Solaris

Hey QB, I didn't mean it as an "authoritative" explanation – I put more irony than theory in it, so I don't catch what exactly you disagree with. But as you brought this up, I'll tell you that I have observed elderly people, most of them rather "apatheistic" in their younger years, turn to a hope of "the sweet hereafter" as they get closer to a "critical” age. Those whom I know close enough to discuss delicate matters like this one say that they still don't believe in god, but nevertheless would like to have a hope of a continuing existence in some immaterial form. This may or not be fear or angst (it is surely quite different for every individual), but there is indeed an imperative longing for the "continuation” of earthly life, and this longing is reflected in all religious systems as a major element. That it takes various forms in different religions and cults (paradise/hell, reincarnation, etc) being nevertheless present in every single one of them confirms that it is a universal human phenomenon. It certainly is not the only factor underlying the tenacity of religious beliefs, but it's a powerful element all the same. Not that I don't find this longing or hope perfectly natural and understandable. Actually I'm not quite delighted of being mortal either and wouldn't mind an afterlife, especially if it would give me the chance to haunt at nights those Armos who listen to rabiz music…

It certainly is! How could it be otherwise, I'm just a wretched godless creature who can neither see the light or conceive what human nature is about... Especially when it comes to highly spiritual creatures like Racoon… ooups, Sasun! My casual and primitive understanding of human nature also prevents me from seeing "gurus” in certain shadowy figures accused of sexual abuse, so perhaps you may want to consider drowning a blasphemous creature like me in a bathtub full of holy water… or even better -- sneezing me to death by burning frankincense… That some old poop has turned to god in his advanced age, and some religious societies have seized the chance to exploit it for publicity does not add a scruple of credibility to your theories. That's entirely a non sequitur kind of thing. Poor ole John Nash had delusions of alien conspiracies, had built a whole theory on them – a quite elaborate one BTW, so what? It doesn't devalue his "Nash equilibrium" a bit, but is no proof of alien conspiracies either. Look, just don't take it all (and yourself) too seriously. You keep opening "spiritual" threads but all you achieve by them is having some vexed agnostic post some nasty comment. Sip, how come you did not express aggressive intentions also towards his backside…

