The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

Begging the question.... LMAO. Guys, you need to establish that the NT and other documents were written by credible witnesses, and that such testimony regarding Jesus' magic was accurate. The questions raised about them is, and has always been, about corroboration. Is there anything credible that can back these stories up? Things provided by unbiased sources that don't have a vested interest in it being true?

Instead, we keep getting deflections.

"The apostles were there!" - Okay
"They witnessed Jesus' death..." - Okay, since death by crucifixion was a known means of punishment
"...and resurrection!" - Given that such a resurrection violates everything we know about the universe, we're going to need more evidence before we accept that it happened
"Why would they lie?" - Why are you assuming they're telling the truth? These people had a motive for lying, namely a burgeoning religious/political revolution. And, again, it doesn't conform to what we know about the universe
"Why would they risk torture and death?" - Because that's what zealous revolutionaries/cultists do?
"How could the church gain such popularity so quickly?" - Popularity has nothing to do with veracity. See: anti-vaxxers
"You cannot provide any evidence that this is false!" - I don't need to. I'm not the one claiming the documents and testimony are true. I'm raising objections that must be sufficiently addressed before I believe it's true, while giving plausible alternatives
"Evolution!" - Oh, fuck off

So, with the bullshit out of the way, please provide actual corroborating evidence that supports the magical aspects of the NT. Or accept that you've simply made a leap of faith without such evidence because the thought of a magic zombie savior gives you warm fuzzies. Either way works for me.

QFT!

And the reason we keep going around in circles with Road Runner is because every time he is presented with the challenge of meeting his burden of proof, he waffles back and says, "I'm not making any claims about Christianity, in this discussion I'm just talking about acceptable evidence." (wriggling) So, we never actually GET to the crux of the issue.

RR, bull CRAP you're not making any claims. Of course you are. You're a Christian on an atheist forum. That's exactly why you are here. To talk about the claims of Christianity that you believe are true. Trying to shirk your religious convictions in order to avoid the responsibility of providing evidence is dishonest. Period. And turning around and saying, "well, by YOUR standards you shouldn't believe in evolution," is not only a continuation of this shirking, it's:

A: factually wrong

B: A tu quoque fallacy (and not even a good one because it's factually wrong as stated above)

C. A big fat argument from ignorance (that is also factually wrong because evolution is a scientific fact)

RR, this has nothing to do with epistemology and EVERYTHING to do with YOU shifting goal posts to avoid having to make a positive case for your religious beliefs.

TRY. AGAIN.