Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Dānu]

But don't you see? They already believe the Gospel Jesus was real. They already believe the Gospel Jesus was historical.

But when asked to provide non Biblical evidence for the purported miracles, they run on empty. All that remains is some evidence of an ordinary human being who was crucified by the Romans. What this means is that they are faced with zero evidence of a god man, and only have evidence of a crucified human being.

Therefore, evidence talks ... and the bullshit walks.

You said both positions have zip evidence. 
Now you're saying that this "zip" evidence "talks". 
I think you're very confused.

Read it again, champ. Ya got it wrong.

"And trying to prove the Jesus of the Gospels was real or a myth fails because both approaches have exactly the same problem; zero evidence.

In other words, no one can prove that the Jesus of the Gospels was real, nor can anyone prove he was a myth, because there is zero evidence either way. And we all know that critical thinking simply doesn't exist among those religious zealots.

We as atheists accept that he isn't real without evidence for the simple reason that it's fucking ridiculous. We don't require physical evidence to reject their beliefs because our reasoning is strong enough to dismiss their claims wholesale.

But not so for the Christians.

The existence of a real Jesus is itself evidence for the existence of the gospel Jesus. If you argue that there is evidence for historical Jesus, you're committed to the position that evidence exists for the gospel Jesus.