My hypothesis

[Drich]

Uninformed... you are the one speaking out of empty prejudiced general ignorance, and stereotype. Note how you just asserted what you thought to be right and then note me bring source material that proves me right.

Here is a list of the top 10 countries that does not have unrestricted access to the internet there are only 4 Muslim countries mentioned only one is completely bann from internet usage. The other three have restrictions put on their usage. The other 6 countries are of the 'modern' world.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world...s/5222385/

I can get over how stupid some of you are and yet, when challenged you automatically assume you and what you believe is automatically right.. How about pick up a book every once and a while or read something not on a porn site or better yet have a discussion with someone with a different understanding of the world and rather debate them to win, ask questions.

So I said that many Muslim countries restrict internet access and you think you refute that by listing certain Muslim countries that restrict internet access?  Dafuq?

No sorry sport. what I did was give a top 10 list of the most restricted internet countries on the planet. This is not a list of muslim countries.

that said There are 4 countries on this list that happen to be muslim. 1 with a total bann. the other three simply have restrictions... Do you get it yet??

You need to show there is a Muslim country that has no restrictions on internet access you God damned fucking idiot.Learn the logic of all, none, counter-example, and so on. You have provided zero counter examples.

apparently not, and yet you think I am the dumb one because I didn't follow the rules to the simpleton way to win an arguement. I LUV It when you guys do this.. I get to set you up slow or even put you on a pestle and then take my time and swing for the fences!!!

So you ready??? let's see those teeth! i want to make sure I make clean contact with them with my verbal bat. so you can swallow as many as I can knock down your throat.. you ready to "Learn the logic of all, none, counter-example, and so on."

Here come the logic train boy! clinch those teeth for me...

If I provide a list of 10 of the absolute worst countries in the world and there are only 4 muslim countries on that list. Then to say "all muslim countries are under internet restriction is a fallacy, as it stands there are over 50 countries (arguably 57) with a majority population being muslim. 4 showed up on the list you f-ing moron. 1 censors EVERYTHING. That means moron that out of 50+ countries 3 heavily regulate what is made available on the internet 1 has bann the internet. AND If you actually read the artical what was being considered as 'censorship' was akin to jury duty level of internet access in the 3 worst muslim countries... This should have made a thinking man ask, so hw bad are the other countries? After 5 sec of google we get:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Islamic_societies and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c...by_country

then we learn "47 simply indoctrinate/self regulate to one degree or another to use islamic internet providers and or web browsers." Basicly if you use AOL Or Google Donald Trump will read you email.
(the boogey man will get you if you do not use islam online) That it!!!

That means all the BS you believe about Muslims being oppressed from the internet as a matter of course of living in a caliphate want to be state is western propaganda. Propaganda you now can swallow with most of your teeth.

 You have provided zero counter examples.

what I provided was an opportunity for you to ask a question, but you didn't. Thought yourself to be the teacher, and wound up being schooled.

Now, I'm sure there are Muslim countries with free internet access (notice I originally said MANY, not ALL) but the lesson here is that you have no idea how argumentation actually works.

TO MY ATHEIST PEERS

I'd like to urge all atheists here to cease engaging Drich on Christianity as he is SO stupid that I'd rather not have him representing me as another atheist.

I get what a nihilist is, but I also get that as a nihilist you are a special kind of snow flake that melts more quickly when lumped in with everyone else. So... now the melt down is complete that my retarded drop of water is the reason you and you buddies limit your exchanges with me. Because I am right pretty much all the time, and it eats you up, because there is nothing you can do about it.

Now when you are about to doze off, ask yourself.. "If Drich is always right about stupid stuff like islamic internet access because he reads and backs everything up with at least three sources... "what if he is also right about *Gup... God?!?!?!"

You can always tell your self yeah drich is an idiot and just keep believing that the internet is destroying religion and by the time you are ready to retire religion will be completely gone.

---

Uninformed... you are the one speaking out of empty prejudiced general ignorance, and stereotype. Note how you just asserted what you thought to be right and then note me bring source material that proves me right.

