Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

I'm going to have to subtract points from the video for insulting atheists at the beginning. The radio host isn't a very good debater here. The bible is an unreliable and biased source and using it as proof of anything is absurd. It's like saying Solid Snake is a real person because Metal Gear Solid says so.

You're just trolling.

I'm only interested in intelligent/informed discussion in this thread.

The video has one atheist talking and arguing with another atheist.

• "I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus" - Ehrman
  
  "...I disagree with that, I mean what 'hardcore evidence' is there that Julius Caesar existed" - Ehrman
  
  "Regardless of the claim, one has to look at the historical evidence. And if you say that the historical evidence 'doesn't count', then I think you get into huge trouble because then why not just deny the Holocaust? Or why not deny that Abraham Lincoln lived? I think these things matter, I think it matters what happened in history" - Ehrman

Now I keep getting claims, throughout this entire thread, that these are just Christian apologetic's arguments - they aren't, they're the same arguments used by agnostic/atheist/secular historians/scholars.

• "But we don't have anything from when he was alive do we??"
  
  "But that's true of anyone" ... "We don't have anyone from that time talking to us now, all we have are ancient records. And all we have for Jesus are ancient records." - Ehrman
  
  "But we don't have any ancient records for Jesus written about him while he was alive, do we?"
  
  "No, absolutely not, just as we don't have for billions of people who lived in the past who we're pretty sure existed. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. I'm not saying this as a believer, I'm not a believer, but as a historian I'm just saying that you can't just dismiss it and say 'well you know, we don't know', you have to look at the evidence, and there is hard evidence, I think." - Ehrman

What part of it, specifically, are you saying is "unreliable" and "biased", and do you agree or disagree with using gnostic texts also as evidence?

We all know Mark 16:16:9–20 is not an original part of Mark, nobody doubts that. Was it inserted deliberately? No I don't think so, I think a scribe would have added it at the bottom of the page in a codex (for whatever reason), and then later scribes copied into the main text.

But no efforts were made the conceal the original version, or any of that nonsense, and the mistakes of scribes can be undone with modern textual criticism.