Atheist regimes? Whats that? Which regime is atheistic?

You dont want me to talk about religious regimes killing millions if people right? Or would you then use the great argument that these werent religious because of what they did?
The religious arc of argumentation is and has always been absolutely ridiculous and I am sure yours wont be an exception.

Did you know that the Bible was written by over 40 authors from all walks of life during a 1,500 year span of time on three different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)? Some of the authors were Joshua a military general, Solomon a king, Daniel a prime minister, Amos a herdsman, Luke a doctor, Paul a Rabbi, Matthew a tax collector, and Peter a fisherman. No other book can claim this much variety in authorship.

If you read the Gospel of Luke you will see that his account is based on EYE-WITNESSES.

I said this to the last person and I'll say it to you as well. Do you want to crumble the entirety of Christianity? Disprove the resurrection of Jesus ever happened. Before you tell me that's not your job/role, you're the one who is coming in here and has a problem with the entirety of the Bible, the same collection of books you haven't read. So go on, disprove the resurrection of Jesus from ever happening and you will never have to worry about Christianity ever again.

No I do not want to DISPROVE the resurrection of Jesus, because this is not possible. It doesnt matter if it happened or not for that matter, because it would be impossible disprove EITHER WAY.
That is why claims do not have to be disproved (because not possible), but have to be proven.
When someone murders someone, it has to proven. Guilt has to be proven or this guy is a free man. Thats how it works. So again, I am not here to disprove Jesus or the bible, I am here to ask for the proof, for evidence.

You said yourself that big chunks of the bible are based on EYEWITNESS. Not direct Eye-Witness of course cause that all was written down centuries ago. Some wrote about alleged eyewitnesses. Eyewitness accpunts are the weakest kind of evidence poasible. Totally unreliable und basically worthless - especially in the case of the bible, were someone just writes about eyewitnesses.

And yes, I did know about the ridiculous collection of writers and the insane timespan over that this book was written.
Thats not really an argument for the bible, its more likely one against it. I also know about the parts the church didnt like and therefor dismissed.

Eye witnesses in the judicial system would like a word with you.

Eyewitness accounts in missing people cases are basically worthless. Not because they are ignored, but because they are incredibly unrealiable. Not because people necessarily lie, but because they are wrong more often than right.

Eyewitness accounts in court are very important, but of course ONLY if the personal is believable. Those persons are PERSONALLY present or have been interrogated by police for a long time.

Secondary eyewitness account on the other hand is truly worthless.

Don't you think people dying for the belief like Paul after he had an encounter with Jesus going blind to die for his belief is good proof?

Paul never met Jesus, he was born after his death. All he claimed happened was him having Jesus appear in front of him somewhere. This is absolutely worthless in terms of proof and would not be taken seriously today at all in front of any judical system.

Its not even 100% clear that Paul even existed or if and how much of the writings connected to him, were even wrote by him. How is a Story written down 2000 years ago is proof to you. Why is that proof? In which world? Get real.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Nov 22 2023 06:21am

What? How did we get his letters then? The NT was written a lot in by Paul when he was in jail being persecuted for Jesus. I don't understand what you are talking about.

Have you seen him write them? Why dont you just educate yourself a bit somewhere besides christian sources?
By the way I also think the historical person Paul is based on lived. I dont think he is a fabricated synonym. I also think the preacher Jesus did live.
What I think about both is that they were just ordinary, slightly crazy men. But not based on evidence, thats just what I would guess if I had to.

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and basically worthless? So how do you find out what happens in this day and age since you refuse to go and ask someone who saw the whole thing?

Someone crashes their car and a bystander saw the whole thing, there's no point in asking them since they are an eyewitness and saw the whole thing, right?

Or someone robs a store at gunpoint. There's no point in asking the other customers who were there since they are eyewitnesses, right?

Or you, yourself witnessed some big event. Even though you saw the whole thing there's no point in asking you since you are an eyewitness and are unreliable and basically worthless, right?