What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The best arguments for God have been lacking.

 

[Satt]

Disclaimer: I am still a Christian.

I think the best evidence against the "Christian" God is that noone can prove that the "bible" wasn't just made up by various humans. Sometimes I think God is His own worst enemy. He could've made it rediculously clear what is required of man in order to please him...IF he exists. And DON'T tell me it IS clear. If it were so, there wouldn't be THOUSANDS of Christian denominations around the world. There would truly be one church!

 

[critent]

Disclaimer: I am still a Christian.

I think the best evidence against the "Christian" God is that noone can prove that the "bible" wasn't just made up by various humans.

I rest my case. Once again, we have someone presenting an argument that has been defeated time and time again, and then some more. I am this close to giving up. I find that modern Christians, as a group, appear more obtuse and less well read and informed than ever before in my adult lifetime. Or maybe now that this nonsense is being confronted in an era where the social ban on doing so has been lifted (and where blasphemy isn't a capital crime--remember those glory days from the history books?), we're seeing more and more how little it takes to be a Christian: set aside logic, reason and evidence, don't read, pay attention to, remember, or critically synthesize the arguments against your position (just keep on truckin), and infect as many young minds as possible while you still have a chance--i.e., before the innocent have a chance to think for themselves. Associate the cross with mommy and daddy, and you have a tremendous advantage, as the child's mind, at such a young age, is innoculated against rational thinking.

 

[underheaven]

Disclaimer: I am still a Christian.

I think the best evidence against the "Christian" God is that noone can prove that the "bible" wasn't just made up by various humans. Sometimes I think God is His own worst enemy. He could've made it rediculously clear what is required of man in order to please him...IF he exists. And DON'T tell me it IS clear. If it were so, there wouldn't be THOUSANDS of Christian denominations around the world. There would truly be one church!

I am a Christian but since I believe in reincarnation,and the existence of the soul since Creation,millions of years ago,the bible for me is the latest intervention in the affairs of men by God. Most atheists are not very well educated either,and knowing two pence worth they deny the existence of God . Wise people need no formal education .They observe the world around them ,including how the the world works in Cycles of time,and they pass on this wisdom to their children and grandchildren.They therefore 'see' that there are Rules which we must live by if we are to live together
in harmony,to build a sane and civil society.They 'see' those who break those rules and what happens to them,and so on .All societies which
forget to bow down before a Higher power,break laws affecting sexuality and consanquinity,commit murder ,especially of their own, destroys itself.
All of them.................The study of God's direct, as opposed to indirect action, which is permanent and ongoing, is a long study in itself,and I will not be speaking of it here .If you are determined to be an atheist,and block your mind, there is nothing anyone can do for one,but if the truth is what you are looking for, you have been provided with the internet,by God Himself.God has intervened in the world during the last 2,000 years to bring us to this point.No doubt about it the world has existed for millions of years,and we are coming to the end of a cycle.All planned in advance
by the creator.All we have to do is decide which 'plan' to take.Complete the cycle,and begin again in an eternal life cycle or a 'dead 'end to nowhere.

 

[underheaven]

Disclaimer: I am still a Christian.

I think the best evidence against the "Christian" God is that noone can prove that the "bible" wasn't just made up by various humans. Sometimes I think God is His own worst enemy. He could've made it rediculously clear what is required of man in order to please him...IF he exists. And DON'T tell me it IS clear. If it were so, there wouldn't be THOUSANDS of Christian denominations around the world. There would truly be one church!