Here is a list of the top 10 countries that does not have unrestricted access to the internet there are only 4 Muslim countries mentioned only one is completely bann from internet usage. The other three have restrictions put on their usage. The other 6 countries are of the 'modern' world.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world...s/5222385/

I can get over how stupid some of you are and yet, when challenged you automatically assume you and what you believe is automatically right.. How about pick up a book every once and a while or read something not on a porn site or better yet have a discussion with someone with a different understanding of the world and rather debate them to win, ask questions.

So I said that many Muslim countries restrict internet access and you think you refute that by listing certain Muslim countries that restrict internet access?  Dafuq?

You need to show there is a Muslim country that has no restrictions on internet access you God damned fucking idiot.

Learn the logic of all, none, counter-example, and so on.  You have provided zero counter examples.

Now, I'm sure there are Muslim countries with free internet access (notice I originally said MANY, not ALL) but the lesson here is that you have no idea how argumentation actually works.

TO MY ATHEIST PEERS

I'd like to urge all atheists here to cease engaging Drich on Christianity as he is SO stupid that I'd rather not have him representing me as another atheist.

Omg...

Can one of you non retarded atheists please explain it to him...

[SteveII]

Another appealing quality of Christianity is having the question of purpose and place in the universe answered. a. with atheism, at best, you are a happy accident with no purpose that will very shortly die and cease to exist.
b. contrast that with the purpose of man is to "Glorify God and enjoy him forever". We were created for a reason and daily life has purpose and you really want others to know what you have found.

Truly the world is not enough.  Yet to be solely focused on God as a purpose to one's life may also ring hollow.  Friends, children, the world, these are fitting sources from which to draw purpose.  Serving a God may be some people's cup of tea, but I doubt it's a big draw except to those who already believe.  You've got the cart before the horse.  This "purpose" does not draw people to God, although it may transform them after they have chosen God.  In like fashion, worldly purposes draw those who are not limited by this God assigned purpose.

In addition, Jesus modeled his teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for your fellow man and in doing so set an example that, if aspired to, would result in a very fulfilling life. Perhaps you are not old enough, but once you contemplate the brevity of life, finding fulfillment becomes important.

Putting the cart before the horse again.  Regardless, you seem at cross purposes here.  If the purpose of life is serving God, then patterning oneself after the Christ is a distraction.  Yet you find it fulfilling.  Surely the world and God's purpose is not enough even for you.

You are breaking the two things up: patterning oneself after Christ and serving God. I think the are two sides of the same coin. My point was the following Christ teachings results in an overall purpose for life. Do you think there is a secular parallel?

[Angrboda]

You are breaking the two things up: patterning oneself after Christ and serving God. I think the are two sides of the same coin. My point was the following Christ teachings results in an overall purpose for life. Do you think there is a secular parallel?

There are plenty of secular parallels, from living a life of virtue, one driven by agape and selfless love, to one driven by rational self interest. But this is to misunderstand the nature of purpose. Purpose exists to drive activity. It need not be transcendent or unitary to do this. One may start out with one purpose and in fulfilling it, graduate to another. It doesn't make it an inferior purpose because the person's life is divided into different periods.

[SteveII]

You are assigning reasons why people become Christians--all of them derogatory. Talk about condescending. 

I wrote this a while back:

While not universally true, I believe it is the appeal of Jesus as a person coupled with his teachings that draws people. Why do these things resonate with a large number of people?

It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc. Of course you will say this is a product of our evolution. There are several theories centered around the adaptive values of religion (social solidarity for one). However, these theories presuppose naturalism. So the result of this reasoning is that if God did exist or did not exist, we would still be wired to believe God exists.

I think another reason this resonates with people is Jesus' main message that forgiveness, personal peace, a relationship with God, and eternal life is possible.
a. there are a lot of people, who have had tough experiences that find the forgiveness and internal peace very appealing.
b. when you meet someone who has been a Christian a long time and exemplifies Jesus' teachings and shares how God has been a constant comfort and support to them in their daily lives, it is very appealing.
c. eternal life, how can you beat that? This component also helps you make sense/cope of the shortness of life, tragedies, and pain endured while we are here.

Another appealing quality of Christianity is having the question of purpose and place in the universe answered. a. with atheism, at best, you are a happy accident with no purpose that will very shortly die and cease to exist.
b. contrast that with the purpose of man is to "Glorify God and enjoy him forever". We were created for a reason and daily life has purpose and you really want others to know what you have found.

