sorry, I will try and do better.

I’m just saying it has not gone unnoticed and it makes it very difficult for us to debate when you ignore half of the arguments put forth.

"Nubby" that you "believe" that Jesus existed means you don't "know" if he in fact did exist

to believe is to doubt...funches 3:16

to believe as "truth" that someone 2000 years ago loves you and that you only "believe" they existed ....is ..er..how can I put this nicely.....delusional

Try telling that to the majority of modern scholarship. Its a fact.

And furthermore...

The argument of First Cause is internally flawed, originally posed as: all objects at rest remain at rest until moved, moving objects have been moved, the universe is moving, ergo someone moved it. The problem is the logic is only acceptable when its own criteria is fulfilled, ie- it is ad infintum or ad nauseum as some would say; in other words if the argument is based on a something causing or moving something than what caused or moved that? You can not simply stop it at a certain point and say this is the First Cause or First Mover, because it begs the question of what caused the first cause or moved the first mover. So again Nubmeister McRooney, no one is trying to stop you from believing in your g-d or worshipping him in any way which does not infringe on others (your right to swing your arms in the air, stops where my nose begins). However, if there are areas where you wish to debate, people would be happy to debate them with you.

Even if you could completely prove without a doubt that Jesus did exist, that does not prove he was the son of "God". It doesn't prove he was born in a manger by the virgin mother Mary.

Modern Christian scholars that is. You need to look outside of the walls of Calvin Christian Junior College, that’s for sure. There is a world out there son.

And further, furthermore:

If you wish to debate historically, you really should be aware that there is more than enough evidence that Jesus never existed, that the OT is based on ancient Babylonian texts, that Xianity is more similar to Pagan beliefs (or as you seem to refer to them, Atheist beliefs) than the Jewish faith. Most external authorities that have been quoted here have been demonstrated false, ie- Josephus, when earlier texts were located they did not have references to Jesus in them, ie- someone added them later; Tacitus, in all of his works he makes only one mistake, guess where, in the section people state he refers to as Christos- he confuses a someones official title, something he never did, but would be easy for someone adding the Christos reference in his work to do. No know writer contemporary or close to the time of Jesus mentions him, especially Philo in Alexander and very active and prominent Jew. Now again, no one is stopping you from believing in your g-d and if there are other areas you would like to debate, people would be happy to- as long as you let them express their opinions and the wealth of material which refutes yours.

And further, further, furthermore:
Some other of your arguments are inane and puerile. For example, "they died for Jesus", what about the people who died for heaven's gate? Does that lend validity to the idea that spacemen are coming to take us home? Not for me? how about you?

Hey! What am I? The conversation killer? Okay I got a little hyper, I have been under stress and under dressed, under the weather?

well if they believe the same thing as you only indicate that they are delusional also

just because they are not stupid doesn't mean they are not delusional

that you or they loves and believe that a guy that died 2000 years before you or their existences loves them ...you have to admit is kind of weird....

No it really doesn't. Because as an atheist, I can be wrong. As an atheist, I can accept scientific fact, and people who are different from me, because I don't have a book that tells me that science is wrong, or that those people are sinners.

Very true. When was the last time you heard a scientist tell you that you are bound for hell if you refuse to accept one of their theories?

How weird is it really? I mean is not ual (or is it) it is someone hoping for your classic grandfatherly love (without the yelling screaming and hitting)

As an atheist, you can't show proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore you are relying on faith.

As an atheist, it is not my job to proof that a god exists.
To take a page from Richard Dawkins, You can't prove that god exists, but science has enough evidence that makes a god highly, highly unlikely.

"TBrich" ...using the word weird was being nice ...Jesus is never depicted as being a grandfatherly figure ..Jesus is always depicted as being a young guy or this half-nude guy nailed to the cross...if Christianity preach against gays ...then guys confessing their love for a long dead guy dressed in a toga seems contradictory to that cause

Intellectually honest thinkers do not go for the negative proof thingy; it is shoddy, cheap and infantile.

Come on now Funches. Jesus on the cross, yes half naked, and people loving him have NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

It was kind of funny though Jill.