Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Sword of Christ]

The gospels aren't evidence , the gospels are the claim. Claims can be written down too, you know.

They're evidence that someone felt the need to write something about someone for some reason. If as you claim there is no God and there can be no miracles or revelation from God then what are they? You still have something you need to explain you can't just dismiss them away lightly by simply stating that they aren't evidence. You have your opinion do you have anything to back it up with?

Power, money, control over people, varying other sociopolitical aims depending on context, and that's only accounting for the possibilities of outright deception. It's also entirely possible the writers were just genuinely mistaken, or terribly credulous, perhaps insane, or brain damaged in some way.

They didn't get any of these things, quite the opposite they got persecuted and martyred. When the Roman Empire took as a state religion then you get that but they power, money, control over people to begin with they just adapted Christianity for their needs. But Jesus himself didn't support the use of religion for attaining power, wealth or control over others. So you can't use what you said there as the justification as it was nothing like that. A lot of religions and cults are like that but Christianity wasn't.

All of these possibilities are more likely than the claim you believe in, which falls victim to Occam's Razor quite spectacularly.

We can discount these possibilities based on what we historically know about have Christianity as a movement formed and grew. Once you get to Roman Catholicism then you can start pointing out the whole wealth and political authority dimension of it which was introduced and to some small degree is still there.