Questions for Christfollower.
1) How do you know that christ existed?
2) Can you prove your god?
3) What religion are you specifically?
4) Do you understand what "proof" is, and is not?
5) Where you born a christian?
6) Since you call yourself Christfollower, how exactly are you sure that you are actually following christ?
7) Do you follow the bible literally? If so, why?
8) How old do you think the earth is?
9) Do you think that earth is flat?
10) Where and how high is your education?
11) Can you accept logic and facts?

I could think of 22 questions but I think that the 11 I asked are enough.

Hello ChristFollower

Excuse me for my mistakes, english isn`t my first language.

You ask why we are atheists. I will answer why I´m an atheist.

First, for you to know: I was raised as an evangelian. But at the age of 13 I refused to became a church member. They tried to buy me with money and gifts, but I react with only more hate and educated myself to see the lies of the christian church. That was the beginning.

How can I believe in a god, which needs to steal from other religions? Be in a church, which murders, steal and force people to join them? It´s not only history, it`s the same church!
All the "High days" are stolen! Christmas, Easter, and all the other days. All of them are stolen. Nothing was created by the christian religion. The story of Jesus was stolen from Mithras. Read about Mitras and you will understand.
Their god was stolen from the Jews. I don`t believe in the Jews god, but the christians have stolen the god. Nothing of their religion is real. All stolen.
If there is an allmighty creature, why need this creature humans to write a book full of mistakes? Read about that: The mistakes of the bible. The boys didn`t know their own story......
And then? A bunch of men deceide in the year 500 which text fit in their book and which not? Very trustworthy.....

No, nothing can make me believe this shit. I like the storys of the old norse gods. This doesn`t mean, that I believe in it. But these storys are full of fantasy. Without forcing people to crawl on their knees. They are full of pride.

Hello ChristFollower,

I've skimmed over your messages here. I don't know that this discussion will prove worthwhile or not. But I thought we could delve into the differences in our viewpoints on historicity.

You say that both the historicity of Jesus and THE RESURRECTION of Jesus are supported by the historical evidence. I can accept an argument for Jesus being an actual person as being reasonable. However your statement about the resurrection of Jesus doesn't hold up as historically valid.

You say that you've read Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price. That's good. I'll point you to Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

What I'm trying to get at is how do academic historians arrive at consensus when establishing the truth of historical events? Some of what I say may be obvious, but we need to be clear on what we're agreeing and disagreeing on.

Establishing historical truths is about establishing a likelihood, a probability, that an event occurred using an accepted methodology. In the Carrier article link, Carrier applies a relatively standard set of criteria used by academics when trying to discern what is likely to be a historical event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Argument_to_the_best_exp...

Note the difference in establishing historical truths vs establishing a truth of the physical sciences. With the physical sciences in many if not most cases, we have the ability to repeatedly test or to repeatedly observe the characteristics of a hypothesis. Science, in general, endeavors to apply 'objective methods' that minimize human error and human bias that taints the conclusion.

The goal with academic historical methodology is also to minimize human error and human bias, but 'history' is a much bigger challenge.

So, let's come back to the historicity of (1) Jesus and (2) the resurrection. Saying Jesus was a real person doesn't violate any known realities. The resurrection, on the other hand, does violate modern known realities. From modern observation, humans don't survive or revive after 36 hours of death. Statistically, the odds are as near zero as they can be based on modern experience and observation of the human death biology. I know of no resurrection that has been objectively verified. From the objectively verified evidence, resurrection does not occur, And we understand the biology of human death well enough. Cells break down due to a lack of oxygen, etc. Bayes Theorem provides a very minute possibility that we could be absolutely sure of something, but still, somehow, be wrong. But in all practical ways, the resurrection of Jesus fails the first test for a historical event, that the event be consistent with the known physical reality of death. The resurrection is extremely unlikely to the point of having an effective zero probability. OR there has to be a special explanation for the special event. And I believe the special explanation would be the Judeo-Christian 'God.' Which, there again, there's no objective evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ fails to be a historically valid event by any objective standard.

Oh bloody Christ on a cracker! What is it with people giving the, "oh well since science hasn't given us the answer yet on how the universe came to be, there must be an invisible fairy parading and spreading fairy dust to make things happen." So impatient, that they are willing to accept some half-assed story written by uneducated and morally underdeveloped sand men.

The Christian God is an atrocious egoistic beast of a character. It doesn't take much of actually reading the bible to start questioning the moral value of it all. I mean the whole Jesus being the sacrificial lamb is downright macabre, unless you find that appealing and condone such acts of scapegoating.

@ Christflollower- Hello mate
By your way of thinking, everything needs a maker because it just can't simply exist. If that is so then your God also needs a maker and so on.

It doesn't take a genius to know that slavery, misogyny, and the slaughtering of children is immoral. Morality exists in the human mind, therefore, the ideas that we hold to as being right and wrong changes as we learn from our past mistakes and new knowledge. Holy piss bucket! I said this before in a different thread, I'm starting to sound like a broken record mate! I keep things simple, mental wanking isn't my thing.

So Christfollower, you are afraid to even answer my post. Typical. You can't prove your god. You don't want to dialogue. You want to proselytize.
Either answer MY question or admit that you just want to preach.

"He just happens to be the best explanation for reality."

I hope you do understand that any explanation for reality must be outside reality.