Blotty:
burden of proof lies on atheist's to disprove majority of scholars on Jesus never existing
the "never left any writings argument" is extremely weak
Is that meant to be satire? Whether Jesus existed isn’t relevant to atheism, so atheists obviously have no burden of proof to ‘disprove Jesus’ existence’. The broad scholarly consensus is that Jesus likely existed but was not magical (though this is usually dressed up with loaded words like ‘divine’, which doesn’t have any actual clear meaning) . Though some atheists might also hold a view that Jesus didn’t exist at all, that isn’t a majority view or one that is specific to atheism. It is entirely mundane that there may have been an itinerant rabbi in the first century who was executed by the Romans about whom stories were later embellished.
My great grandmother never left any writings (nothing for that matter) are you going to dispute she existed?
🤦♂️ That is an especially poor analogy since your great grandmother necessarily existed in order to have descendants. Are you suggesting Jesus had children? Talk about ‘burden of proof’! 😂 Seriously, this is meant to be satire, right?!