You are likely reading this due to the fact that you are either.
a. Surprised to see this old thread revitalized.
b. Have not seen this thread yet and are surprised such has been bumped.
c. You want to continue a discussion that took place on IRC.

1. The lack of evidence during the time period in which "Jesus Christ" supposedly existed.

2. The so called evidence (written excerpts) that differ in content. What I mean by this compare Paul with Mark. Notice the drastic change in content. Also if he really were very important why was nothing written down during the time in which he supposedly lived. Many historical figures even of less significance during the same time period have written first hand accounts of their existence.

3. Roman's role in the creation of Jesus Christ. Rome you see was generally tolerant of religion and really for the most part had the goal of keeping as many gods feasible on their side. This is incomparable with Judaism's monotheist belief and as such caused conflict with Rome when they conquered them. They ended up creating a kind of "Red herring" one that is compatible with their existing religion in order to control the people.

4. The reuse of aspects from other religions. If "Jesus" were so great of a person and real, why is that there is such overlap with other religions and actually lets ask the question "why isn't everyone a Christian?". To answer this rhetorical question lets use some syllogism. I have personally witness church full of people praying for the conversion of the world, this taking place in a Roman Catholic church. "Jesus" claims that prayer is 100% effective.

I remain an atheist. One who actually is proud to be one and who accepts reason and science over religion and just to let everyone know there are people in this world who actually do not know they can become an atheist. I do not mean this in a literal sense, instead I mean they think they cannot do it, maybe they think someone will react poorly, disciplinary actions, whatever the case may be what you will find is that is just your imagination and it will not happen to you. Your imagination may have also made god possible for you and by deciding to question that fake being you are a step in the right direction. Don't stop there. You can do it! You can become an atheist.

Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him. Even I don't like people stating I don't exist for whatever reason.

A. I did physically roll my eyes for someone bumping a topic like this.

What? And you think there's more evidence he didn't exist? Josephus mentions him, Wikipedia states "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically...", and Tacticus, an accepted Roman historian, mentions him too.

They're pretty close in content. As Morris M. said, "Pick literally any significant event and you’ll find no eyewitnesses can agree on what happened... Given the gospels are attributed to different authors and supposedly written some 20–50 years after Jesus’ death, it’s kind of impressive they agree on anything at all." Seriously, while there are a few differences in accounts, the similarity is amazing anyway. We could discuss individual examples of contradictions, but that'd take a lot of space, and I probably would fail to find an answer to them anyway: that sort of thing is something I'm poor at. There's all sorts of answers though, the MacArthur Study Bible for example.

But in terms of literary dependency, Matthew and Luke construct their story around the plot provided by Mark.

What? Rome wasn't tolerant of religion at all, especially not Christians... sure they were tolerant of roman gods, but greek gods were the main other ones available, and the two for the most part happily merged. As you said, polytheists can get along, but not monotheists. So what are you talking about, Roman's role in "creating Jesus"? Also, I don't know what you mean by red herrings and compatibilities etc - maybe you could rephrase that part?

Well, Christianity doesn't reuse aspects from other religions, it differs greatly from anything else at it's time, though many imitations and offshoots have come. And obviously the reason not everyone is a Christian is because people like you find the idea of being supremely ruled by a God very repulsive. Some join religions with gods they think are nicer gods, and others know there's a God and hate him bitterly so they tell everyone that they know he doesn't exist.
And the part about prayer not working - I'm being honest, I don't see prayer working for me. I pray, but don't see any effect ever. But I think God will do whatever he wants, whether I pray or not I guess, so... that's just the way it is. I think it's logical to add to that quote from Jesus "if it's what God wants to do". I know that means there's no point to prayer, but it's something I struggle with!

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

I think being a very proud atheist is common. As a Christian though, I think you'll regret it one day! Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him. Even I don't like people stating I don't exist for whatever reason.
And as sneelhorses posted, Answers In Genesis and a lot of other people have, eh, answers, proving hundreds of times that your religion of worshiping yourself as god is inferior science and logic to the religion of Judeo-Christianity.

