Why I Deserve to be Shot in the Head

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
I also like Big Banana’s take on this.

If you want to pick a god or a religion, choose one that’s cool like Viking gods. After all, they are all just stories of men.[/quote]

Yeah, because the god that died for the world as a criminal sucks bollocks. I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]

You make the outlandish claim, you fucking prove it.[/quote]

Outlandish? The majority of Western Civilization in the recent past has believed it to be true. I find atheism to go against civilization, tradition, common knowledge, and status quo. I think it would be those going against the status quo to prove their stance to be the truth. I don’t walk into a Protestant Church and demand the Pastor prove that Protestantism is correct. Welcome to the Western world, Mak. Oh, and now exponentially the southern hemisphere.

42

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You religious people scare the shit out of me. How you think you can draw so many conclusions as fact from the scrawlings of some tripped out dudes on mushrooms over 2000 years ago is beyond me. What the fuck happened to logic and reason?[/quote]

The Gospels are some of the best historical documents the world holds, hell we hold what is written about Alexander the Great as fact, even though it wasn’t written until 400 years after his death. Same goes for Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, &c.

[quote]
I heard that santa claus was actually the second messiah. You know how I know that? I found a book that was written by these dudes who said they actually met the second messiah. He even had a beard and a red suit. They wrote it down in a book so I know its true.[/quote]

Actually, Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nickolaus who was a Bishop that happened to bunch Arius in the mouth, as well as, put gold coins in the shoes of children on the night before Jesus birthday.

See the difference is that Catholics know their history.[/quote]

  1. We hold what we know about Alexander as fact because Arrian had access to both the official Macedonian records and the diaries of Ptolemy. We also have numerous other sources, eg Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Justinus etc.

Virtually the entire inhabited world also experienced and recorded his invasions. Unfortuntately Thebes and Tyre(which is no longer an island due to Alexander’s mole) weren’t able to record his visits.[/quote]

400 years after he died. And the first copy of that we have is about a hundred years after if I remember correctly.

[quote]
2. Socrates never wrote anything.

  1. Plato and Aristotle were philosophers not historians.[/quote]

Never said Socrates wrote anything or that Plato and Aristotle were historians, I said we accept far less stringent academic standards when it comes to accepting facts about these men than what people attempt to put on the Gospels and Jesus. Four accounts of one man written between 4-50 years after his death. Pretty damn good evidence, I’d say. If you think it’s loose standards, then you need to go back to school and study some more history.[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t these accounts contradictory and written by the most ardent followers of his personality cult? Also, didn’t Arrian describe PLAUSIBLE events like battles/campaigns that actually took place as opposed to magic water/wine tricks, levitation and rising from the dead? In addition, isn’t the fact that Alexander conquered virtually the entire inhabited world before he was 30 corroborating evidence of some sort perhaps?

I’m all for believing in crap if it makes for a more cohesive society and a shared set of values/morals/standards of behaviour etc, but must we compare serious scholarship with religion?[/quote]

Don’t pull the old Scotsman fallacy. “Serious” scholarship it is. With peer reviewed journals, skeptics, and the whole 9 yards. Don’t pull that bullshit.

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
I also like Big Banana’s take on this.

If you want to pick a god or a religion, choose one that’s cool like Viking gods. After all, they are all just stories of men.[/quote]

Yeah, because the god that died for the world as a criminal sucks bollocks. I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]

You make the outlandish claim, you fucking prove it.[/quote]

Then again he may (rightfully so) think you are making the outlandish claim by saying it didn’t happen so…you fuckin prove it.[/quote]

Naw, established evidence is firmly on the side of dead people staying in the ground.

44

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
I also like Big Banana’s take on this.

If you want to pick a god or a religion, choose one that’s cool like Viking gods. After all, they are all just stories of men.[/quote]

Yeah, because the god that died for the world as a criminal sucks bollocks. I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]

You make the outlandish claim, you fucking prove it.[/quote]

Outlandish? The majority of Western Civilization in the recent past has believed it to be true. I find atheism to go against civilization, tradition, common knowledge, and status quo. I think it would be those going against the status quo to prove their stance to be the truth. I don’t walk into a Protestant Church and demand the Pastor prove that Protestantism is correct. Welcome to the Western world, Mak. Oh, and now exponentially the southern hemisphere. [/quote]

No, no, no, no, Christianity is around for 2000 years, mankind probably for 150000 give or take.

