Occams Razor says that out of the possibilities of answers the least complecated is where you should start looking.

Sticking magic into an equation happens out of ignorance and does not provide answers and over exagerates and over complecates an issue. When we see Penn Gillette saw somebody in half, we know the reasonable answer is that, and he would admit, that he is making an illusion. That is the simplist answer. Litterally believing such an event possible defies logic and would stop the brain from starting from the least complecated point of inquery.

To put it another way. When you cant start your car, you dont emediately tear the intire engine apart. You check the battery cable, then the battery, then maybe the ignition, or starter or altinator. But you wouldnt pull the transmition out first thing.

My point is that if given the choice between magic being real, or people wanting to believe that magic is real, which makes more sense? Which of the following would be the most likely and least complicated?

1. Thor really smashes clouds together to make thunder or lightening? You will get 72 virgins. Human flesh can survive rigor mortis?

OR

2. People like the idea of a super being having dominion over mortalsm, so throughout history they have made these characters up and competed with other cutures to spread these ideas.

The following are links to show how this is possible and that it does happen. Other skeptics can add their links, mass publications and university links would be prefured. Linking to atheist sites will only incourage theists to call those sites agenda driven.

Theists, you too can post your likes. Likewise, we can spot an apologist site with our eyes closed. The smell is strong on those, so I would try to link to independant sources free of religious agendas.

Here are the links I have showing the progression from polytheism to monoltheism.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

http://www.bandoli.no/historyofchristianity.htm

http://www.custance.org/old/evol/2ch1/2ch1.html

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

These are just a sample.

We see motifs of polytheism that have different details and different names later to be taken by the Hebrews and switched and changed.

Other motifs includ, "The Epic of Gelgamesh" which discribes a flood, not the same amount of days, but a cataclism nontheless. We see the curing of blindness done by Thot of the Anceint egyptions later to be done by Jesus in the NT. We see the trinity in anceint egypt in Ra, Osirus and Horus and the judgment of the dead as well.

The idea of virginity was not new to Christianity. Isis had many different sects and interpretations of her myth and some sects worshiped the birth of Horus as virgin in nature, dispite the original stories. The temple of Luxor is known to be the older(than christ) dipiction of "mother and child" in the divine sense.

The code of Hammurabi:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Much older than the Hebrew text includes many of the same laws and motifs to be taken on by the Hebrews. "Eye for an eye" being one of them.

As I showed before, in the biblical polytheism link El, YHWH, Baal were polytheistic gods that the early hebrews worshiped and later, for whatever natural political or environmental situation at the time, decided to streemline the practice into one god.

These overlaps of polytheims and monotheism are a mix of polytheim of the Egyptians, Vedas, Zoroaster, Ugartic Caananite and even helenistic polytheim.

Modern Abrahamic religions merely were succesfull in out marketing the older polytheism much like a small company that sells soda, becomes big by incorperating the same tactics as the bigger companies. It becomes big and later squashes the older companies by out selling and out marketing.

Saying that any religion is original is like saying Coke is the first beverage because it's can is red. Failing to state the obvious that Coke was not the first soda or first beverage for that matter. Calling it original because it has a new detail misses the incorperation of older motifs and ideas.

This is my ultimate point. Which makes more sense?

That a donkey can really talk? Dirt POOF magically turned into bone? Or someone made up a story and passed it on later to be out marketed by a newer younger group who merely took something old and repackaged it?

Add your links here. Remember to link to independant sources outside your position BOTH SIDES.