In addition, Jesus modeled his teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for your fellow man and in doing so set an example that, if aspired to, would result in a very fulfilling life. Perhaps you are not old enough, but once you contemplate the brevity of life, finding fulfillment becomes important.

And none of these reasons require anything more than what wishful thinking requires.  Believing because it feels good.  I am old enough to contemplate the brevity of life, and it's too brief to accept on the word of an oft-edited old book that there is a god.  Especially when it seems that most of the believers I run across have much more of the attributes in my description.  Having a "personal relationship" with a god, or just believing a god is there, seems to be the biggest decision one could make in one's life.  But most I've run across have given it less thought than where they want to go on vacation next year.  I've rarely seen a positive change in behaviour.  Mostly it's just a way of being judgemental while proclaiming that I know what god wants and you aren't it if you don't believe.  I think very few actually believe.  They believe in believing. You can see that in the persecution complex so many have, shouting religious intolerance when anything they want to be called "practicing their religion" is challenged. And in the redefinition of words like "evidence", "fact", "love", etc to try to fit their stories.  It's embarrassing.

This is only "believing because it feels good" if the claims of Jesus are false. Actually, even that is not true. As long as people believe the claims to be true, their belief is based on the perceived truth value of the claim and not because "it feels good".

It seems you are judging an ideology on the how well a sampling of its adherents have put it into practice and asserting motives beyond what you could possibly know. Seems like you are full of opinions with very little reasoning and facts.

---

You are breaking the two things up: patterning oneself after Christ and serving God. I think the are two sides of the same coin. My point was the following Christ teachings results in an overall purpose for life. Do you think there is a secular parallel?

There are plenty of secular parallels, from living a life of virtue, one driven by agape and selfless love, to one driven by rational self interest.  But this is to misunderstand the nature of purpose.  Purpose exists to drive activity.  It need not be transcendent or unitary to do this.  One may start out with one purpose and in fulfilling it, graduate to another.  It doesn't make it an inferior purpose because the person's life is divided into different periods.

I understand and agree. Some people find purpose within themselves. However, I think there is a group of people who struggle to find it in a way that satisfies their idea of it.

---

Christianity just tells you your purpose in life is to serve god, which doesn't really answer the question.

There's no reason to believe life has some awesome, singular purpose.

The atheist is free to find his own reasons for living.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

Except many people apparently can't cope with the Existential Nihilism that atheism leads to. Perhaps that is why, despite the "information age" your message isn't resonating with as many people as you might have thought.

[Harry Nevis]

Omg...

Can one of you non retarded atheists please explain it to him...

I can.  Drich is incoherent babbler, whose willful ignorance and name-calling show that believing in god does precious little to help behavior or morality.  Unless he was a REAL prick before...

---

And none of these reasons require anything more than what wishful thinking requires.  Believing because it feels good.  I am old enough to contemplate the brevity of life, and it's too brief to accept on the word of an oft-edited old book that there is a god.  Especially when it seems that most of the believers I run across have much more of the attributes in my description.  Having a "personal relationship" with a god, or just believing a god is there, seems to be the biggest decision one could make in one's life.  But most I've run across have given it less thought than where they want to go on vacation next year.  I've rarely seen a positive change in behaviour.  Mostly it's just a way of being judgemental while proclaiming that I know what god wants and you aren't it if you don't believe.  I think very few actually believe.  They believe in believing. You can see that in the persecution complex so many have, shouting religious intolerance when anything they want to be called "practicing their religion" is challenged. And in the redefinition of words like "evidence", "fact", "love", etc to try to fit their stories.  It's embarrassing.

This is only "believing because it feels good" if the claims of Jesus are false. Actually, even that is not true. As long as people believe the claims to be true, their belief is based on the perceived truth value of the claim and not because "it feels good".

It seems you are judging an ideology on the how well a sampling of its adherents have put it into practice and asserting motives beyond what you could possibly know. Seems like you are full of opinions with very little reasoning and facts.

Perceived truth value is meaningless if it has not been determined such a truth exists.  Since there is not objective evidence to the claim, What other reason is there to believe?

