Is it common that religious books write about historic events that there may not be evidence to support that they ever happened? — TiredThinker

Probably, but that's not really relevant if you classify evidence as this grand, incorruptible concept in which any proof of an occurrence that isn't literally written across the observable galaxy and out of reach of the destructive and manipulative hands of man "may not be evidence". I can catch someone murdering a man in my front yard. Just because I can't guarantee the photo I just took or the body I'm staring at in front of me "may not" exist 1,000 years from now doesn't mean I should just go back inside and take a nap now does it?

Either way if you're living in a mud hut and everybody you know in your mud hut town starts saying something incredible happened- it's probably relevant enough to jot down, wouldn't you say?

How exaggerated do religious texts get to tell a story for people to put faith into? — TiredThinker

Some say religion creates its own god or as atheists say Man created God. I can write down words on paper of any degree of accuracy I wish. Only until entire civilizations internalize one or more assertions or claims within over a prolonged period of continual self-propagation independent of my own doings can these words written down on paper be considered "religious texts".

Whether or not events in a book centered around a figure known for metaphors and non-literal euphemisms happened literally or not, entire civilizations lived and died as if they did. ie. The reality where an event did happen and the reality where an event did not happen become one and the same. The only difference between an alleged event having occurred or not having occurred exists solely before the event did or did not take place. The non-occurrence becomes the occurrence for all intents and purposes. Confirmed religious texts are absolutely fascinating as far as sociology and psychology of those before us and even our very own, if nothing else.

Well if you had a dead body in your yard the police would write a report, the medical examiner would write a report, maybe the funeral people would keep records. I assume religious writings are written by very few and are treated as truth largely just within the faith? I don't imagine most Buddhists would consider Jesus supernatural. Also Buddhism has been around maybe a few thousand years before the bible claims humans existed? Even between religions there is conflict on historical details that historians don't seem to disagree much with each other about.

I assume religious writings are written by very few and are treated as truth largely just within the faith? — TiredThinker

That's one possibility I haven't a way to prove or disprove (as opposed to the "widespread popular culture/everyone's talking about it" way some believe).

In this particular case (the Bible) I believe it is true the purported sources (apostles, kings, prophets) even those in relatively menial occupations all had some "reputation" about them that set them apart from "just anybody". This of course was a time when information was heavily controlled especially literature. It is highly possible any of the texts we read today are simply not the same.

In my view, it's not something we're ever going to know therefore takes second priority. So as far as names of popular religions they are simply cultural terms to describe the alleged divine works of non-human entities, typically portraying a message to humanity from a benevolent being or beings regarding ways one should or must live. Rather, the observation and following of such wishes or commands in one's life as absolute truth or highest priority.

There is some disconnect between discussing religion purely philosophically. Many people who associate as following a certain religion are fundamentalist in nature to the point of myopia. They literally claim to believe in a divine being that can "do anything" and is superior yet think every possible detail or event regarding said being was forcefully written on paper for their leisure. This is the frustration I get most people feel when attempting to engage in philosophical discourse with religious people. "In the beginning..." - the beginning of what? Eternity? The 9 millionth planet this alleged omnipotent being can create at any time decided to make? ... people don't think.

I think there is historic evidence that Jesus existed, but not that anything miraculous ever happened in his proximity. — TiredThinker

There's no good evidence that 'Jesus' existed, but many scholars would say there was likely a teacher or two who may have inspired a range of myths that contributed to the Jesus stories.

I think one area left out of your discussion is the notion that religious works were not intended to be read as positive texts; they were metaphor and allegory. I grey up in the Baptist tradition in urban Australia (not to be confused with Southern Baptists) and we were taught that the Bible is a collection of myths and allegories which aim at spiritual truths through an interpretive process. No one would ever have dreamed of saying Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses or all the events depicted were real. I certainly heard the same message from some of the rabbis I have known.

I don't imagine most Buddhists would consider Jesus supernatural. — TiredThinker

I have known Buddhists who view Jesus as a bodhisattva.

Also Buddhism has been around maybe a few thousand years before the bible claims humans existed? — TiredThinker

No, Buddhism is around 600 BCE. Fundamentalists think creation is 6 to 10,000 years old.

I have known Buddhists who view Jesus as a bodhisattva — Tom Storm

This is a really, really uplifting statement.

To Christians, Buddha is a saint and to Buddhists, Jesus is a bodhisattva. Perfecto!