Religion......

[rkwittem]

Only partially. I was trying to be nice. Just wondering, did you take a poll of historians to find that out? And what's the point? Does he have to be THE most influential? Wouldn't "one of the" have sufficed?

What criteria did they use? Jesus has only, allegedly, been around for about 2000 years. What about the previous 3-7 million years man suffered not knowing the savior of the world?

Tough to be influential when you ain't been born.



"Jesus? Who the fuck is that?......grunt"

I'm pretty sure more people have lived in the last 2000 years than lived in the previous years of humanity. Granted, humans have only looked like humans anatomically for the past 200,000 years and acted behaviorally like humans for the past 50,000 years. I wonder how many humans lived from 200,000 BC-0 AD and how many have lived from 0 AD to 2000 AD? Given the growth of medicine and the relatively recent explosion of the human population, the numbers may be pretty close.

Also, get a life D1B. You aren't convincing anyone to change their mind and no one is changing yours...however, I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get your morality from. I haven't hidden where I draw mine from (regardless your opinions on it). If yours was so strong, why not provide an answer? I am genuinely curious for both your source of morality and why you hesitate to answer the question.

[kalm]

What criteria did they use? Jesus has only, allegedly, been around for about 2000 years. What about the previous 3-7 million years man suffered not knowing the savior of the world?

Tough to be influential when you ain't been born.



"Jesus? Who the fuck is that?......grunt"

I'm pretty sure more people have lived in the last 2000 years than lived in the previous years of humanity. Granted, humans have only looked like humans anatomically for the past 200,000 years and acted behaviorally like humans for the past 50,000 years. I wonder how many humans lived from 200,000 BC-0 AD and how many have lived from 0 AD to 2000 AD? Given the growth of medicine and the relatively recent explosion of the human population, the numbers may be pretty close.

Also, get a life D1B. You aren't convincing anyone to change their mind and no one is changing yours...however, I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get your morality from. I haven't hidden where I draw mine from (regardless your opinions on it). If yours was so strong, why not provide an answer? I am genuinely curious for both your source of morality and why you hesitate to answer the question.

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

[D1B]

What criteria did they use? Jesus has only, allegedly, been around for about 2000 years. What about the previous 3-7 million years man suffered not knowing the savior of the world?

Tough to be influential when you ain't been born.



"Jesus? Who the fuck is that?......grunt"

I'm pretty sure more people have lived in the last 2000 years than lived in the previous years of humanity. Granted, humans have only looked like humans anatomically for the past 200,000 years and acted behaviorally like humans for the past 50,000 years. I wonder how many humans lived from 200,000 BC-0 AD and how many have lived from 0 AD to 2000 AD? Given the growth of medicine and the relatively recent explosion of the human population, the numbers may be pretty close.

Also, get a life D1B. You aren't convincing anyone to change their mind and no one is changing yours...however, I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get your morality from. I haven't hidden where I draw mine from (regardless your opinions on it). If yours was so strong, why not provide an answer? I am genuinely curious for both your source of morality and why you hesitate to answer the question.

Look through this thread. I did answer your question you dumbfuck.

[rkwittem]

I'm pretty sure more people have lived in the last 2000 years than lived in the previous years of humanity. Granted, humans have only looked like humans anatomically for the past 200,000 years and acted behaviorally like humans for the past 50,000 years. I wonder how many humans lived from 200,000 BC-0 AD and how many have lived from 0 AD to 2000 AD? Given the growth of medicine and the relatively recent explosion of the human population, the numbers may be pretty close.

Also, get a life D1B. You aren't convincing anyone to change their mind and no one is changing yours...however, I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get your morality from. I haven't hidden where I draw mine from (regardless your opinions on it). If yours was so strong, why not provide an answer? I am genuinely curious for both your source of morality and why you hesitate to answer the question.

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

Nope. I just want to know where his comes from. If church enters the discussion, it will come from him, not me.

[andy7171]

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

Nope. I just want to know where his comes from. If church enters the discussion, it will come from him, not me.

D1B is a non practicing Catholic.

[UNI88]

I'm pretty sure more people have lived in the last 2000 years than lived in the previous years of humanity. Granted, humans have only looked like humans anatomically for the past 200,000 years and acted behaviorally like humans for the past 50,000 years. I wonder how many humans lived from 200,000 BC-0 AD and how many have lived from 0 AD to 2000 AD? Given the growth of medicine and the relatively recent explosion of the human population, the numbers may be pretty close.