I am a Christian but since I believe in reincarnation,and the existence of the soul since Creation,
millions of years ago,the bible for me is the latest intervention in the affairs of men by God.
Most atheists are not very well educated either,and knowing two pence worth they deny the
existence of God . Wise people need no formal education .They observe the world around them ,
including how the the world works in Cycles of time,and they pass on this wisdom to their children
and grandchildren.They therefore 'see' that there are Rules which we must live by if we are to live
in harmony,to build a sane and civil society.They 'see' those who break those rules and what happens to them,and so on .All societies which
All societies which forget to bow down before a Higher power,break laws affecting sexuality, and consanquinity,commit murder ,especially of their own, destroys itself.
All of them.................The study of God's direct, as opposed to indirect action, which is permanent and ongoing, is a long study in itself,and I will only mention it here ,.If you are determined to be an atheist,and block your mind, there is nothing anyone can do for one, but if the truth is what you are looking for, you have been provided with the internet,by God Himself...God has intervened in the world during the last 2,000 years to bring us to this point.No doubt about it ,the world has existed for millions
of years,and we are coming to the end of a cycle...All planned in advance by the creator.
All we have to do is decide which 'plan' to take.

If God had given us all the answers in advance what good would that have been .Do you think that
simply telling a pilot ,a surgeon,a soldier,a scientist,just do this and you will graduate.The route to perfection of our 'souls' is long an complex,and difficult ,but you have to want to do all off those
professions etc before you wil lput in the effort to 'achieve'. If you think God is Santa Claus then
you are mistaken.More like a teacher,trainer,who exercises alternately Love and Discipline to draw
you upwards. The bible has profound lessons to teach us if we enter into it. But unlike most Christians
I don't think it is the only way to know about God..However the NEW Testament is the last and final
'direction' from Him,and Jesus, is the only way ,to final salvation .

 

[ianb321red]

The rest of your argument relies upon this first statement being true, which is not the case. Not that this discussion can go any further though; we've ventured far into the realms of personal opinion, which cannot be argued for or against in any meaningful sense.

Lazy argument my friend - you need to read the entire post be able to make an informed comment....

I've made in explicitly clear that my argument is an objective one.

When/if you read the post, you'll see that the only way you can counter my argument is by providing counter evidence - something that the non-theist seems to be incapable of doing...

 

[ianb321red]

Fine. Then my primary evidence against the existence of God is a Corn Flakes box. Just as credible.

Back it up - so I can take anything else that you say remotely seriously

All of my arguments (if you actually read them) are thoroughly backed up

 

[ianb321red]

An open comment to non-Theists:

If you're bothered enough to log on to this forum, read this thread and write a comment then please note that we've reached the point where I'm expecting to read a counter argument supported by counter evidence.

If you read my post #193 I've set out my position clearly enough.

You are welcome to disagree with my argument in the strongest possible terms, but for any counter argument to have any worth you need to back it up..with something.

Simply saying "that's not enough evidence" or "your evidence is false" is something that needs to be supported beyond just firing off opinions.

No one yet has done this.

I am still waiting for anyone to provide counter evidence supported by independent evidence to undermine the evidence I accept to support my argument.

Until anyone can do this, I will continue to maintain that my position is the correct one - not because of personal belief, but because of simply a scenario of evidence versus no evidence.

Not really a difficult choice is it?
And if you can't be bothered, then why are you reading this in the first place?

Thanks in advance

 

[Genersis]

1. The primary evidence for my argument is from The Bible.

2. I've summarised my previous arguments below to show that the evidence for the claims that Jesus Christ made that he was God can be supported by:

• a. a vast and extensively tested manuscript and codex archive which is widely accepted as being authentic amongst the majority of historians and scholars
• b. a number of independent, extra-Biblical and non-Biblical sources which all externally corroborate what is recorded in the New Testament primarily regarding Jesus Christ
• c. accounts given by early church leaders in letters which describe the teachings in the early Christian churches which confirm the acceptance of the deity of Jesus Christ
• d. any arguments claiming that church councils such as Hippo or Nicaea “decided” the canon and the deity/ divinity of Jesus Christ are demonstrated to be false

3. The Bible is objective evidence. It is objective evidence because it can be tested on historical facts which are recorded independently of anything written in The Bible. It contains historical references and accounts all of which can be tested objectively. Genealogies can be traced back and attested. Geographically, The Bible refers to real places using their ancient historical names – again the accuracy of this can be tested.

