Oh goody! ShockofGod is writing in conservapedia. Using his good old brand of illogic and inability to understand damn near anything pretty much 100% of the time and calling that 'proof and evidence'. When someone does not even know what the terms 'proof' and 'evidence' mean, and how they relate, I refuse to waist my breath on them.
There is not an apologetic that has not been soundly trounced, nor is there a religion with a rational basis.
Using the simple Occam's Razor you may ask, which is more likely, that a man died for three days and came back to life and forty days later floated up into a place in the sky, or that someone made up a story?
Did this Yehoshua really walk out of his tomb followed by a hopping crucifix and then grow to skyscraper size as the popular first-century Gospel of Peter attests, or was someone taking a bit of literary license?
There is no history of an actual event in a book composed of hundreds of thousands of scraps of copies of copies containing more mistakes than there are scraps and written and edited from at least forty to 1500 years after the event. There is only mythmaking; boilerplating of ancient stories and tales, many describing numerous characters.
Religion is the art of assuming your conclusions and then inventing stories (apologetics) to explain them. No one even knows when this "Jesus" person lived - it's all based in the musings of a sixth-century monk who made the attempt to trace back to the original story and no one knows his methods. Jesus could have lived a hundred years before any stories were written down and no one would know it.
There was no Slaughter of the Innocents.
There was no tearing of the temple curtain nor an earthquake.
The dead did not walk.
If any of these things were true they would have been reported in non-religious history. And if any claims in such a book are so obviously false, then all must be called into question. And this is a story that does not suffer questions well.
"Saying that atheists are afraid of something that they have no reason to believe in is not logical. Remember atheists do not believe in god due to the overwhelming lack of provable evidence not because of direct evidence in the nonexistence of god. I stress again due to the lack of evidence.
I do not think you understand the true atheist mindset. It sounds like the point you are making is the same Ken Ham (or his brother actually) of Answers In Genesis made recently that atheists choose not to believe in god due to having a heart set against god. This is illogical as well because atheists do not have an emotional investment in the matter their stance is clearly based on a logical consensus. I am sorry sir but your conclusions simply are not sound."
His reply was to send me a video of what he considers to be a group of atheists not answering his nonsensical question and just the words "Be ashamed." I replied back with this..
"I rest my case."
He replied back..
"Nobody believes your crap man. Go sell it to a blind man."
They don't seem to get the basic point that we are not the ones making theories about gods. It is those who postulate gods who should be terrified about their lack of proof and evidence, not those who don't.