Historical data is the supporting evidence. Are you asserting then that the data is wrong, or that the witnesses were lying? Then you would have to provide evidence, not the dead, who cannot.<quoted text>
No, it isn't, as I've already explained. That isn't supporting evidence of Christianity's claims at all.
The Age of Reason and Enlightenment OPPOSED religion, superstition, and faith in favor of reason and evidence.
You didn't provide any details.
- What evidence and arguments did early Christians use to convert "atheists"?
- What claims were subjected to the scientific method?
- What scientific training did any of those early Christians have?
- What parts of the Bible include the scientific method or promote scientific/skeptical thinking?
Secular refers to anything not inherently religious. Reason is secular. Science is secular. Math is secular. Eating a hamburger is secular. Making a post on Topix is secular.
The idea that they HAD any proof is your claim and you must support it.
It's baffling that you think this is a good argument for believing something that has no evidence to support it.
"People believed it back then. Prove them wrong!"
The Age of Reason and Enlightenment was no such thing. I see you dropped the Renaissance, probably realizing you were wrong.
The Church Fathers words are available on the Internet, you may read their arguments at your leisure.
Secular is a made up word that means nothing to us. Religion includes everything, including science and sociology, for religion deals with everything. Only the anti-religious assert that some things are "secular" and created a word for that. That does not make the concept a valid one. Do you have a valid argument to assert that something is "secular?" Eating a hamburger is secular? Not to us, we thank God for it.
"The idea that they HAD any proof is your claim and you must support it."
You assert that I must prove that the dead were not lying? You just outed yourself as anti-science, and stupid. The burden of proof is on you, and you know it.
It is baffling that you are not aware of the the evidence that is so readily available. there is more evidence for Jesus than even Julius Caesar. The Bible is the most well preserved document on earth, reliably copied for centuries, while most of the works of the Romans were lost.
That is what is baffling. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof after centuries of information being handed down generation after generation.
You don't just get to say ... "hey, wait a minute, how do I know all you people for the last 2000 years were telling the truth?"
Well, prove that they were not then.