I attended a religious college run by Catholic monks, and we learned all of the early Church history in core courses, and it was then that I learned how Catholic dogmas were heavily disputed and decided by committee votes. The divinity of Jesus? Majority vote. The sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary? Majority vote. A Catholic education did more to reveal the human origins of Christianity and to dissuade me from religious thought than all of the atheist videos I've seen over the last 20 years.

@resserts I'm agnostic, not atheist. Big difference which seems to be lost on your fellows.
Atheists annoy the HELL out of me, so I guess you're not all bad.
There WAS no Jesus, but god? Depends on your definition. I'll leave it at that.

@Storm1752 There are two stripes of atheism: There are those who claim there is no God, and they are the positive/strong/hard atheists. And there are those, like me, who lack belief in any God or gods, and they're called negative/weak/soft atheists. The former make a positive claim (i.e., that no God or gods exist); the latter reject a positive claim (i.e., that a God or gods exist) as unsupported. Usually, negative atheists are also agnostic because they make no claim to know anything.

For me, working backward, there are a series of questions to ask and answer:

• Did Jesus exist? It's possible, but I think there's too little evidence to think it's likely. Historian Richard Carrier has put forth a rather comprehensive argument that there was likely no historical Jesus.
• Would it matter if Jesus existed? To me, it wouldn't matter. Even if he existed, the details we're told about his life are almost certainly fabrication. The connection between Gospel and historicity would be so tenuous as to be meaningless.
• If Jesus existed, could he have been God? Church history pretty much confirms that there's no basis for belief in Jesus's divinity. As we've mentioned, the early Church dogmas were decide by vote, and hinged largely on what early Christian communities believed and practiced. It was also highly political, reducing the theological influence significantly.
• Did the Old Testament God exist? Yahweh was the Jewish God and unique in several ways, but he was borrowed from the pantheon of Canaanite gods that preceded the emergence of the Hebrews. In early Hebrew texts, Yahweh was one god among many, but unlike the other gods that were stationary beings who ruled over specific regions, Yahweh was mobile and the Jewish people were his chosen ones. Over time, the notion of there being a supreme god emerged, and eventually the concept of one God (which also gave rise to the development of Satan as the source of all evil). The need for a Redeemer/Messiah was introduced into theology of the period leading into the first century, which in turn introduced the Jesus story and the concept of an eternal Hell. I think the history of this progression makes it obvious that the Judeo-Christian God is a human fabrication. In this specific regard, I'm a gnostic, positive atheist.
• Could a God or gods exist otherwise? This is, to me, a meaningless question. The first follow-up question is what the believer means by "God" — and when it's a concept that's "beyond human comprehension" I just don't bother with it. Why would I entertain any assertion that a) the claimant doesn't understand and b) the claimant lacks evidence for? When the believer does assign attributes to God, it often takes the form of all-good/loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful (sometimes within logical limits). I reject that God as internally paradoxical and, again, lacking evidence. Some people have taken to depersonalizing what they call "God" and, while I don't consider a feeling of love and wonder to be especially significant or the notion of the universe as God to be very interesting, I wouldn't argue against the existence of love, wonder, and nature/the universe — I just don't think it tells us anything that religion usually attempts to explain.
• Would a being/force that created the universe that we observe be sufficiently powerful to be considered "God"? I guess this would be rather subjective, but I'd say not. If our scientists were able to create a universe from particle collision that split off into a new, distinct dimension, and intelligent beings formed in whatever spacetime exists in that universe, would our scientists be gods? Certainly they aren't hearing the prayers of these new-universe beings — and don't even know of their existence (and these beings may not exist for billions of years, long after our scientists have died). Our scientists aren't all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-loving. They do exist outside of the new universe's spacetime, though. By mere virtue of the act of creation and being removed from the creation, could we legitimately consider these scientists gods? If that were the origin of our universe, would we think of those other-universe scientists as gods? Should we? Does godhood deserve worship? What characteristics would be required of a god? I honestly don't know. I've not yet heard an argument that I thought was compelling or any evidence put forth that I'd consider convincing. Because of that, I dismiss the claims for a God or gods as lacking evidence and logical cohesion. I don't claim to know there isn't a God or gods, but I feel no no more inclined to accept any believer's claims than I am to accept tales of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, or the teapot in diametrically opposed geosynchronous orbit around the sun. I'm technically agnostic about these things, because I don't actually know that they don't exist, but I don't give credence to the claims and don't feel that I'm in any way being intellectually dishonest when I say that I reject the claims for their lack of evidence.