And the last comment just blew another irony meter. 

Except many people apparently can't cope with the Existential Nihilism that atheism leads to. Perhaps that is why, despite the "information age" your message isn't resonating with as many people as you might have thought.

Oh, please.  Existential nihilism? Not true.  Look at the gullibility of America during the last election.  Too many people want to feel good, and will believe anything to feel that way.  And whats the down side?  Believing in god costs you nothing, you don't have to give up anything, and all is forgiven anyway.  When somebody claims a personal relationship with a deity, and acts like a bigoted, narrow minded egotist, why would I buy it?

[SteveII]

Omg...

Can one of you non retarded atheists please explain it to him...

I can.  Drich is incoherent babbler, whose willful ignorance and name-calling show that believing in god does precious little to help behavior or morality.  Unless he was a REAL prick before...

---

This is only "believing because it feels good" if the claims of Jesus are false. Actually, even that is not true. As long as people believe the claims to be true, their belief is based on the perceived truth value of the claim and not because "it feels good".

It seems you are judging an ideology on the how well a sampling of its adherents have put it into practice and asserting motives beyond what you could possibly know. Seems like you are full of opinions with very little reasoning and facts.

Perceived truth value is meaningless if it has not been determined such a truth exists.  Since there is not objective evidence to the claim, What other reason is there to believe? [1]

And the last comment just blew another irony meter. 

Except many people apparently can't cope with the Existential Nihilism that atheism leads to. Perhaps that is why, despite the "information age" your message isn't resonating with as many people as you might have thought.

Oh, please.  Existential nihilism? Not true.  Look at the gullibility of America during the last election.  Too many people want to feel good, and will believe anything to feel that way.[2]  And whats the down side?  Believing in god costs you nothing, you don't have to give up anything, and all is forgiven anyway.  When somebody claims a personal relationship with a deity, and acts like a bigoted, narrow minded egotist, why would I buy it? [3]

1. Why isn't there objective evidence for Christ? What do you call the NT? The life of Christ is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. Christian beliefs are rational and therefore not "wishful thinking" as you charged. 

2. You are spouting nothing but opinion. Are you disputing that atheism leads to existential nihilism? Judging by the fact that atheists account for such a small tiny segment of the world's population, it seems like people are not entirely satisfied with what you have to offer--despite the "information age" premise of the OP. 

3. You misunderstand Christianity. You probably should know more about what you mock. Again, you keep conflating people's failure to keep to the very clear tenets of Christianity with Christianity. Poor argumentation.

[Harry Nevis]

1. Why isn't there objective evidence for Christ? What do you call the NT? The life of Christ is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. Christian beliefs are rational and therefore not "wishful thinking" as you charged. 

I have a feeling I know why there is no objective evidence, but I'll play along.
What is objective about the NT?  It was put together to support a belief, leaving out things that was not wanted.
If the NT is objective evidence, then so is the Koran, the Book of Morman, Moby Dick, Harry Potter, etc.
Do you believe in witches?  We have much more evidence from testimony in the Salem Witch Trials that witches are real then we have for any event in the NT.  It's not rational because it is not based in reason or logic.

2. You are spouting nothing but opinion. Are you disputing that atheism leads to existential nihilism? Judging by the fact that atheists account for such a small tiny segment of the world's population, it seems like people are not entirely satisfied with what you have to offer--despite the "information age" premise of the OP. 

Maybe it seems that way because you're a judgemental prick.  Why does a personal relationship with god so often lead to this?

3. You misunderstand Christianity. You probably should know more about what you mock. Again, you keep conflating people's failure to keep to the very clear tenets of Christianity with Christianity. Poor argumentation.

But good evidence against god changing lives, as well as belief itself.  If I believed that a god was real, if I knew it in my heart, if I could "talk" to him (as so many claim to do) my behavior would change dramatically.  But it seems no more influential in peoples lives than the usual mundane things.

And if I misunderstand christianity, its no ones fault the the sources I've been taught from and have read. (raised RC, majored in Religious Studies).  Hell, it seems any three christians you get together can't agree on it, and one will claim another misunderstands it.  It's an old ploy to cover the fact that it's all blind faith and wishful thinking.

