Record Of Proceedings 5-15-12: Fill & Download for Free

The government services are the most secured services in India.The reason for job security is that there are elaborate procedures prescribed in the law to remove a government officer.Article 311 of the Constitution of India provides two procedural safeguards to the civil servants in relation to their tenure of office.A) No removal or dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.B) No removal or dismissal or reduction in rank, except after an inquiry affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.Since the Civil Servants are appointed by the President of India, only he can dismiss them.In the same way, only the appointing authority has the power to dismiss/remove an officer after following the due procedure of law.The departmental proceedings against a public servant has to go through various steps such as:1. Lodging of complaint or making allegations of misconduct against the Govt. Servant.2. Holding of Preliminary Inquiry.3. Consideration of the report of the Preliminary Inquiry by the disciplinary authority.4. Show cause notice to the delinquent official who is prima facie held responsible in the Preliminary Inquiry.5. Replying of the employee to the Show Cause Notice.6. Issuance of Charge-sheet to the delinquent official, if reply is considered unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority.7. Replying of the employee to the charge-sheet.8. Scrutiny of the reply by the disciplinary authority.9. Appointment of Enquiry Officer i.e. order for regular inquiry and nomination of Presenting Officer.10. Legal assistance for defence.11. Attendance and examination of witnesses.12. Submission of Inquiry report by the enquiry officer.13. Show Cause Notice to the delinquent employee14. Submission of reply and Consideration of past records of the delinquent official15. Penalty Proposed.16. Final order.17. Service Appeal, if any.You can easily see that completion of this procedure for removal of officer takes very long time.The officer is, therefore, transferred immediately so that he is not able to influence the witnesses and manipulate the records during the course of enquiry.Source: Disciplinary Proceedings against a Govt. Servant

Because there isn’t anyone in history like him. John von Neumann resolved problems in the level of master and doctorate like most people resolve first or second degree equations. We have had many extraordinary fast problem solvers:Archimedes: was extraordinary, the problem is the lack of data on him.Newton: resolved 2 Bernoulli’s problems in 12 hours when another genius like Leibniz took 2 months for 1 of those problems, and in one year Leibniz couldn’t resolve the other one. Plenty of the best mathematicians of their time attempted the Bernoulli challenges.Euler: pretty similar to Neumann, but even he doesn’t reach Johnny’s level.Gauss: fast and profound problem solver but took time, similarly to Newton.Ramanujan: was unique, he resolved by intuition, and there is a legend component because Ramanujan said that the goddess Namagiri told him the solutions in dreams.Ettore Majorana: a human calculator like Neumann, and a fast problem solver according to Enrico Fermi, but anecdotes suggest that Neumann was better.And in recent times at the IMO level: Terence Tao and Noam Elkies, others.Enrico Fermi: people like Feynman or Bethe were shocked by Fermi’s brilliance. Enrico challenged John and we can read his thoughts:John von Neumann came by and saw what Fermi had on the blackboard and asked what he was doing. So Enrico told him and John von Neumann said "That's very interesting." He came back about 15 minutes later and gave him the answer. Fermi leaned against his doorpost and told me, "You know that man makes me feel I know no mathematics at all." https://fas.org/rlg/010929-fermi.htmAlso: “You know, Herb, Johnny can do calculations in his head ten times as fast as I can! And I can do them ten times as fast as you can, Herb, so you can see how impressive Johnny is!” John von NeumannIf we took literally the words of Enrico Fermi, von Neumann was 100+ times faster at mental calculations than an average person. However, today’s computers are thousands or million times faster. Thus, even von Neumann would be surpassed with our current laptops. Watch the next video (at about minute 44:00):But Neumann was a freaking beast on speed and not only in mental calculation also in thinking as a whole. Very often he resolved difficult problems in an amazing short time, problems which took experts many hours, months, or even years — there are at least 20 anecdotes attesting to that. For instance, he resolved an open math theorem in 5 minutes, according to George Pólya: “There was a seminar for advanced students in Zürich that I was teaching and von Neumann was in the class. I came to a certain theorem, and I said it is not proved and it may be difficult. Von Neumann didn't say anything but after five minutes he raised his hand. When I called on him he went to the blackboard and proceeded to write down the proof. After that I was afraid of von Neumann”.John von Neumann was faster than the first computers, there are anecdotes about it. Here’s some more stories about Neumann: John von Neumann - WikipediaAnd if you are in Hungary you can share more stories because there are records of problems solving by a young von Neumann.

