You'll understand if I don't think it requires me to source.

However:  http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/  There you go.



Ha, and you accuse us of some "missing logical" (though I would say mostly when you straw person us).  I don't understand your appeal to authority, it's not how I work. I won't make up things, as a general rule, but I don't require that I have a link to it online to offer.




Wow, okay, cool. :)  Glad I was able to better articulate.



I wasn't attempting to make an argument for "g-d" and I would imagine you agree, that people of faith make that "structure" of argument all the time. I said that it was fallatious.  The only question was "WHY" do you believe.  AND, if there is a reason, could others with a different faith use the same structure.  Then, if they can, doesn't that make you decision to chose one over another ...curious?




I would suggest that the use of "tie down" perceived questions, even if that is not your intent, doesn't help you win friends and influence people.



Perhaps it might help me if you were to put in what would look like evidence or maybe even rather than "question" which gives me very little (or actually much worse, far too much) to which to respond.

However, I would point you to the book, 50 reasons people give for believing in a g-d.

I also explain why I believe that.

People talk about authority (a book says it), (a religious leader says it), etc.
People talk about experience (I feel the presence of god), (I've had a miracle), etc.
People talk about metaphysics (If there were no god, the world would be pointless), etc.

Most of these, in form, can be used by a person of any faith.  Some of them in specifics must be modified.  Someone says my team leader turned water into wine.  While the other team player may not have a team leader who has done that... ...their team leader has done other miracle (that is to say ...has claimed to do so...) and even points out that a "false g-d" let's say Dionysus also made that claim!

So on and so on.



Are you seriously quibbling over this? I didn't ever seem to suggest to you that the stories were "identicial" ...I'm rather sure of that...

And worse, are you sincerely suggesting that a point of rhetorical flourish is persuasive. Rather than say, that the fiction writers also realized this...and said, "Hey, let's make this story both more amazing...and to make it believable, we'll make the betrothed pretty darn POed, scared, or worried."

There's just nothing persuasive about that.

But mostly, I'm shocked at the trivial distinction which doesn't make a difference as I can assuredly find you "virgin births" as well.  Heck I could almost say "How many do you want"?



You seem to be merely special pleading.

That I picked ONE example, and that you're falling right into the "fault" of it makes the point perfectly.  You're still playing the ... my team captain is cool... game. And worse, you're making a theological argument that begs the question.  There is no proof that there "is" a trinity...or that the bible g-d ever "was understood as such" until theologians.

Remember, Jews don't accept the idea.  Early xians didn't agree.  Later xians didn't agree.  To this day xians don't agree.

Things on which even believers don't agree is hardly presuasive.


No reference to this could be found. Are you sure Krishna had these said of him?

I am not *sure* I'm no scholar on Krishna. But it certainly happened to Mithra. And this again misses the point.  It isn't that you should believe in Krishna because he's just like your team captain... I'm saying that people say things like you say of your team captain about theirs and it's not persuasive to you at all.

In fact, ...by example, you come off to me as merely nitpicking.



It also in no way shape of form suggests that there's a god. And that again is the point.  All you did is argue why a Krishnite could reject your christian god.

Not a compelling argument, since numerous people have done that, divine, royal, poor alike.

What do you think my argument IS?  That there are "lots" only helps my position not harms it.


I'd have to say, it appears neither were identified as such.

See the fall of Adam following the second creation myth.  Specifically the "curses" to the serpent.

No Krishna didn't.

This site with teh Krishna believe says otherwise. And refutes your refutations.

http://reconcilecomplexity.blo...between-krishna.html



I can't find reference to these to Krishna either.


At the risk of being trivial as I argue you are being, I made three claims :) LOL




I made some typos there.  I wasn't saying you would be rude, I said I might be seen as being rude because I'm rather ...um... a bit of an iconoclast.

And do you really need everything explained to your satisfaction to just take someone at their request?

You don't have to source your information, but considering you made claims such as you were basing it off root meaning, and mentioned the meaning was different using a concept such as the difference between a technical dictionary opposed to the regular dictionary like me.

And then you link to someone's blog as your source, and for all intents and purposes, it looks like the article is not based on anything but his opinion.

I want to be clear here. You can use any words you like, and define them as you like. And you do not have to source your information at all. However, having said that, it sure looks like you jumped on my posts trying to make it look like I was not informed and using the wrong root and dictionary, when it really does look like you based your idea off someone's terms they have come up with.

