Is Christianity the least supported by facts of the world's religions?

Maybe you guys have covered this one before. When you view the world religions, does Christianity have the least extant historical support?

Thread copied here from the Is Christianity the least supported by facts of the world's religions? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'd vote for Last Thursdayism.The Flying Spaghetti Monster might make another good candidate. But if you would insist on well-established religions, that's another story.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Let's talk about established religions until Thursdayism gets going.

How would you rate "historical support?" Number of facts with support? Number of sources that support? Percentage of claims supported? Percentage of historians who support? What counts as "historical support?" For example, Buzsaw thinks wheel shaped coral formations in the Gulf of Aqaba is conclusive proof of every event in Exodus.I must say, this seems very vague to me.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As subbie asks, how would one go about quantifying such a thing?Anyway, some thoughts that come to mind having at least some bearing on the topic:Buddhists have Siddhartha Gautama, Confucianists have Kong Qiu in similarity to Jesus with the same questions as to his historical reality.Then there are the creation myths of so many religions around the world all with their fanciful and questionable physics.There are plenty of flood myths around the world to be studied.But, it seems to me that the Abrahamic religions stand pretty much alone in the number of historical claims made which can be challenged. And since the Old Testament is a religious history of one nomadic tribe we should not be surprised if, in fact, there is more historical support for this history than in the non-historical religions like Hindu, Jainism and Yoruba.Unfortunate for the Abrahamics the verification of some historical aspects of their culture does not equate to any verification of the religious aspects.Now if you refer strictly to christian then there are exceedingly few historical claims made (most other ones being of jewish not christian origin) which can even be considered for study so in this way christian may be one of the lesser historically supportable cults.But even if such a survey of world religions could be achieved, to what purpose?Yes, Jerusalem exists as apparently did Herod. So what?Does this lend some support to the proposition that some"... cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?" **I think not.**SourceEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

If name dropping is a criteria, it sure makes some older religions, now generally referred to as mythologies, look pretty geographically and genealogically accurate by comparison.

If we use geographical locations as proof any story is correct, then the list would be endless. Early Star Wars movies used geographical locations including Earth as a reference as I recall..but that story isn't true.