4. Unlike the Qu’ran (which contains no genealogies), The Bible is not the work of one author. It was written by 40 different authors, and demonstrates an internal consistency between the Old and New Testament, along with Jesus Christ fulfilling Old Testament predictions (such as the prophecy of Tyre), provide further evidence to show that The Bible is not the work of one man and therefore does not contain the inevitable authorship biases.

5. So, the evidence is not subjective – subjective evidence is evidence which cannot be evaluated. The teachings of Buddhism are subjective (these are one man's teachings on how to live your life and cannot be in anyway viewed as anything other than subjective), and a very clear distinction between this and the objective facts we have for The Bible. To suggest that the evidence is subjective, with regards to the evidence supporting The Bible is clearly false as I have more than demonstrated that The Bible can be objectively tested in a number of ways.

6. Therefore, given that there is objective evidence that exists outside of my personal belief, in order for my position to be refuted the following would have to be established:

• 1. The Biblical account of Jesus would have to be objectively demonstrated to be false. NOTE:The argument from other religious accounts is ineffective because (a) I have previously shown that The Bible account of Jesus is the most accurate account because of authorship / closeness to the event both historically and geographically / authenticity and reliability of the historical record, (b) that there is no competing account from any other religion that can be independently attested to be true when compared against non-religious historical sources. The Jewish account historically supports the claims Jesus made – it simply rejects them. Therefore, the Jewish and Christian accounts provide a huge weight of evidence to convincingly reject the Islamic account of Jesus
• 2. Furthermore, to discredit the Biblical account of Jesus Christ, there would be need to be objective evidence of multiple eye witness accounts from people who lived at the same time that Jesus did, and that these eye witness accounts would need to be corroborated by further independent evidence. All of this evidence would need to be well supported by manuscript copies that can be attested to have written around 15-35 years after the events they described.
• 3. Failure to present an alternative history – one that discredits The Biblical account of Jesus, and one that can be supported with (as a minimum) the equivalent quantity and quality of evidence, can only entail one logical conclusion = this evidence does not exist
• 4. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be that the account and claims made by Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible are a true and correct version of history. This is the only logical and rational conclusion to make.

7. Given this position, my next general comment is that compared to any other historical figure of any note or reputation, the demands made by non-Theists for evidence by far exceed the demands to prove and corroborate the claims made by Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible.

8. The requirement to “prove” authorship of the gospels is clearly an excessive and impractical demand, and one that outside of scholarly circles is not deemed necessary to have truthful understanding of any historical figure

9. However, I would ask you to provide the equivalent amount of primary and independent objective evidence equivalent in both quality and quantity to that which is required to support arguments from the Bible, to demonstrate that Julius Caesar fought in the Roman Civil war.

10. My position is that my argument is not an argument of belief or subjectivity. It is an argument based on an objective account of history which can be demonstrated by multiple sources to be authentic and correct. My personal belief is based on an acceptance of a true account of history, and also through lack of an credible alternative version of history

11. Through the various sources I have cited in earlier posts, the burden of proof is now on the non-Theist to discredit the evidence I have used for my argument.

12. To simply subjectively ‘reject’ what I deem to be evidence does not stand up in an argument of this nature. Evidence needs to be presented to counter the Theistic/ biblical evidence which can be assessed objectively, and which can without a shadow of doubt discredit the claims of Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible. From a non-Theistic position.

13. This is not asking you to prove a negative – which is accusation a lot of Theists/ God believers receive. It is asking you to prove that the current version of history (which exists objectively speaking) is false, and then to present the correct alternative version and support this version up with objective evidence.

14. If you or any non-Theist can not present credible evidence, then my default position as a result will be that the account of history which the Theist/ Christian Biblical account holds is true, and that The Bible is a true account of the claims that Jesus Christ made that he was God

15. Therefore, God exists – and any alternative worldview is false


Please support any counter arguments citing source of evidence.
Opinions are just opinions, so for arguments and/or evidence to be effectively contested, contrary evidence needs to be referenced.

