[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?
Nope.  

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

It doesn't matter either way.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly,  I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.

Interesting points.  Never heard of Eleazar ben Simon before now.  Arguing the existence of historical figures is not something I have the time for.  The existence of, for instance Muhammad, Gandhi, as well as Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute.  Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place.  That’s what I don’t get about atheism.  I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.  

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?

You keep making this claim, yet you consistently fail to produce any real documentation for Jesus.

You realize that we've got photographs and films of Gandhi, right?  Not sure why you'd even bring that up.

I don't 'know' there is no God. I believe there is no God.  This has been explained to you several times in this thread.  How are you not getting it?

Boru