Also, get a life D1B. You aren't convincing anyone to change their mind and no one is changing yours...however, I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get your morality from. I haven't hidden where I draw mine from (regardless your opinions on it). If yours was so strong, why not provide an answer? I am genuinely curious for both your source of morality and why you hesitate to answer the question.

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

I got my morality from my parents. My mother was religious and my father wasn't; both were very moral.

IMO, most people get their morality from their parents. Some parents will use their religion or their church as a tool to help teach that morality but it is quite possible to raise a moral child without the help of a religion.

[kalm]

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

I got my morality from my parents. My mother was religious and my father wasn't; both were very moral.

IMO, most people get their morality from their parents. Some parents will use their religion or their church as a tool to help teach that morality but it is quite possible to raise a moral child without the help of a religion.

[rkwittem]

Are you suggesting that someone needs a church to provide them with a sense of morality?

I got my morality from my parents. My mother was religious and my father wasn't; both were very moral.

IMO, most people get their morality from their parents. Some parents will use their religion or their church as a tool to help teach that morality but it is quite possible to raise a moral child without the help of a religion.

The question is not "if" it is "where?" In a nutshell, I am not interested in if you are moral so much as where D1B gets theirs.

[D1B]

I got my morality from my parents. My mother was religious and my father wasn't; both were very moral.

IMO, most people get their morality from their parents. Some parents will use their religion or their church as a tool to help teach that morality but it is quite possible to raise a moral child without the help of a religion.

The question is not "if" it is "where?" In a nutshell, I am not interested in if you are moral so much as where D1B gets theirs.

Did you find my answer, asshole?

[rkwittem]

The question is not "if" it is "where?" In a nutshell, I am not interested in if you are moral so much as where D1B gets theirs.

Did you find my answer, asshole?

the collective experience and wisdom and stupidity of man

OK, and where did this group get their morality from?

[Ibanez]

Did you find my answer, asshole?

the collective experience and wisdom and stupidity of man

OK, and where did this group get their morality from?

From Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, Voo Doo Gods, Zues, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ghandi, the agnostic gentleman at bridge, Buddists, Hindus, Zoastrians, Deists, Ra (to name a few?)

[rkwittem]

OK, and where did this group get their morality from?

From Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, Voo Doo Gods, Zues, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ghandi, the agnostic gentleman at bridge, Buddists, Hindus, Zoastrians, Deists, Ra (to name a few?)

And theirs comes from what...

[Ibanez]

From Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, Voo Doo Gods, Zues, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ghandi, the agnostic gentleman at bridge, Buddists, Hindus, Zoastrians, Deists, Ra (to name a few?)

And theirs comes from what...

I'll feed you baby bird.

Ancient leaders that developed a man in the sky that allowed humans to have a basis for control. Use a god to scare people into accepting certain laws. I'm not saying we shoul dbe able to murder and steal from old people, but religion is just an over developed method of ancient population control.

[kalm]

From Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, Voo Doo Gods, Zues, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ghandi, the agnostic gentleman at bridge, Buddists, Hindus, Zoastrians, Deists, Ra (to name a few?)

And theirs comes from what...

Nature and the evolution of human nature. Things like cooperation and democracy are present in many animals. We just happen to be smart enough to wonder about it all.

But you could also call that god.

[JoltinJoe]

The inaccurate information contained on this website is far more prevalent than any correct information.

Great. Enlighten us.

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

First, Galilee was absolutely a Roman territory at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great ruled over the Southern and Western portions of the Levant (which included Galilee) until his death, which is believed to have occurred in 4 B.C. Herod the Great's death is mentioned in the Gospels, because after Herod's death, the Holy Family is said to have left their refuge in Egypt and returned to Galilee (Nazareth). All territory under Herod the Great were client-states of Rome.

Second, Luke's Gospel does not necessarily mean that there was a single world-wide census, and it does not say that the purpose of the census was for taxing. The Romans, in fact, conducted censuses on a "rolling" basis with each area being counted every seven years.

Third, Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. In fact, archeological digs have recently uncovered graves and a residence which date back to the time of Jesus. Here is a press release from the Israel Antiquities Authority confirming this discovery:

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_I ... ule_id=#as" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The balance of the statement is too vague to refute; however, every "fact" reported here is wrong.

[D1B]

Great. Enlighten us.

