Hello, Jimmy. I'm sorry for not replying to you sooner. Life gets in the way sometimes. Now to answer some of the points you made:-
Atheism like any other belief system requires evidence or else you are simply jumping into its claims with blind faith
Atheism does not require faith. I take a sceptical position regarding an extraordinary claim you make for there being a God. This is because no one has ever produced compelling evidence for there being one. This disbelief is not an act of faith; it is simply common sense. As I read somewhere recently. If a man came up to you and said he had a magic, invisible elf sat on his shoulder, would you believe him? No of course not. To my mind, there is no difference between a man saying he has a magic elf and you saying there is a God. Neither of you can provide evidence that either exists. Until that evidence is presented I am quite justified in being a sceptic. Logic (and the law) insists that anyone making a claim bears the burden of proof for that claim.
If you looked at the extraordinary number of factors that is required for life to exist on Earth and the improbability of this happening, you would know that the claim of Atheism is arguably an even more extraordinary claim.
This opens up the whole intelligent design debate which may arise further on in the course and which we can debate at that point. Suffice to say that I believe in science and evolution. There is no need for a creator.
Well, the sources you provided aren’t credible.
I must disagree with you on this point. As an example. One of the links I gave you was to the website Freedom From Religion Foundation whose co-president is Dan Baker who was a former minister and evangelist and the author of many books. He also has a degree in religion. I would think he is credible enough. Also all the articles I refer to have solid references.
Just because the author may not be an eye witness, doesn’t mean their sources weren’t eye witnesses.
I know it is another link (sorry) but here explains the convolutions that were gone through to come to the Bible as it is today. It also shows the forgeries and lies that surround the whole history of the writing of the Bible. Pope Dionysius of Alexandria in 200 CE claims his letters and 'scriptures of the Lord' are being edited and redacted. This is symptomatic of the in fighting and rivally of the early church.
In addition, I previously talked about archeological evidence that proved people and places in the Gospels were all accurate.
In answer to this let me reproduce the following from this link which explains things better than I (and saves on typing!):-
The archaeological evidences (sic) do not have a leg to stand on. To the those who are not familiar with history would fall for the huge number (a figure of 25,000 mentioned earlier in the article), but here is the problem: Simply because a location is mentioned in a story does not make it true. For instance, Homer's Odyssey mentions several islands and locations that existed then as they exist today, but that does not mean cyclopes and Greek deities exist too. Prior to the 1970s one can be forgiven for thinking that archaeology is the handmaid of the bible—for one archaeological dig after another seemed to confirm it. But this is no longer true. Scholars are questioning the whole paradigm of “biblical archaeology,” which starts with the assumption that the Bible is a reliable guide for field research. Indeed, there is now so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term “biblical archaeology” has been discarded by professional archaeologists and Syro-Palestinian archaeology has been suggested by some practicing in the field as a more appropriate term.
You said:-
Not sure how much of a stir you need, but the fact that we are talking about him 2000 years later, billions of people throughout history worshipping him as Lord, lives transformed, and many willing to die for him isn’t enough of a stir, then I don’t know what is.
How many of those billions had any choice? To even suggest opposition to Christianity at one time would have meant risking a lot (even your life) and in today's world, I would suggest that peer pressure keeps millions silent about any doubts they may have. Besides, what about the 1.5 billion who have Islam as their religion today? or the 900 million Hindus? (figures are taken from adherents.com. No matter how many adherants a religion has doesn't make it true it just means the marketing and coercion have been effective.
The fact that it didn’t create more of a stir among people at the time, was because the Jewish religious authorities and Roman ruling authorities at the time wanted to suppress what had happened to save face and keep control of the people.
Evidence please.
I'll finish here. Once again sorry for the tardy reply. Bye for now.