My favourite part never made it into the movie. Was considered too subversive I guess. It's the story of Berlaga the accountant who was faking insanity and was taken to the funny farm: Два терпеливых санитара отвели сварливого вице-короля в небольшую палату для больных с неправильным поведением, где смирно лежали три человека. Только тут бухгалтер понял, что такое настоящие сумасшедшие. При виде посетителей больные проявили необыкновенную активность. Толстый мужчина скатился с кровати, быстро встал на четвереньки и, высоко подняв обтянутый, как мандолина, зад, принялся отрывисто лаять и разгребать паркет задними лапами в больничных туфлях. Другой завернулся в одеяло и начал выкрикивать: "И ты, Брут, продался большевикам! " Этот человек, несомненно, воображал себя Каем Юлием Цезарем. Иногда, впрочем, в его взбаламученной голове соскакивал какой-то рычажок, и он, путая, кричал: "Я Генрих Юлий Циммерман! " -- Уйдите! Я голая! - закричал третий. - Не смотрите на меня. Мне стыдно. Я голая женщина. Между тем он был одет и был мужчина с усами. Санитары ушли. Вице-королем Индии овладел такой страх, что он и не думал уже выставлять требования о возврате любимого слона, магараджей, верных наибов, а также загадочных абреков и кунаков. "Эти в два счета придушат", - думал он леденея. И он горько пожалел о том, что наскандалил в тихой палате. Так хорошо было бы сейчас сидеть у ног доброго учителя географии и слушать нежный лепет маленького идиота: "Эне, бэнэ, раба, квинтер, финтер, жаба". Однако ничего ужасного не случилось. Человек-собака тявкнул еще несколько раз и, ворча, взобрался на свою кровать. Кай Юлий сбросил с себя одеяло, отчаянно зевнул и потянулся всем телом. Женщина с усамизакурил трубку, и сладкий запах табака "Наш кепстен" внес в мятежную душу Берлаги успокоение. -- Я вице-король Индии, -- заявил он, осмелев. -- Молчи, сволочь! -- лениво ответил на это Кай Юлий. И с прямотой римлянина добавил: -- Убью! Душу выну! Это замечание храбрейшего из императоров и воинов отрезвило беглого бухгалтера. Он спрятался под одеяло и, грустно размышляя о своей полной тревог жизни, задремал. Утром сквозь сон Берлага услышал странные слова: -- Посадили психа на нашу голову. Так было хорошо втроем-и вдруг... Возись теперь с ним! Чего доброго, этот проклятый вице-король всех нас перекусает. По голосу Берлага определил, что слова эти произнес Кай Юлий Цезарь. Через некоторое время, открыв глаза, он увидел, что на него с выражением живейшего интереса смотрит человек-собака. "Конец, - подумал вице-король, - сейчас укусит! " Но человек-собака неожиданно всплеснул руками и спросил человечьим голосом: -- Скажите, вы не сын Фомы Берлаги? -- Сын, -- ответил бухгалтер и, спохватившись, сейчас же завопил: - Отдайте несчастному вице-королю его верного слона! -- Посмотрите на меня, -- пригласил человек-дворняга. -- Неужели вы меня не узнаете? -- Михаил Александрович! -- воскликнул прозревший бухгалтер. -- Вот встреча! И вице-король сердечно расцеловался с человеком-собакой. При этом они с размаху ударились лбами, произведя бильярдный стук. Слезы стояли на глазах Михаила Александровича. -- Значит, вы не сумасшедший, - спросил Берлага. -- Чего же вы дурака валяли? -- А вы чего дурака валяли? Тоже! Слоновому подавай! И потом должен вам сказать, друг Берлага, что вице-король для хорошего сумасшедшего -- это слабо, слабо, слабо. -- А мне шурин сказал, что можно, - опечалился Берлага. -- Возьмите, например, меня, -- сказал Михаил Александрович, - тонкая игра. Человек-собака. Шизофренический бред, осложненный маниакально-депрессивным психозом, и притом, заметьте, Берлага, сумеречное состояние души. Вы думаете, мне это легко далось? Я работал над источниками. Вы читали книгу профессора Блейлера "Аутистическое мышление"? -- Н-нет, - ответил Берлага голосом вице-короля, с которого сорвали орден Подвязки и разжаловали в денщики. -- Господа! - закричал Михаил Александрович. - Он не читал книги Блейлера! Да не бойтесь, идите сюда. Он такой же король, как вы -- Цезарь. Двое остальных питомцев небольшой палаты для лиц с неправильным поведением приблизились. -- Вы не читали Блейлера? -- спросил Кай Юлий удивленно, - Позвольте, по каким же материалам вы готовились? -- Он, наверно, выписывал немецкий журнал "Ярбух фюр психоаналитик унд психопатологик", -- высказал предположение неполноценный усач. Берлага стоял как оплеванный. А знатоки так и сыпали мудреными выражениями из области теории и практики психоанализа. Все сошлись на том, что Берлаге придется плохо и что главный врач Титанушкин, возвращения которого из командировки ожидали со дня на день, разоблачит его в пять минут. О том, что возвращение Титанушкина наводило тоску на них самих, они не распространялись. -- Может быть, можно переменить бред? - трусливо спрашивал Берлага. - Что, если я буду Эмиль Золя или Магомет? -- Поздно, -- сказал Кай Юлий. -- Уже в истории болезни записано, что вы вице-король, а сумасшедший не может менять свои мании, как носки. Теперь вы всю жизнь будете в дурацком положении короля. Мы сидим здесь уже неделю и знаем порядки. Через час Берлага узнал во всех подробностях подлинные истории болезней своих соседей по палате. Появление Михаила Александровича в сумасшедшем доме объяснялось делами довольно простыми, житейскими. Он был крупный нэпман, невзначай не доплативший сорока трех тысяч подоходного налога. Это грозило вынужденной поездкой на север, а дела настойчиво требовали присутствия Михаила Александровича в Черноморске. Дуванов, так звали мужчину, выдававшего себя заженщину, был, как видно, мелкий вредитель, который не без основания опасался ареста, Но совсем не таков был Кай Юлий Цезарь, значившийся в паспорте бывшим присяжным поверенным И. Н. Старохамским. Кай Юлий Старохамский пошел в сумасшедший дом по высоким идейным соображениям. -- В Советской России, -- говорил он, драпируясь в одеяло, -- сумасшедший дом -- это единственное место, где может жить нормальный человек. Все остальное -- это сверхбедлам. Нет, с большевиками я жить не могу. Уж лучше поживу здесь, рядом с обыкновенными сумасшедшими. Эти по крайней мере не строят социализма. Потом здесь кормят. А там, в ихнем бедламе, надо работать. Но я на ихний социализм работать не буду. Здесь у меня, наконец, есть личная свобода. Свобода совести. Свобода cлова. Увидев проходившего мимо санитара, Кай Юлий Старохамский визгливо закричал: -- Да здравствует Учредительное собрание! Все на форум! И ты, Брут, продался ответственным работникам! -- И, обернувшись к Берлаге, добавил: -- Видели? Что хочу, то и кричу. А попробуйте на улице!

