The O.P. lost a lot of credibility with that opening, but only made it worse by claiming that atheists by definition have no beliefs. We can grant some leeway on the language and presume on the O.P.'s behalf that what was meant was that atheists have no belief one way or the other about the existence of God, but even this benefit of the doubt casts much doubt on the O.P.'s ability to reason. It would be one thing if the O.P. were agnostic, but instead the O.P. is declaring atheism, but either has no understanding of the word, or is just plain deceitful about it. Either way, the O.P. has no credibility.

Definition of Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It is a disbelief by its very definition. Therefore, your wrong, atheism is not a belief.

Are you really saying that proving or disproving God is impossible so you won't try it, but theists have to prove God? Again, What?!? Well if you can't disprove God then you must entertain the possibility that He exists. If you do, then you can't be an atheist. Do you want to start over, TheCelestialHuman, or can we salvage this? With respect, Charles1952

It is not currently possible for anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I take the stance that there is no god, and everything works without that assumption. I never said theists have to prove god, but I asked for a theist to prove why their theism is more correct than another theism. For example, why is Christianity any more true than Islam, or any other theism for that matter.. Please quit taking me out of context.

They are clearly all the same story; ultimately we are fated in this realm, when we die we are fated to the next realm; however, "one" died and by virtue of who he was, crossed over from Hell to Heaven to sit at the right hand of GOD. GOD wants us to join him in his realm and so he is offering all of us a means in which we can enter His Kingdom, through His sacrifice; Christ returned and we now know "the way". Ultimately, I believe GOD would like to reside here with us, through us; we are not yet complete enough to carry such a divinity and keep our current egos, but that will all change one day; a cleansing or sorts, those that can will and those that cannot will simply cross over never to return (however far they can proceed across Hell on their own personal journey)

Our History is fed to us, to a certain extent it is written for our own personal foundation. There is no question that what was, what is, and what is to become is being manipulated, yet all those uncannily similar stories are speaking the same thing.

As perplexing as the stories are similar, I equally find it fascinating that the story of the "child", the "birth", the "wise men", the "death" and the "ressurrection" are all above us, projected down to us from the Heavens. A story here is a story up there! Heaven is parallel to us in our quest even if we are different of opinion, status, or any other dissimilar nature we are pre-disposed to.

Source material please

Okay, I have done some more digging around, and it seems that you were right, there is no evidence to support these stories prior to Jesus. I'll share what I learned from one particular source:

The arguments of the "syncretist case" illustrates the logical fallacy of first cause: mere coincidence or similarity does not prove dependence or causal connection; Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions are either exaggerated or simply false; there are no other crucified and resurrected saviors besides Jesus Christ; The chronology is wrong: almost all of our sources of information for supposed Christian "parallels" with pagan religions are very late (i.e. post-Christian); these include Adonis (2nd to 5th century AD); Attis (5th century AD); Mithras (late 1st century AD and beyond); the "crucified" Orpheus amulet (3rd or 4th century AD, but probably a fake); the "resurrection and ascension" of Krishna (the complete text known from the 1st century AD); this is too late for the New Testament writers themselves to have been influenced by such accounts; the full development of the mystery religions occurred in the 2nd century and later (with the exception of the Greek Dionysos) and we must distinguish between the different forms of the cults; the later forms are not necessarily present in the earlier forms; The apostles would not have borrowed from the pagan religions since their training and background was in Judaism (Phil 3:5); they rejected the alien speculations of syncretism and gnosticism (Col 2:7-8; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 1 John 4:1-6); any genuine parallels that exist reflect an ascendant Christian influence on the dying pagan systems; furthermore, since Jesus, His apostles, and many of their first disciples were all Jews, Christianity's doctrinal roots, rituals, and liturgy lay in Judaism not paganism; Christianity is a monotheistic religion (one God) and an exclusive faith (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) with a definite body of doctrine (the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the sacraments, one revelation from God through Christ to His apostles passed on through Scripture and Tradition, an apostolic succession and hierarchy of bishops to safeguard that doctrine, etc); The religion of the apostles and their successors was grounded in events that actually happened in history at a particular place and time (the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth); the mysticism and mythology of the mystery cults was essentially non-historical.