[SteveII]

1. Why isn't there objective evidence for Christ? What do you call the NT? The life of Christ is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. Christian beliefs are rational and therefore not "wishful thinking" as you charged. 

I have a feeling I know why there is no objective evidence, but I'll play along.
What is objective about the NT?  It was put together to support a belief, leaving out things that was not wanted.
If the NT is objective evidence, then so is the Koran, the Book of Morman, Moby Dick, Harry Potter, etc.
Do you believe in witches?  We have much more evidence from testimony in the Salem Witch Trials that witches are real then we have for any event in the NT.  [A] It's not rational because it is not based in reason or logic.

2. You are spouting nothing but opinion. Are you disputing that atheism leads to existential nihilism? Judging by the fact that atheists account for such a small tiny segment of the world's population, it seems like people are not entirely satisfied with what you have to offer--despite the "information age" premise of the OP. 

Maybe it seems that way because you're a judgemental prick.  Why does a personal relationship with god so often lead to this? [C]

3. You misunderstand Christianity. You probably should know more about what you mock. Again, you keep conflating people's failure to keep to the very clear tenets of Christianity with Christianity. Poor argumentation.

But good evidence against god changing lives, as well as belief itself.  If I believed that a god was real, if I knew it in my heart, if I could "talk" to him (as so many claim to do) my behavior would change dramatically.  But it seems no more influential in peoples lives than the usual mundane things. [D]

And if I misunderstand christianity, its no ones fault the the sources I've been taught from and have read. (raised RC, majored in Religious Studies).[E]  Hell, it seems any three christians you get together can't agree on it, and one will claim another misunderstands it.  It's an old ploy to cover the fact that it's all blind faith and wishful thinking. [F]

A1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two groups of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus.
A2. Historians believe that there are documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death.
A3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and distributed to the churches that already believed in the events they portray. More evidence for what people believed to be true.

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events.

These and other facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So your comparison of the Koran, Book of Mormon, Moby Dick, and Harry Potter misses the mark as a comparison.

B. Tell me what is not based in reason and logic. You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity so I'm going to need some sort of hint. 

C. Ad hominem attack--which seems to be the basis of your entire argument in this and other threads. 

D. All it would take is one person who experienced God changing his/her life to invalidate your argument. 

E. All of your inch-deep objections to Christianity have been discussed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I think it is more likely that you came here to join in bashing religion to make yourself feel better about your opinions than to really understand what the other side thinks, ask questions, and learn. If I am right and the reason is the former, then you are in good company--there are many who think that way. If you are here for the latter, there are some from all ideologies you could learn something from. 

F. More opinion. More ad hominem reasoning.

[Harry Nevis]

A1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two groups of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus.

So we have writings of what people believed. This is evidence only of what people believed.

A2. Historians believe that there are documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death.

So we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence of what people believed.

A3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and distributed to the churches that already believed in the events they portray. More evidence for what people believed to be true.

Even if I buy the eyewitness testimony (which I don't), just more evidence of what people believed.

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events.

Where are any other non-religious sources corroborating the crucifixion, resurrection and miracles?  Seems those would have been the talk of the Empire, especially all the dead people rising up and walking, the Temple curtain tearing and the like.

These and other facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So your comparison of the Koran, Book of Mormon, Moby Dick, and Harry Potter misses the mark as a comparison.

Popularity does not a fact make.  And you may be confusing attested with repeated.

B. Tell me what is not based in reason and logic. You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity so I'm going to need some sort of hint. 

Eat me.  I am as well informed, if not more so than you.

There is no reason to take as fact 2000+ years of heavily edited religious tracts as fact or history.  It is not logical to take them as fact, as there are many contradictions and historical mistakes in these documents.

C. Ad hominem attack--which seems to be the basis of your entire argument in this and other threads. 

Chill, snowflake.  And I have given arguments.  The fact that you don't recognize them as such says a lot.

D. All it would take is one person who experienced God changing his/her life to invalidate your argument. 

All it would take is one person who can prove, with repeatable, testable evidence that they experienced god changing his/her life to prove me wrong.  It still wouldn't invalidate my arguments.

