Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Acrobat]

You can apply the same logic to any legendary figure. If you argue that tales about a figure wouldn't exist or be as plentiful as they are without either, a) a historical foundation, or b) an implausible conspiracy, then there is no end to the number of figures and legendary events you would be forced to accept as real. So your argument simply doesn't work as a practical matter. It is an inadequate sieve for separating out fact from fiction. It also ignores that we are motivated inventors of myth. We create myth without any additional motivation than because we can. And we perpetuate myths and legends for reasons unrelated to their truth. So, no, a conspiracy isn't required at all. Just normal human folklore processes, widespread credulity, and so on.

I didn’t argue that tales about a figure wouldn’t exist or be as plentiful as they are without either a historical foundation etc……..

I consider two conclusions, does the evidence and data we have better support a historical person or a non-historical person. Does the ahistoricist conclusion or the historical conclusion have greater explanatory power.

I get it that many atheists, are not accustomed to taking a holistic, or relational approach to questions of truth. Their rules of reasoning seem to be, to withhold belief absent of any single piece of evidence that gives them near certainty.

In order to understand my argument, you’d have to recognize that it’s reasoning between a conclusion and it’s alternative conclusions. Ahistorical explanations vs historical explanations, and the truth granted to the explanation that’s more probable, more likely, with greater explanatory power, doesn’t stretch credulity etc…

You can take any legendary figure you want, and in these instances they would be better explained by ahistorical explanations, this is not the case with Jesus. We have first hand accounts of a person who met his brother and disciples, we have a historical account for jewish historian, writing of his brother’s death. We have multiple writings containing his sayings, and parables attributed to no one other than him, written shortly after his death, placing him within events at the time, giving him historical titles like the messiah, dealing with unexpected outcomes of messianic prophesies, such as Jesus unexpected and humiliating defeat at the hands of romans. We have strong critics of christianity, roman historians all indicating Jesus was a historical person.

If you think ahistorical conclusion can make sense of these elements better than a historical conclusion, then I got some swampland to sell you in Florida.

---

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

I'm not trying to be insulting but this is a ridiculously low bar of thinking.  All of the things you mentioned are modern with heaps of evidence compared to Jesus.     Maybe we can look back in 2000 years to see how those stories have changed.   

Why not compare it with historical figures such as Gilgamesh, An Dương Vương, or Qin Shi Huang.

Holocaust deniers, and flat earth's believe there's no evidence for these things. You claim there's heaps of evidence, they say that's not evidence.

There is heaps of evidence for Jesus's existence, I named several of them in the previous post. Let me guess, you're going to suggest those things are not evidence?