It is impossible to have "historical records that prove Christ’s resurrection"!
All you have are "stories".
Stories can't "prove" anything.

There have been 50 billion or so religious experiences for thousands of different religions. STFU that it establishes anything substantive about any particular religion if you have one ounce of rationality in you.

You ain’t ever gonna burn my heart out.

8000+ views. Even if only 1% of you atheists become agnostic this thread was a major success.

Why do you care what other people believe?

I loved this community growing up and wanted to help save their soul(s). If the majority of people want to dismiss my genuine experiences that’s fine. I think it’s safe to presume I positively affected some peoples lives though.

Translation: I'm a formerly banned poster and want save myself.

Debunked. I have been slandered plenty though.

Yeah, I know a guy.

"I sacrifice my agency concerning morality, my thoughts concerning right and wrong instead are a miming what was believed thousands of years ago, when of course we know they were very reasoned and rational, stonings, demons, etc. I also believe in vampirisim, in that it is drinking his blood that gives me eternal life. I feel something in my body, say in my shoulder, and it proves god and also proves which god. Of course in this connection, as to which god, I am just defaulting to the prominent one around me, meaning, if I was in the Middle East or China, I would presume a different god." -- The believer's creed.

I'm sorry. It fails in epic fashion. It's my experience that some believers will balk when they realize bald face that their religion incorporates vampire beliefs in it. It's a strong point rarely made, for some reason. And that someone has an intense emotional/spiritual experience does not tie to anything supernatural, but instead to something quite natural: being human. No hide-and-seek god needed, no vampirism needed, nothing supernatural needed.

Here is a great review of that movie by one of my favorite atheists, Paulogia (a former Christian who debunks Christian claims):

There are so many debunks out there of The Case for Christ that it's almost laughable that anyone would take it seriously.

Damn, why did you have to do that?

I'm a life-long atheist, and this is the first time I've ever seen a Christian laying waste to the arguments of atheists. (Granted, the competition wasn't up to much, but generally Christian arguments tend to be irrational, not based on evidence and weak so it's usually pretty easy for even the dimmest of atheists to demolish them. But hey. I was genuinely charmed by how well you were decimating your opponents. Humility is always a good look and nowhere does it work better than in argument.)

But then you couldn't stop yourself. You just had to go there.

For future reference: Darwinian Evolution is the theory. Science is the method we use to test the theory. It doesn't matter that theory is 'repeatable' or not -- theory doesn't have to be 'repeatable' what matters is whether it's testable. And whether the findings are replicable.

The scientific consensus is that most of the propositions Darwin theorized have been repeatedly validated by scientific method. The bits that aren't are either falsified (demonstrated by the evidence to be fallacious) or currently unproven. Like it or not, Darwin's theory still dominates the scientific landscape across a huge range of disciplines.

None of this is at all contentious among scientists -- or indeed, among most religious people outside of the USA.

Stick to arguing the stuff you know about. It works much better for you.

OK, that's me done.