>>8
Except there is proof of the resurrection. All historical Bible scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, three days later his tomb was found empty, several hundreds of his followers reported seeing him immediately after, then these followers went on the change the world radically forever. The best, most parsimonious, explanation of all these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead

>>9
Idk how to call this fallacy but you passed contraband. Cite the historical source and how it proves each of your assertions. The only thing i believe is cited is that a guy named jesus was killed. The rest is written by cultist faggots year later that couldn't get their dates straight. They tried to one up their version of the resurrection with ever more extraordinary stuff until some guy said a 500m jesus appeared and they decided it was too whacky therefore aporcyphal

>>9
>Except there is proof of the resurrection
No there isn't. Nothing which can be considered objectively verifiable proof.
>All historical Bible scholars agree
No they don't lol. There is no consensus between ALL biblical scholars, on anything.
>Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate
No he wasn't.
>buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
Which tomb precisely? Never been identified.
>three days later his tomb was found empty
That tends to happen when no body was put inside to begin with.
>several hundreds of his followers reported seeing him immediately after
There is no proof of this. Just jewish scripture saying it + people who believe in that Jewish scripture, saying they agree with the words.
>then these followers went on the change the world radically forever. The best, most parsimonious, explanation of all these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Goyim cattle coded logic.

>>11

>Nothing which can be considered objectively verifiable proof.
It's a proof by inference to the best explanation.
>There is no consensus between ALL biblical scholars, on anything.
The vast, overwhelming majority of the scholars, even the secular ones, agree on this. Only a handful of them don't.
>No he wasn't.
He was. This is also confirmed by Josephus, the historian.
>Which tomb precisely? Never been identified.
Joseph of Aramithea was a famous rich man in the Jewish Sanhedrin. His tomb was famous back then and anyone could go and check it if they wanted to. If it wasn't empty, they would call out the lie and there would be records of it.
>There is no proof of this.
Saint Paul reports this in his letters and says he knows many of them are still alive. Anyone could go to them and confirm the fact.
>Goyim cattle coded logic.
You have no argument

>>11

your whole argument just boils down to "I hate Jews therefore it can't be true because it's Jew-related." This is highly illogical and to anons who are not antisemitic or are not irrationally bothered by the Jewish aspect of Jesus and his background, simply going "BUT ITS JEWISH THOUGH, YOU WOULDNT BELIEVE SOMETHING JEW-RELATED, WOULD YOU???" doesn't work as an argument.

Your hatred of Jews takes precedence over everything else for you and this is the main motivating factor and metric of all of your beliefs. You are not a rational person. I am not saying this to insult you, it is just descriptive and self-evidently true

>>12
>>CHRISTIAN ASSHOLE / CUCK
>It's a proof by inference to the best explanation.
so not proof then, got it.

>>13
>proof by inference
That's not how "proof" works. Without objectively verifiable facts then you have no claim to proven Truth.
>The vast, overwhelming majority of the scholars, even the secular ones, agree on this
No they don't, but I can appreciate you're programmed to be mentally handicapped in this subject. You have a bias and seek to reinforce it.
>He was. This is also confirmed by Josephus, the historian.
"Confirmed" by "Josephus" lol that's not the name his mother gave him when he was born. Why don't you use his actual Semitic name? Why are Christians afraid of historical context that would undermine the jewish scripture you're desperately clinging on to as "truth"? Some would call it psychological programming. A jew saying something is true doesn't mean what they said is true, you understand that right?
>Joseph of Aramithea was a famous rich man in the Jewish Sanhedrin. His tomb was famous back then and anyone could go and check it if they wanted to. If it wasn't empty, they would call out the lie and there would be records of it.
Once again, a Jew making a claim without objectively verifiable evidence, doesn't make that claim true just by virtue of a Jew saying so. Having a famous tomb isn't evidence, and you're lying to say "anyone could go and check if they wanted to". Jews in the same cult as "Josephus" would have no problem lying alongside him, to gentiles that don't even know their Semitic names. You're such a gullible retard its tragic.
>Saint Paul reports this in his letters and says he knows many of them are still alive. Anyone could go to them and confirm the fact.
"Paul" wasn't the name his mother gave him when he was born. Nothing "Paul" said in his letters are based on objectively verifiable facts either. Once again you blindly trust the word of a Jew, on no verifiable proof, just because that Jew said something is true based on Jewish scripture.
>You have no argument.
You have no intellectual honesty

>your whole argument boils down to (i hate jews)
Lazy Arguement as quote
(only fool believes there is no god)

Only difference is you forgot to bring up holocaust & sob over 6 million not the other 5 million non jews that died,
Only 6 million & sob over that only
To use that Race card excuse

Accurate description of christroaches

I don't think I've ever met a Christian who actually engages with historical records, archeological evidence and contradictions within the old and new testament.
All they can do is just engage in ad hominem attacks or make up some retarded strawman.

And isn't the entire point of Christianity that every man sins? So why are you asking atheists why they enjoy sinning? As far as I know Christians sin just as much as atheists

nowadays most Christians don't even take their religion seriously.
Gossip is a sin, you think Christians don't gossip? Come on dude let's be for real here. The average Christian these days hasn't even read all 4 gospels lmao

>ALL ATHEISTS HERE
Why do you just want to sin? You know there's no objective morality without God, so you know that the "silly-sounding" sins are indeed grave infinite crimes. So why do you sin, why do you deny God out of fear? As the intellectual great Fulton Sheen concluded, "atheism is a wish that God didn't exist", so you can sin without any punishment. Why do you deny it? It's never too late, you know. Just stop sinning and give yourself to Christ

>>19
If you need religion to define things like morality and the concept of "harm" to you, then maybe you're the bad person

Morality is just a human made concept, it's not some universal truth.
That's just the way we evolved.
Like I said Christianity is a weak religion because according to your religion is would be a sin to slaughter all the muslims and north africans invading Europe right?