My hypothesis

[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.