Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[*Deidre*]

Argument for Christ never existing.
Starts invariably with "Romans were good record keepers." BS really better than us because we don't track all births and destroy many records after a retention schedule. But Ok, show me the list of records you have reviewed, you do read Latin right? Oh wait this is a faith based wives tale told by you? Ok sorry I mistook it for an actually attempted factual statement.

Actually no, the sum of their argument is that you can't use the 5,800 ancient Greek or the 20,000+ ancient Latin Biblical manuscripts as evidence because they "don't count" or "aren't high quality" or whatever other bullshit they use, despite the very good quality early manuscripts that do exist, etc.

Moves on to "only so and so mentions the crucifixion outside the christian fake works". Ok this is a good one. Please show me the comprehensive list of crucifixions where Jesus blah blah blah is missing. No? In fact that guy you mentions is the only mention of a specific Crucifixion in roman records, wow that actually seems to argue for the possible existence of a guy calling himself Christ and making wild claims about being a king.

Well more importantly there's direct archaeological proof, many crucifixion nails have been found - even one that was still embedded in the victim's heel bone. Also many crucified bodies have been excavated.

Now the stuff about the 3 wise men, and lack of tax records showing any order of the journey to Bethlehem is plausible and credible, and the history of the origin of the older forms of this story is well established, but why pollute this stronger message with the earlier faith based attempts to "convert" that more resemble religious tactics that rational thought?

The Bible never mentions "three wise men", it mentions "wise men" which means two or more.

Same thing with evolution vs. origin of life, the truth is we have absolutely no idea how life originated or even if we were seeded from space. Anyone saying otherwise is simply speculating or worse, outright lying.

Incorrect.

Evolution is just like gravity - we know what it does, but we do not know what it is. Einstein believed that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time, and thus postulated his theories special and general relativity. We put satellites into orbit, we send rockets to land on the moon - and don't use either of those two theories. What we use is Newtonian Mechanics, despite the fact that we know for certain it's wrong - we use it because it's "good enough".

The evidence for evolution is rock solid and super strong, why pollute it with speculation about origins and not simply admit it is a mystery?

Yes the evidence for its existence, but not the evidence for how or why it actually works. Another question I could easily ask you is why does a subatomic particle have spin - what mechanism causes it to be?

So for my own clarification here, are you saying that you follow Christianity because you believe the Bible to be historically factual?