IMHO the explanation here is simple to the point of being scary. That old guy is simply too afraid of dieing. Good old Angst is behind the beliefs in the supernatural, 'cause it gives a promise of afterlife. Most humans just can't resign themselves to the idea that they'll be finished one day once and for all, hence the concept of meeting the Man in the Sky (or Old Harry if you've been naughty) as soon as you croak in almost all religions and cults.

You've done quite well for an amateur, having quoted that very GC 3 There are four 1949 Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and two 1977 Protocols thereto. GC 1: Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field GC 2: Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea GC 3: Prisoners of War GC 4: Civilial Persons P 1: Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts P 2: Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts They all form the basis of international humanitarian law.

Thank you!!!!

Armjan, international law definitely isn't your element. I just don't quite understand why anyone would be so keen on arguing over a subject if he doesn't have the foggiest notion of it. Firstly, what you have quoted is not the "1st provision of GC" (???) but para. 1 of the so-called "common Article 3" of four GCs. It actually applies to non-international armed conflicts, i.e. civil war in the wider sense of the word. If you wanted to show which categories of persons belong to the category of POWs under GCs and Prots, you should have quoted GC 3 Art. 4: So while none of the GCs or protocols protects terrorists per se, it not quite so unlikely that a great many persons belonging to the above categories have automatically been branded "terrorists" and locked up in Guantanamo without any consideration or scrutiny. In fact, the bulk of the international criticism leveled at the US for the reported violations of GCs has been exactly for this reason. If so, the violations are not only very serious human rights violations but also amount to "grave breaches" of GCs under GC 3 Art 130, which are crimes under international law: As far as the rights of "real" terrorists are concerned, in our context it doesn't matter who "terrorists" are and what they have done. Current international law contains no comprehensive definition of terrorism, despite the considerable number of anti-terrorism conventions, hence the wide possibilities for abuse of the concept by branding a terrorist whoever has taken up arms. However, according to GC 3 Art 5: Strictly speaking, GCs and Prots deal with the victims of armed conflicts and POWs and not with the rights of "ordinary" detainees, prisoners, or the accused. These latter categories are protected by international customary law and international human rights law. What is important here is that they are entitled to humane treatment as of absolute right. In other words, the prohibition torture and inhuman treatment is absolute under current international law irrespective of the victim's former conduct. Accordingly your justification of "keeping options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists" totters on the brink of justifying a jus cogens crime. The International Court of Justice, in its celebrated Barcelona Traction decision, stated that the "rules concerning the basic rights of the human person" are erga omnes obligations, and therefore their violations constitute international crimes that rise to the level of jus cogens. The term "jus cogens" means "the compelling law" and, as such, a jus cogens norm holds the highest hierarchical position among all other legal norms and principles – domestic or international. As a consequence of that standing, jus cogens norms are deemed to be "peremptory" and non-derogable. According to the UN anti-torture Convention: Art 2 para 2 of the Convention states that : The European Court of Human Rights has also dealt extensively with the use of certain interrogation techniques in the context of terrorism, notably in cases against the UK (IRA) and Turkey (PKK), ruling consistently that there can be no derogation from the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. I could quote a dozen other treaties, including the Statute of the new International Criminal Court and a hundred or so pages of international case law. But one doesn't need all that to figure out (and I guess that's what Stormy has been saying all this time) that the current US administration doesn't give a rat's arse about international law, or, if comes to that, for the lives of those who can't be possibly be cozened into voting Republican during the next elections.

