A lot of what you are saying is coming straight from the bible which you admit comes on faith which is belief with no evidence so i will ignore everything that you have presented just because it is in the bible.
What you have left is an argument that because christianity still exists that is this some sort of evidence that Jesus is alive. Buddhism is just as old and still believed in this is no evidence that either religion is true. Because some people have been "martyred" for their faith again is no evidence that what they believe is true that is what suicide bombers do on a daily basis but i am sure you don't believe what they believe.
Prophecies being fulfilled you have not given any and most of them are so vague that they could be applied to anything Like Nostradamus prophecies, also the new testament writers took them and made them fit into their own belief systems and still made mistakes with them.
At least you had the honesty to say it is by faith, that is the bottom line and what interests me is that if presented with reality will believers admit they where mistaken or live a lie.
I still don't think you read my post very carefully because I specifically downplayed the parts that came out of the Bible, only mentioning that I believe it for that reason among others. I'll also correct your conception of faith - it is NOT a belief without evidence. Faith is belief that effects a change in the believer. Here's an example: I have faith that the medication my doctor gives me when I'm ill is the correct one to take, and thus I take it, believing it will make be better.
I'm betting you and I share faith on this one. See neither of us studied medicine (or rather I didn't and I'll assume you are in another field as well) and thus we don't
know that the medication we are given will work for us in the way we are told. But we see evidence of others getting better after having taken the meds and we ourselves have had experiential evidence that supports that belief and so we have
faith that it works. Hardly blind or without evidence I think you'd agree. Matter of fact, if we're both honest with ourselves, our sphere of expertise is so relatively narrow that MUCH of what we hold as true we believe on faith. Josephus was not a biblical author and you failed to adequately assuage that argument, which was my first one.
Now to address your second rebuttal: Buddhism is not a belief system whose very basis is contingent upon the resurrection of it's lead proponent so your argument there doesn't hold much weight. If Buddha where somehow shown to have been angry and narcissistic behind closed doors, he indeed would have discredited himself and his philosophy as it is based on the Zen state of harmony. The very basis of Christianity is dependent upon the risen Christ. If that basis goes unsatisfied, the religion is dead in the water. Your example is inadequate.
Now, no one contests whether or not the tomb of Jesus was empty on the third day - the question is: what happened to the body? The contention of the Jewish leaders of the day and the Romans and all the way down to atheists like yourself throughout history has been that his followers stole the body away to make it
appear that resurrection had occurred. If this were the case then those followers
knew that Jesus had died and his claims had gone unsubstantiated. They didn't have to have faith...they could see one way or the other because they were there. My contention is that no one will willingly sacrifice himself for what he
knows is a lie. Many of his followers were tortured and killed. No man will subject himself to that for what he
knows is a lie. You're right by the way, that I don't believe that Islam has it right, but I also don't believe that they
know that they are wrong, or suicide bombing would be a thing of stories. On another note, martyrdom is not something you do to yourself. Suicide bombers are murderers, not martyrs.
On to prophecy: The prophecies in the Bible are, for the most part, very direct and clear, in direct contrast to Nostradamus. It's true that some in Revelation have been hard to understand, but the OT prophecies really aren't that tough. You asked for examples: Multiple times the destruction of Israel was prophesied and fulfilled right down to the identity of the invaders, from the Romans to the Babylonian empire to the Persians and Assyrians, etc. These prophecies were plain as day and each and every one of them was fulfilled. Again, anyone who knows about the prophetic works in the Bible, be they Christian or secular, admits that the fulfillment of OT prophecy is
uncannily accurate. The prophecies that from Abraham would come a great nation were fulfilled. The prophecies about the Canaanites being a thorn in the side of Israel forever has been and is being fulfilled before our very eyes. The restoration of ethnic Israel to the physical state of Israel was prophesied. These are not vague prophecies. Again, I'd ask you to study up on these things before you make unfounded assertions.
Finally, I'd ask you clarify what mistakes the NT writers made with prophecy and I'll end by answering your question:
If sufficient weight of evidence were presented that contradicted the claims of Christianity I'd be forced to reconsider my position. Find me the bones of the deceased Jesus and my faith will disappear as it can no longer be supported. As it stands though, there is far greater weight of evidence to support Christianity's claims than to deny them.
Ask yourself: why is it that religiosity is the default position among man? Why does atheism have to be taught? (This has long been an accepted fact in anthropology. One which major Universities are studying at this very time. Check Yahoo news, you may find it interesting.)
I appreciate your attempts at refuting my arguments and that you did it without too much condescension and/or flaming, but I just don't think you've done an adequate job of turning aside
any of the arguments that I've made thus far.
You asked why we believe, but when logical positions are put forward, it's not enough. I dare say that atheism is to you what you
thought Christianity was to me: something you believe blindly and that is unassailable, meaning that you will not revise your position regardless of the evidence presented. If I'm wrong, tell me what would cause you to come over to my side of the fence. Same question you posed: what would it take to change your mind?