A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

I asked you this earlier in the thread, and you seem to have missed it, but if you were on trial with a life sentence possibly in your future, would you believe that justice had been carried out if you were convicted on the same basic concepts you've presented here? If the prosecution had just trundled out a series of people you'd never met to testify that they heard some guy say that you committed the crime, would you think that to be sufficient evidence to convict you? If the judge sentenced you to life on the basis that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that though the prosecution hadn't provided any evidence, neither had the defense conclusively proven such evidence didn't exist, would you feel that you had been given a fair sentence? Basically, would you think it reasonable to be convicted of a crime because you hadn't proved yourself innocent of it?

And if you wouldn't feel that any of that is reasonable, why do you expect that anyone else will find exactly the same kind of logic reasonable, when it's applied to less likely claims that we haven't even determined are possible?

I think that's a relevant thought experiment here, but it's also secondary to the real problem here, which is that what what you're presenting as evidence... isn't. It's the claim; you don't even get the idea that Jesus existed and was god anywhere else but the bible. The bible and its associated books and writings are the source of the claim you're trying to prove; do I really need to tell you why "this set of books is true, because the book says it's true!" is circular reasoning? Any other religion can say the same thing, you know, as all their holy books operate under the premise that they're non-fiction too. Once again, you've offered us something that any other religion can use to the same effect; surely you can see why that's ineffective?

You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

You need to explain why so many older religions sacrificed people to their gods, in the process acting under the belief that those gods were real, then. Hell, if you really want to use this kind of logic, you need to explain why every first group of religious practitioners, from every religion, acted on the belief that their god was real.

Seriously, every argument you make operates on special pleading, where your own claims are privileged based on ideas that the majority of other religions also use.