are the only texts left: Jerusalem was razed by the Romans, and the population dispersed into the diaspora; Roman itself was later sacked and burned; two thousand years of conquests and depredations separate us from that time; we're lucky to have anything at all

[rug]

7. Since she claims Christianity is a conspiracy, then I suppose it's incumbent upon her to prove it.

Woo does not rebut woo.

[struggle4progress]

9. She already has her answer cooked up for that: since she operates

on the basis of the familiar "Christians = biblical literalists" model, she spends the first minutes of her video ranting about how unreasonable it is to expect her to supply adequate proofs for her assertions, since she imagines it is unfair to hold her to a higher standard of proof than the biblical literalists

[moobu2]

13. Her burden of proof, which she has more than met,

is much much lower than the person making outrageous claims that violate all the physical laws. To accept her reasoning you don't have to believe in invisible people, that people die and come back to life days and years later, that people walk on water, people change water into wine, people feed 1,000's of other people with one basket of fish and on and on and on. People conspire to gain power, wealth and political advantage and for other more sinister reasons every day.

[rug]

17. She's far from proven a conspiracy or explained the growth of Christianity in its first centuries.

That has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with historical facts.

[struggle4progress]

23. Of course, if "Acharya" wants to discredit biblical literalism,

the proper way to proceed would be to discuss the problems of biblical literalism directly

But "Acharya" proceeds in a different fashion: she herself makes claims which she advances as historical fact, and she pretends to support these claims by assertions which do not withstand scrutiny

It is one thing to say that one does not believe that someone else's claims do not withstand scrutiny. It is an entirely different matter to advance claims oneself that do not withstand scrutiny. But it is risible technique to advance claims oneself, that do not withstand scrutiny, then to argue (as "Acharya" does) that one cannot be accountable for doing so, by saying one advanced these claims in order to debunk someone else's claims (that one does not believe could not withstand scrutiny) because one feels one cannot be held to a higher standard than the person one purports to debunk

[hrmjustin]

8. You can not prove or disprove God.

It is all a matter of faith or not faith. I never said my faith was logical.

[skepticscott]

14. Why can't the existence of

the god of the Bible be proven? Why is it absolutely impossible for there to be any evidence at all of god's existence? This seems like rather a disingenuous dodge, when this god is alleged to influence, and be influenced by, events in the observable world. If this god couldn't do that, what would be the point of worshipping them, other than as a security blanket for children?

[struggle4progress]

16. I suppose the answer could depend on your standards for "proof"

[skepticscott]

19. Nothing in the physical world

is ever "proven" to a 100 percent certainty, as things are in mathematics, not even the things we take for granted as being true beyond any reasonable doubt, so any claim that that standard of "proof" for "god" is being demanded are bogus. But a claim that it is in principle impossible to even accumulate enough evidence to be convincing of the existence of "god" to the extent that we are convinced of the existence of the sun or of atoms or of Barack Obama, amounts to a claim that it is impossible for there to be any evidence at all to that effect...which is silly.

Believers are happy to tout what they see as scientific evidence for the existence of god when, say, a study appears to show that intercessory prayer is effective, but when such a study is shown to be bogus, they go back to saying "I don't need evidence, my faith is enough". As noted, disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

22. So your "questions" in #14 were rhetorical gambits

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

[skepticscott]

24. WTF does THAT even mean?

They were questions designed to highlight the flaws in a claim or argument. If you want to call that a "rhetorical gambit", in hopes that ignorant people will take that to mean that the questions were not legitimate, go right ahead. Other equally clueless posters here have already tried to discredit such things by calling them "gotcha" questions, typically when they do a good job of pointing out how bogus what they're saying really is.

[rug]

18. Design an experiment to measure the infinite.

Take your time.

[skepticscott]

20. WTF does that even mean?

Are you claiming that the "god" you believe in does not and cannot act or manifest themselves in any way whatsoever that can affect or be perceived in the finite physical world that we inhabit?

