For me, it doesn’t necessarily matter that people “are punished” for their crimes. It matters that they stop doing crimes so that good people aren’t affected with it. If someone is completely closeminded and unwilling to change their ways or understand what is actually good, then I don’t care if they are punished as long as they are stopped. And Hitler’s crimes stopped; he is dead. That’s what matters.
But of punishment is important for you, (and I don’t see why that would be, but if it is) then if there’s no afterlife there may be no punishment, and (!) if there IS an afterlife there may be no punishment, because many versions of afterlives people have believed in often include forgiveness. So let’s say that Hitler did all these immoral criminal harmful acts, and then afterwards, he got saved, so what’s the punishment? Are you saying that murderers can’t be saved?
Ultimately, the question is meaningless, because it combines a question of opinion (what should happen to people, and what people deserve) and a question of fact (is there an afterlife). The question about an afterlife is a question of the factual state of affairs in the real world, and the actual state of affairs in the real world aren’t subject to our desire. If there’s no afterlife, then there’s no afterlife. And we don’t get to say that there is one because that way we can feel safe that someone got punished.

In math class all the way back as a kid, I was the only one in the entire class who understood that 1/11 was a larger number than 1/13. Everybody in the class disagreed, but I knew I was correct still, because I could demonstrate it with several different mathematical calculations, and they of course couldn’t. They just thought it was so. But even though it was one against 30, I knew for a fact that they were all mistaken. And they were. And finally, the teacher confirmed. And then I went on the years after correcting the teacher in tons and tons and tons of mistakes she made. And that’s the point. Majority can be wrong, and authorities can be wrong, because majority can believe things for no reason, and people who are geniuses in one area can be morons in other areas.

It doesn’t matter _what_ people believe. I don’t care what people believe. I care _why_ they believe it. In other words; I care about what reason people have had for believing or what evidence has convinced them. In fact, what you’re presenting is a logical fallacy as well. Well, it’s two. Argumentum ad populum and argument from authority. People can be wrong; including geniuses and majorities. They need to demonstrate that they are correct with reason and evidence, and nobody in the history of the planet has ever done so, and most haven’t even attempted. And those who have at least attempted have all relied on logical fallacies that we can demonstrate don’t lead to truth. But at least they are trying, and that’s at least good, because that’s the only thing that matters; demonstration.

Side questions:
For deists, is modern day factory farming respectful to God's creations? Why or why not?

For atheists/agnostics: What do you think of the philosophical viewpoints expressed by Peter Singer in Animal Liberation as well as some of the offshoots of his philosophical thinking such as the Great Apes Project?

At the time that Jesus lived being part man and part divine was a easy concept for people to understand because of the many demigods they already believed in; Hercules, Dionysus, the Pharaohs etc. To an oppressed people the idea of a savior can be very easily overdrawn. Christianity grew because it appealed to an oppressed class of people and gave them hope of a better life. Jesus was like Hitler in this way. Hitler took the German people from being the laughing stock of Europe to the rulers of almost all Europe by giving the people purpose. I am in no way supporting Hitlers actions against the Jews. They were atrocious and terrible. The fact is that one man can change the world.

So would you agree that some humans do not have the opportunity to be baptized through no fault of their own or their parents'? Say a child who does seconds after being born to parents who had every intention of having it baptized? In this case the human would have to be purged in purgatory?

Do you believe humans suffer in purgatory?

Can you think of any good reason for a system like this?

It seems that some humans will have to suffer through no fault of their own, either through the sin of ancient ancestors, or their own parents. Do you understand why a baby who dies an instant before baptism is deserving of purgatory, whereas one who dies an instant after goes directly to paradise? It seems to me that the only thing distinguishing these individuals is a ritual being performed irrespective of intentions. rather than say, any exercise of free will, good intentions choosing Jesus or good works.

In reality, either word would imply the same conclusion which was reached through logic and reason given the public evidence available.

In reality, neither word always implies that. Meanings are established by usage. People use the word "believe" to refer to a particular state of mind without necessarily saying anything about how or why someone got into that state. If I say I believe something, all I am saying is that I regard it as true. It makes no difference whether I so regard it for good reasons, bad reasons, or for no reason at all.

What you seem to be referring to is knowledge. If I say I know something, then I'm saying not only that I believe it, but also that I believe it for a good logical reason.

He earned it overtime based on his methodology and appraisal by others of his work. The same way a plumber does. . . . The study of history is a science just like physics.

You're seeing a lot of similarities in places where I don't find any. I think distinctions are usually more enlightening than superficial commonalities.

How would you answer that question?

I'm not sure how it works in the real world of academia, but ideally a historian would earn a good reputation by a thorough accounting of all relevant evidence with well-reasoned arguments connecting that evidence to his conclusions, and demonstrating the superiority of that reasoning to any contrary conclusions that may have been proposed.

And regardless of his reputation, if he is addressing a controversial topic, that is what I'm going to look for in deciding whether I should believe him. Whatever his stature among his peers, if I perceive that he is ignoring relevant data or using flawed arguments, I will remain doubtful.

Only a few decades ago the scientific consensus concluded the universe was an eternal "steady state". And a few decades before that "The human races all evolved separately and are not equal in development".

Kuhn called that sort of transition a paradigm shift. I think we're going through one now in the study of Christian origins.

I see I still haven't figured out how to cut/past; but seem to be making progress! lol