Given that, agriculture is aginst the status quo, and even if one accepted your absurd premise, you have nothing on Buddhism, Hinduism, or Daoism.

45

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]Why Chris? WHY?!?!?! Didn’t Jesus teach us in the story of the rich man and Lazarus that if people won’t believe the law and the prophets neither will they believe if one returns from the dead? Learn to choose your battles.
[/quote]

Tirib - question. If everything is decided by god, and exists to further his glory, how can there be sin? [/quote]To further His glory. Which it most resplendently does.

46

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]Why Chris? WHY?!?!?! Didn’t Jesus teach us in the story of the rich man and Lazarus that if people won’t believe the law and the prophets neither will they believe if one returns from the dead? Learn to choose your battles.
[/quote]

Tirib - question. If everything is decided by god, and exists to further his glory, how can there be sin? [/quote]To further His glory. Which it most resplendently does.
[/quote]

I thought sin, by definition, was going against the will of god.

47

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]Why Chris? WHY?!?!?! Didn’t Jesus teach us in the story of the rich man and Lazarus that if people won’t believe the law and the prophets neither will they believe if one returns from the dead? Learn to choose your battles.
[/quote]

Tirib - question. If everything is decided by god, and exists to further his glory, how can there be sin? [/quote]To further His glory. Which it most resplendently does.
[/quote]

I thought sin, by definition, was going against the will of god.[/quote]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Second verse, same as the first!

48

Furthermore, there is only “proof”. One does not “disprove”, one simply proves the contrary. Its similar to saying you have negative 1 million dollars.

Thus the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, aka the religious ones. Obviously the sources of their proof are up do debate.

49

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< I thought sin, by definition, was going against the will of god.[/quote]Sin is any want of conformity to the revealed will of God. He uses sin to glorify Himself in ways that it’s absence would not provide for. I’ll explain how later when I have more time even though I really doubt you actually care. (could be wrong though). This is theology 101 to me. Joab did a pretty good piece on this somewhere recently (for an arminian =] ).

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You religious people scare the shit out of me. How you think you can draw so many conclusions as fact from the scrawlings of some tripped out dudes on mushrooms over 2000 years ago is beyond me. What the fuck happened to logic and reason?[/quote]

The Gospels are some of the best historical documents the world holds, hell we hold what is written about Alexander the Great as fact, even though it wasn’t written until 400 years after his death. Same goes for Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, &c.

[quote]
I heard that santa claus was actually the second messiah. You know how I know that? I found a book that was written by these dudes who said they actually met the second messiah. He even had a beard and a red suit. They wrote it down in a book so I know its true.[/quote]

Actually, Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nickolaus who was a Bishop that happened to bunch Arius in the mouth, as well as, put gold coins in the shoes of children on the night before Jesus birthday.

See the difference is that Catholics know their history.[/quote]

Um the great libraries of old are FAR better historical records. The writings of Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, etc are all far more detailed histories with more contextual detail, than the gospels. Even one of the NT writers attested in scripture that the actual amount of Jesus life and teachings recorded were admittedly very small and incomplete. The goal of the Gospels was not historicity, but a declaration of G-d’s new covenant with man for salvation through the Christ, correct?

51

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You religious people scare the shit out of me. How you think you can draw so many conclusions as fact from the scrawlings of some tripped out dudes on mushrooms over 2000 years ago is beyond me. What the fuck happened to logic and reason?[/quote]

The Gospels are some of the best historical documents the world holds, hell we hold what is written about Alexander the Great as fact, even though it wasn’t written until 400 years after his death. Same goes for Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, &c.

[quote]
I heard that santa claus was actually the second messiah. You know how I know that? I found a book that was written by these dudes who said they actually met the second messiah. He even had a beard and a red suit. They wrote it down in a book so I know its true.[/quote]

Actually, Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nickolaus who was a Bishop that happened to bunch Arius in the mouth, as well as, put gold coins in the shoes of children on the night before Jesus birthday.

See the difference is that Catholics know their history.[/quote]

  1. We hold what we know about Alexander as fact because Arrian had access to both the official Macedonian records and the diaries of Ptolemy. We also have numerous other sources, eg Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Justinus etc.

Virtually the entire inhabited world also experienced and recorded his invasions. Unfortuntately Thebes and Tyre(which is no longer an island due to Alexander’s mole) weren’t able to record his visits.[/quote]

400 years after he died. And the first copy of that we have is about a hundred years after if I remember correctly.