How emotional, Arpa! But I understand how you feel. If we don't leave the dead bury the dead soon enough, and concentrate on the living instead, we are pretty much doomed.

It basically depends on what you mean under "god". If atheism is lack of belief in god, and god is the personal god – the character from the scriptures, then it basically makes me an atheist. I use the word to put that straight and clear any doubts in that account (without having recourse to that upside-down cross that Armjan & Sasun "adore" ). But in a broader context – yea, I am surely a "regular" agnostic.

Yes it does, at least to me. I call myself an atheist for the sole reason of emphasizing that I don't believe in a personal god and the pious mumbo-jumbo of "formal" religions. I don't have any objection whatsoever against abstract pantheism. I am convinced humans don't need a God and a religion to be moral, kind, honest, brave, conscientious or generous. The French existentialists, notably Sartre in his essay on Existentialism as Humanism, argued this point most brilliantly amidst the crazed "God is dead" refrain of the 1960s. In fact, you should consider reading stuff like that, before devoting your precious time to championing the cause of stigmata.

Sasun, if we all are such Einstein fans, let's say I may share to certain extent his awe and wonder of an "orderly universe". But in this case it would be logical to assume that I don't believe in the supernatural character of stigmata since I also share his disbelief in the cult of a personal God and the religious built-up around it. I also feel you're being somewhat inconsistent. You said you were not religious, but here you're keen on sustaining a belief in a "miracle" which links to the most rigid literal understanding of the New Testament. What do you think being religious is all about? Above all, I don't consider stigmatism as a very good example of a Christian miracle. If the stigmata are the only "tangible" miracles, then the Church is indeed desperate. It creates some image of a sadomasochistic God "rewarding" the pious with suffering the heck knows why, perhaps to prove his existence? Aren't there better ways? Theoretically in the case of certain extremely sensitive individuals the wounds may be psychosomatic, so some of them may not be cheats. But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the overall phenomenon is anything but supernatural. It indeed appears to be imitative. There had been no occurrences of stigmatism before the images of crucified Christ with wounds become common, and before St. Francis of Assisi apparently established the pattern as the first "true" stigmatist in thirteenth century. The fact that the stigmata appear differently on their victims – different shapes, sizes and locations, is another strong evidence that the wounds are not genuinely miraculous. Say, how come the shape of your Terese woman's wounds changed over time, apparently as she learned that Roman nails were a square-shaped? In fact even if I also took the Scriptures literally and believed that such things are theoretically possible, I would have very serious doubts as to genuine miraculous nature of stigmata. One more thing: just like me, you have no first-hand knowledge of stigmatism. The Terese woman apparently died some twenty years prior to your birth, and you haven't seen her wounds nor any other stigmata. You have read certain accounts that were sympathetic, and chose to believe, without much consideration and questioning. Believing them is convenient to your position, 'cause by you doing so you seem to get a "tangible" proof of your religion. Anyway discussing "stigmata" here seems a pretty insane idea to me. You definitely seem enamoured with the idea and pressed the issue to this point, but just consider what a sick, sadomasochistic cult is that. Bloody disgusting indeedy.

No, Benito, Einstein is not on your side. See Quebec's quotation below. And this is also one of my Einstein quotes: But perhaps Einstein'll help you to resign to the idea of BB, if you like him so much: Einstein on the big Bang theory: Brevity is the soul of wit, Benito!

Sasun, I'm about to question your bona fide on this. You're fighting some imaginary heartless "skeptic" who does nothing but offer "hoax" as the only explanation without any proof. With respect, this is a lil' absurd. I only said that if one of possible explanations casts strong enough suspicion of hoax, fraud, or mistake, then the phenomenon should not be taken at its face value (as a "miracle") and should be investigated. Precisely. But it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation, while some lousy doctor (I personally know some who will tell anything if the price is right), or an old priest surely are not enough to clear the suspicion.

