TIL the earliest known reference to Christ refers to him as a magician.

Objectively, there is historical evidence that supports the existence of an individual named Christ who was born somewhere near Jerusalem, was crucified by the Romans and had some sort of impact on a group of Judeans who began the cult of Christianity.

Beyond the religious Gospel and Pauline letters (though the earliest confirmed Pauline letter is dated at 51 AD, early enough that the author could have encountered Christ), the main early documents that non-theists use to support the existence of Christ are two passages in the writings of Jewish historian Josephus and a passage in the writings of Roman historian Tacitus. Neither author had any interest in supporting the Christ cult, nor did they have any interest in furthering a myth that Christ was a divine being, yet they both reference the same being in a documentary sense.

The fact that a Jewish peasant had made enough of a stir in Rome to be crucified and then written about by well-known historians only around a century later is extremely convincing evidence that there was a Christ. These are accompanied by archaeological finds that have discovered Christ temples, early Christian artefacts and even early Christian graffiti that can be placed around this time. There might not be a smoking gun by your standards, but there are absolutely MULTIPLE warm guns that heavily point to the existence of a man named Christ existing and being a part of the Christ myth.

I'm not blindly "appealing to authority," though even if I were, there is AMPLE authority compared to your absolute lack of proficiency. What YOU are doing is saying that because there isn't damning evidence, it must be untrue. What YOU are doing is saying that because there are a small handful of scholars who argue that Christ doesn't exist, there must be room for debate. And sure, there is room for debate, but it is heavily one-sided and the people who argue against the existence of a historical Jesus have flimsy arguments that rely on the repeated "there isn't concrete evidence, there are just these accounts."

But the thing is, dumbass, these accounts point more heavily towards the existence of a historical Christ than your lack of concrete evidence points towards his lack of existence. These aren't religious documents, these are objective contemporaries who are saying "Yep, the dude was as real as I am."

Stop being an ass, read up on the subject somewhere other than /r/atheism, and pull your head out of yourself.

/r/todayilearned Thread Link - nbcnews.com