Like most of these that I run across, this article is filled with fallacies, unsupported claims, false assumptions, special pleading, and just plain ignorance. This is not a scholar who knows their topic with depth or accuracy. This is a writer profiting from sensationalist views.Note how the author does not provide evidence or support for his statements or discuss opposing views and why there are differing views.This is not good journalism or scholarship—this is simply mud-slinging for profit. This author has joined the infamous ranks of anti-theists who so strongly believe their personal opinions are automatically right because they hold them, that they think they don’t need to provide any of the evidence demanded of the rest of us peons.Us peons provide evidence.Objection #1The first paragraph contains multiple claims most of which are unsupported by any evidence and are incorrect. It’s primary focus is the gospels themselves and:(1) The lack of early sourcesThere are early sources that date to within one year and up to four years after Jesus’ death—can’t get any earlier than that!These are the creeds. A creed, taken from the Latin ‘credo’ meaning ‘I believe’, was a memorized statement used to teach converts their new faith. A creed might contain doctrine or historical facts or it might be a poetic hymn. Multiple early Christian creeds were recorded in New Testament writings, though they themselves predate the works they were recorded in.Creeds are leftovers from the oral period that preceded the written gospels.They are recognizable by word order, phrasing, sentence structure, cultural references and style of writing.They are sometimes introduced as “here is a faithful saying” or with the phrase: “I pass on as I received”. This phrasing is used to identify a tradition that pre-existed the writer as separate from something they personally wrote.The two most significant creeds are both found in 1 Corinthians: chapters 11 and 15; but creeds can also be found in Acts, Romans, 1st Corinthians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, and in Philippians.These are the oldest Christian testimonies in existence, and even the most skeptical of scholars accepts them as such. Scholars agree as much as scholars ever agree on this point.Atheists generally overlook these because they confuse content and provenance: they disagree with what the content says, and so reject the texts altogether, but belief is beside the point here because the provenance of the texts themselves is not dependent on belief. The gospels are ancient manuscripts that contain sayings (creeds) whose age can be estimated—regardless of whether or not you agree with what they say. Those creeds exist in those ancient texts. They are early sources.Define “early”The claim the “the gospels were compiled decades after the alleged events”—is ‘early’ by ancient standards.Jesus died around 30-33 AD. Scholars agree the Pauline writings were composed between 40 AD and Paul’s death sometime around 63 AD. That is 23 years. Paul makes a couple of allusions indicating the gospel of Luke might have existed during Paul’s lifetime.Papias is the earliest evidence of when the gospels were written and by whom, and he wrote between 60 and 90 AD. Other early church fathers— such as Clement of Alexandria—quote from the gospels in their own work. Clement wrote his letter to the church at Corinth before 100 AD; that means the Gospels had to have been written by then. (There is even reason to believe it’s possible Matthew might have begun a Hebrew gospel in the 40’s. We have references to it but no remnants of it.) But whatever the conclusion about that possibility is, it is true that modern scholarship no longer supports the late dating of the gospels.Even if one does support late dating, the gospels are still early sources by ancient standards.Gautama Buddha lived sometime around 500–400 B.C.E. His teachings were first committed to the written record about 400 years later.Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism first appear sometime around 2000 B.C. but don’t show up in the written record until around 500 B.C.E.—1500 years later.Krishna, in some writings, is said to have spoken the ‘Bhagavad-Gita’ to his student Arjuna as early as 5000 BC, though tradition claims the war it describes took place closer to 3000 BC. Scholars say the Bhagavad-Gita was written sometime between 500 and 200 BC. but these dates are controversial and unresolved. None of the existing copies of any Hindu texts, including the Bhagavad-Gita, can be accurately dated prior to the Twelfth Century AD—between four thousand and 2500 years later.Mohammad is the only religious figure who composed his own treatise within his own lifetime. However, his work the Quran, gives very little historical information and its historicity has been questioned. The sīra literature and the Hadith are the historical writings, and they were written in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim Era—long after Mohammad’s death—from one hundred to three hundred years later.Moses lived so far back in the mists of time there is controversy over the dates. Some say 1200 BCE, some 1400 BC, and others put him a full thousand years previous, but most scholars believe the writings from Judges foreward were recorded between 800 and 500 BC. A 