#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

You're the one asserting your position, cite your sources that Yeshua did not exist. Answer: No, I am asserting I see no evidence of this Jesus Christ, you can call him whatever you wish, but that may get confusing. Or, rather, sources explaining the lack of evidence. Answer: No, I see no evidence"..if others see sources explaining the lack of evidence as evidence, then it remains irrelevant to my not having seen evidence".as I still don"t see any. If you refuse to argue with evidence, I feel I have the right to argue without evidence as well. Answer: In my experiences so far and as I see it, your position allows you no other options".but maybe you will surprise me there too as your argument should NOT be judged by the others I"ve had. I hope so; I do so love to learn new things. : ) Also, please note that I am arguing that the man "Yeshua" did, in fact, exist. I am not arguing for the existence of "Jesus Christ" or his "miracles." Auhh, thank for "accepting this debate and it conditions. Like I said, you can call Jesus Christ whatever you want".at this point, the choice is now yours whether to concede or not. Con makes an error in his opening statement, I am not arguing "Without Evidence", as the lack of evidence is clearly a part of the default position. In the atheist side of the argument I state clearly that I see no evidence of Jesus Christ having existed. Con"s opening does NOT offer evidence of Jesus Christ"s existence" so my round two response is limited to what is already known".and that isn"t much. I feel that round one is pro"s as con fails to adhere to both the rules and application of evidence that is clearly stated in the OP. I will attempt to proceed to round two, as if nothing has failed and give con a chance to make good/catch up. (*) "Postulation, I see no evidence of Jesus Christ. This is the Pro"s position, and the argument is NOT that you as a Christian see evidence, but rather to convince me and the Judges there is evidence of Jesus Christ. Pro makes an effort to comply with the spirit of cons demands as I look around myself again; I report AGAIN that I see no evidence of Jesus Christ. The proof of which(?) okay, the Anecdotal evidence that con request reads as thus, as pro see"s no evidence of Jesus Christ, my evidence is via my perception as it (and I) relate to the reality that surrounds me. I remain incumbent to the void of evidence concerning the existence of a Jesus Christ. Now if con wishes to counter pro"s position, I invite him to provide evidence that I really saw something. Con"s next mistake is found in believing I had formed a valid argument, as I have not. My OP is more of a conditional statement than argument. I see no evidence, I therefore don"t believe. I can add the term Jesus Christ into this conditional statement and it still doesn"t change it into a valid argument. Con believes mistakenly that because I identifying myself as an atheist, this means that I am in opposition to the existence of Jesus Christ. It is not the case, as I have been given no evidence to examine"so I still see no evidence and make no assertion. Con"s shifting of the burden of proof".okay, let me "for the moment" temporary accept this fallacy and responsibility of the default position in complete contradiction to the conditions of con having accepted this debate in the first place. Pro"s position would NOW become this, "there is no Jesus Christ (this IS NOW the default position as requested)" "I still see no evidence of a Jesus Christ" "as I have had no evidence of a Jesus Christ having been placed before me, my only counter claim IS the (NOW) default position" "there is no Jesus Christ." I now invite con to challenge either position, have at it, and have fun"