It seems dishonest to say it is based on root meaning, and "technical" dictionary as the basis when it's not.

Uhm, a strawman argument to use the dictionary? What makes using the dictionary a strawman argument?



  Actually, didn't you refer to the authority by saying it was based on some "technical" dictionary and root meaning for your use of the word?

You say you don't make up things, but it sure looks like you did though.

Look Revolution. No one is correct all the time, I make mistakes too. But it seems like you are more interested in making any counter argument to what I say on this matter of atheist definition, whether true or not.



<qoute Revolution>I wasn't attempting to make an argument for "g-d" and I would imagine you agree, that people of faith make that "structure" of argument all the time. </quote>To be honest, the only people I've seen use that argument are atheists or agnostics.

But you presented an argument that most (though originally you said all) religions use the same argument.




Quote Revolution>

I would suggest that the use of "tie down" perceived questions, even if that is not your intent, doesn't help you win friends and influence people.</quote>
Yea, that seems untrue. It's an opinion here, but I think the problem here was that someone didn't like having their belief challenged.

You made a statement that most religions use the same evidence to come to their conclusion, and then gave an example which didn't stand up logically.

I felt that was factually untrue, and didn't have evidence for support. If you don't want to provide any support, we can drop it then, since I don't believe it either.

Uhm sure. If you write a book that gives 50 reasons, plenty of which is specific to a individual faith, then yea, most religions use the same reason to show their faith is true.

I'm kind of looking at this different than you I guess. I was expecting that most religions are true because_________________

But at best, the claim is that people believe in faith for many reasons, some might be the same as another faith.


Gotta go, I'll come back to the rest.

Sure I like being challenged, I just felt like you weren't challenging so much as trying to subvert what I was trying to say.

You confused an analogy with a claim.  I provided a basis for you to LET IT THE FRIG GO. And I still content atheist at it's root mean without god... which for some odd reason means "more" to you (an active belief there is no god) than it does to me "without god" ...absent of a belief in god.



Work on that self-esteme baby boi.  I didn't "jump" into your posts at all.  In fact, I just amened the person with whom you were speaking about the orthogonal nature of theism/gnosticism.



It might be "misinformed" ...at worse... But really it was nothing like you describe because I was making an analogy...not a claim.  Were there never a "dictionary of Ebonics" it wouldn't suggest that people who use Ebonics don't know what they mean.  We're the atheists, we are the only ones with any authority to tell you what that means.  Certainly NOT YOU.





I cannot help but think you're being deliberately obtuse...that or your sense of intelligence is deeply threatened by ... anything?

The strawman was you "na na na na na" position that "Well, damn if you don't move at my whim and source something ...(seemingly now because of an misunderstanding)... that that something must not exist.

That's utterly absurd. Now, you did say "beginning to believe" so at least you own it. But really now, it's manipulative and petty, to me.




I do believe the root supports me and not you.  That's a difference of opinion not of source.  And again, it was an analogy to show you people use words differently and that the Oxford Dictionary is NOT the source of "fact" about philosophical positions. it's a mass market dictionary.



You sticking with this after this message?



Your "honesty" and limited experiences is irrelevant. And from now on, I will not consider any of your "requests" to be sincere.  Rather than take me as sincere in my attempt to explore with you how your presenting self might get in the way in re: tie downs, you choose to question the motives of the person...  Well, that's fine.  But I consider that to be prickish behavior and not worthy of social grace.



No, first, I clearly said most religions cannot be simultaneously true.

Second, the whole nature of this line of reasoning is why YOU have more to answer for as a monotheist or a 'set theist' (picking one g-d out of the many options) than I have an an atheist to hold no belief in one more g-d than you do.

Third, You say,

Which is sufficient.  And not any more than I was saying in fact.

The question is:  If the reason you have for believing can be mirrored by someone who believes in another g-d...how can you dismiss that one...and keep yours?

I'm not sure how much irony was intended here, but I really got a kick out of this line!  Cheers, TitL!  And as a bonus, I think it offers a chance for a bit of increased understanding as well!

You said that you're starting to doubt the existence of this dictionary because no one is showing you evidence of it.  That's a perfectly rational position.  And it's pretty much the exact same position atheist (or at least many of them, myself included) take towards god(s).