400–900 year gap.Hannibal lived about 247 BC but it was Livy who wrote about it some 200 years after the events.The time gap between Plato and the earliest date of the 20 copies we have of his manuscript is about 1250 years;500 years for Homer’s Iliad;1350 years for Herodotus’ Histories;1400 years for Aristotle—and it’s similar when dating Thucydides, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and all the other ancients.The gospels themselves are ancient manuscripts that qualify as “early sources.” The gospels were written 30–60 years after Jesus.Prove “Early” —using any ancient example—of anything being recorded in a shorter time frame than the gospels.Unless you do ‘special pleading’ where Christianity is concerned—meaning, unless you have a double standard—rejecting Christianity based on a dearth of sources will require rejecting all ancient knowledge and rejecting history altogether.Tim O'Neill's answer to Do credible historians agree that the man named Jesus, who the Christian Bible speaks of, walked the earth and was put to death on a cross by Pilate, Roman governor of Judea?Tim is always worth reading. He is an intelligent, fair, informed atheist who tends to find poor scholarship extremely annoying. His points on this subject are multiple:A historical Jesus is accepted by nearly all actual scholars: “The number of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.”This is not the bias of blind belief. “In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).”Tim addresses the lack of contemporary accounts saying, “our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous - they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.”“Some "Jesus Mythicists" have tried to argue that certain ancient writers "should" have mentioned Jesus and did not and so tried to make an argument from silence on this basis. … the Antiquities XX.9.1 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine and that alone sinks the Mythicist case.”The author of the article claims “the gospels all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them.”Is he claiming anyone who believes in anything must be doubted as honest or fair just because they have come to believe that what they say is true?Does that apply to enthusiastic proponents of some view in physics? To the proponents of evolution? To any of a number of conflicting views in psychology? Yes people in these fields have support for their position, but there are conflicting positions. Does the fact people believe their view is superior—that they have the evidence—even when they can’t all be right—automatically discount them? No, all views get a fair examination in physics—at least they’re supposed to!Because the acceptance or rejection of ideas has to be on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of who advocates it. Even if someone is biased, that doesn’t automatically prove that what they are saying is wrong.Data has to be examined on its own merits.An unwillingness to examine information from those who disagree with us is an unsustainable bias that amounts to special pleading.Objection #2The author claims: “The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.”First, human nature hasn’t changed. What is embarrassing now was embarrassing then. It’s not hard to figure out. If it made Jesus look bad, it most likely wasn’t made up by people who worshipped Him. That’s a pretty simple and irrefutable idea actually.Second, we know a lot about first and second century culture. The ‘diversity’ of Christianity did not appear until the second century. A century after Jesus’ death, the legend developed amongst the gnostics that Jesus was only a spiritual and not a physical historical being. The tradition that had been established for a hundred years, passed down from the first Apostles, opposed them. We still have their writings on the subject.Judaism is diverse in that they accept converts from anywhere—as long as those converts accept Judaism as it has been established. Christianity was the same—being Jewish in its beginnings. Membership status was not defined by any criteria other than what a person believes. That’s how it is now and always has been. Anyone can join—so long as they subscribe to the basic beliefs.Therefore, it is an inescapable conclusion that diversity is limited by doctrine. It always has been.Third, even if the criterion for embarrassment were a totally useless question, there are over two dozen criteria used in the study of the historical Jesus and dozens of other approaches and a wide variety of other methods used to study the Bible. That one criteria is not even one of the major ones. There is also:linguistics (language),paleography (ancient handwriting),philology (ancient languages),codicology (codexes),anthropology,sociology,archaeology,literary criticism, historical criticism, tradition criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism and othersHermeneutic phenomenologyand the study of Classic and ancient texts—and more.Fourth, these are the same methods used to study all ancient writings. Once again, discounting the methods used to study Christianity requires special pleading.The standards for studying history are the same whatever the topic.Objection #3The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea.Say what?!?It is the presence of