monkeydelarge: This level of skepticism is why I'm not wearing a tin foil hat and don't believe the tooth fairy takes the the teeth of children and gives them money in return.
It's perfectly rational to be skeptical of whether Jesus performed miracles, but you don't have to take your skepticism to the level where you refuse to try objectively examine any historical evidence even related to Jesus. A common line among people who think Jesus was a myth is to compare him to other gods, such as Horus, and say that Horus was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, and had all of these other traits in common, so Jesus was copied. The problem is that if you actually look at what an ancient historian, such as Plutarch, has to say about Horus, it nothing in common with these lists of so-called similarities. The problem is they just unquestioningly accept anything that supports their views and don't bother to take history seriously.
Don't just claim Tacitus could be faked, therefore he's faked. The general consensus among both Christian and non-Christian historians is that Tacitus is authentic, so don't just dismiss him to blindly hold on to your beliefs. If you think Tacitus was altered, then show evidence for that. It's not enough to think Jesus was a myth, you need to show how it's even plausible for Christianity to have taken off within its historical environment if that were the case. Going by the historical evidence, I think it would been next to impossible for Christianity to have survived its inception if Jesus had not risen from the dead, so the idea that Christianity survived its inception while being based on someone who didn't exist is just really absurd.
There is a mountain of historical evidence for the events in the Bible, and no historical evidence around the tooth fairy, so anyone who has studied the history shouldn't find it difficult to figure out why Christians believe in God, but don't believe in the the tooth fairy.
I believe what I've seen, what I've experienced and what is backed up by science. Is that so wrong?
Nothing is wrong with that, but you should also believe what is supported by history.
I do wonder, if other figures from history truly existed.
Your welcome to do that, but I'd advise looking at what expert histories have to say before drawing any conclusions.
You do know, that people are capable of lying or exaggerating, right?
Of course, but that does not mean we should assume a priori that they are.
People also enjoy writing fiction. Two thousand years from now, if they find a capsule with comic books, they might think Batman was real. OR if they found a time capsule with a magazine about celebrities, they might think Justin Bieber is a god, we worshiped.
The genre of the Gospels is historiography. Lots of people today enjoy writing fiction, but that doesn't tell us about whether 1st century Palestinian Jews enjoyed writing fiction. For that, you'd have to look at other works that were written at the time. Furthermore, if they were writing a work of fiction, then there would have been a lot of things they could have easily done differently that would have made it a lot easier to find converts, starting with not have the central figure die a humiliating death generally reserved for criminals.
Soyeong: When you say there is no evidence for a belief, you are saying that belief is uncaused, because the cause of the belief is what makes it clear, indicates, or proves it to be true, and is evidence by definition. All you need to do to back your claim is show an example of how it's possible to form an uncaused belief.
pimpmonkey2382: It doesn't need evidence. It just needs to be believed.
It true for any beliefs in general. You don't randomly have beliefs pop into your head uncaused, and neither does anyone else.