My 2 cents:
1) The historical Jesus will most likely never be known. Religious interpretation has erased the real Jesus and replaced Him with a more sanitized version.

2) Just because you don't believe in the Bible's stories does not mean that one should not believe in the good news. Take the Bible, and use its good teachings to make your life better.

What about people who are calculatorians?

Well, if I'm correct in my representations of everyone: it means for the Christian that all non-Christians will be in hell, for the atheist it means all atheists and non-atheists will have the same fate.

My take on everything- What is the alternative? If one does believe, and ends up being correct in the end, then what does that mean for the opposite side? Just a thought...

This is nice and all, but shouldn't you people be applying for college or something? It's that time of year!

First and foremost, by "evidence during the time period" I assume you mean a historical record. I can't imagine you would be talking about any other type of evidence.

And to counter this, I would say that there are many historical records of Jesus' existence. First and foremost, the Bible itself is a historical record. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are all historical records of Jesus' life.

Aside from the Bible, which will obviously be dismissed by some, there are non-biblical records of Jesus Christ's life, or existence at least, ironically often written by people who were hostile towards Christians. Many records, including three of the gospels, mention the darkness that occurred when Jesus was crucified. This is mentioned in the bible in Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44-45. This period of darkness was mentioned by several other ancient writers, among them Thallus (a secular historian whose works are lost but often quoted), Cornelius Tacitus (a Roman historian who mentions the crucifixion as well), and Phlegon of Tralles in his work The Olympiades. While it is true that these records are (mostly) mentioning the darkness that happened that day, there are records also of Jesus Christ's existance. The writings of a Thallus (previously mentioned) and Phlegon are referenced by Julius Africanas who quoted them around 220AD and mention the existance of Jesus Christ. Josephus, a Jewish writer acknowledged the existance of a wise man called Jesus, although he did not claim that he had any divine authority. Many ancient Jewish documents mention the existance of Jesus, one of them below:
"It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), "He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him." But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover." (b. Sanhedrin 43a)

With many non-biblical sources mentioning the existance of Jesus, and no possible way to prove the contrary, I would say there is plenty of evidence for the existance of at least a wise man Jesus Christ who was executed.

I'm not sure how to further address this point, nor do I know exactly what you mean by "compare Paul with Mark." Regardless, you seem to have excluded all FOUR gospels from being "written first hand accounts" and so there is not much more I can say here that I have not already said.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this point, but I would have to completely disagree with your statement "Rome you see was generally tolerant of religion". Rather than elaborate on this point, however, I would like to direct you to somewhat-neutral Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire) and most certainly secular National Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline_09.html) articles that detail the persecutions Christians faced in this time.

Since you have taken the liberty to outsource opinionated articles, so will I. I would like to direct you to https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/ for more on related matters.

I would also like to point out that this side note argues that Jesus does not exist because he allegedly said something incorrect. I will not interpret this verse or others like it right now, the article above should do a good job of that.

In addition, I seem to recall ProgrammerNerd saying he would leave emotion out of this as much as possible, which he clearly did not do in this post.

merthsoft I am not sure what you are getting at.

I would like to direct you to https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/ for more on related matters.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, ... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture, .. although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Well, if I'm correct in my representations of everyone: it means for the Christian that all non-Christians will be in hell

My 2 cents:
1) The historical Jesus will most likely never be known. Religious interpretation has erased the real Jesus and replaced Him with a more sanitized version.

2) Just because you don't believe in the Bible's stories does not mean that one should not believe in the good news. Take the Bible, and use its good teachings to make your life better.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

And obviously the reason not everyone is a Christian is because people like you find the idea of being supremely ruled by a God very repulsive. ... Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him.

I believe in Science. I believe in the atoms, the atomic bonds & properties that hold us, the animals and the plants together. The very same atoms that create our atmosphere, that form rock solid or gaseous planets and the atoms which create stars.

I will not accept judgment from a being created in a book of lore.

I am my own individual and am responsible for my own actions, good or bad.

ComicIDIOT: Amazing post, If you were delivering a speech I would give you a standing ovation.