Ooh, and I want you hear me.... //The Beatles

Folks, have the decency not to drag Einstein into the "religioust" crowd. This is basically what his belief was about: I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God. // The Human Side, 1954

I mentioned David Copperfield on purpose, in case modern-day "miraculous" gurus are brought into play. The audience for a top-notch magician's show know they are being served a trick, try hard to figure it out but few, if any, really make it. Houdini is still a legend. Now the same can be performed on stage by a "guru" not as a trick but a "miracle" before an exalted audience willing to buy just about anything. Sasun's stigmatists could have used some trickery or simple dexterity to cut themselves unnoticed, but that sort of petty pious fraud is harmless by and large (if you don't have a problem with exposing an aspect to Christian faith with a distinctly sadomasochistic flavour) . There seems to be a "demand" for miracles and so there is more than adequate "supply". But when belief in miracles is being exploited in a way that "miracle-making" trickery becomes a money-making "industry" and a brainwashing tool, then it certainly is a cause for concern…

Hey Sasun, was it my attitude to miracles that inspired you with the idea of this poll? I'll pose the question differently: in my opinion the right question is not whether or not we believe in miracles, but whether we want to believe. Makes a lot of difference. I've already said in that "wretched" thread on Jesus' birth that events usually referred to as miracles are not necessarily supernatural, 'cause there are always other possible explanations. We can be hoaxed, mistaken, or deluded, or the event isn't what it seems to be, or simply our knowledge is not enough to explain it scientifically. Consider if David Copperfield's show was performed before a person who has no idea that there exist such things as tricks. And the telephone would certainly seem a miracle to the contemporaries of Jonathan Swift. The trick is that if we "fancy" a particular miracle, we may be inclined (perhaps subconsciously) to stick to the idea of miracle ignoring all other possible explanations, to the degree of defying them when they are being pointed out by someone else. A great many people seem to crave for some "tangible" mystic experience or proof of supernatural. If one believes in some religion, they'll simply want certain phenomena to be a miracles proving their beliefs (Sasun and his stigmata). They simply won't welcome rational explanations. So if we see an "unbelievable" thing, we should neither believe nor disbelieve, but rather register the event and try and test all possible explanations. And the dosage of vino taken prior to the alleged mystic experience should be the first thing to check out… And one more thing for you Sasun: Imagine a friend (who has always been sober and stable as far as you know) comes to you to confide that (s)he hears voices and sees angels – symptoms that are common both for delusional mental illnesses and divine contact. You will: a. Revere her/him as someone having contact with God; b. Arrange a meeting for her/him with a good physiatrist. What would prevail, your belief in divine contact or the concern and responsibility for the friends' mental health?

Sasun, You bring all the right arguments any reasonable theist would bring, with all of their merits and fallacies. Most of them are simply very convenient, and when you are short of rational arguments you'd go for "intuition". If an alleged “miracle” is at odds with the scientific knowledge, you suggest an "easy" explanation that it's scientific knowledge that is incomplete, rather than the “miracle”, fictional. David Hume, an eighteenth century English philosopher, actually wrote a treatise on the subject. Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" states that when an alleged miracle occurs we should ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed? Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not a miracle but a pious fraud. The logic is the akin to that of the Occam's razor. The modern and more sophisticated version is Karl Popper's conception of "verisimilitude" of conjectures, of which I talked earlier. We are not bound to believe that a seemingly abnormal thing is a miracle, 'cause there are other, more plausible explanations – we can be hoaxed, or mistaken, or deluded, or simply the event is not what it appears to be. Let's not succumb not only to absurdity but also to the common fallacy of false dilemma. Your stigmatism argument still fails to convince me. The whole thing seems a regular pious fraud all the way – and a rather sick one, if we call a spade a spade. What kind of people could be aroused by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her? This is bloody disgusting, excuse the pun. The concept of Satan is also very convenient – gives easy answers to all nasty questions. I guess all the evil on Earth is attributed to him? Good. Now we know who the enemy is. The Old Teaser, not Old Dubya Bush. Perhaps this casts a little doubt on the concept of Omnipotence – if Old Harry is so good at muddling up God's plans then God is not quite so almighty in the end of the day, now is he? The concept of "potential divinity" is obscure – I don't grasp it. Do you want to call "divine" everything that is good in humans? For cripe's sake, why? Finally, you said that the basic tenets of all religions are the same while "outer things can be very contradictory, and it means either some of them are wrong or all are wrong". The basic principle is that "God is Spirit and is Omnipotent". Doesn't it follow that all the built-up surrounding this principle (or your "outer things") can be safely cast away, or at least regarded as socially/regionally/temporally constructed and developed, and therefore subject to regular scrutiny and revision?

