Atheists' Protocol

[Thorne]

Fact: Not all science is exact, and not all religion is a myth.

Medical science, for instance is, quite obviously, an inexact science and so, too, are other fields of science.

I never claimed, or intended to claim, that science is exact. Just the opposite. Science is constantly changing as we learn more and more. Our explanations of what is actually happening in the universe around us is the best explanation we can come up with given the limits of our intelligence and data.
Which, if you think about it, is what religion tries to do as well. The problem with religion, as I see it, is that it is not based upon rational, provable theorems. It is, indeed, myth, by its very nature unprovable, and can only be taken on faith.

(Two of my favourite sceptic quotes: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. " - Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1932.)

This is at the very heart of what I've been saying. We don't know everything. We must constantly change our view of the world. The difference here is that these men, though they were wrong about the future, made such wondrous strides in science that they are still numbered among the great. As are those who proved them wrong! In a religion, those who proved that the atom COULD be split, and who proved that heavier than air machines COULD be made to fly, would be excommunicated at best, executed at worst.

And, of course, a man named Jesus really did exist along with numerous other prophets; it's a part of history. And, maybe he did have the power to heal.

Actually, two months ago I would have agreed with you on this one. But I heard something just a little while ago that may force me to revise that belief. I heard that the only evidence for Jesus' life is in the Bible. There does not seem to be any real record of his existence aside from that. And since the accounts of his life, as written in the Gospels, conflict with one another, and sometimes with history itself, it cannot be trusted historically.
I don't know if this is true, I haven't looked into it. But if it is then we must step back and reconsider. I'm not saying he did NOT exist, just that there may not be independent evidence that he really did.

Edit: OK, I've looked up some things and am more confused than ever. People on both sides of this issue seem to use the same evidence to promote their beliefs. From what I can gather, everything which has been written about the life of Jesus was written at least 30 to 40 years after his death. Naturally, original manuscripts of these documents do not usually exist and some consider references in Josephus and Tacitus to be interpolated by later Catholic scribes, reinforcing the Gospel accounts of Jesus. As near as I can tell, there are no known contemporary reports of Jesus, though later writer sometimes seem to be citing earlier works which may, indeed, have existed. Even Roman records, which I understand were fairly extensive, don't seem to mention Jesus at the time that he lived. Even the Gospels were written no earlier than 70AD and were probably not written by the men who bear there names, though they are probably based upon the teachings of those men.
At this point I would have to say that it seems probable that there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Whether or not he also performed the miracles ascribed to him by the Gospels is another story. Despite that fact that he was supposedly followed by many people during his final year, as many as 5000 being mentioned, and despite the fact that the Jews were one of the most literate cultures in the area, there does not seem to be any independent evidence of his works.