Thanks

All i see is a list of assertions.
Apologies if you've posted the evidence earlier in the thread.

Your argument seems to based on the assumption that if some of the events the bible mentions is confirmed in non-biblical material(something it seems you still need to post evidence on, rather than just asserting there is), all of it must be true and must be disproved for unbelief in god to be a logical position to hold.

 

[ianb321red]

All i see is a list of assertions.
Apologies if you've posted the evidence earlier in the thread.

Your argument seems to based on the assumption that if some of the events the bible mentions is confirmed in non-biblical material(something it seems you still need to post evidence on, rather than just asserting there is), all of it must be true and must be disproved for unbelief in god to be a logical position to hold.

Basically, the argument here isn't one of philosophy or theology. It's an argument of history.

The argument is do the events described in The Bible, and in the gospels in particular really happen as historical events irrespective of anyone's belief or disbelief in them?

So it's a case of saying does The Bible support history (and vice versa) or is their an alternative history which contradicts The Bible account?

So my position is that I believe in a correct account of history. I believe The Bible is correct because their are a number of secular historical (and frankly anti-Christian) accounts which verify the events primarily surrounding Jesus as true events that actually happened historically.

So my position depends on the credibility of The Bible being confirmed outside of itself.
Compare that to the Qu'ran for which there is no known secular evidence to support that the Islamic view of Jesus is the correct one.

There is also no known secular historical evidence which has anywhere near the same magnitude as the evidence to support The Bible, to support any alternative version of history which would disprove or discredit The Biblical version.

So it's an argument over the correct version of history - that's it!

 

[Genersis]

So my position depends on the credibility of The Bible being confirmed outside of itself.
Compare that to the Qu'ran for which there is no known secular evidence to support that the Islamic view of Jesus is the correct one.

There is also no known secular historical evidence which has anywhere near the same magnitude as the evidence to support The Bible, to support any alternative version of history which would disprove or discredit The Biblical version.

Do you mind sharing any of this evidence?
Instead of expecting us to argue against a position without any idea what it is based on.

Hmm, but then this whole line of argument is completely arbitrary to whether unbelief in a god is a valid position.
Even if the bible references many historic events. That doesn't make all it's claims true.
If Jesus did exist, which he probably did, we still need proof in his divinity and Godhood as it were, before we can assume Christianity being true as the only valid belief.
Before then, atheists still have valid reason to be an atheist.

I'm sorry if this evidence is near impossible to find.
Sometimes you just can't prove something as being undeniable.
In this case, because it's been so bloody long since all this Christ stuff happened!

 

[SithDoughnut]

Lazy argument my friend - you need to read the entire post be able to make an informed comment

Not at all. You've merely asserted that the Bible is enough evidence for your argument. Don't forget that we're dealing with a very specific argument (that of the divinity of Jesus/the existence of God), so any Biblical "evidence" unrelated to that argument is irrelevant.

You appear to be under the impression that asserting a point and demanding opposing evidence is enough to validate an argument. That is not the case. The reason no one has bothered to provide an evidenced counter-argument is because you've yet to provide your well-evidenced argument.

In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

 

[ianb321red]

Not at all. You've merely asserted that the Bible is enough evidence for your argument. Don't forget that we're dealing with a very specific argument (that of the divinity of Jesus/the existence of God), so any Biblical "evidence" unrelated to that argument is irrelevant.

The Bible stands up to the scrutiny of the historical method (see Historical method.)

This alone is enough to justify the usage of it as primary evidence for my argument. If The Bible is deemed to be historically accurate and reliable (which it is) then it is completely relevant to this argument, and you are wrong to say otherwise.

However, there is ample evidence outside of The Bible to support he historical Jesus:
For example ref:
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament
N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History
Habermas, The Historical Jesus

Go ahead - download them from the Kindle store

You appear to be under the impression that asserting a point and demanding opposing evidence is enough to validate an argument. That is not the case. The reason no one has bothered to provide an evidenced counter-argument is because you've yet to provide your well-evidenced argument.