[quote]
2. Socrates never wrote anything.

  1. Plato and Aristotle were philosophers not historians.[/quote]

Never said Socrates wrote anything or that Plato and Aristotle were historians, I said we accept far less stringent academic standards when it comes to accepting facts about these men than what people attempt to put on the Gospels and Jesus. Four accounts of one man written between 4-50 years after his death. Pretty damn good evidence, I’d say. If you think it’s loose standards, then you need to go back to school and study some more history.[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t these accounts contradictory and written by the most ardent followers of his personality cult? Also, didn’t Arrian describe PLAUSIBLE events like battles/campaigns that actually took place as opposed to magic water/wine tricks, levitation and rising from the dead? In addition, isn’t the fact that Alexander conquered virtually the entire inhabited world before he was 30 corroborating evidence of some sort perhaps?

I’m all for believing in crap if it makes for a more cohesive society and a shared set of values/morals/standards of behaviour etc, but must we compare serious scholarship with religion?[/quote]

Don’t pull the old Scotsman fallacy. “Serious” scholarship it is. With peer reviewed journals, skeptics, and the whole 9 yards. Don’t pull that bullshit.[/quote]

You mean serious peer reviewed journals like this one?

Whilst trying to sound clever, you unfortunately missed the point I was making, that regardless of the “accuracy” of any historical account YOU provide for YOUR religion, there are equally “accurate”, and I cringe in using that word, accounts for all the other major religions.

You don’t just have to prove that god exists, but that your account of his existence is over and above everyone elses.

The goddamn news isn’t even accurate so how anyone can expect to trust the fine detail of ancient human records is beyond me. History is a hazy picture at best.

If we ended up making ourselves extinct and aliens landed on our planet and dug up a copy of the star wars box set on blu-ray (which kicks ass) they may be forgiven for thinking that the extinct inhabitants may have had the abilty to travel through space. How would they be able to figure out is was fiction and not based on a true story?

Unless of course they found the IMDB as well in which case they’d be fucking sorted and would finally be able to figure out that the suitcase in pulp-fiction actually contains human souls. They’d also quickly find out that Breaking Bad is a fucking amazing drama, The Walking Dead is wank worthy and that Hugh Laurie was actually a well known british comic before he starred in house and made enough money to keep Charlie Sheen in hookers and blow.

52

[quote]

So if Bin Laden, or someone like him, had a conversion right before he was shot, he would be in heaven now, but Mohandas Gandhi, who to my knowledge never converted, is in hell? True or false?

And I’m not setting you up - I’d really like to know.

And I’d be interested in how others answer, as well.[/quote]

Bin Laden, according to the Wahabbist teachings that he followed, is indeed in Heaven. He was martyred while commiting Jihad which gives an immediate accent into Heaven without experiencing the torment of the earth (burial) that a muslim non-martyr experiences when they die.

This belief isn’t held by all of Islamic schools of jurisprudence, just the Wahabbis and the associated sects in India and Pakistan. I’m not sure about the Shia, I’ll have to look that up.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
I also like Big Banana’s take on this.

If you want to pick a god or a religion, choose one that’s cool like Viking gods. After all, they are all just stories of men.[/quote]

Yeah, because the god that died for the world as a criminal sucks bollocks. I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]

You make the outlandish claim, you fucking prove it.[/quote]

Outlandish? The majority of Western Civilization in the recent past has believed it to be true. I find atheism to go against civilization, tradition, common knowledge, and status quo. I think it would be those going against the status quo to prove their stance to be the truth. I don’t walk into a Protestant Church and demand the Pastor prove that Protestantism is correct. Welcome to the Western world, Mak. Oh, and now exponentially the southern hemisphere. [/quote]

No, no, no, no, Christianity is around for 2000 years, mankind probably for 150000 give or take.

Given that, agriculture is aginst the status quo, and even if one accepted your absurd premise, you have nothing on Buddhism, Hinduism, or Daoism.

[/quote]

I guess the whole “western” world part escaped you, last time I checked Buddhism, Hinduism, or Daoism wasn’t very influential in the western world.

And, if you want to pull out our cocks and measure, the Judeo-Christian religion (a la Catholicism/Christianity) has a history and tradition of 4000 years spanning from East to West and concurring the largest empire known to man as well as being the religion of the still largest empire (Britain) and of the most powerful entities in the world (America & Vatican City).

