A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

[Dystopia]

Yeah, a thread to which you made several false assertions and illustrated that you basically hated Conservatives and would discard them on that basis alone (it seems, there is another user on that thread who has also noticed this)...

I don't know if you've ever studied History, but I have. No Historical debate can be taken seriously if one neglects to refer to Historical works / Historians when forming an argument.

Considering that the OP started with a false assertion that's very unwise of you, not to mention you didn't refute most of my links with statistics

Oh my god I hate conservatives so much I'm such a hater.... Actually I dislike biased sources, and that's legitimate

Me --> I tried to engage in constructive criticism, debate and I tried to reach a consensus. Never did I proclaim I am super objectively right and that I'm flawless. You on the other hand google sources and post the first ones that appear as proof that you're objectively right and other people are a joke. Grow up. And learn how to critically make points and arguments instead of constantly quoting videos that curiously support your points (because I could as well quote videos from the opposite side + sources to make me seem right)

[TheMessiah]

Yeah, a thread to which you made several false assertions and illustrated that you basically hated Conservatives and would discard them on that basis alone (it seems, there is another user on that thread who has also noticed this)...

I don't know if you've ever studied History, but I have. No Historical debate can be taken seriously if one neglects to refer to Historical works / Historians when forming an argument.

Considering that the OP started with a false assertion that's very unwise of you, not to mention you didn't refute most of my links with statistics

Oh my god I hate conservatives so much I'm such a hater.... Actually I dislike biased sources, and that's legitimate

I did refute your sources. First, I started by proving that Anita Sarkeesian, a source you supported was false with her argument.

Second, you made an argument from fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

You do have an ideological hatred or bias towards Conservatives. Another user pointed it out --- and the fact that you stereotyped all Conservatives as gay-hating and pro-traditional gender roles, was an unwise or silly assertion to make.

[robvalue]

I think that if you call the jesus myth "laughable" then you've fallen straight into the trap that theists have, of assuming there's a shred of truth in the bible before you even open it.

Some people seem to have an almost emotional investment in wanting to show a HJ, and I can't figure out why. I really couldn't give a toss whether there was some nobbo that jesus is very loosely based on or not.

[TheMessiah]

I think that if you call the jesus myth "laughable" then you've fallen straight into the trap that theists have, of assuming there's a shred of truth in the bible before you even open it.

It is laughable to a degree. If you read the consensus among Historians; all established with credentials then you will notice that they have a consensus HJ existed.

It's akin to using an outdated Scientific theory which has over time, been debunked and destroyed. Theists on the other hand rely on Gospel apologists for their sources.

Some people seem to have an almost emotional investment in wanting to show a HJ, and I can't figure out why. I really couldn't give a toss whether there was some nobbo that jesus is very loosely based on or not.

I do not agree unless it's from a Theist, they need Jesus, yet we all know they put their faith in nonsensical fairy tales. I have noticed that there is a desire to undermine the existence of Historical Jesus because he is the figurehead of Christianity - and thus, an opposing view (e.g. Anti-Theistic) could very well lead that way, despite the fact that other Historical figures, whom are agreed to have existed based upon less evidence are for some reason held to less scrutiny.

Some people are often surprised that there isn't an abundance of evidence to the existence of Jesus, yet I ask why? Many historical figures; who existed had their first writing written decades after their death. But even when it comes to Jesus, there are anti-Christian sources from the first/second centuries which acknowledge his existence, despite writing negatively about Christians in general.

[h4ym4n]

How do we delete posts?

[Dystopia]

Considering that the OP started with a false assertion that's very unwise of you, not to mention you didn't refute most of my links with statistics

Oh my god I hate conservatives so much I'm such a hater.... Actually I dislike biased sources, and that's legitimate

I did refute your sources. First, I started by proving that Anita Sarkeesian, a source you supported was false with her argument.

Second, you made an argument from fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

You do have an ideological hatred or bias towards Conservatives. Another user pointed it out --- and the fact that you stereotyped all Conservatives as gay-hating and pro-traditional gender roles, was an unwise or silly assertion to make.

I NEVER said I support Anita, I said receiving rape threats is wrong. I don't care for her. You are being very dishonest and putting words in my mouth, TheMessiah.

As for fallacies, if I wanted to make a list of the ones you've made I wouldn't finish until the end of the day. But confirmation bias is your strong (you only google websites that support your views)

as for conservatives I didn't say they all hate gays and pro-traditional gender roles, I said that politically they are less credible due to irrational positions that I can prove wrong easily

[robvalue]

Personally I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that HJ is likely. Everything I've heard, even from historians, is based on assumptions and motivations. If there's any actual argument you have, feel free to use a historians argument, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't care about Genghis Khan or the level of evidence for anyone else. I'm only interested in actual arguments and evidence for HJ, if you want to make that point. I didn't see anything I'm that thread you posted that was convincing.

[Dystopia]

Comparing the great Genghis Khan with Jesus is an insult to say the least. 2nd largest empire ever.

[robvalue]

In fact, rereading that thread, it's really badly unconvincing. It's making appeals all over the place rather than actually presenting any case at all. And slagging people off. Doesn't get it done.

[TheMessiah]

Personally I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that HJ is likely. Everything I've heard, even from historians, is based on assumptions and motivations. If there's any actual argument you have, feel free to use a historians argument, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't care about Genghis Khan or the level of evidence for anyone else. I'm only interested in actual arguments and evidence for HJ, if you want to make that point. I didn't see anything I'm that thread you posted that was convincing.

There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw Hannibal. So Hannibal didn't exist? Or we raise the bar for the evidence of Jesus' existence higher than we do for other ancient figures, many of whom were much more prominent and important than some Jewish preacher from the back of nowhere?

I don't know what evidence you expect; but Hannibal and Arminius are historical figures whom have less evidence to their name yet are accepted to have existed. The lack of contemporary testimony for Jesus is not a basis for an argument about his existence or non-existence because we don't have contemporary evidence for most ancient figures.

Here's an example; the cruxification of Christ was referenced by once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus. The negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians heavily suggests that the passage was very unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.

It seems that what Historians expect as evidence for a Jewish preacher is not what a non-Historian expects as evidence.

I have cited literary sources. Please cite your argument.