Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

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. [1]

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. [2]

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. 

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. [3]

You fail to explain why a name is important.

I fail to see how you can NOT think this is important. [4]

1. You will have to be clearer what you mean. I'm not going to guess.
2. Two things: First, the fact that millions of adults still become Christians each year. These are the people that believe that the evidence of the NT is sufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...Conversion . Second, just because you are born into a CHristian home does not mean you do not examine the evidence at some point in your life. 
3. While you are wrong, your point is meaningless: genetic fallacy.  You need to attack the evidence. 
4. I made my point. Address the content of the point and I will respond.