A simple challenge for atheists

[KevinM1]

Those are not eyewitness accounts, they are hearsay (at best). Hearsay is not evidence. Try again.

There are no non-religious accounts of the alleged events. This absence of evidence that one would expect to be there is pretty damning.

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Reasonable explanation: people are stupid. I mean, shit, here in the 21st century, with all of the knowledge we've attained as a species, there are people who fall for cults all the time. Scientology exists.

And, no, hearsay is not evidence. Never was, never will be. It's gossip, nothing more.

And you're right: an absence of evidence is not evidence itself. But an absence of evidence is an absence of evidence. You can't claim hearsay as evidence.