..or could it be because you don't have any counter evidence?
And even so, if there is such evidence in existence why not declare it now anyway?

I'll give you or anyone else between now and the end of the year to post counter evidence to discredit The Biblical account of Jesus Christ.

In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

I agree - that's why it's very easy to dismiss atheism (Apologies for being blunt btw...)

 

[SithDoughnut]

The Bible stands up to the scrutiny of the historical method (see Historical method.)

This alone is enough to justify the usage of it as primary evidence for my argument. If The Bible is deemed to be historically accurate and reliable (which it is) then it is completely relevant to this argument, and you are wrong to say otherwise.

I don't doubt that there are historical claims in the Bible that match up with evidence we have. However, the Bible is not one massive assertion - it is a series of claims. The divinity of Jesus is not a historical claim, and the historical Jesus is not divine. The historical Jesus is a claim that a rabbi or preacher called Jesus existed, preached eschatology and was executed. No divine claims there, in fact the historical Jesus is based upon the premise that parts of the New Testament are wrong. For example, Sanders in The Historical Figure of Jesus presents a historical Jesus that died, and points out invented passages of the New Testament. I can't give you the book online but there is a review that outlines some of the major arguments here.

Or perhaps you think that one part of the Bible being correct means all of it is correct? The Qur'an has historically accurate claims too, you know, so therefore it must be true, by your logic. Or perhaps part of it is right and other parts are wrong?

Now, if you have evidence that demonstrates the divinity of Jesus, that's relevant because that is what you claimed.

And even so, if there is such evidence in existence why not declare it now anyway?

I don't know if there is such evidence in existence, but there's no point looking until you provide an actual argument instead of unrelated evidence to unrelated claims.

I'll give you or anyone else between now and the end of the year to post counter evidence to discredit The Biblical account of Jesus Christ.

Or what? You think you can "win by default"?

Please don't tell me that you're one of these people who thinks that if they say something, and no one disproves it, they are automatically correct. The default position is "we don't know", and you've done nothing to change that.

Now, if you have evidence to back up your claim of the divinity of Jesus (not historical accuracy, not the historical Jesus, but the divinity of Jesus) then you have an argument. Until then it's a waste of time to even bother looking for counter-evidence.

I'll give you between now and the end of the year, as you were so kind as to provide the same deadline.

I agree - that's why it's very easy to dismiss atheism

Atheism (or at least the general vague definition of atheism) is the default. It's not an argument, and so cannot by definition be dismissed. Actual atheistic claims of the non-existence of God, however, can be.

 

[ianb321red]

I don't doubt that there are historical claims in the Bible that match up with evidence we have. However, the Bible is not one massive assertion - it is a series of claims. The divinity of Jesus is not a historical claim, and the historical Jesus is not divine. The historical Jesus is a claim that a rabbi or preacher called Jesus existed, preached eschatology and was executed. No divine claims there..

We’ve had this discussion before (see post #167 http://www.christianforums.com/t7611436-17/#post59295915). The divinity is part of the historical Jesus. The unique characteristics that Jesus possessed are part of the historical account that we’re presented with, and it is from knowing that this account is correct and accurate that we know the evidence of his divinity is also correct and accurate.

in fact the historical Jesus is based upon the premise that parts of the New Testament are wrong. For example, Sanders in The Historical Figure of Jesus presents a historical Jesus that died, and points out invented passages of the New Testament. I can't give you the book online but there is a review that outlines some of the major arguments here.

Thanks for the link – but who on earth is Jacob Aliet??? I found his biography and it says he is a computer programmer! I’m happy to read counter evidence, but it needs to be from an academic, scholar or someone with some sort of expertise and credibility

Or perhaps you think that one part of the Bible being correct means all of it is correct? The Qur'an has historically accurate claims too, you know, so therefore it must be true, by your logic. Or perhaps part of it is right and other parts are wrong?