Not necessarily. If one is ready to die for his/her ideas, then (s)he could also lie for them… The trouble with our dialogue is that you tend to adduce arguments on which I am bound to be skeptical. And I am surely skeptical about stigmata. You trust the miraculous accounts and I seem more convinced with the rebuttals. Those interested in stigmata can consider this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._24/ai_63693003 I don't know which of us is more “terrible". I don't believe in God, but you don't believe in humanity. By suggesting that Joan owed her "power, inspiration and charisma" and "her extraordinary and unselfish acts" to divine contact, you simply degrade the human being in her. The same applies to Jesus. Should the deeds of great humans be credited to divine intervention? My answer is no. You may think whatever you feel like. And there is something else that sounds very suspicious here: the point that the divine blessing was given to Joan implies that God was taking sides in a nasty war which was not just on either side. True, Greek Gods did that as well, but there had always been a fair number of them for each "warring party" to get its share of help. Athena for Greeks and Ares for Trojans, fair enough, let the best "woman" win… But we had only one "God" there, and so he helped the French against the English? Sounds more political than divine. One more thing: the poor girl had a dreadful end. So did Jesus, but that was apparently "necessity" for "saving" the mankind. And according to the legend he did not stay dead for long after all. But Joan did. She was burned alive, and your God did nothing even to mitigate her sufferings. So why God's love has to be so harsh, to the point of being sadistic? You may say she was rewarded in afterlife, but, after all, nothing prevented Him (her? It?) from leaving her enjoy her mundane glory. He could reward her afterwards, once she had died a honourable gramma in her bed at the age of 80. Well I knew it would boil down to this in the end. Some are special and see the light (by the means of navel contemplating or otherwise), some don't. It’s a matter of "inner light" – but some just don't have the bulb inside, and that's why they don't believe in gosh. Poor creatures, so much the worse for them… They'll go to heck…

This is the prize argument of irrationalism – totally irrefutable. There is no way of denying the existence of anything in the universe. However the conception of verisimilitude may of some help (this principle is akin to Occam's Rasor). We can as well say that there is a certain Latin spell which, pronounced in a certain way, will turn water into wine. We can neither verify nor refute it empirically. It is impossible to pronounce all possible combinations of all Latin words in all possible ways, to see that nothing happens and ergo the sentence is false. But we'll excuse a reasonable person if she still considers that such a spell does not exist. So let's not succumb to the absurdity. Early XIX century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explore nuclear fusion, just like XVII century scientific knowledge was not developed enough to explain gravity. This is Bertrand Russell's example: "People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced". However it is not very likely that science one day will develop to the point of explaining how plain H20 was turned into wine without the use of sophisticated equipment changing the structure of atoms. I was asking about method. If you have it, you don't need my examples. It should be applicable to both past and future miracles. So, pls feel free to go ahead… Then how do you reconcile different belief systems? Jesus & Krishna? How about Islam and its trends and sects? It's not only Jesus, Krishna too is like Jesus, and others. But not Zeus and Vishnu who are not historical persons. I don't think you will find anyone who will argue that Zeus and Vishnu walked on the earth as human beings, even though there are many Hindus who worship Vishnu as a real thing (not sure about Zeus). So there is the distinction between myths and real events. For example, in Hindu religion there are so many stories about Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma (called puranas) that are highly revered by Hindus. These stories are myths and are believed as myths by their followers. The same goes with the Greek mythology, I have never haerd anyone claiming that Zeus was a historical person (but maybe there are some, I don't know). Do you mean to say that only historical persons who walked on the earth as human beings can be divine? What about the Trinity? Is Father God a historical character? He manifested himself as a burning bush, for instance, but did he walk on earth as a human being? You won't contend his divinity as Jesus's divinity is derived from his. But if he is divine, then Vishnu as well has a fair chance? Re Zeus: if a belief systems is no longer practiced, does it automatically render it's "miracles" and Gods invalid? Ancient Greeks worshipped those Gods - there was no other reason for having them. And apparently they believed that Zeus raided Earth in the appearance of a bull… And what if an old religion is being "relaunched"? There is some revival of interest in paganism in the UK and there are practicing druid groups. What about them? In any courtroom, you'll hear a lot of stories that are meant to be testimonies but are full-fledged myths. It doesn't matter what these stories are meant to be by the teller. What is important is whether the events the story states are in agreement with (or correspond to) reality. You consider Jesus' or Krishna's existence and activities as an uncontested facts, while they are not. In our case, we can neither prove or disprove that. We simply don't know whether or not those people existed, nor do we know whether or not those things happened. We can only establish that these events are nor verisimilar as they contradict to scientific knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, ets. It is more likely that they are myths than miracles. In a word, evidence inadmissible, counsel. You can still say that miracles don't have to conform to scientific knowledge. But that would render your "nuclear fusion" argument irrelevant.

