>>17
Please stop it with the ad hominems and the logical fallacies. Just stop posting and don't respond if you really don't care, no hard feelings.
All I asked for is
ONE piece of halfway decent evidence. As I've already said, the passage
>>9 quoted is agreed upon, even by the majority of Christian apologists, to not be about Jesus Christ. Such a thing clearly isn't evidence of Jeusus Christ existing, only of early Christians rioting in Rome in that time period, which has been verified by numerous other sources. And as I said, even the
BIBLE mentions the event in question happening long after Jesus himself is out of the picture. If you have a problem with any of those claims, say so and be specific as to the reasons. Not to sound like an arrogant asshole, but if you attack me instead of my argument, I can only assume you know I'm right.
And oh, btw, there was no "argument".
I put forth a hypothesis based on what I know (
>>2). Even with extensive research, I have never seen any scientific evidence suggesting the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. Perhaps, you're right, though. Maybe I phrased my post a bit too assertively. I should have said something like this:
Or he didn't exist at all, which is my hypothesis based on the evidence I've seen, which is none at all. I would, however, be interested in any such evidence, should anyone know of any.
My hypothesis is logical, based on my observed evidence. Why? Burden of Proof and Occam's Razor.
Then
>>4 made this bald assertion:
There's more evidence for Jesus existing than for a crapload of other historical figures that noone denies actually lived.
I then asked him to back up that claim with even one piece of that evidence. So far, the only person to step up to the plate has struck out.
You put forth a stupid, unfounded opinion
Again, my opinion is irrelevant. You are the one asserting that Jesus existed. I've seen no evidence to suggest that such is the case. Burden of Proof again, look it up. It is
YOU who has presented an unfounded opinion. I'm just playing the role of a the skeptic. If my opinion were stupid, there would have to be obvious evidence to support the hypothesis of Jesus' existence. I'm still not seeing any, and if you don't
HAVE any, I'm afraid you would be holding onto a belief that, by definition, is irrational and delusional.
that goes against the majority of the scientific world
If you would read the Wikipedia article already linked in this thread (possibly by you), you would understand why. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Criticism
However, the question of Jesus' historical existence is an ongoing inquiry, with initiatives such as the Jesus Project actively investigating the available evidence. Jesus-myth proponent Earl Doherty states "after a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles “the noisy side current” of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as “weak and bizarre” by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant”. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt.[115] "[115] He states that "interests, both religious and secular, have traditionally mounted a campaign against it,"[115] and states that mainstream scholarship is guilty of a "notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case,"[116] leading to "the non-professional scholar" and "well-informed amateur on the internet" becoming those whom he regards as "quite educated (meaning largely self-educated) in biblical research."[116] "There are those, scholars and laypeople alike, who regularly assume that something ‘big’ and unique, some powerful figure, had to be responsible for the Christian movement. But if one has consistently misread that movement, failed to recognize its antecedents, the steps of its development, imposed preconceptions upon it, they will be forever forced to make the same erroneous assumption, and alternatives will not commend themselves."[116]
Essentially, a large number of people are guilty of a series of logical fallacies, notably Arguments from Ignorance, Personal Incredulity, and Numbers (the Bandwagon Fallacy). There is also the oppressive social taboo about criticizing religion. Dawkins talks about it in his book, "The God Delusion". (Don't bother criticizing him or his work if you haven't actually read it. If you haven't yet read it, do yourself a favor and read it this weekend.)
Anyway, Science isn't a consensus. Especially not when "the majority" is failing to think critically and skeptically for whatever reasons. Asking for simple evidence is not going against the "scientific world", it's following the Scientific Method.
and demanded that everyone else prove you wrong,
It's called skepticism. I'm not asking anyone to prove me wrong, I'm asking them to justify what seems to be to be their irrational and delusional faith. Burden of Proof, etc, etc.
and noone could be bothered to spend hours researching the topic in a futile attempt to force some knowledge into your head.
You're falling for the same logical fallacies I just listed above. Surely if EVERYONE believes there is sufficient reason to believe in the existence of a historical Jesus, a few pieces of actual evidence should come easily to mind? I've been looking for evidence for the better part of a decade. I haven't found any of it. But since you seem to be so knowledgeable, would you mind sharing? Seriously.
So if by "losing", you mean not getting sucked into a dumb argument with an obvious moron (any more than I already have >_<), then yeah, I "lost" lol.
No, I mean "losing" as in, your faith remains completely unjustified. Your assertions are baseless, irrational, and delusional. Sorry to be so blunt, but you haven't exactly demonstrated anything to the contrary.