We're talking about the accuracy of the accounts in general, and divinity in particular of Jesus here. Using the aforementioned rules for testing historical authenticity, I think it is very clear and obvious that the Qu’ranic account of Jesus is incorrect.

Now, if you have evidence that demonstrates the divinity of Jesus, that's relevant because that is what you claimed. I don't know if there is such evidence in existence, but there's no point looking until you provide an actual argument instead of unrelated evidence to unrelated claims.

You seem to be forgetting that the title of this thread is “What is the best argument against the existence of God”

Given your current position, how can I take your point of view seriously if you won’t look for evidence to support it? Your counter arguments so far have so far been primarily to decide whether my evidence is either (a) evidence in the first place, or (b) evidence that is relevant to this discussion.

The “no evidence” argument isn’t an argument because it makes an absolute and universal claim which is patently false

The “I don’t know if there is such evidence in existence” sounds very much like “I don’t know why believe what I believe”…because I don’t actually have any evidence to support my position in the first place.

Or what? You think you can "win by default"?

Please don't tell me that you're one of these people who thinks that if they say something, and no one disproves it, they are automatically correct. The default position is "we don't know", and you've done nothing to change that.

Now, if you have evidence to back up your claim of the divinity of Jesus (not historical accuracy, not the historical Jesus, but the divinity of Jesus) then you have an argument. Until then it's a waste of time to even bother looking for counter-evidence.

I'll give you between now and the end of the year, as you were so kind as to provide the same deadline.

Actually, you’ll be surprised to hear that I’m not actually trying to “win” this argument. I don’t believe you can argue anyone in to believing in God, and even if you could the resulting belief would be an authentic or sincere belief.

My intention with this discussion is two-fold: (1) to demonstrate that a belief in God is a matter of choice, not evidence, and (2) to demonstrate that atheism is actually a self-defeating belief system (“atheism” - ἄθεος = ἀ- (a-, “not”) + θεός (theos, “god” = so ‘negative god’, so it affirms the non-existence of god, which philosophically affirms a negative which is self-defeating and a logical contradiction because you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute)

So I'd rather people said that there is evidence to believe in God, but that they've actually chosen to ignore it. That is a far more admirable position to be in, and reflects a decision of personal choice. Fair enough (to some extent).
But to say there's "no evidence to believe in God", says to me that people who do believe in God are seen as doing so on a whim or some sort of whishy-washy spiritual "feeling". Non-Theism takes the intellectual and pragmatic high ground versus the Theistic position, but in fact when you actually do some proper research it is anything but that..

Atheism (or at least the general vague definition of atheism) is the default. It's not an argument, and so cannot by definition be dismissed. Actual atheistic claims of the non-existence of God, however, can be.

See my previous point regarding the fact that atheism as a system is self defeating.
I agree that atheism isn’t an argument – it’s a position of choice, nothing more.
Theistic claims can be countered by robust arguments which is something that has yet to materialise from any non-Theist in this discussion so far.

 

[SithDoughnut]

We’ve had this discussion before (see post #167 http://www.christianforums.com/t7611436-17/#post59295915). The divinity is part of the historical Jesus. The unique characteristics that Jesus possessed are part of the historical account that we’re presented with, and it is from knowing that this account is correct and accurate that we know the evidence of his divinity is also correct and accurate.

That is simply not true. The historical Jesus is not necessarily divine, therefore proving the existence of a Jesus in history does not prove his divinity.

Thanks for the link – but who on earth is Jacob Aliet??? I found his biography and it says he is a computer programmer! I’m happy to read counter evidence, but it needs to be from an academic, scholar or someone with some sort of expertise and credibility

The arguments that I wanted to point out in that link are not Aliet's, but rather those of John Sanders. It was the closest I could get to the actual book, just ignore any of Aliet's arguments, and just focus on when he talks about the arguments in the book.

You seem to be forgetting that the title of this thread is “What is the best argument against the existence of God”

And you claimed that this is decided by whether Jesus is divine or not. If you wish to change that statement, then we can go back to what we were arguing before you brought this up.