54

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You religious people scare the shit out of me. How you think you can draw so many conclusions as fact from the scrawlings of some tripped out dudes on mushrooms over 2000 years ago is beyond me. What the fuck happened to logic and reason?[/quote]

The Gospels are some of the best historical documents the world holds, hell we hold what is written about Alexander the Great as fact, even though it wasn’t written until 400 years after his death. Same goes for Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, &c.

[quote]
I heard that santa claus was actually the second messiah. You know how I know that? I found a book that was written by these dudes who said they actually met the second messiah. He even had a beard and a red suit. They wrote it down in a book so I know its true.[/quote]

Actually, Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nickolaus who was a Bishop that happened to bunch Arius in the mouth, as well as, put gold coins in the shoes of children on the night before Jesus birthday.

See the difference is that Catholics know their history.[/quote]

Um the great libraries of old are FAR better historical records. The writings of Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, etc are all far more detailed histories with more contextual detail, than the gospels. Even one of the NT writers attested in scripture that the actual amount of Jesus life and teachings recorded were admittedly very small and incomplete. The goal of the Gospels was not historicity, but a declaration of G-d’s new covenant with man for salvation through the Christ, correct? [/quote]

I don’t remember Josephus’ writing that much about Jesus (he definitely did) and I know others wrote about Jesus, but the Gospels definitely are historical in nature and seem to be far more inclusive into Jesus’ life as these are the people who lived with Jesus or were the disciples of the Apostles. I mean John was one of his closest Apostles.

55

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You mean serious peer reviewed journals like this one?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj[/quote]

No, I mean the ones in which people such as Monsignor Lemaitre were published in during his time and other such academically accepted journals. You do realize I hold to the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of the primeval atom?

[quote]
Whilst trying to sound clever, you unfortunately missed the point I was making, that regardless of the “accuracy” of any historical account YOU provide for YOUR religion, there are equally “accurate”, and I cringe in using that word, accounts for all the other major religions.[/quote]

Really? That is interesting, I have yet to find one that I didn’t have reasons not to believe it was true and I’m talking about Islam here because it’s the only other monotheistic religion around. The other ones don’t hold to a G-d in which would fit the Kalam argument.

[quote]
You don’t just have to prove that god exists, but that your account of his existence is over and above everyone elses.[/quote]

I already said I could, pointed out the five reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist.
  2. The Universe is fine-tuned.
  3. There is objective morality.
  4. Person experiences.
  5. Jesus of Nazareth.

[quote]
The goddamn news isn’t even accurate so how anyone can expect to trust the fine detail of ancient human records is beyond me. History is a hazy picture at best.[/quote]

Awesome, so we should not believe in anything?

[quote]
If we ended up making ourselves extinct and aliens landed on our planet and dug up a copy of the star wars box set on blu-ray (which kicks ass) they may be forgiven for thinking that the extinct inhabitants may have had the abilty to travel through space. How would they be able to figure out is was fiction and not based on a true story? [/quote]

Historical evidence, archeology, &c.

Or they could do something called the scientific method…but they don’t have the Catholic Church to teach them that though. :slight_smile:

56

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Unless of course they found the IMDB as well in which case they’d be fucking sorted and would finally be able to figure out that the suitcase in pulp-fiction actually contains human souls. [/quote]

Incorrect. It contains diamonds, in the original script. However, Quentin Tarantino had just made Reservoir Dogs and thought using diamonds again would be too predictable.

57

@MiketheBear:
Come on Mike. I’m not even gonna get a comment about how awesome analog kid is and how Geddy’s writing and performance were fantastic in that tune as well? That’s a positively first rate piece of rock bass guitar right there.

58

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You mean serious peer reviewed journals like this one?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj[/quote]

No, I mean the ones in which people such as Monsignor Lemaitre were published in during his time and other such academically accepted journals. You do realize I hold to the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of the primeval atom?

[quote]
Whilst trying to sound clever, you unfortunately missed the point I was making, that regardless of the “accuracy” of any historical account YOU provide for YOUR religion, there are equally “accurate”, and I cringe in using that word, accounts for all the other major religions.[/quote]

Really? That is interesting, I have yet to find one that I didn’t have reasons not to believe it was true and I’m talking about Islam here because it’s the only other monotheistic religion around. The other ones don’t hold to a G-d in which would fit the Kalam argument.