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

First, Galilee was absolutely a Roman territory at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great ruled over the Southern and Western portions of the Levant (which included Galilee) until his death, which is believed to have occurred in 4 B.C. Herod the Great's death is mentioned in the Gospels, because after Herod's death, the Holy Family is said to have left their refuge in Egypt and returned to Galilee (Nazareth). All territory under Herod the Great were client-states of Rome.

Second, Luke's Gospel does not necessarily mean that there was a single world-wide census, and it does not say that the purpose of the census was for taxing. The Romans, in fact, conducted censuses on a "rolling" basis with each area being counted every seven years.

Third, Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. In fact, archeological digs have recently uncovered graves and a residence which date back to the time of Jesus. Here is a press release from the Israel Antiquities Authority confirming this discovery:

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_I ... ule_id=#as" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The balance of the statement is too vague to refute; however, every "fact" reported here is wrong.

Nice tourism site, Joe. Israel rakes in billions in tourism. It's important for them to confirm the myths of religion.

Where are your sources for your other statements? I'm interested in contemporary witnesses and their writings. No gospels please.

[Ibanez]

Great. Enlighten us.

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

First, Galilee was absolutely a Roman territory at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great ruled over the Southern and Western portions of the Levant (which included Galilee) until his death, which is believed to have occurred in 4 B.C. Herod the Great's death is mentioned in the Gospels, because after Herod's death, the Holy Family is said to have left their refuge in Egypt and returned to Galilee (Nazareth). All territory under Herod the Great were client-states of Rome.

Second, Luke's Gospel does not necessarily mean that there was a single world-wide census, and it does not say that the purpose of the census was for taxing. The Romans, in fact, conducted censuses on a "rolling" basis with each area being counted every seven years.

Third, Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. In fact, archeological digs have recently uncovered graves and a residence which date back to the time of Jesus. Here is a press release from the Israel Antiquities Authority confirming this discovery:

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_I ... ule_id=#as" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The balance of the statement is too vague to refute; however, every "fact" reported here is wrong.

The bible has true events and actual people in it stories, doesn't make it true or Jesus real. If you believe that, the you must believe that Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

[JoltinJoe]

The Israel Antiquities Authority is a "tourism site." Wow.

Here's a link that establishes that Herod the Great ruled over Galilee and ruled under Roman authority:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... the_great/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a website that documents the results of the Roman censuses:

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/romancensus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is my work here done?

[JoltinJoe]

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

First, Galilee was absolutely a Roman territory at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great ruled over the Southern and Western portions of the Levant (which included Galilee) until his death, which is believed to have occurred in 4 B.C. Herod the Great's death is mentioned in the Gospels, because after Herod's death, the Holy Family is said to have left their refuge in Egypt and returned to Galilee (Nazareth). All territory under Herod the Great were client-states of Rome.

Second, Luke's Gospel does not necessarily mean that there was a single world-wide census, and it does not say that the purpose of the census was for taxing. The Romans, in fact, conducted censuses on a "rolling" basis with each area being counted every seven years.

Third, Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. In fact, archeological digs have recently uncovered graves and a residence which date back to the time of Jesus. Here is a press release from the Israel Antiquities Authority confirming this discovery:

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_I ... ule_id=#as" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The balance of the statement is too vague to refute; however, every "fact" reported here is wrong.

The bible has true events and actual people in it stories, doesn't make it true or Jesus real. If you believe that, the you must believe that Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

Jesus' existence is a historical fact accepted by historians without any serious question.

It is only on the internet where you can say that belief in Jesus' existence is like believing that Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

Jesus = Fact. It is not even worth discussing.

[D1B]

The Israel Antiquities Authority is a "tourism site." Wow.

Here's a link that establishes that Herod the Great ruled over Galilee and ruled under Roman authority:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... the_great/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a website that documents the results of the Roman censuses:

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/romancensus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is my work here done?

1. Still, no eyewitness confirmation that Galilee was under Roman rule. In a few searches, I'm seeing this:

Politically Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of “reunification” under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.