Armjan, now you're simply being a drag. Don't forget that God, as well the Devil, is in detail.

Sasun, I already told you that I don't believe in supernatural, 'cause I have never encountered an evidence of its existence that holds water. There is an enormous amount of "recorded" "miracles" in any religion or mythology. Should be believe all of them, or could you suggest a method of distinguishing "true" miracles from the "false" ones? Are only those "recorded" in the Bible true? Why? You say Jesus was (is?) divine, fine, and so was (is?) Zeus - he of the golden rain, or Vishnu, or Krishna… We have a vast choice of Gods to believe. What makes you think it’s only Jesus who is the "real thing"? Today I already wrote somewhere that religion is a learned thing, as it does not come with our "preinstalled" software package. You'd never know about Jesus if you hadn't been told about him in the first place. Had you be born an Indian in India, more likely than not you'd have been a Hindu, 'cause that would have been your "default" religion. But you could still pick Christ if you got to know about him and fancied the story… You say Jesus is considered divine because he declared to be so. Let's assume he did – although we can't say for sure - there is a fair chance that the entire story is a piece of pure fiction. From what we know about him, we can say that he was a person of insight and imagination who had a message to deliver – perhaps not a divine but a human one, seeking escape from the cant and tyranny of his time. A carpenter from Nazareth had a little chance to be taken seriously, but the son of god had. He was perhaps smart enough to realize that, considering that claims of "divine origin" weren't novel at the time. Let me remind you of someone else who apparently did exactly the same. Another extraordinary character, Joan of Arc, whose story is apparently better recorded (at least her existence and military prowess aren't subject to much doubt), also declared contact with the divine – she supposedly heard voices and talked to angels. Now she was an 18 y.o. peasant girl. No matter that she was a genius, she couldn't in her barbaric times just come forward and say – I am a nobody from the middle of nowhere called Domremie, and I came to save France. But claiming to be the one chosen by God made perfect sense – and it actually worked. One the other hand, the story Jesus' divinity could have been made up later on – as that Newsweek article suggested. In a word, I find all the "mundane" explanations more "verisimilar" that the "divine" ones. Myth is a myth and should me treated as such. If you don't take some of the Scriptures texts literally (and you said you didn't), then you could allow that others could be allegorical as well.

Folks, wouldn’t it be more dignified (and humanistic) to consider Jesus as an exceptional human being, one of the greatest philosophers in the history and the founder of a most influential and humanistic religion, instead of making him a supernatural character from folklore? Moreover, this story has distinct connotations with the Greek myth of Perseus. Acrisius, King of Argos, had a daughter named Danae. The oracle of Delphi told Acrisius that Danae's son would one day kill him. To prevent this from happening, Acrisius locked Danae in a bronze tower so that she would never meet any men and have children. Danae was very beautiful, so Zeus got interested. He transformed himself into a shower of golden rain and sneaked into the tower were and "poured" his love on Danae. Soon Danae gave birth to a boy, Perseus…