No, just as there is no evidence for Russell's teapot.

There is only one historical document from the time of Jesus' supposed life which even resembles evidence of a teacher called Jesus (or Yeshua or whatever), and that is just a reference to a rabbi with the right name who had one brother with the right name. Given that Jesus supposedly had four named brothers and multiple sisters, at least one of whom is also named, there's plenty of scope for that to be a false positive. Taking it as strong evidence would be like taking the discovery of a journalist named Clark who worked with a journalist named James in the 1920s as strong evidence that those two were the historical basis for the story of Superman.

There could have been a historical Yeshua so boring that none of his contemporaries, including the Romans, wrote anything about him during his life or for decades after he died. Or the character could have been entirely made up. Evidence to differentiate these two possible universes does not currently exist.

It seems to me that Adam Frank doesn't do himself any favors in this debate by linking "spiritual endeavor" to religion. While one can argue that "spiritual endeavor" is the basis on which most religions are founded, if one wishes to debate the subject with an atheist it is probably better to not bring up religion at all.

You're more likely to have a fruitful conversation if you discuss "understanding the true nature of subjective reality" rather than "spiritual endeavor", "the overview effect" rather than "religious experiences", and neurological research rather than the Bible.

But even then it is probably pointless. The Buddha says that a student only obtains proof of the validity of his teachings when he becomes a Sotāpanna. Before that, the Buddha's teachings must be taken on blind faith -- not something any self-respecting skeptic is going to do.

OK. Given that, I'm pretty sure I've understood you; thanks for clarifying.

For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that it's good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that "it's bad for people to suffer" is a moral belief, but I disagree that "I derived it from..." is any sort of justification for a moral belief, including a rational one. It's simply a speculation about how I came to hold that belief.

I agree that there's no way to determine whether a moral belief is "valid" in the sense that I think you're using that word.

I agree that it's possible to hold a belief (including a moral belief) in such a way that it inhibits my ability to perceive the universe as it actually is. It's also possible to hold a belief in such a way that it inhibits my ability to achieve my goals.
I agree that one example of that might be if I held a moral belief about how my computer should work in such a way that when my computer fails to work as I think it should, I throw it out the window.
Another example might be if I held the belief that pouring lemonade into the keyboard will improve its performance. That's not at all a moral belief, but it nevertheless interferes with my ability to achieve my goals.

Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don't have the sense that I'm being cheated by a cruel universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?

A few things:

• Can you clarify what rationalization you think I'm using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what exactly I'm doing that you label "justifying" my beliefs? It seems to me all I've done so far is describe what my beliefs are, and speculate on how they got that way. Neither of which, it seems to me, require any sort of faith (including but not limited to blind faith, whatever that is).

• Leaving that aside, and accepting for the sake of discussion that "using a rationalization to justify how I believe the world should be" is a legitimate description of what I'm doing... is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead? Why?

• I agree with you that family and cultural influence have a lot to do with moral beliefs (including mine).

So, let's look at a specific instance, just to be clear on what we're saying.

Suppose I believe that it's bad for people to suffer, and it's good for people to live fulfilled and happy lives.

I would say that's a moral belief, in that it's a belief about what's good and what's bad. Would you agree?

Suppose further that, when I look into how I arrived at that belief, I conclude that I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect.

Would you say that my belief that it's bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?

And if so: what follows from that, to your way of thinking?

Atheists may not believe in God, but I think they mostly adhere to the 10 commandments.

I think you're just trying to say that atheists follow moral expectations of modern Christian-influenced culture, but taken literally, the statement's nonsense.

I mean, look at the Ten Commandments:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (...).
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (...).
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (...)
5. Honour thy father and thy mother (...).
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, (...) nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The first 4 are blatantly ignored, 6 is famously problematic, 9 and 10 are mostly ignored (via gossip, status seeking, greed and so on) and finally 7 and 8 might be typically obeyed, but minor theft (especial anonymous) is common and adultery has at least 10% base rates.

How is this a "mostly adhered"? (Obviously, Christians and atheists don't really differ in their behavior here.)

You have that backwards.

Moral people follow their moral philosophy because they believe it's the right thing to do, whether they are Christian or atheist or neither.

Some moral people also believe God has told them to do certain things, and use those beliefs to help them select a moral philosophy. Those people are moral and religious.
Other moral people don't believe that, and select a moral philosophy without the aid of that belief. Those people are moral and atheist.

Some immoral people believe that God has told them to do certain things. Those people are immoral and religious.
Some immoral people don't believe that. Those people are immoral and atheist.

Incidentally, I know no atheists (whether moral or not) who adhere to the Talmudic version of the first commandment. But then, since you are talking about the ten commandments in a Christian rather than Jewish context, I suppose you don't subscribe to the Talmudic version anyway a. (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Two_texts_with_numbering_schemes)

EDIT: I should probably also say explicitly that I don't mean to assert here that nobody follows the ten commandments simply because they believe God told them to... perhaps some people do. But someone who doesn't think the ten commandments are the right thing to do and does them anyway simply because God told them to is not a moral person, but rather a devout or God-fearing person. (e.g., Abraham setting out to sacrifice his son).

I was actually just trying to say that Eliezer gave a bad example of a disguised query.

As for moral philosophy, it can be considered a science. So atheists that believe in morality should value it as any other science (for it's usefulness etc). Well, hm, atheists need not be fans of science. So they can be moral because they enjoy it, or simply because "why the heck not".

Indeed.
For example:

Eliezer: Religion sucks, because of this and Bayes...
Jesus: Ah, not so fast, chap. You see, atheism is also a religion, because of this and that...

I think that Jesus' response is a non sequitur (a well designed one (by using a technique similar to equivocation), which is why it makes for such good "blocking" technique). So there's no disguised query, since Jesus isn't querying at all, he's just trying to "win" the argument.