I just posted this link in another thread, and thought a lot of atheists would really appreciate the works of author, journalist, and former Anglican priest Tom Harpur, in regards to debunking the legend of the mythical Jesus character.

This series is called "The Pagan Christ".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W69neFjVBw&feature=related

The master of the universe, we are told, is an immaterial being, who cannot be sensed or known except inside our peewee minds. It's giddy stuff. But not as silly as the need for the holy ghost as a sidekick. How is it possible for an immaterial, supernatural being to have a ghost as an integrated, associated superhero? Why would an immaterial thing require the services of...another immaterial thing?

  THIS MAY BE 'premature' on my part, but I was unable to get an answer via electronic-mail.  If a poster ends up in Trollville, that presumes  he’s  wrong  and considerably violating net etiquette (netiquette), correct?  Be nice if someone would touch on  what rules even a obnoxious troll has to follow on this board.  I sort of wanted to know,.  I havent gotten an answer,.  So, Share a link. 

Professional Christian apologist Matt Slick has a radio show that airs M-F 7 pm EST.  

Atheists here should call in and debate him; it will be good ol' fashioned one-to-one dialogue, where you need to think on your feet and have no opportunity to Google search your answers or ask other people for ideas.  

The website is www.carm.org; go to the section on Faith and Reason radio.

 The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

I definitely have to use this as part of my signature; it is too funny for me not to do.

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vPnMbLr5nc&feature=relmfu

Now, how can any theist give any moral justification for this?

What I am focusing on here are the theists who believe in some kind of afterlife or at least a reward/punishment system a la reincarnation. The reason why I wonder if any of them really believe is this, for the religions that say there are pleasant and unpleasant afterlives, especially as such beliefs are fairly myriad even if we ignore the various sects of a religion (which I would actually try to avoid doing) the numbers are still huge. If a person was truly concerned about the place that their apparently immortal soul was going to go why aren't they actively studying each religion and putting each one through a gauntlet of skeptical testing including whatever religion they were raised with, maybe even especially whatever one they were raised with. After all, a deity would presumably have no problem with someone studying the faiths as the person is showing sincere belief and concern, and would presumably be a much stronger believer once they worked out the 'right' religion. For that matter there would likely be whole groups of people vigorously studying the different texts, comparing them to what we know about the world and seeing where texts were clearly incorrect and trying to work out contexts to deduce what the most and least accurate book was. I mean if as many people who say they believe really did then wouldn't they be all be focused on literally finding truth?

There doesn't seem to be any actual facts surrounding a rumoured Christian godlike figure.

So, what extraordinary scientific evidence, for such an extraordinary claim, are there?

If there is no scientific evidence, then admit it.

If there is, please cite the peer reviewed, independent scientific tests performed, and the scientific data.

Or, is there just persistent rumours?

The rumours circulating.

1- "He is Spirit (non-material)."

How has this been tested scientifically, to verify/falsify?

2- " He dwells outside of time."

How has this been tested scientifically, to verify/falsify?

3- "God exists"

How has this been tested scientifically, to verify/falsify?

G = (∃x) Gx = God exists

P-->Q = strict implication

P⊃Q = material implication

N(x) = It is necessary that X

~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X

(1) G-->N(G)

(2) [G-->N(G)]⊃[~N~(G)-->G]

(3) ~N~(G)

(4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP)

::. G (3,4; MP)

Okay.  Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.

Seriously?

All you do is talk smack.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

The god you worship is pretty black and white about everything he wants you to do.

Why don't you do everything he wants?

You're supposed to become slaves to Him.

What justification do you have for not enslaving yourself to Him?

Why don't you man up?