When you said that you were starting to believe it didn't exist, you weren't saying "it's impossible that a technical dictionary exists!"  It would have been silly for someone to reply "just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not real, right?"  It would be even more silly to say "just because you don't believe it exist, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist, right?  It can exist whether you believe it or not, right?"  Neither of these statements would make you anymore likely believe that the alluded-to dictionary existed, and neither would really address what you were saying.  You weren't saying that you'd disproved the existence of the dictionary, you weren't saying that the dictionary doesn't exist.  You were saying that you were starting to believe it didn't exist. You were talking about how the evidence affected your beliefs about the dictionary.  Likewise when atheists say they don't think God exists.  They're not saying it's impossible for God to exist, they're saying it just doesn't look like He does to them.

And just as you'd be perfectly willing to say "oh, sorry, looks like the dictionary exists afterall" if someone showed it to you, atheists would be happy to say "Oh, wow, looks like I was wrong, thanks for showing me the evidence!" if people showed them convincing evidence.

Also, if someone were to insult you, and call you an immoral person for not believing in the dictionary, saying that you only say that because you want there not to be some dictionary with a different definition that you expect, and that you know, deep-down, that the dictionary really exists, if someone said that, it wouldn't really change your mind, it'd really just drive you away from the discussion and frustrate you a bit (or at least that's what it would do to me in that position).

So when thinking about what it's like to be an atheist, it might be worth remembering your a-technical-dictionarist moment here.  Being an atheist isn't much different.  It's just a doubt of a claim that someone else is making.  It's just saying "yeah, you're telling me that this thing exists, but it really looks to me like it doesn't.  I'm happy to look at the evidence you've got, but I'm not just going to take your word on it."  It's not a claim of absolute certainty, it's not saying "I don't believe it, therefor it can't possibly exist" or anything like that.  It's just lack of belief in a claim that someone's made.  It's not about what you want to be true, it's just a reaction to the lack of evidence that you think should be readily available if the claim were true.

Are you seriously quibbling over this? I didn't ever seem to suggest to you that the stories were "identicial" ...I'm rather sure of that... </quote> Just pointing out that there's a difference between virgin birth, and a couple who are actively sexual having a child. I'm thinking there's a reasonable difference.

That is one thing that the writers have going for honesty. The writing is brutally honest, including showing the writers themselves were faulting themselves. Many writers try to hide their mistakes. But with the bible, they write what happened, even if it makes them look bad.

Well, let's find out. Tell me some names so that I can start researching them.



But there is a difference between triad and trinity. As far as I am aware, the only trinity in any faith is the christian trinity. I don't consider the number three makes things a copy because they use the number three. Example, subway restaurants has a commercial here that uses the idea of three $5 dollar footlong sandwiches. That doesn't mean they copied Krishna, or Jesus to come up with how many sandwiches they should make for a deal.



But people not agreeing doesn't mean something is untrue, or even a problem. At one time, people used to disagree about lots of things. And they will disagree on lots more things in the future. This might surprise some people, but the church is full of people who aren't perfect. (and good thing too  :)

So really, agreement or disagreement is't really an issue when it comes to truth or not truth. Something is true or not true regardless if people agree.


No he didn't. Mithras was supposed to have been born before any people were created according to their myth. So how could wise men and shepherds who weren't created show up at this birth?


More so, the tablet you refer to that shows this scene which contradicts the myth, is dated to the 4th century AD. (way after Jesus was born)


  I thought the point was to show how Jesus copied Krishna, (and now Mithras), but considering the evidence, that's not likely now, is it? The evidence does not support your earlier statements.

What? You were trying to show a story that was similar to Jesus, and suggest the evidence shows Jesus copied the story of Krishna.

This particular example was actually different, and I thought that was something we could agree on. (Since both items were clearly different actions and places.)

Instead, you started to say that I wasn't showing evidence for something else. Earlier you faulted me for building a strawman case by referring to a dictionary for word use.

Revolution, have I offended you? I don't know why you are debating in this fashion? You are holding me to a different standard then you are using yourself.

I think the reasonable thing to do would be just agree that yes, it wasn't similar or copying in that particular case.

The argument was reasons to show Jesus was copied from Krishna.



Ok, in Genesis, which is before Jesus was born, there is mention of crushing a serpents head. But that's in the garden of Eden. No mention of seed of woman.

