From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Esquilax]

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

That doesn't say what you were asked to provide.

I haven't really researched the history of the golden rule; do you know what is the earliest known quotation of it? What I do know is that Moses wrote the pentateuch in 1400 BC which was 900 years earlier than the quotation by Confucius. Even if it were found to be older than the Old Testament, I wouldn't see that as being a problem for the credibility of Jesus.

Well, the Code of Hammurabi, from ancient Babylon, has a secular iteration of the golden rule. And I'd see these things as a problem for the credibility of the claim that Jesus' teachings were the product of divine inspiration and unique to christianity; demonstrably, that's false, and if heathens can come up with the same things, it's hardly the exclusive domain of god, now is it?

As far Jesus borrowing from Horus, Mithra etc, that was the claim of a famous documentary called Zeitgeist which has been roundly debunked.

Oh, I dunno that I'd go so far as to say that the Jesus story borrowed from those other ones, just that those commonalities aren't unique either; they're memes that repeat throughout many mythologies, so why would we give them any special consideration from this one?

That said, I am not trying to prove anything with my statement other than offer a possibility. The possibility is that the impact of Christianity on the world, and its prominence in history and even today points to the truth of what Jesus said. If He is the Son of God, the result we have seen matches His claims.

Those two things share no logical connection: the world is flush with impactful figures that we've later determined were wrong. You're just adding extra importance to the figure you want to be the real deal; I'd rather address the proof and evidence for his claims and the attendant ones about god, rather than measuring veracity by popularity.

What you have to see is that all prayers are answered, and sometimes that answer is no.

And now you've lost any sense of credibility: what you're saying is that if prayers are answered, there's a god, and if prayers aren't answered, there's a god. No falsifiability, means no rational justification. You're just practicing confirmation bias, now.

To a man with no faith, he will see the no answers as being unanswered prayers when they are actually answered prayers.

The study I linked you to was performed by the Christian Templeton Foundation. This was men of faith coming to the determination that prayer doesn't work any better than chance.

So, the study itself could never accurately measure the effectiveness of prayer for that reason. God could arrange the circumstances so that those prayers which were answered yes would never have a statistical significance, and He might do that because He only allows us to approach Him in faith and not by testing.

And so he arranged it so that the prayers of those asking for a safe heart surgery failed and caused great pain and possibly death to those who prayed... because he was irritated we were testing him? And that seems moral to you?