Who are happier -- Christians or Atheists?

Quote: Evenbob

That's why radio and then movies and
then TV were such an invaluable tool.
You could reach masses of people all
at once and control the story. Quash
the rumors, set them straight.

Surely, you recognize the dangers of this situation as well. The movies and TV can be more easily manipulated and can be terribly effective in force feeding a population misinformation in disguise of a good sounding History Channel special. If you don't think the "based on a true story" movies are just as much based on what the director wants you to think you are sadly mistaken. These tools of the media are carefully crafted to make you think a certain way. There are of course exceptions like Wikipedia or shows like Mythbusters or other ones that make it their mission to carefully present the truth without an agenda. Plus often you are lulled into a sense of complacency about an issue because we have watched a movie about it. Do I know all about the JFK assassination because I watched Oliver Stone's movie about it?

That's what happened in putting the
NT together. So many of the written
manuscripts were so wildly different
from each other because word of mouth
is such a poor way to communicate,
that they had to choose the agenda
they wanted, and
carefully pick only those stories that
matched the agenda. Hearsay out
of control, as the story changes with
every telling.

Nope I'm sorry, but the number of ancient manuscripts we have of the NT make it clear that if there is a mistake in one of them it is clear to see where that mistake is. They are not wildly different at all. These are simply the facts and there are many museums, libraries, and collections where you can see these manuscripts yourself to confirm that they come together to form the NT as we have it today. As I've mentioned it is the most attested and complete record of any ancient writing we have.

Quote: FrGamble

Um... did you mean to say that that? 5 and 10 trillion are both false, but not equally so. One is a little closer to right than the other one.

If you consider true=1 and False=0, then they're both equally false.

Quote:

So now the collective observations of billions of people is valid. "The Son has risen" is a conclusion based on observation.

Observations, not beliefs, which have been repeated billions of times since and right to the present day. If observations were worthless, then we'd have no science and would be unable to learn anything at all.

Quote:

I'd like to quote Yoda here because I don't follow you.

Pagan Rome when faced with something as heinous as the massacres after the Nica Riots, tore such tyrants from their thrones, eventually, and damned their memories, regardless of how the tried to patch things up. Those who stayed in power, like Tiberius, resorted to brutal suppression.

In Christian Rome, or Byzantium if you prefer, people like Justinian could get away with it by building an imposing church. Perhaps by mouthing some regret to God and play-acting penance.

Quote: FrGamble

Nope I'm sorry, but the number of ancient manuscripts we have of the NT make it clear .

This is from the Gospel of Peter:

"One of the most popular and widely quoted is the Apocalypse of Peter. This book was written as a conversation between Jesus and his followers. It basically describes all the horrible things that happen in hell and all the awesome things that happen in heaven. It is very detailed about what punishment fits which crime for those in hell. Those who are blasphemous to God are hung by their tongue, adulterous men and women are hung by their hair and feet respectively over boiling goop, and murderers are cast into a pit of horrible creeping things. Meanwhile those who go to heaven sing beautiful music, have beautiful bodies with great skin, wear shiny clothes and smell nice."

Or the Thomas Gospel:

"The Gospel of Thomas has been one of the most widely studied books not included in the New Testament because of how it was rediscovered and the interesting nature of its contents. Unlike the other narrative gospels this book does not mention the death and resurrection of Jesus but focuses instead on his teachings and how they lead to eternal life, when properly understood."

This is just two examples of what didn't make
the cut. How could Thomas not mention the
key to the whole thing, Jesus rising. Could it
be because he didn't believe it, or because
it never happened.

Why they didn't make the cut is because when compared to the many other texts they stick out like a sore thumb. It is like Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong... " Maybe whoever wrote the "Gospels of Thomas and Peter" (and they were not the Apostles Peter and Thomas) did not believe or made up there own stories, I don't know. However, what everyone knows is that compared to all the other writings of the NT they obviously are radically different and don't belong.

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe whoever wrote the "Gospels of Thomas and Peter" (and they were not the Apostles Peter and Thomas)

Were the authors of Matthew Mark Luke
and John actually those apostles? Be
careful, I know the correct answer and
so do you.

The authors of these apocryphal "gospels" were not even from the schools of these Apostles, nor were they disciples, or connected in any way to the orthodox faith. They were gnostic sects, cults if you will. As usual people often cherry pick verses from these "gospels" and ignore their blatant hatred for the material world and women for example.

Quote: FrGamble

The authors of these apocryphal "gospels" were not even from the schools of these Apostles, nor were they disciples.

But but, the four Gospels in the NT were
written anonymously. Nobody knows who
wrote them.

'Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority.'

So they have no more credence than the
apocryphal gospels. And just as much
credence at the same time.

The apocryphal gospels are not historical, full of errors, poorly attested to, and carry strange gnostic beliefs. It is their content, not the authorship of these "gospels" that ruins their credibility.

The Gospels attributed to Mt., Mk., Lk., and John deserved those titles because they reflected Apostolic authority and were written by disciples connected to these early Church leaders.