The debate is over

[Skepsis]

I have been referencing Jesus throughout this whole thread. If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god. Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god). I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence.

How the hell are you an atheist? You think Mark is reliable, but somehow don't think that what you say follows from this understanding is valid.
But you're wrong here too! Whether or not Mark was completely trustworthy, that doesn't mean anything towards his extraordinary claims of Jesus's divinity.
So, the FSM can't be compared to Jesus because Jesus isn't really Jesus he is actually God but he is not God because he is Jesus? I guess it's my turn to ask if you are serious. Just, really?

I don't sit around and think about what all is possible. I think about what is probable. Jesus being god (Irenaeus -> Papias -> Mark's account of what Peter [an eye witness] knew) is something that is not just possible (like solipsism), but something that actually has some evidence.

Yeah, so I went back and, from page 3 where you made your case, I checked off every time you said "possibly", then did the same for "probably" "if" "might be" and "could", finally comparing this to how many mentions you made of the probable. I have eight direct uses of "possible", twelve uses of the "probably" group, but only one single use of "probable".
So yeah, I beg to differ when you said that you are talking primarily about the probable.

It is hilarious to me that people are seriously comparing Jesus to the FSM. There is evidence for Jesus' divinity. The FSM was made up in response to Jesus, albeit at a later date. Both are possible, but the FSM is NOT probable. Jesus is a lot more probable than the FSM. Come on, people.

There IS NO evidence for Jesus's divinity. NONE. Regardless of whether or not Mark and all his compadres were freaking immaculate in their moral records, we all have the capacity to be wrong. The evidence needed for an extraordinary event needs to be more than the word of some guy that you think is trustworthy. You can believe pretty much anything else he has to say, perhaps. None of that really matters. It olds no bearing unless his claims of the supernatural are validated, which they aren't because trustworthiness has no bearing on supernatural claims.

I'm not being funny, but you're not much of an atheist are you?

I am a soft atheist (agnostic atheist). I do not know whether or not there is a god (or gods), and you don't either. Based on what I see around me, I don't think that there is a god (or gods). Everyone should be soft atheists, in my opinion.

You already contradicted your own claim to be an atheist; as you said, Mark is trustworthy, so -> Jesus is divine -> and divinity implies a god.