If that's not what you're saying, then it IS possible to observe those effects and make judgements about their most likely explanation. If that IS what you're claiming, then there can be no reason to believe in it as a "god", other than security blanket emotional need, as noted.

[rug]

21. The most common definition of God is described in infinite terms.

That's wtf it means.

If you want to validate that by scientific means, go right ahead.

BTW, your claim that the only reason for belief is a security blanket is itself unsupported by evidence.

[skepticscott]

25. Please, give us the "most common definition of god"

And demonstrate your claim that it is the "most common definition". And demonstrate how that definition precludes a "god" so defined from having any detectable influence on the physical world we live in.

And while you're at it, give us all the other reasons for belief, excluding evidence and emotional security.

[rug]

30. Let's see . . .

Islam and Christianity account for about half.

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

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

Do your own homework from there. Pull out the limitations.

Your second error is presuming that an existing god must leave tangible effects in the physical world. It needn't. But a god that is defined as the creator of the physical world by that same definition must have the ability to interact with it, either naturally or supernaturally. That, or it is subject to its own creation and is not infinite at all. (Hint, that's a philosophical concept.)

Your third error is confusing a particular religious claim with the existence of a god. Debunking a bleeding statue is not debunking the concept of a god.

As to your last statement, your claim that the only reason to believe in a god is because of a need for a security blanket fails because arrogant and unwarranted condescension, ipso facto, invalidate virtually everything that follows.

But I'll give you another. People will consider questions beyond where those bound only by their view of "science" must stop. But, it is your claim. Prove it.

[skepticscott]

45. Here's my homework

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:58 AM - Edit history (3)

In Islamic theology, God (Arabic: الله? Allāh  is the all-powerful and all-knowing creator, sustainer, ordainer, and judge of the universe.[1][2] Islam emphasizes that God is strictly singular (tawḥīd  [3] unique (wāḥid  and inherently One (aḥad  , all-merciful and omnipotent.[4] According to Islamic teachings, God exists without place[5] and according to the Qur'an, "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things

Horseshit definition from the start. God is "above all comprehension" and yet it's known that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, a creator, sustainer, ordainer and judge, singular, unique, all-merciful and omnipotent? Sounds like someone comprehends an awful lot about him. Did you even read and comprehend that, or did you just parrot someone else's bullshit like your compadre? And just because you found this drivel on Wikipedia, that proves that this is the "most common definition" for god"?

And I never presumed that "an existing god must leave tangible effects in the physical world". Just another of your lies. I said that if they don't, there would never be any rational reason to think they exist, and hence no reason to believe in them other than the one I provided. And if they do, then it is another falsehood to say that their existence is in principle not subject to empirical inquiry and evidence-based support.

And yes, I see you can provide no other reasons to believe in god other than emotional feel-goodiness or empirical evidence. As expected. If you had any, you'd have thrown them back in my face, instead of the lame shit that you tried to fling.

Intellectual bankruptcy, ruggie...that's all you have or ever will have. Look that up on Wikipedia.

[rug]

57. Then I have to give you a D-.

It would be an F but you're so darn earnest.

In both Christianity and Islam the concept of God is infinite.

I can give you some original sources but I don't think it would be productive.

[AlbertCat]

66. the concept of God is infinite.

Infinite is an adj.

Infinity is the noun.

So God is infinity?

I don't think the average definition of even the idea of god is "infinity".

The most common concept of god is an being, similar to us, but with magical powers.... like a superhero. Being infinite is just one of his super powers. One of many. (Many concepts that are just baffling to the average person and impossible to tie down...infinity, omnipotence, omnipresent....)

Maybe not in the theological circle jerk club.... but for the masses of believers.

[rug]

68. And your concept of grammar is finite.

[AlbertCat]

70. And your concept of grammar is finite.

That is SO CLEVER!

It is just so clever... what you say is just amazingly clever!!!!!

And so helpful and erudite!



