Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[Harry Nevis]

Well we don't think that a three-legged squid descended from heaven 3000 years ago to enlighten humanity, despite that no one ever came forward and said it DIDN'T happen.

In any case you may be surprised to find out that I contend that we are living in a world where these events DIDN'T transpire as reported. Unlike you I am not in the least impressed that people believe something that is concocted. Happens all the time. Leeches my friend, leeches. Common belief is no evidence that the belief is true. Even the canard that people are willing to die for a belief is no evidence that it's true (witness Islamic suicide bombers).

I'm sure that's what you think. However, the probability of all the events following Christ's death/resurrection (people, churches, Q, letters, gospels, second century writers, etc.) happening as they did are very low if the events did not happen as related. I have never heard a good evidenced explanation from an atheist why we see what we do. Just half-baked conspiracy theories and "people where gullible back then" scenarios. Neither addressing hardly any of the details.  

All other religions are evidenced explanations.

It is insufficient for tens of millions of others too. Neither fact speaks to the validity of the evidence or the arguments pro and con.

If I made the argument that the facts are true because billions of people believed, then you point is correct. I did not, so it does not apply to my point. 

But you are inferring that all believers came to christianity by the "evidence", conveniently ignoring the fact that it was spread by the sword, killing people who didn't buy it, as well as the indoctrination of children and that many christians believe just because it feels good.

Absent your low bar of what constitutes an "eyewitness" neither can you.

Do you honestly think there is a comparison to be made between the historicity of the events of Jesus (and aftermath) and that of Buddha? 454 years is 18 generations of people relating stories before someone wrote it all down. Paul was sharpening his pencil to write to the pre-existing churches across the empire, pre-gospel document(s) existed, and people were going on missionary journeys to tell of their eyewitness experience 18 years after Jesus. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. That is a basic principle. If I claim to be married, that's not extraordinary and you're inclined to accept it as fact unless and until you know something that argues against it. But if I claim to be married to a woman who turns water into wine and rose from the dead, you'd be disinclined to believe it until you know something that argues FOR it.

It is not a basic principle! While it sounds intuitive, it is not well-grounded. First, 'extraordinary' is very subjective and has to do with what a person knows or believes. In the extreme example of a person knowing nothing, everything would be extraordinary. Second, it is simple probability theory that you can examine what is the probability of having the effect of a miracle (say hundreds of eyewitnesses see X) if the event they witnessed did not really happen.  Third, you are still question begging because you are discounting eyewitness testimony for the only reason that you believe miracles are not possible. We are justified in preferring a naturalistic explanation--all things being equal. We are not justified in insisting on one. 

You believe in miracles because you want to, not for any probability or evidence.

Other than by traditional attribution we have no idea who wrote the gospels. That's a simple fact. They aren't known to US who are examining the claims NOW.

You fail to explain why a name is important.

I fail to see how you can NOT think this is important.