E. All of your inch-deep objections to Christianity have been discussed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I think it is more likely that you came here to join in bashing religion to make yourself feel better about your opinions than to really understand what the other side thinks, ask questions, and learn. If I am right and the reason is the former, then you are in good company--there are many who think that way. If you are here for the latter, there are some from all ideologies you could learn something from. 

I was on the other side for years.  And it's ironic you entreating me to listen and learn when you refuse to do neither.

F. More opinion. More ad hominem reasoning.

You seem pretty good at these yourself.  But insulting and assuming for god is ok, I guess.

[SteveII]

A1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two groups of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus.

So we have writings of what people believed. This is evidence only of what people believed.

A2. Historians believe that there are documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death.

So we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence of what people believed.

A3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and distributed to the churches that already believed in the events they portray. More evidence for what people believed to be true.

Even if I buy the eyewitness testimony (which I don't), just more evidence of what people believed.

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events.

Where are any other non-religious sources corroborating the crucifixion, resurrection and miracles?  Seems those would have been the talk of the Empire, especially all the dead people rising up and walking, the Temple curtain tearing and the like.

These and other facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So your comparison of the Koran, Book of Mormon, Moby Dick, and Harry Potter misses the mark as a comparison.

Popularity does not a fact make.  And you may be confusing attested with repeated.

B. Tell me what is not based in reason and logic. You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity so I'm going to need some sort of hint. 

Eat me.  I am as well informed, if not more so than you.

There is no reason to take as fact 2000+ years of heavily edited religious tracts as fact or history.  It is not logical to take them as fact, as there are many contradictions and historical mistakes in these documents.

C. Ad hominem attack--which seems to be the basis of your entire argument in this and other threads. 

Chill, snowflake.  And I have given arguments.  The fact that you don't recognize them as such says a lot.

D. All it would take is one person who experienced God changing his/her life to invalidate your argument. 

All it would take is one person who can prove, with repeatable, testable evidence that they experienced god changing his/her life to prove me wrong.  It still wouldn't invalidate my arguments.

E. All of your inch-deep objections to Christianity have been discussed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I think it is more likely that you came here to join in bashing religion to make yourself feel better about your opinions than to really understand what the other side thinks, ask questions, and learn. If I am right and the reason is the former, then you are in good company--there are many who think that way. If you are here for the latter, there are some from all ideologies you could learn something from. 

I was on the other side for years.  And it's ironic you entreating me to listen and learn when you refuse to do neither.

F. More opinion. More ad hominem reasoning.

You seem pretty good at these yourself.  But insulting and assuming for god is ok, I guess.

A. Evidence for what people believed (and wrote down) is evidence for what happened. Some people say they were eyewitnesses, others believed eyewitnesses. What other type of evidence would there be? 

Your "we need other sources" is an old and tired argument. Lack of evidence beyond the pile that we have is not evidence of anything. Jerusalem was leveled 40 years later. 

So we are left with the evidence that people very soon after Jesus' death believed the (eventual) content of the NT. If I (and billions of others) choose to believe these people, why is that not rational? Is there some reason that necessitates a reasonable person to reject their account? 

B. You are asserting that the contents of the NT were changed. That is a positive claim that most NT scholars do not agree with. What is your evidence for that? As to contradictions/mistakes? I was not aware that there were any material (important) contradictions or mistakes that change the meaning of the message. In fact, if there were not minor mistakes and contradictions between the authors of the 27 documents written over 50 years, wouldn't that be evidence of collusion? 

C. Your previous 'arguments' consist of "christian's I've met...". Not real arguments.

D. I don't know what you are saying, but the fact remains that you are arguing that God does not change anyone--something you could not possibly know.

E. There is no 'other side'. I know atheist who understand theology and doctrine very well. I know 'Christians' who don't have a clue. You have yet to say anything that I could learn from. In fact, I would be willing to bet I could argue atheism better than you can. 

F. I have not insulted you. I have put down what you call your 'arguments'. 

You seem to be another in a long line of atheist here (and elsewhere) who don't know what they don't know. You have read the inch-deep popular books (or perhaps the back covers) and a couple of internet lists and are convinced of the 'rightness' of your position to such a degree that 1) you do not have to defend it properly and 2) all other opinions will fall before you.