Why do Christians become Christians?

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry I've taken so long to answer. Had stuff to do, this afternoon. I'll do my best to pick up where we left off.

If I have no recollection, such as the case of amnesia or blackouts, then I would also have no knowledge to argue with.   I also wouldn't have any knowledge to the contrary.  A few weeks ago, I had a pretty bad flu on the weekend.  As a result my memory of the previous week, is fairly sketchy and I don't recall many details.  However, If accused, I would still be pretty confident, that I didn't kill anyone during that time.

Possibly. But I hope you're not ruling out the possibility that you, in a fever-induced haze, had done something that your conscious brain didn't record, when multiple, independently tested lines of evidence point to you.

Depends on what the claims are saying.... If they say that I killed someone in Australia, I feel it is reasonable to rule that out.

But that's not really what we're talking about, here. What we're really talking about are stories people tell, which (like a game of Telephone--or Rumor, depending on where you're from) build up over time and acquire "details" from the retelling and from interactions with others, even when the person is trying to truthfully tell the story. It's especially difficult to recall something accurately that occurred years before, even when it was a monumental thing to remember, and you're trying your best. What often occurs is that you pick up "details" that are different from the facts, and your brain assimilates them into the version of the story you "recall", even though much of it is now bogus. You might think you perfectly remember your senior Prom, but I'd be willing to bet that if we went back in a time machine and watched that night, you'd have a terrible time accurately recounting what actually happened, and we'd discover that your brain had taken parts of other stories, or stuff you heard from other people about their Prom nights, and incorporated it into your memory.  

I think this comparison shows that you need to look into a little more what you are talking about. It is not like the game of telephone at all. For one, the information is not passed one at a time in series, without the others knowledge. Much like here, if I where to make a mistake in a quote I made of you, others could chime in, and correct me. There is corrective feedback.... Anthropologist, have shown, that cultures who rely strictly on oral traditions /transmission, can be very accurate, even in very long stories that take quite some time to tell.

In this specific case, the retelling of the legend of Jesus the Rabbi, it's not hard to grasp how in only 5-10 years, enough people telling stories of this wondrous teacher could build up. Judy says, "My uncle Jim says he turned water into wine" to Susan, who says "Judy's uncle Jim saw him turn water into wine at Cana" to Ralph, and then later when Ralph retells the story, he decides to up the ante by saying HE saw (since stories work better in first person) Jesus turn water into wine at Cana... and so on it goes. By the time 20 years have gone by, enough legends have grown up around the man that there's a plethora of versions from which to choose, and people think "we should write all this down with the best coherent story we can".

2000 years later, we have the story of a Prom where space aliens landed and played techno music.

They could have always asked Mary the mother of Jesus.
Also, I don't think what you imagine, corresponds to history, and the disciples of Jesus geographic dispersion after Jesus's death. Not to mention, the studies, that show that it takes generations for legend to replace the facts of a culture. I'm also finding it difficult, that these separate groups would so quickly go from the rapidly changing stories that you propose, to come to an agreed upon version and rejecting that which differed so quickly.

I can agree with that, and not only that, but scientist not employed by the state, can have motivation to push and agenda..... which is why I look at the arguments being made, and don't paint them all with broad strokes.

I'd be curious to know what agenda you think the other scientists would have.

It could be monetary, peer pressure, acceptance by peers.

I often hear this claim made against evolutionary biologists, as if there's some Global Ivory Tower Scientific Conspiracy™ to promote godless evolution. Which is not only ridiculous on its face (because of the extremely competitive nature of science work) but would require coordination between the scientists of nations who dislike one another, or have personal grudges against one another, and yet for NO ONE to break the silence and point to the unifying factor. It's just not real.

Yes.... conspiracy theories are difficult to maintain (especially over large groups who are not in constant contact. Which is also why I don't buy many of the conspiracy theories, put forth by those who try to insert them into the history of Christianity.