[quote]
You don’t just have to prove that god exists, but that your account of his existence is over and above everyone elses.[/quote]

I already said I could, pointed out the five reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist.
  2. The Universe is fine-tuned.
  3. There is objective morality.
  4. Person experiences.
  5. Jesus of Nazareth.

[quote]
The goddamn news isn’t even accurate so how anyone can expect to trust the fine detail of ancient human records is beyond me. History is a hazy picture at best.[/quote]

Awesome, so we should not believe in anything?

[quote]
If we ended up making ourselves extinct and aliens landed on our planet and dug up a copy of the star wars box set on blu-ray (which kicks ass) they may be forgiven for thinking that the extinct inhabitants may have had the abilty to travel through space. How would they be able to figure out is was fiction and not based on a true story? [/quote]

Historical evidence, archeology, &c.

Or they could do something called the scientific method…but they don’t have the Catholic Church to teach them that though. :)[/quote]

Just because a journal is peer-reviewed means nothing my friend. Stop waving that term around like it means something or somehow grants any legitimacy to your BELIEFS (note I did not say arguments)

How do you know that the mono-theistic account of god is correct? You have no way of knowing or even answering that question. Kalam Shmalam my ass. The vikings had some pretty damn good tales of thor and his intervention in battles. Prove your accounts over theirs? Its an exercise in futility, so why bother? Unless of course you have some serious cognitive dissonance to rationalise away…

59

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You mean serious peer reviewed journals like this one?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj[/quote]

No, I mean the ones in which people such as Monsignor Lemaitre were published in during his time and other such academically accepted journals. You do realize I hold to the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of the primeval atom?

[quote]
Whilst trying to sound clever, you unfortunately missed the point I was making, that regardless of the “accuracy” of any historical account YOU provide for YOUR religion, there are equally “accurate”, and I cringe in using that word, accounts for all the other major religions.[/quote]

Really? That is interesting, I have yet to find one that I didn’t have reasons not to believe it was true and I’m talking about Islam here because it’s the only other monotheistic religion around. The other ones don’t hold to a G-d in which would fit the Kalam argument.

[quote]
You don’t just have to prove that god exists, but that your account of his existence is over and above everyone elses.[/quote]

I already said I could, pointed out the five reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist.
  2. The Universe is fine-tuned.
  3. There is objective morality.
  4. Person experiences.
  5. Jesus of Nazareth.

[quote]
The goddamn news isn’t even accurate so how anyone can expect to trust the fine detail of ancient human records is beyond me. History is a hazy picture at best.[/quote]

Awesome, so we should not believe in anything?

[quote]
If we ended up making ourselves extinct and aliens landed on our planet and dug up a copy of the star wars box set on blu-ray (which kicks ass) they may be forgiven for thinking that the extinct inhabitants may have had the abilty to travel through space. How would they be able to figure out is was fiction and not based on a true story? [/quote]

Historical evidence, archeology, &c.

Or they could do something called the scientific method…but they don’t have the Catholic Church to teach them that though. :)[/quote]

Just because a journal is peer-reviewed means nothing my friend. Stop waving that term around like it means something or somehow grants any legitimacy to your BELIEFS (note I did not say arguments)

How do you know that the mono-theistic account of god is correct? You have no way of knowing or even answering that question. Kalam Shmalam my ass. The vikings had some pretty damn good tales of thor and his intervention in battles. Prove your accounts over theirs? Its an exercise in futility, so why bother? Unless of course you have some serious cognitive dissonance to rationalise away…[/quote]

Lol. Really exercise in futility? Well all I have to do is prove

  1. The universe began to exist
  2. The universe is fine tuned
  3. That morals are objective
  4. People have person experiences
  5. And, the account of Jesus of Nazareth is true (actually just this one in my case) and the rest of the gods are proven to be false in one swoop.
60

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
I also like Big Banana’s take on this.

If you want to pick a god or a religion, choose one that’s cool like Viking gods. After all, they are all just stories of men.[/quote]

Yeah, because the god that died for the world as a criminal sucks bollocks. I’d also like you to prove the historical account of Jesus death, tomb, resurrection, and martyrdom - plus James and Paul - to be false.[/quote]

Poor argument. Prove them to be true.

Of course you don’t have to because the bible tells you it is a matter of faith.

It is a silly circular argument. The philosophy of Christ has done much good and is generally a positive message for promoting peace and self sacrifice in society. It doesn’t mean he was God or even existed.