Perhaps you meant the CONCEPT of god is infinite.... which would mean any concept will do and the word "god" can mean anything. But that's just as stupid a statement as "god is infinite".

[edhopper]

26. Metaphysical hogwash

he may be "infinite, ever and ever, world without end" whatever that means, but you still either have to attribute some effect on the physical world, or say God is irrelevant to any thing that has ever happened.

In which case we go back to Epicurus;

"Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God."

[rug]

29. Actually you don't.

A god that is indifferent, to paraphrase Dawkins' term for the universe, would not have that attribute. Deism comes to mind. That test to disprove a god fails.

[edhopper]

32. "disprove God"?

Burden of proof and all, you know.

[rug]

34. Ah, you must have been talking about scallions.

he may be "infinite, ever and ever, world without end" whatever that means, but you still either have to attribute some effect on the physical world, or say God is irrelevant to any thing that has ever happened.

[edhopper]

36. Sorry

I miss the reference.

[mr blur]

41. Just the usual ignorant mystic gibberish that you're so fond of. Is it nearly Lent again yet?

You have so little to say and nothing at all to contribute.

[rug]

42. Just the usual bankrupt name-calling you're so fond of.

[hrmjustin]

27. All the things in the bible happened centuries ago.

How are we going to prove the events of the bible let alone God. It was not a dodge but the truth. I don't believe in a God that makes things happen or not happen. I pray to God for strength and I feel his presence.

[skepticscott]

46. So if god doesn't make things happen

how does he make you feel his presence or give you strength? That's making things happen.

You can't have it both ways, though I know that liberal woo-woo belief likes to pretend that you can.

[hrmjustin]

47. Feeling God's presence is different from God making you better from being sick or making

you win the lottery. What I mean by making things happen is he does not preordain things to happen. He lets it flow as it naturally would. But that is MHO.

I regularly sit quietly looking for God to be with me. I still my heart and feel the presence of the Lord. It is a very private and personal experience that is hard to put into words.

[skepticscott]

50. Of course it's not

exactly the same thing, but it's still making things happen. It is still interacting with and affecting the physical world.

And things do not have to be "preordained" in order to be caused or made to happen. You do understand that, right? If your god is simply letting things flow as they naturally would, why would he "give" you strength that you would not otherwise have had? If what you say were true, he would just leave you to cope with whatever strength you had yourself.

Again, you're trying to have it both ways...very disingenuous.

[hrmjustin]

51. I tried my best to explain my faith.

It works for me.

[edhopper]

15. So God has never acted

in the physical Universe? There is not one thing that has ever happened that you can say "God did that"? He/She is a being purely outside the physical realm and has no effect whatsoever on anything that happens or anything we do?
I see.

[hrmjustin]

28. What I said was you can not prove it either way. I don't believe God decides the ways of this world.

Our choices are our choices. The laws of the universe are what they are. I pray to God for strength. I did not say God purely outside the physical realm.

[edhopper]

31. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Epicurus (341-270 BC)

[hrmjustin]

33. I do not know God's ways. Why things happen the way they do I know not. I have been asking

these questions since I was a teen. I must give you an honest answer and say I have no clue what God is. I have my Christian beliefs but I understand that it is possible God is something completely different. There may be no God, but I don't think so. Who know's!

[edhopper]

37. I think it is important that you keep questioning

and not shy away from any question.

[hrmjustin]

39. Good advice!

[defacto7]

49. Unless all you have are questions

and have no intention of listening to others observations or explanations with a mind open to change. Then questions become simply rhetoric and nothing thereby can be gained.

[longship]

38. That's always the danger in these discussions.

If one is going to bail at the transcendent, unknowable God, how then can one claim to be a Christian whose claims seem to be that God is a personal one, that one can know God, that He acts in the world? This is not just in the more conservative sects of Christianity, but even in the liberal sects. (I grew up in the United Church of Christ, probably the most liberal.)

If you are going to make the transcendent argument, how is that different from being what can be termed an agnostic?

