Anyway, this Jesus fellow may or may not have existed, however, there is almost zero evidence (outside of some book called the Bible) that the magic-man portayed to many is little more than a "fictional character" as characterized by this quiz. The comparison drawn between Vlad the Impaler and Count Dracula is a good parallel. The exagerated persona is the one being called "fictional".
Few (I wouldn't say nobody) doubt that Socrates existed, not because there is so much evidence for his existence, but because he led a normal life, is not the central figure of a personality cult, never claimed and supernatural powers, and nobody's religious conviction depends upon belief in Socrates. Those who wrote about him were not committed to the idea that he was a living god, and the accounts of his life do not contain stories of zombies roaming around Jerusalem in large numbers that have not been independently corroborated.
Ancient Greeks usually believed Hercules/Heracles to be a real person. There are many stories of his exploits, written (like Jesus) by people who never met him after he was supposed to have died. Some people (the Spartans, for one) even claimed descent from him, so we had his living descendants as "proof" that he existed.
Yet nobody would say "no one doubts Hercules existed." Actually, pretty much everyone agrees he is entirely fictional. Because there is good reason to doubt he was a real person. He was the son of a god. He did superhuman things. Stories about him don't make sense and are obviously made up as parables.
It's not just lack of evidence = doubt. It's lack of evidence + good reason to doubt.
Socrates has the lack of evidence, but there is no good reason to doubt he existed.