Aramaic forms and styles in Greek that gives evidence an Aramaic speaking follower of Jesus was involved somewhere in the production of the gospels . Matthew begins with a Hebrew gematria (Jesus is described as the son of David, so the geneology in Mat.1 is based on the number of David’s name: 14. There are 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, 14 from the exile to the Christ)—how is that possible without a Hebrew involved? What other Hebrews would be making such claims for Jesus other than his followers? Isn’t that so obvious it’s unarguable?Objection #4The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.Because they have been put into a single compilation by us? But the four sources are the Q document, a separate Matthean source, and a separate Lucan source, and the book of Mark, which no source has been identified for yet. They are at least partly independent of each other.Objection #5Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).Tim O’Neill addresses such claims about Paul.“Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well.Except it simply isn't true.While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn't giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus' earthly life in many places.”This is not a comprehensive list, but a few examples are:“[Paul] says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that he was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19).So Mythicist theorists then have to tie themselves in knots to "explain" how, in fact, a clear reference to Jesus being "born of a woman" actually means he wasn't born of a woman, and how when Paul says Jesus was "according to the flesh, a descendant of King David" this doesn't mean he was a human and the human descendant of a human king.These contrived arguments are so weak they tend to only convince the already convinced. It's this kind of contrivance that consigns this thesis to the fringe.”Objection #6“Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus.”Scholars of all kinds agree the gospels were originally founded on eye-witness testimony. What happened after that is debated, but not that fact.“Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.The Historical Jesus - Part Three: Section One - Background Evidence by Jenny Hawkins on The Christian Corner-- thoughts, issues, poems, music, etc.There are no early writers who question the existence of Jesus. These people all recognized that he lived. Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, The Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar Serapion, and even those gnostic sources because writing against something also shows that something is around to write about. The Jews never questioned that he was a real man who lived and died, and if they could have, they would have jumped on that.There is almost no contemporary evidence of anyone from ancient times. There were no reporters running around with all the latest gossip and news. If you weren’t the Emperor or close to him, you just didn’t get written about.But Josephus is a good source. He obtained his information from other Jews, and the controversy over whether or not his writings mentioning Jesus is authentic has been reasonably settled.In Alice Whealey’s phenominal work where she concludes: “the only major alteration that has been made to Josephus’ original passage about Jesus is the alteration of the phrase ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’ to the textus receptus phrase ‘he was the Messiah’.” http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/whealey2.pdfThis author claims:The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10).Here is what 1 Corinthians 2:6–10 actually says.“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no mind has conceived” —the things God has prepared for those who love him—these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”Demons are where exactly?But once again, Tim addresses this best:“The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has concluded:"... the plausibility of [the celestial] hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy …."Secondly, [the celestial Jesus] thesis requires the earliest Christian writings about Jesus, the letters of Paul, to be about this "celestial/mythic Jesus" and not a historical, earthly one. Except, as has been pointed out above, Paul's letters do contain a great many references to an earthly Jesus that don't fit the hypothesis. Overlooking what doesn’t support one’s hypothesis is an approach doomed to failure.