proof of end times?

[Tiberius]

There is no need for external sources. You must remember, hearsay and eyewitness accounts was the only way information was spread in ancient Israel. Secondly, we have four Gospel records that include passages that mention this Messiah named Jesus healing "lame legged" people. "Lame" was considered, "Impossible to walk." An amputee could very easily fit that category.

I'm afraid thats not the way science or history works. It works on the collection of data from various sources. Hearsay and eyewitness accounts tell us nothing, and as any good police officer will know, they are not to be trusted as evidence in court. The only valid way of finding evidence is by direct observation or recording of that direct observation. 2000 years ago, there were plenty of scholars to do the writing about Jesus, but none of them did. Why?

The four Gospels contradict each other various times, and they are known to have been written at different times. Mark was written 30 years after the death of Jesus! The rest were written in a long period after that, often separated by periods of 30 years or more. Give the average life expectancy of that time, the chances of an eyewitness living to help write the gospels would be extremely unlikely. As already pointed out as well, eyewitness testimony is almost useless.

Agnosticism says, "There may be a God, or there may not be." I believe there is a God. I don't say, "There may not be a God." I do not doubt my belief in God in any manner. I say I believe in God, but I cannot prove him. That does not mean I think "he may not be there." You are confused...

Wrong, and an unfortunate misunderstanding of the word "agnosticism". Agnosticism is the position one takes on whether God's existence can be known or proven. Read up the definition of the word before you attempt to use it. I've written several short essays on agnosticism, so I do know what it means. As I said, the easiest way of looking at agnosticism is by asking the question "Do you think God can be proven?". If the answer is a no, the person is agnostic. If the answer is a yes, the person is gnostic.

Yes, but I do not believe any other religion casts unbelievers into Hell like Christianity and Islam. So, therefore, If Thor is the one and only true god.. I am in no danger of Hellfire.

As I keep saying, there are more religions that your measly two that have a Hell. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell, http://www.steveholder.com/hell.html

Or just look at a google search for "How many religions have a hell?".

Everyone is taking a risk, and that includes, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists...etc..etc, but atheists choose to take the larger risk by not obeying any sort of God or gods. Atheists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Unless there is a higher being that is opposed to the idea of god.. and then it looks like the atheists might be saved..? You never know what is out there.. No one knows.

And as I've said many many times. Given the number of possible Gods, the number of possible Hells, the risk taken by an atheist is not even remotely significant. Atheists are not in a lose-lose situation, mainly because there are multiple times we "win" and either cease to exist or go to Heaven.

God knows who is truthful and who is false. He is Omniscient. He knows everything. Pascal Wager only works if God is truly Omniscient. Understand?

Do you even understand??? The point that Pascals wager makes is that you'd "better believe in God". However, this argument doesn't convince me that there is actually a God, even if it convinced me to say I believed. On judgement day, I would be able to say "I believe" but the omnipotent God would just take one look at me and say "You were dishonest all your life. You never really believed in me". Thus Pascal's wager has achieved nothing for me. Belief is more complex than just saying you believe in something. I can't force myself to believe in a God just because a wager says its beneficial for me.

Let's put it in your terms. If I came up with a hypothetical wager that said atheism was the most beneficial choice, would you stop believing in God? Probably not, because belief cannot simply be shaken by a simple wager. It needs a deep realization to occur, like the same realizations that happen to theists who then become atheists, or vice-versa.