Could you now reference krishna being called that? You said they were both called that.

No Krishna didn't.

This site with teh Krishna believe says otherwise. And refutes your refutations.

</quote> I stand corrected on the miracles.
http://lovekrishna.com/miracles-of-lord-krishna.php



Yea, I know, I couldn't find any reference to all three.

I don't need everything explained to me, I ask questions as I think it's far more effective to have people think and consider what is being said. I thought it was a gentle way of getting you to understand it's not really thought of as rude to post scripture in a forum that encourages religion, and discussions.

According to one story, the Roman Emperor Augustus's mother was worshipping in the temple of Apollo when she fell asleep and was impregnated by the god [Suetonius Lives of the Caesars: Augustus 94]

Other examples of virgin born Gods

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki (Interestingly she was called a virgin which speaks to the nature of mythic stories, perhaps)
Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele.
Buddha too was born of a virgin,
The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.
Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.



    Zeus, Father of the gods, visited Semele in the form of a thunderstorm; and she gave birth to the great saviour and deliverer Dionysus. Zeus, again, impregnated Danae in a shower of gold; and the child was Perseus Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, became the wife of the god Vishnu and bore Krishna, the beloved hero and prototype of Christ. With regard to Buddha, St. Jerome says "It is handed down among the Gymnosophists of India that Buddha, the founder of their system, was brought forth by a Virgin from her side." The Egyptian Isis, with the child Horus on her knee, was honored centuries before the Christian era, and worshipped under the names of "Our Lady," "Queen of Heaven," "Star of the Sea," "Mother of God," and so forth. Before her, Neith, the Virgin of the World, whose figure bends from the sky over the earthly plains and the children of men, was acclaimed as mother of the great god Osiris. The saviour Mithra, too, was born of a Virgin, as we have had occasion to notice before; and on Mithraist monuments the mother suckling her child is not an uncommon figure.

    The old Teutonic goddess Hertha (the Earth) was a Virgin, but was impregnated by the heavenly Spirit (the Sky); and her image with a child in her arms was to be seen in the sacred groves of Germany. The Scandinavian Frigga, in much the same way, being caught in the embraces of Odin, the All-father, conceived and bore a son, the blessed Balder, healer and saviour of mankind. Quetzalcoatl, the (crucified) saviour of the Aztecs, was the son of Chimalman, the Virgin Queen of Heaven. Even the Chinese had a mother-goddess and virgin with child in her arms; and the ancient Etruscans the same

They were questions. You may choose to answer them or not. I'm not making you answer anything. I didn't have any advance warning you didn't like questions that were asking agree disagree or yes no.

But no big deal. You made your limits known, and I backed off.

Satan likes to paint a portrait of God's work to make it look like crap, doesn't he?

This is getting a little silly. I think it's reasonable you expect me to admit when there was a mistake on my part.

I am walking away at this point from the debate.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 263):

I'm going to be blunt, You're not up to the level of this conversation.

You don't seem to be able to stay on point.

For example:





You've accomplished nothing with all these words.

I didn't say that universal agreement = truth (ad populum argument)
nor that some level (even 100% disagreement) means that someone hasn't found the truth.

The funny part is, YOU think you HAVE the truth.  And my question to you has been from the very beginning, by what mechanism do you decide that what your view on these divisive issues ...even among believers of the same religion... much less believers of other religions.  ...that what you believe is the "one" that's true.

by pure probability...

If there are just 2 views about the nature of the g-dhead. (and there are more) you have only a 50-50 chance.  But even more than that, there are those of faith who don't believe Jesus is g-d (even xians) ... so now we have 3 views.  Triadg-d, triune g-d, and non-g-d jesus.  So now your chances of being right ...by chance is down to 33%

And it goes on and on.

Yet, you then claim something compelling about this faith because you have a theological idea that isn't shared.

I mean by that standard, you should be a Scientologist!  They have some REALLY strange views too!  LOL

That's our topic.

Our topic, which I don't think you're actually up to.

Is why your being a monotheist is less internally consistent and requires more explanation than if you would simply become atheistic with regards to one more g-d (because you're already atheistic about so damn many).

Here's one for you...

Why don't you believe in Thor.  There's a long standing bit of evidence for Thor that only one of "big set of g-ds" seem to have.

Ever week you see evidence of Thor.  on ThorsDay -- generally written Thursday.