…explanations as to how this "celestial/mythic Jesus" sect gave rise to a "historical/earthly Jesus" sect and then promptly disappeared without leaving any historical trace quite simply strain credulity.This theory expects people to believe that—despite all the apologetic literature [from the early centuries] condemning and refuting a wide range of "heresies"—there is not one that bothers to even mention this ‘original Christianity’ that taught Jesus was never on earth at all.This beggar's belief.”Objection #7In a Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier Bart Ehrman says:“In the course of my discussion of Freke and Gandy’s The Jesus Mysteries, I fault them for thinking that since the Romans kept such detailed records of everything (“birth notices, trial records, death certificates”), it is odd indeed that we have no such records from Roman hands aboutJesus.My response is that it is a complete myth (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything. Carrier vehemently objects that this is altogether false, indicating that in fact we have thousands of such records, and that he has “literally held some for these documents in my very hands.” And he points out that some of them are quoted and cited in ancient books, as when Seutonius refers to the birth records for Caligula.What Carrier is referring to is principally the documentary papyri discovered in Egypt, which I am in fact very familiar with and some of which I too have held in my hands. … We do indeed have many thousands of such documents – wills, land deeds, birth records, divorce certificates, and on and on — from Egypt.…most of these are not in fact records of Roman officials, but made by indigenous Egyptian writers / scribes.…I should reiterate that it is a complete “myth” (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine [Note: I’m talking about Palestine] and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived.If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any.Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea…” … from Roman records: “his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interview, his judicial proceedings.” We have none of this.In talking about Roman records, I am talking about the Roman records we are interested in: the ones related to the time and place where Jesus lived, first-century Palestine. It’s a myth that we have or that we could expect to have detailed records from Roman officials about everything that was happening there, so that if Jesus really lived, we would have some indication of it.Quite the contrary, we precisely don’t have Roman records – of much of anything – from there. We do indeed have lots of records from someplace else that doesn’t matter for the question…”Myth with MathTim O'Neill's answer to What is your opinion on the use of Bayes' theorem as a tool to discover the best historical explanation for the data we have as outlined by Richard Carrier?Interpretations of ProbabilityOne modern addition to the Jesus as myth group is Richard Carrier who uses Baye’s Theorem of probabilities to disprove the historical Jesus. It is a point of interest that William Lane Craig also uses Baye’s to prove the resurrection. All this shows is results are determined based on what one puts into the theorem.Bayes Theorem only works in cases where we can apply known information. Bayes Theorem's application depends entirely on how precisely the parameters and values of our theoretical reconstruction of a real world approximate reality.With a historical question, Carrier is forced to think up probabilities for each parameter he puts into the equation. This is a purely subjective process - he determines how likely or unlikely a parameter in the question is and then decides what value to give that parameter. So the result he gets at the end is purely a function of these subjective choices.So, it's not surprising that Carrier comes up with a result on the question of whether Jesus existed that conforms to his belief that Jesus didn't - he came up with the values that were inevitably going to come up with that result.If someone who believed Jesus did exist did the same thing, the values they inputted would be different and they would come up with the opposite result. This is why historians don't bother using Bayes Theorem.In Probably Not – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 1)Luke Barnes says:“Carrier’s faults are not slips of notation, minor technicalities or incorrect arithmetic. … Carrier can’t even apply his own half-baked ideas consistently, abandoning them when convenient.Further, when the time comes to demonstrate the use of Bayes’ theorem, Carrier bypasses it. He tries to argue that likelihoods are irrelevant to posteriors. The whole point of Bayes’ theorem is to use likelihoods (and priors) to calculate posteriors. No scientist, no statistician does probability like this, and for good reason.”…I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers.To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.A Mathematical Review of “Proving History” by Richard CarrierThe Author’s ConclusionThe author of this article concludes with “Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. (Not true, there’s a whole field of scholars who have produced work on it for 200 years and score of them are recent.) Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.”The sources are not hypothetical. The gospels and the creeds they contain are sources. They exist. In the real world.My ConclusionAs one of those peons who likes evidence over unsupported opinion, false allegations and ignorance, I should probably go into a summation of what has and hasn’t been shown and/or supported by evidence of any kind, but I am feeling the need for a shower after dealing with all this plain and simple mud-slinging.This article is crap. It contains nothing but crap. It is fried crap, frozen crap, crap on a stick, any and every way a reasonable person would look at it, even if you agree with the guy that Jesus is myth, this article is still crap. It’s not journalism. It’s just sensationalism. It’s crap.