Those who merely answer straw men of their own invention are always caught out.

Well done, Bob and please keep up this good work!

Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, "Jehovah/Yahweh" and their (Roman) god-man/"messiah" "Yeshu/Jesus", but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more ridiculously unconvincing god and one more mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of very similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

Many join those christians who fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.

If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for you to believe in them., you personally, Dwight - must be very busy worshiping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis.and Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration - and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which "Yahweh" and "Jesus" remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be assumed by default.

All the evidence indicates that the christian religion was cobbled together in the 4th century from mainly "pagan" components and exclusively "pagan" feast days and festivals.

The oldest bibles (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) appeared after the Roman religion they called "christianity" was cobbled together from mostly pagan components and exclusively pagan feast days and festivals in the 4th century CE. The content of both those human written books is significantly different to the content of later human written editions of the diverse and different, internally contradictory bibles that followed.
There are many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men / "messiahs" and no evidence of (or reason for) the existence of any of them.
The burden of proof and the onus of convincing the rest of us of the validity of the "proof" is always upon the religionists and the rest of the rapidly declining membership of fraudulent religions.

There is no evidence of Jesus, or any of the centuries later written legends of Jesus; that originates from within the 1st century.
No text.
No artifact.
No inscription.
No cross used as a symbol of a messianic cult.
No archaeological inscription.
Not even a trace of a 1st century "City of Nazareth" in any map or text or beneath the modern Jesus theme park town of "Nazareth" that was founded in the 4th century.

The world's oldest (4th century founded) politico-corporate institution of the Roman religion they called "christianity" agrees:

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

So now tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about "Jesus" through authenticated historical evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and set.

Of course, I wonder what event happened that caused a rapid growth in Christianity. It happed in the 4th century.

How many Christians do you think are there today? Hundreds?

Sheesh- I tried to like your comment and every time I did it registered another negative.

Phil- you have integrity, I would love to debate you sometime.

Phil:

As I told you before, you share a last name with a really good guy who can't stand me.

I would very much appreciate the opportunity to debate you in an intellectually honest forum.

If you find such, let me know:

catholicdad@gmail.com

Its a rotten way to win though... :(

Memory holing aside, I hate this disqus software. I loose and find stuff in ways that genuinely discourage discussion.

Score another one for the Rimmers.

Seems to be a bug in the site code re the implementation of the anchor fields. I noticed it early on. I don't know how to fix it, but dropping the field seems to get around it.

Thanks, Q. Magic, well at least for my stuff.