Just respectfully putting this out there for consideration and further discussion.

[hrmjustin]

40. what I am saying is this. I have an idea what God is. I feel am right but I may not be.

I have as all people can have a personal relationship with God. But I don't believe God decides what happens on a given moment on this planet. Just from watching the world it just does not seem logical. What God is or isn't I don't know.

[longship]

43. I guess I do not understand the "personal" relationship thing.

As I posted, I was brought up attending a UCC church (Congregational) where such talk was, although not common, existed to some extent within weekly sermons.

But isn't it part of the Christian faith that this personal relation is incumbent on one knowing God's purpose? He gave his only son... etc.

Not to offend, but doesn't some kind of a sense of dissonance rise up in ones thinking when trying to sort these things out?

Or, maybe a transcendent God is the only way to make sense of it. I am beginning to think that this is where such discussions on topics such as this by rational humans must inevitably land.

Myself, this is why I have long ago shed religious beliefs. Others may differ, and that's okay with me as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me, especially using government to do so. Also, I would ask from them the same respect that I would give to them.

Thanks for your response.

[hrmjustin]

44. I always go back to the Psalm 46 I believe that says;

Be still and know that I am God. If you believe it is very easy to just sit and feel the presence of God. There are other times when you feel nothing. It can be frustrating when you feel nothing. Faith as you know can be a roller coaster ride.

To have a relationship with God in Christianity all you have to do is talk to God. Christians stress different things that are important, but really all you have to do is sit and be in the presence of the Lord and try to pray.

[longship]

48. Interesting analogy.

Thanks for the ride.

But it's one that I've never experienced. I often wonder what is different in the psychological makeup between believers and non-believers. Maybe that's a difference that believers might deny, but if there is one, it would be interesting to understand such a thing.

I've never had the experience you've described in spite attending church and being active in church activities until my teens. So I am pretty sure that there is something to that putative difference. I remain a lifelong atheist. I never believed.

Again, thanks. And best regards.

[cleanhippie]

53. When you feel your god's presence and he gives you strength as you have said he does...

...Isn't that exactly "god deciding what happens on a given moment on this planet?"

[hrmjustin]

54. No it is God giving you the grace to get through things.

[cleanhippie]

55. And if he didn't give you "the grace to get through things"...

would you have been unable to "get through things?"



I guess what has me the most confused is how on one hand you say that your god does not interact with events here, yet on the other hand say that he does interact with events here.

If your god fills you with his presence, gives you grace, or does anything to or for you, then by definition, he has in fact, interacted with events here, no?

[hrmjustin]

56. What I am saying is God does not decide the day to day events of humans.

That does not mean he is not here amongst his children. God gives us the grace to get through life. You are an atheist and do not invoke God at all, yet you survive live your life just fine. I would as well if I was a non-believer. This is not to say that God only gives grace to believers. I believe he gives his grace to all.

[cleanhippie]

58. But you are saying exactly that, it seems.

When you tell me that at times you ask for, and receive, god's grace to "get though things", had god not just decided how an event in your life will turn out? In fact, every time you ask god for something, whether you get it or not, you god has made a decision that effects an event in your life. If your god is "here amongst his children", "giving us grace to get through life", that IS exactly "deciding the day to day events of humans."

I'm not being obtuse nor am I nitpicking your statements just to have an argument, but your statements directly contradict each other from sentence to sentence. Can you not see that?

[hrmjustin]

59. I do see your point.

What I would say is this. The decisions we make in this life are our own so we should not blame God. The changes and chances of this life our from this world and the laws of nature, not God playing God. I think people need to take responsililty for their own actions and accept that when bad or good things happen that it is not necessarly the divine at work. I pray for strength and forgiveness. My mother has been sick for the last 6 months because of the blockages in her arteries. She is getting them taken care of and she feels better. During her surgeries I prayed for strength and I prayed for a successful outcome. That is natural for me even though I know God is not going to kiss it and make it better. By praying for healing I believe God knows I am praying for strength for all involved.