@resserts Blah blah blah.
No Jesus means no god?
Just forget the bullshit and don't answer me back. I don't want to hear it.
Which means of course you WILL answer me back...

@resserts it is well accepted that we exist. We have existed for 1000s of years calling ourselves gods before we or anyone called us human or homo sapien. Strong atheism or week atheism is illogical. Large majority of illogical atheist are like a Greek mind set thinking or requiring that a God must meet Harry Potter or Willy Wonka style definitions. Those in or thinking by Greek culture not knowing other cultural definitions consider those other cultural definitions to not be a "true" god thus rejecting other culturally defined styles of god such as those defined by Hebrew and biblical text culture.

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ John 10:34.

Biblical text at least almost 2000 years old holds that people are gods. A Christian holds that they too are gods. The title that Christians use "child of god" puts them as being gods in a child stage. An analogy would be like the stages of a butterfly. Butterfly has catapiller stage before becoming an adult butterfly. This is analogous to the Christian style God that Christians are gods in a child stage. Atheism of all kinds is illogical.

@resserts an error with your understanding and with the understanding of most post book of Acts christianity is that as you say "...Judeo-Christian God is a human fabrication." Has a form of correctness in that Jesus style God was spoken into existence by the people-gods of the old testiment.

Jesus calling himself "son of man" is saying he is manmade. Son of, product of. Man, mankind.

Jesus according to biblical text would be an elohim created being often referred to ad the Angelic hosts that are considered to be created beings.

The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3] The Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם i.e. ben-'adam) also appears in the Torah over a hundred times.

hebrew bible Angelic
He behaves as if he were a deity, e.g. promising fertility (Genesis 21:1, annihilating an army with a single blow (e.g. 2 Kings 19:32-36), or merely delivering a speech in which the angel presents himself as God (e.g. Exodus 3:2-4);
The interlocutors of this figure address and revere him in a way reserved exclusively to a deity.
As such, the incident leaves the reader with the question whether it was an angel or a deity who had just appeared.[5]

There is a wide array of explanations striving to elucidate this confusion. The most widespread theological ones try to deal with the problem by introducing additional concepts: the angel might be an earthly manifestation of God, some kind of avatar of God himself.
Wikipedia - Angels in Judaism

Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות‎ sabaoth or tzva'ot, "armies" ) refers to the army (Luke 2:13) of angels mentioned both in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, as well as other Jewish and Christian texts.

Blessed Be the Host of the King of Heaven, a Russian icon from the 1550s
The Bible gives several descriptions of angels in military terms, such as their encampment (Genesis 32:1–2), command structure (Psalms 91:11–12; Matt.13:41; Rev.7:2), and combat (Jdg.5:20; Job 19:12; Rev.12:7). The heavenly host participated in the war in Heaven.

Biblical accounts Edit

Depiction of the Commander of the Lord's Army in Joshua 5, by Ferdinand Bol, 1642.
In the Hebrew Bible, the name Yahweh and the title Elohim frequently occur with the word tzevaot or sabaoth ("hosts" or "armies", Hebrew: צבאות) as YHWH Elohe Tzevaot ("YHWH God of Hosts" ), Elohe Tzevaot ("God of Hosts" ), Adonai YHWH Tzevaot ("Lord YHWH of Hosts" ) or, most frequently, YHWH Tzevaot ("YHWH of Hosts" ). This name is traditionally transliterated in Latin as Sabaoth, a form that will be more familiar to many English readers, as it was used in the King James Version of the Bible.[1]

Maimonides' Jewish angelic hierarchy. Maimonides said: "I must premise that every Hebrew [now] knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, ...

@Word I don't care. I'm agnostic. Take your biblical references and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

@Storm1752 good example for why people are agnostic, (and applicable to atheist) they refuse to know.

Idk

@twill there were two Nicene conferences 325 C.E. and 787 C.E., between these two and the various others between them held elsewhere, the foundation of orthodox Christianity, the creeds and sacraments, the canon of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the trinity etc were thrashed out and decided upon by voting bishops, the result of which was the establishment of the one true church of Jesus Christ, which immediately schismed in to the eastern orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
Thereafter followed centuries of religious war, pogroms, inquisitions, persecutions, extirpations of the gnostics and heretics not to mention political power struggles for control of every country in the western world and some in the east.