Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Esquilax]

They're evidence that someone felt the need to write something about someone for some reason.

How terribly conclusive.

If as you claim there is no God

You know that's not my claim.

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?

What Rationalman said.

They didn't get any of these things, quite the opposite they got persecuted and martyred.

Nope. Actually, what happened was a bunch of Jewish and Roman writers wrote a bunch of piety porn about people being persecuted and not losing their faith, and the modern church decided those fictions were real.

You know, it's like the ancient version of Passion of the Christ: you get all bigged up on how noble your religion is through what's essentially Saw, but on the cross, but all it is is entertainment.

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.

Uh huh. And what would be the most effective method of masking the grab for power your bible represents? Why, it'd be to have a central figure in it decrying the accumulation of wealth, but if he's fictional too then all he does is serve a purpose for the writers. You know as well as I do that what's in the book and the way some christians act are two different things.

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.

See, you're also mistaking the motives behind creating the religion, with whether or not those motives came to fruition; all you've proved, if you're right, is that if the religion was formed in a grab for power, it was an unsuccessful one.