Live and let live

[Arctonyx]

Before I dive into the details, I want to point out that it is almost universaly accepted in scholarly circles that Jesus really did exist. Historicity of Jesus. So for those who claim that there was no such person, I think the burden of proof is on you.

With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

So even if Jesus did exist. It would be rather strange, would it not that an area that is known for keeping pretty good historical records would forget to mention the son of god? Someone who performed miracles, walked on water and was the leader of a great movement? As it is the first 'historical' records of Jesus don't even call him by name, they mention a vague 'Christus' figure several decades after the supposed events. And your argument that it is most likely that he is the son of god is simply an argument from incredulity, as you never even mentioned the most likely possibility: that if Jesus did exist, that he was most likely a normal guy and a preacher who had supernatural acts attributed to him. Just like thousands of other prophets and Gods have had supernatural acts attributed to them.

And Jesus is not the most important man in history, you wouldn't be living the life you do today if it wasn't for Islam (and therefore Muhammed), because without Islam the Islamic Golden Age may never have happened. This is only one example of how other religions have laid the foundations for society, but it would suggest by your reasoning, that you are rejecting valid prophets.

[curiosityandthecat]

Since we're using the Wikipedia to prove stuff, how about this:

Would anyone say that Paul Bunyan was real? Of course not. How about Big Joe Mufferaw or Joseph Montferrand? Imagine what 2,000 years of hearsay and coercion could do to Joe if someone were to write a book claiming that he was Paul Bunyan, and then in that book the author says, "Look, I'm telling the truth. I never saw the man, but I've talked to someone who did, and he promises me that he's not lying!"

Credible?

 

[LoneMateria]

Okay i'm going to touch on the Historicity of Jesus then i'm going back to the original topic.  1.) Even if there were contemporary accounts for Jesus those accounts wouldn't be enough to prove the "miracles" or "divinity" of him.  2.) Its a surprise to me that Jesus supposedly attracted such large crowds and the local newspapers (some of which we have) or other sources fail to mention him until Christians appear.  3.) There are contemporary accounts for Muhammad existing (not for any miracles he performed) but there is more evidence for the actual Muhammad existing then Jesus.

Now back on topic.  Someones intelligence isn't and shouldn't be judged whether or not that person believes in a deity or not.  For example Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project and he was a theist.  He seems to have compartmentalized his theistic beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact he is a brilliant scientist.  Theism or atheism has no bearing on some peoples intelligence.

Something to keep in mind though is that the more intelligent someone is the more likely they are to be an atheist.  Scientists overall are though are the most atheistic group of people especially when you compare them to the general population.  The opposite of this is true when it comes to unintelligent people.  The staggering majority of uneducated, lower class citizens are almost unanimously theists.  I can see where this causes confusion especially among atheists.  However we need to resist our urge to classify all people this way.  Because there are always exceptions ^_^