[cleanhippie]

60. When you pray, are you not asking your god to intervene?

By asking for strength, or asking for anything, is that not asking your god to intervene and change the likely outcome of an event?

I agree with you that we make our own choices and are responsible, but to me, it seems that the very moment one prays to their god to give them something, whether its mental courage or the winning lottery numbers, they have given up the responsibility for themselves and are asking their god to take over, no?

[hrmjustin]

61. Well in some cases you can say people can be giving up responsibility.

But I prayed to God for strength for me and my mother to get through her ailments. I did not give up the responsibility of taking care of her or getting her to her doctors. I pray for health and long life that does not mean I take my responsibility of having to take care of myself. Some people do put their hands up and say God please take over. That is a completely thing to do but it does not take away from the fact you have to do something to help yourself.

By God giving you strength does not mean he is deciding for you in whatever your trial and tribulation is. He is just giving you the grace to get through the moment. It does not mean you always will get through the moment but that grace is given to you.

[cleanhippie]

62. So when your god gives you something, be it grace, strength, or a new car...

He HAS intervened in an event and effected the outcome in some way. Are we in agreement in that point?

[hrmjustin]

63. Yes by giving me the grace to get through something he has given me a confidence and I

might handle something differently.

[cleanhippie]

64. And that brings us back full circle and directly contradicts what you said up thread.

It cannot be both ways, my friend.

[hrmjustin]

65. Yes but what I am saying is God does not make the decision of what happens in life.

That is up to us and the laws of nature.

[cleanhippie]

67. I must strongly disagree. If your god intervenes, he IS deciding how an event will happen.

[hrmjustin]

69. No because you have to make a choice about whatever your situation is.

When you receive God's grace you are not always aware of it. The grace of God is not what makes things happen.

I pray to God to get through situation A and i feel I am receiving his grace, I might react differently than before. Other than that IMO God does not intervene. But this is all just my opinion. Your guess is as good as mine. We will find out when we die.

[cleanhippie]

71. If your gods grace does not determine what will happen, why is it needed or asked for at all?

Even if it only plays a role, it still has a cause and effect relationship to the event.

You seem to be continuing to contradict yourself.

[hrmjustin]

72. Ok when I say God's grace I do not mean that he will give a favorable reply to a prayer I have made.

God's grace is sort of a state of being. It is knowing that God is with you in a specific moment. It is very hard to put into words.

[cleanhippie]

73. I get that, it's mental support. Like fans of a team showing up and cheering for a win, right?

It's that extra boost of confidence?

[hrmjustin]

74. Yes it is mental support.

Sometimes you know you have it and at other times you don't.

[cleanhippie]

75. Mental support is a thing, no matter how subtle.

And if your god gives you mental support, he has, even in a small and subtle way, effected the event in question.

The adage "there for the grace of god go I" comes to mind. To me that speaks to probabilities and odds, where the "grace of god" is god giving one more favorable odds than another. Again, that is intervention that effects an outcome.

[hrmjustin]

76. You do make s good point that by giving that extra bit of help God does have involvement

in the affairs of life. But for the most part I think God has a hands off approach to the decisions of this world. Remember that God can be giving his grace to anyone on this planet no matter what their beliefs are.

[cleanhippie]

77. While at the same time, withholding it at his whim

Either way, he is choosing how an event may play out.

[hrmjustin]

78. I don't see it that way but from a logical point of view you can say yes.

[okasha]

12. I am unable to locate any mention

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

of fairies with tails in the definitive reference, Lady Cottingley's Pressed Fairy Book. Perhaps you could elucidate the discrepancy.

[dimbear]

79. If you are interested at all in the mythicist hypothesis, look to Robert M. Price,

who is far harder to laugh off. Even Dr. Price only assigns it a roughly 10% probability, but it's worth noting that it's not assigned zero. More proof that the search for the historical Jesus is, sadly, time wasted.