Now this I thoroughly disagree with. You say the sceptic is the ignorant one. But I do not see how this be the case? Let me offer an analogy:
I blindfold you and take you to a room. I remove the blindfold allowing you see within the confines of the room. There is a single window and a door.
I say to you "Outside the window is a small garden which leads to a street with a yellow car parked on the road."
You look out of the window and see that what I have said is mostly true. You would call the car orange.
I say to you "Through that door is a red room with a fireplace at it's centre. Inside is the most useful of objects."
You attempt to open the door but it is locked. I say "The door will only be unlocked when you really need that object".
So. the mind of a person who had faith in me would accept my answer without question.
The logical believer would accept the testimony as probable having been exposed to an element which can be substantiated by looking out of the window.
The sceptic would accept the window observation but would not accept the next room statement until such time as it could be observed.
The latter is a scientific model. But like any good model, it is open to scrutiny through future observation. The former is true of any world religion including Christianity. So I argue to you, is not the wise man the one asks questions? The one who will follow but not do so blindly? As per my previous statement, there are people on this very site or are questioning and debating the meaning of the bible even if they do not question its authenticity. Does this not make them sceptics?
There is also a question of Facts Ignored while disputed. Well I argue that surely while a fact is in dispute, it is in fact, not a fact! We do not ignore these statements but any being of logic should question them being submitting them to fact. Now throughout antiquity, various religions have been unkind to people who question the established order and this continues to today.
The sufferings of Jesus Christ on the cross are remembered by some in communion with others in the sacrament of the bread and the wine.
Once again. I think you should look into the stories of Dionysus. Verified by tableture writings of the period, this is a story from Greek and Later Roman Pagen Mythology which tells an incredibly similar tale to the tale of the last supper yet were written 200 years prior to the birth of Christ. We could theorise:
That part of the tale emerged during the amalgamation of writings during the first conference of Nicea in order to amalgamate the roman Pagan belief system into the popular and notably militant Jewish belief in Jesus in order to bring peace to the roman empire.
or
Demons travelled back in time and fed these stories to the ancient greeks so could later be used to call the bible into dispute.
or
It is one heck of a coincidence!!
Please understand, atheism is not a religion or a choice. It is merely the realisation that statements offered by faith systems are non-reliable and the honesty to go looking for other answers as opposed to accepting blindly. Of course Christianity tries to establish a foundation of ignorance by saying that the pursuit of knowledge was the original sin. GENESIS-3. As a result some of our greatest thinkers in history were imprisoned, outcast or put to death for merely questioning the Words of the Bible. This immorality is a 'fact' often 'ignored' by those of the Christian Faith.
I offer once again that the Bible is not a reliable historical document. Therefore, for quoting it as evidence is nonsensical.
Personal internal experiences are also no form of evidence. As are testimonies with Christian (or any other religious) Bias. People embellish, modify and sometimes lie about events all the time. I have scoured the web for information on miracles and faith healing and have yet to find non-bias witness testimony or independent medical or scientific confirmation for any event.
Ladies and gentlemen.
