For anyone who actually read the Bible....

[intaglio]

86. Fine now let's go over what you ignore

1) It shows that the titles of the texts are likely to have been fabricated. You are just assuming that the tradition is flawless.

2) The earliest copies of Mark lack the resurrection tale and, as I pointed out there is evidence that it was added later due to the stylistic mismatch and the lack of link to the foregoing text. You have ignored that and assumed that the single most important detail of the legend, the proof of the Christs' divinity was omitted from these early copies of Mark for no reason whatsoever.

3) They were not witnesses to the events.

a) How, for example, did the putative authors observe Jesus' actions at the Garden of Gethsemane? (Matthew 26:36-46, Luke 22:39-46 and Mark 14:32-42).

b) Mark was not the name of any of the Disciples and the 2 or 3 Marks in the 70 Apostles were Palestinian Jews and hence would not have made the errors of geography and custom that are apparent on the Gospel attributed to one of them.

c) Luke supposedly lived in Antioch, was a Syrian Greek who did not speak Aramaic (known because of the errors he makes in translation) and so could not have witnessed the ministry and events of Christs' life.

d) Matthew supposedly was one of the first 12 Apostles but the actual author of this Gospel includes fantastic details which did not happen, notable the raising of many other dead along with Jesus, the flight into Egypt and the temptation on the mountaintop.

e) The Gospels contradict each other on details for which there should be no argument if they were actual witnesses

Now you say you claim evidence, not proof; so what is your evidence, for you have not given any yet.

Atheism, so what? I am not trying to convert anyone just pointing out the nonsensical inconsistencies that faith (of whatever sort) tries to inflict on otherwise functional minds. Do I think that the teachings of Jesus are a threat? Why should I? Most are completely irrelevant and the few nuggets of ethical conduct attributed to him with were the common currency of philosophy and ethics in the Graeco-Roman sphere of influence.

As to an afterlife ... well tell me what a soul is and then tell me how it survives death; afterward tell me how it senses anything without senses and acts on matter when it is non-material; or if there is a bodily resurrection and if so whether we keep all the same bodily functions. Perhaps you could advise me on whether we have a memory in this afterlife and, if perfect, how long before we find repeating the same actions unutterably boring, because in an eternity that is what would happen.

Now me, well I will live for all the time there is from my point of view. I have the chance to make myself and others as happy as I can and can choose to act ethically because that is pleasing to social animals like humans. When I die I will not face an eternity of boredom nor an eternity of torture. Being self aware I would like others to be happy that I have lived and perhaps a little sad as I am dying.