We can use proof by contradiction to prove that Jesus never existed. First lets assume what would happen if Jesus were real. We would have evidence writing during the time period in which he existed not after.

Yes you are right I may have gotten stuff mixed up when writing #3. I also did a poor job of explaining. Disregard point #3 and instead use this argument. The reason Rome created Christianity was to pacify and control the poor. This article does a good job explaining the history behind this http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2012/10/how-christianity-was-used-to-enslave-europe/#more-214

I do believe science and logic to be superior to religion.

Yes you are right he will never be known because he does not exist. Your explanation is what is wrong, there is no real Jesus. I have already defined and explanation as to why I say such. It would do yourself a favor to define why you think there is a real Jesus.

Well yes I will not deny that there are some good moral aspects that we can learn from. Assuming thou shall not kill refers to all people and not just those of the same tribe the later of which Richard Dawkins says is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos I will need to do further research on this.
However I would like to point out that you do not need to get these morals from the bible. Take for instance this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Ten_Commandments many of these are actually better than the Ten commandments and avoid religion thus removing the need for the bible.

Meanwhile atheist would go after the concept instead of an individual and point out logical fallacies and problems with their religion.

Not allegedly but did say something incorrect. If he were real and so were god, prayer would be 100% effective just like god and Jesus said.

Answers in Genesis is essentially the worst source you could have picked. If you want to know why, you should read backwards a bit in this topic. Young Earth Creationism is complete nonsense, both scientifically, and biblically, and defending Young Earth Creationism is the sole purpose of AIG as an organization.

2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.

This seems to be the most on-topic point here. Just saying.

I beg to differ, the Big Bang Theory has some pretty substantial evidence, I'll list some articles for this but not all of them.

Recent:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/

Historical:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Accelerating_Universe.htm

Now let us move on from the start of the universe and focus on how old the earth is. How do you scientifically date the Earth from a book? What scientific records and discoveries can I take to my scientist friends and have them independently verify these claims. We have dinosaur fossils from all over the world that date back billions of years and multiple carbon-datings have put the age of these fossils within a few million years of each other.

We're landing on comets that have water on them, the hypothesized source of life (source is last available archived page before becoming unavailable). We look for planets with water because multiple studies have shown that "life" forms easiest here.

What scientific studies can you link to me from YEC about these two topics?

Two things:
1. You cannot discredit everything AiG says merely because it defends Young Earth Creationism. That would be like someone discrediting an argument made on this thread because the author is a Christian (although it probably has happened).

2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.

And there's no proof that rock or fossils are 4.4 billion or 65 million years old - the dating methods have been proven unreliable, and alternate dating methods place the age of those things at thousands of years instead. "Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists."

Lastly it adds up biblically - to say the world was created just as it says in Genesis fits the whole bible fine, but to say there was evolution involved does not. Roughly 2000 years passed from the beginning of time to the destruction of the world, 2000 years to the birth of Christ, and 2000 years from then til now, just as the bible says.

Also, Jews know that the world was made in 7 days - that's the reason their week is set up the way it is, and the reason there is a week, it's no coincidence. This article's 10 points are all good ones proving a young earth too.

I realize the fact that there is a God, and he did indeed create the world. But it never in the bible defines how long a day had to have been. I apologize if I seem offhanded, but this is definitely one of the things that I struggle with in my own faith.

Sorry for not responding to everything all at once, but I must respond to Mateo - remember, God created light *before* stars. If he created the particles that made the stars, it only makes sense he created the light particles coming from the stars, all in their position. And there's no proof that rock or fossils are 4.4 billion or 65 million years old - the dating methods have been proven unreliable, and alternate dating methods place the age of those things at thousands of years instead. "Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists."
Lastly it adds up biblically - to say the world was created just as it says in Genesis fits the whole bible fine, but to say there was evolution involved does not. Roughly 2000 years passed from the beginning of time to the destruction of the world, 2000 years to the birth of Christ, and 2000 years from then til now, just as the bible says. Also, Jews know that the world was made in 7 days - that's the reason their week is set up the way it is, and the reason there is a week, it's no coincidence. This article's 10 points are all good ones proving a young earth too.

And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.

2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.