Given your current position, how can I take your point of view seriously if you won’t look for evidence to support it? Your counter arguments so far have so far been primarily to decide whether my evidence is either (a) evidence in the first place, or (b) evidence that is relevant to this discussion.

I can't provide counter-evidence against an argument which does not yet exist. I'm currently waiting for you to provide one.

[My intention with this discussion is two-fold: (1) to demonstrate that a belief in God is a matter of choice, not evidence

That's an entirely different discussion, but it's not hard to show that belief is not a choice. Besides, if it was a choice and not based on evidence, then we would have to conclude that it is an irrational belief.

, and (2) to demonstrate that atheism is actually a self-defeating belief system (“atheism” - ἄθεος = - (a-, “not&#8221 + θεός (theos, “god” = so ‘negative god’, so it affirms the non-existence of god, which philosophically affirms a negative which is self-defeating and a logical contradiction because you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute)

Not God =/= Negative God. You make a rather unnecessary leap to your conclusion there.

On top of that, definitions change. The definition that was true for the ancient Greeks may not be true for us today.

Essentially, we can't go any further until you fix a number of basic misconceptions. Firstly, the historical Jesus is not necessarily the divine Jesus (the book I told you about argues for a completely human historical Jesus). Secondly, I cannot provide a counter-argument to an argument that does not exist; I could try to prove that God does not exist but that doesn't line up with my beliefs and therefore would be pointless (not to mention probably impossible). Thirdly, atheism is not simply an affirmation that God does not exist any more; it may have been once, but it isn't now.

I think the main problem is that you don't understand how this discussion is working. I am not providing an argument of my own - my entire position has been from the start that theism is not a well-founded belief, not that God does not exist.

EDIT: I just found this. Gary Habermas fits your expectations of an author, don't worry. He argues that the evidence is inconclusive for the resurrection, and only goes as far to say that Jesus claimed to be God, which is obviously not an argument that he was God. There you go, two books that provide two alternative historical Jesus' to the divine Jesus. I'll keep looking, see if I find another non-divine historical Jesus. Those two should be enough evidence in themselves, however, that a historical Jesus is not necessarily a divine Jesus.

EDIT THE SECOND: Here is a collection of many alternatives to the divine Jesus. I'm not sure how credible all the authors are, but looking at the three that argue for a divine historical Jesus, they appear to base their conclusions upon the assertion that the Bible is correct and anything the Church says. Not exactly a strong foundation, but at least they've gone and provided an actual argument. I'm not sure how much evidence you want for non-divine historical Jesus', do you require any more?

 

[3rdHeaven]

The burden of proof is not on us! We do NOT have to prove there is a God! And atheists don't have to prove there is no God.

Depending on your Christian View, either

many are called and few are chosen,

or, God chooses who He chooses.

Either way, if it is not God's Will for some one to believe, it will be impossible for them to believe. Don't worry about it. Leave it to God!

All we have to do is spread the Word, NOT prove it.

God's children hear His Word and always come forward!

Just call, leave the rest to God!

Stop wasting your time trying to convince the reprobates!

 

[SithDoughnut]

Either way, if it is not God's Will for some one to believe, it will be impossible for them to believe. Don't worry about it. Leave it to God!

So, essentially, God brings some people into the world with the intention of sending them to hell and not even giving them a chance at heaven. Are you a Calvinist, by any chance?

 

[3rdHeaven]

So, essentially, God brings some people into the world with the intention of sending them to hell and not even giving them a chance at heaven. Are you a Calvinist, by any chance?

That's about it in a nutshell, no I'm not a Calvinist, I'm a Christian. What are you?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

So, essentially, God brings some people into the world with the intention of sending them to hell and not even giving them a chance at heaven. Are you a Calvinist, by any chance?

I know plenty of Christians who disagree with me but I've always help to the idea that Calvinism is nothing more or less than reading the bible and taking it at face value.