Did you know that it’s logical that God sends every person who violates His Law to Hell? That’s logical, reasonable, rational, just, right, and good.
It is none of those things, since God "wrote" the Law that no one can keep! How is that not obvious?
Every human who has ever lived came from a single male and female? And somehow humanity carried on despite the fact that Adam and Eve only had sons?
Even you have to see how childish and primitive this myth is.
To sum up, God makes basically everything a sin and then condemns us for doing the very thing that He knew would do. But He is merciful for building a loophole into this monstrous system, even though it would have been perhaps rather more merciful not to put humanity into an unwinnable game in the first place.
INGSOC needs to add another item to its slogan: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; God is Just."
If your argument is that God just magicked stuff and did not leave evidence for the miracle, then by definition it is not a historically reliable text, since the claims can't be verified or disproved.
The census of Quirinius, which is ostensibly the census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem (another claim with no basis in the historical record) came ten years after the death of Herod, who was supposed to be king of Judea at the time of Christ's. We have independent historical evidence for both of these dates.
Is it the same "historically reliable" book that said that the "sun stopped in the middle of the sky" in order to give Joshua more time to slaughter his enemies? I believe this is the same "historically reliable" book that features a man living in the belly of a whale for a few days, and gives its principal character two different birth dates separated by a decade.
A video from someone with a rudimentary understanding of science and a demonstrated history of deceptive editing is supposed to count as evidence? Maybe this is true for your audience, but most thinking people view your video (of which you seem inordinately proud) with equal parts amusement and disdain.
So then why bring it up? The original point was that people almost exclusively adhere to the religion with which they are most familiar, and that those conversion experiences track with how Christians describe their conversion experiences. Perhaps you are the exception to this rule (though I think you are being contrary just to be contrary), but the fact is that most people's spiritual needs are filled by the religions of their own culture. And since many of the claims of these religions are mutually exclusive, they can't all be true, but they could all be wrong.
What a hilariously medieval worldview that you have! It really is adorable, thinking that people can give servitude to fictional characters. But, if you're going to say I'm in thrall to a fictional character, can I at least choose to be working for someone cool, like Thor maybe?
And, Bobby T, I'm only a little bit more atheist than you. The way I feel about your God is exactly the same way you feel about Zeus, Odin and Ahura Mazda. Is your opposition to them an honest disagreement, or are you lying to yourself that they aren't just as real as Yahweh?
Oh, Ray, we both know that Jim Jones was not a True Atheist. He obviously had a false deconversion.
Btw, numbers prove nothing. The majority of Germans thought Hitler was the greatest thing to happen to them!
But wait! Earlier you said this:
There are multitudes of Muslims, etc, who are converting to Christianity around the world right now.
Is this really the best you can do?