And every Sunday you see evidence of the many Sun Gods.

Check it:

The First Day: Sunday was named after the Sun god.

The second Day: Monday was named after the moon goddess.

The Third Day: Tuesday was named after the god Tyr.

The Fourth Day: Wednesday was named after the god Odin.

The Fifth Day: Thursday was named after the god Thor.

The Sixth Day: Friday was named after the goddess Frigga.

The Seventh Day: Saturday was named after the god Saturn.

And if you prefer a different frame of reference, let's not forget March - for Mars.

JANUARY: Named for Janus, the Roman mighty one of portals and patron of beginnings and endings, to whom this month was sacred. He is shown as having two faces, one in front, the other at the back of his head, supposedly to symbolize his powers.

FEBRUARY: This name is derived from Februa, a Roman festival of purification. It was originally the month of expiation.

MARCH: It is named for Mars, the Roman mighty one of war.

APRIL: This name comes from the Latin APRILIS, indicating a time of Fertility. It was believed that this month is the month when the earth was supposed to open up for the plants to grow.

MAY: This month was named for Maia, the Roman female deity of growth or increase.

JUNE: This name is sometimes attributed to June, the female mighty one of the marriage, the wife of Jupiter in Roman mythology. She was also called the "Queen of heaven" and " Queen of mighty ones." The name of this month is also attributed to Junius Brutus, but originally it most probably referred to the month in which crops grow to ripeness.

JULY: Named for the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, this is the seventh month of the Gregorian year.

AUGUST: Named for Octavius Augustus Caesar, emperor of Rome; the name was originally from augure, which means, "to increase."

The rest are numbers.

Show me where your fake g-d had a DAY or a MONTH named after her!  :) LOL

Until you can, I'm going to reject your fake g-d as a total JOKE compared to Janus.  And for that matter, your god may be 3 entities in one... but Jansus has 2 FACES!  So there.

Do you see how insipid this sounds?

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 266):

That is more special pleading.

How do you know the evil machine trying to keep you from the truth of Quetzalcoatl didn't fool you to keep you with your wimpy, fake, ensuring your damnation this 2012 when the new age comes Jesus!

LOL, and that's the problem with you religious people.  Anything you don't like (like science) become "deception by the enemy" who was given dominion over this world!  And what kind of jerk g-d would ever even have a system like that.

One that if that g-d were real...we should reject and spit on his grave out of solidarity with human dignity.

Next dude.

Check it.  Did Jesus rise and did the news get told by some men?  By some angels?  How many, etc. etc. etc.

I don't care if you found a story about Mythra that says he predates all humanity.  How is that different from the pretender Jesus who was "Slain from the foundations of the earth?" Or the "John" origin... In the beginning was the Word... etc.

So maybe there are different parts of the story.  But check it...  See #1

This religion, cloaked in mystery and secrecy, has captivated the imaginations of scholars for generations.  Many facts discovered sheds vital light on the cultural dynamics that led to the rise of Christianity.  The National Geographic Society’s book “Great Religions of the World,” page 309 writes; “By Jesus’ time, East and West had mingled here for three centuries.  Down columns of boulevards walked Roman soldiers loyal to the Persian god Mithras.” Mithras was a Persian deity.  He was also the most widely venerated god in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus.  The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as the early Church Fathers found this religion of Mithras very disturbing, as there are so many similarities between the two religions, as follows:



1)  Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.

2)  Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.

3)  According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.

4)  After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.

5)  Mithra had a celibate priesthood.

6)  Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).



As you can now see, Christianity derived many of its essential elements from the ancient religion of Mithraism.   Mithraism became intertwined with the cult of Jesus to form what is known today as “Christianity.” Although literary sources on this religion are sparse, an abundance of material evidence exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman Empire, from England in the north and west to Palestine in the south and east.  The temples were usually built underground in caves, which are filled with an extremely elaborate iconography (illustrating by pictures, figures and images).  There were many hundreds of Mithraic temples in the Roman Empire, the greatest concentrations have been found in the city of Rome itself.

Ad hominem? If not against me, the debater, you're trying to devalue the subject matter by way of Straw Man.

You know, if that G-d were real, it wouldn't be because he's a jerk, or that he's stupid, it would be because God knows how to do things the best way. Some solutions to problems of life might require a quick fix. But the ultimate solution to the destruction of Evil is God's way, which is unfortunately a loong way. God is outside of Time and Space. Consider for a moment that if he sees everything as it is in the far future, after all evil is done away with, that he knows everything we go through is worth it.