So, it seems most of my argument has fallen. I will still cling to the fact that there is not much evidence to support the claims of Jesus or the claims of the Bible either. It is still a possibility (However, it is unlikely) that we will find evidence that may support my claims in the future- for example, they may find older historically accurate documents that predate Jesus, that make some of these similar claims. The same thing happens every now and then with biblical documents, like lost gospels and such. But, for now I will give up the argument that these figures similar stories predated Jesus. You were right, I was wrong.
damn, it is hard admitting defeat.

Thanks for denying my ignorance.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman

1. Krishna: Krishna was born without sexual union, through mental transmission.

How cool is that and fits the pregnant from the Holy Spirit myth.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
Krishna and Jesus were of royal decent.

I don't know about Krishna, but for Jesus to be of royal decent, Mary would have to be of royal decent, too, but both Evangelists, Mathew and Luke, trace the decent line for Josef and since they report nothing about Mary's decent, Jesus cannot be of royal decent, unless you want to argue that technically the Holy Ghost is royalty.

2. Zoroaster:

Doesn't surprise me at all since the ancient Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon for quite some time and many never left. And in the time of the supposed birth of Jesus the whole area was ruled by Macedonians and the Jesus people would be acquainted with the Zoroaster myth.

3. Dionysus: He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”

Well, he could not have been King of Kings and God of Gods, that was Zeus for most of the people in ancient Greece. Of course, his followers would use such title in their zeal to show that their God is even bigger than Zeus. Blasphemy, I say!

4. Attis: Attis was born on December 25th of a virgin.

That is probably one reason for Christianity celebrating Christmas on that day. That and another important Roman pagan festival celebrated on that day.

5. Horus: Only Begotten son of god, born of a virgin.

Well, seems to have most resemblance to Jesus so far, provided it can be proven to be true scientifically. Also, Egypt was quite near; traffic would have been much easier as compared to Babylon or India. I am surprised that you included only these 5; there are many more. Also, the theory that the myth is based on astrology - the sun (note: the sun equals son wordlplay works only in English and the Bible was not written in English) as Jesus and the 12 zodiac signs as the disciples - is quite plausible for me.

Now, taking into account all of this information, how is it that Jesus's story is any more true than the others. The stories are strikingly similar, especially the stories of Horus and Krishna. It seems as if The story of Jesus, may in fact be a compilation of all of these stories. Doesn't it seem likely that the four writer's of the gospels had heard these stories and used them and the prophecies in the old testament to create this Jesus character?

I one word: syncretism; it means that various religious beliefs from different cultures get fused into one. Especially, when living under permanent occupation for many centuries. It happened with the Assyrians and later with the Greek Macedonians, too.

To the Christians of ATS:

What? No love for agnostics? Does ex-Christian count? Yeah, been there, done that and I have the scars to prove it. Of course, if am wrong and there is a Christian God, I'll rot and burn in hell for ever and ever. I'd be in good company though, what with all the rock stars being there, not to mention my beloved late brother who got excommunicated early in puberty.

What makes Jesus any more real than these other people?

If I had absolutely to believe in God or gods I would choose the Ancient Greek pantheon. 12 major Goods, six male and six female, and father Zeus was such a womanizer. How cool is that

What makes your holy book anymore true than the many other holy books out there?

Nothing, but you failed to mention that this holy scripture has come down to us through translation of a translation of yet another translation.

What makes your god any more real than the thousands of other gods?

Absolutely nothing, of course. Does that make the Big Bang theory more plausible, I don't know but I kind of doubt it. See, science can tell us what supposedly happened seconds after the bang, but about the singularity that caused it, it can tell us nothing much, since time and space did not exist until it banged.

Which seems more plausible: God created many men, or man created many gods?

I think anthropology has solved that riddle and it's the latter. Religion developed through ancestor worship initially and evolved through syncretism subsequently.

As an atheist, it is not my job to prove or disprove god, as it simply cannot be done.
But, as a theist, it is your job to show why your theism is correct.

Ok, let me get this straight: you are inviting theists to proselytize you or are you just trying to proselytize them? Both are equally non-sensical to me. And are you an atheist or are you agnostic?