Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[rsb]

That is exactly the point of this thread.

But this is the old Kenneth Kitchen mantra that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and it is simply wrong. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence but it sure as hell is evidence. The fact that no evidence of a 12th century European city has been discovered on the site of Pittsburgh, Pa is certainly evidence that no such city existed. COULD such a site be found? Anything is possible but it seems highly unlikely. Does that mean we should hold open the possibility that some unknown group of Europeans crossed the Atlantic and built a city in Pennsylvania? No. The idea is outlandish.

Similarly, the only evidence that jesus freaks put forward for their godboy comes from a bunch of self-serving writings which we know have been edited because we have the evidence of the changes. The jews did not write their documents with jesus in mind. They didn't give a shit about him. I'm not really following your line of thinking which seems to indicate that they are some sort of un-indicted co-conspirators. Perhaps you would elaborate?

I am just saying evidence of an individual existing or not existing 2000 years ago lacks credibility and makes you look like a crazy religious freak.

If you want to talk about whole civilizations or thought memes, or bigger things, I am with you, if you want to say the life of brian is not exactly the real story of the historical christ as revealed by time traveling space aliens, I have to back the aliens and examine your evidence. the aliens only have to show me their time travel spaceship.