There is strong biblical evidence that God does not know the future and is not outside of space and time like you suggest.  That changes the entire story completely. Just another point of view to consider.

Have you ever heard from the Bible that God knows the end from the beginning? It says it there, I've read it. :|

I'm interested in hearing more. Could you provide quotes references so I can verify myself?

Revolutionary,

The Mithra stuff is interesting however it could easily be argued that Mithraism borrowed many OT themes and images, which existed before Mithra and pals came around.

Second, expecting hard core Jews to simply adopt pagan symbolism and pieces is to underestimate those Jewish folks.

Third, as far as I know there is a severe lack of textual evidence for what Mithraism actually believed prior to the time of Jesus.  I would not be surprised in the least if many, if not most, of the symbols and similarities were poached FROM early Christianity in an effort to make the cult of Mithraism more appealing to the masses.

WIth such scattered textual evidence, far more differences than similarities, and a an understanding of Jewish culture, I find that few biblical scholars of any faith actually hold much regard for the 'Christians stole from Mithraism' theory.  There might be a few, but it's far more a 'popular' point of view than a 'scholarly' one.

But maybe it did happen that way - I wouldn't be shocked, but I don't see much evidence for it.

It also says that God changes his mind, that he regrets the way things happen sometimes, that he is surprised by certain outcomes and speaks of the future in uncertain terms.

We could start a thread on Open Theism is people are interested, but you could do a search on the topic yourself and find some great resources.  I've particularly found Greg Boyd helpful.

I like the example of Jeremiah 3 where God makes it clear that he thought Israel would react a certain way (turning to God) but Israel did not.  It's a clear example (among many others) where GOd expects something and finds that the reality is different.

The Jewish religious iconography is stolen from the Egyptians. Who also have Osiris a Died and Resurrected sun god. Jewish people do not today agree that those "twisted" "fit" "prophecies" are "there" at all nor that it applies to Jesus.

Perhaps they stole it from Egyptians, in which case you could claim that maybe Mithraism was initially borrowed from the Egyptians.

I agree that non Messianic Jews do not view the NT as fulfilling the OT, however many others do.  Perspective I suppose, but all that is simply one piece of evidence among others as to why the 'Mithraism created Christianity' line of thinking is in reality quite weak.

I think it's incredibly difficult to parse out which chicken or egg started first in all honesty.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 279):

I think you're thinking in a too western way

No one is saying "one created another"

But rather that myths have always been syncretic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism And borrowed heavily from one another.

It doesn't even matter, ultimately, "what" story predated another. It is that, (a) it's almost totally obvious the vast majority are fully false.  And it's unlikely that most people thought it was necessary for "Jesus" (or "Orsiris" to actually exist).

Interestingly, even the mystery cults, seemed to be more about passing on key career information than anything else.

And it's no more, "mystical" than if I used the expression...

With what's going on in life, I'm abundantly blessed.  Yes, it "implies" a blessor, but I don't have to believe in one to show gratitude "to universe"

I'd debate some of what you just said there, but not in this thread.  It seems to have gone far off course as it is.

I'll applaud that you feel blessed, even if that blessing is being inferred upon you from a higgs-boson :)

It's interesting to think that people always search for proof of the existence of God before they will believe in a god, and then seek that proof from believers, while at the same time most who believe also have a foundational tenet of their belief that "faith" (i.e., belief and hope without proof) is necessary to test us in this existence.

So believers say: God says we must have faith without seeing Him so our faith can grow.

And atheists say:  I reject that faith is necessary for spiritual growth because I reject the idea of spiritual growth; therefore, you must "prove" to me that there is a God.

"Proof" is not the issue; rather, the misunderstanding of why faith is required and the existence of a spiritual side of existence seems to be the basic disconnect.

This is like two polarized magnets repelling each other at the same pole:  (1) for if the believer is right, God will not let Himself be proven due to the need of faith and spiritual growth for salvation; and (2) if the atheist is right, there is no God.  Neither one can prove their point because it would be inimical to their beliefs:  God doesn't want to be proven because it is to further mankind's salvation, on one hand, and you can't prove a negative, on the other and demand instead what cannot be provided by the nature of what is asserted.