WiKIpedia....In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors. It describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable.[3][4][5][6] The Gospel of Matthew, which has a different birth narrative, describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC. Biblical scholars, troubled by the apparent contradiction in Scripture,[7] have traditionally sought to harmonise these accounts, while most critical scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.[8]

Many of the suggestions put forward involve a census carried out under Herod, on Roman orders. Palestine was a client kingdom which paid tribute to the Romans,[65] and Herod raised the money through taxation of his subjects.[66] The people of Herod's kingdom were not directly taxed by the empire; thus a census and taxation during Herod's rule, if ordered and administered by an imperial official, would be unprecedented. Ramsay argues that Luke does not claim the census was conducted by a Roman official.[67] B. W. R. Pearson suggested that such a census could have been carried out under Herod[68] Citing historian E. T. Salmon, he observed that client kingdoms "possessed no more than interim status"[69] and argued that such a census is plausible,[70] citing the Roman-type census ordered by King Archelaus of Cappadocia, of the tribe of Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia.[71] Like the census in Iudea, the attempted census by Archelaos was forcefully resisted by the Clitae.[14] Schürer argued that an earlier enrollment in Iudea would have evoked the same response, and that this would have been noted by Josephus.[72]

A few authors have suggested that the Gospel of Luke correctly refers to the census of 6, and that the account in the Gospel of Matthew is wrong,[73][74]

The majority view among modern scholars is that there was only one census, in 6, and the author of the Gospel of Luke deviated from history in connecting it with the birth of Jesus.[75][76][77] In The Birth of the Messiah (1977), a detailed study of the infancy narratives of Jesus, the American scholar Raymond E. Brown concluded that "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."[78] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders ascribe this to simple error: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[79] Fergus Millar, on the other hand, suggests that Luke's narrative was a construct designed to connect Jesus with the house of David.[80]

2. From your census source:

All the figures given are problematical, in various ways. First, there is the problem of the correct transmission of numbers in the manuscripts. Second, there is the issue of who precisely are being counted in each census. Third, there is the question as to whether complete census returns were ever made. Most authorities find it difficult to believe that statistics prior to 340 B.C. are anything but fictitious.

Joe, why the dearth of eyewitness information about the son of god and savior of the world? If we even allow the non biblical hearsay, it's still nothing. There's a 100 times more shit written publicly about SuperHornet than jesus.

[D1B]

The bible has true events and actual people in it stories, doesn't make it true or Jesus real. If you believe that, the you must believe that Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

Jesus' existence is a historical fact accepted by predominantly christian historians without any serious question.

We can now doubt Jesus' existence because the church won't kill us, at least in this country.

One of many non-divine Jesuses = Fact. It is not even worth discussing.

Fixed

Not even worth discussing? Spoken like someone who has been programmed.

[Gil Dobie]

The question is not "if" it is "where?" In a nutshell, I am not interested in if you are moral so much as where D1B gets theirs.

Did you find my answer, asshole?

D1B - the answer asshole

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, why the dearth of eyewitness information about the son of god and savior of the world? If we even allow the non biblical hearsay, it's still nothing. There's a 100 times more **** written publicly about SuperHornet than jesus.

Your source said: (i) Galilee was not a Roman client-state (not true); (ii) Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time (not true); and (iii) "history knows" of no census ordered by Augustus or any other emperor (not true).

There are some issues identifying precisely which census Luke/Matthew are referencing, no doubt. But there is absolutely no truth to the statement that the Romans did not conduct censuses.

IMO, there is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, especially when you consider not just the four canon Gospels, but all the other Gospels written about him. How can you discount those as sources?

[D1B]

Joe, why the dearth of eyewitness information about the son of god and savior of the world? If we even allow the non biblical hearsay, it's still nothing. There's a 100 times more **** written publicly about SuperHornet than jesus.

Your source said: (i) Galilee was not a Roman client-state (not true); (ii) Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time (not true); and (iii) "history knows" of no census ordered by Augustus or any other emperor (not true).

There are some issues identifying precisely which census Luke/Matthew are referencing, no doubt. But there is absolutely no truth to the statement that the Romans did not conduct censuses.

IMO, there is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, especially when you consider not just the four canon Gospels, but all the other Gospels written about him. How can you discount those as sources?

1. Actually one of my sources said:

Politically Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of “reunification” under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.

Looks like Galilee was special.

2. Again, show me a contemporary source naming Nazareth.

3. I'm content with my sources regarding census.

4. The real meat is eyewitness testimony. You know that. The gospels are so flawed in so many ways and written 40-200 years after the death of the mythical jesus.

Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.

Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.

Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.

So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

nobelief.com

[rkwittem]

And theirs comes from what...

Nature and the evolution of human nature. Things like cooperation and democracy are present in many animals. We just happen to be smart enough to wonder about it all.

But you could also call that god.

the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?

If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.

A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.

If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?

I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.

However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.