The fact that decomposition starts to happen very quickly, rendering the brain inoperable pretty much concludes that it's imposible.

There was a time when not just anyone could write a book. If you look at the archeological evidence, it's blatantly clear that this was not one person writing a book. As I said in an earlier post, no, wait, I accidentally lost that before posting, the Bible is a small library and should not be looked as as merely one book. Again, get into Textual Criticism and the real history of the texts. It's not one author, nor is it some back-room plan. Read the beginning of Luke and he talks about talking to the eyewitnesses in order to make an orderly record of events. That means interviewing the people. Where does Luke show up in the Bible itself? In his second book, Acts. At a certain point, it changes from 3rd person to 1st person because he's telling part of where he was traveling with Paul et al. The, it goes back to 3rd person. That give us a timeline for Luke doing his research, taking notes, etc, very close to the events after the crucifixion before he put the "Gospel of Luke" together from his notes. He was sponsored by a person (or small group) he refers to as Theophilus. Theophilus may be a person's name or a nickname. My time in eastern Europe has shown me just how many nicknames people go by!

Matthew was an eyewitness himself, as was John, and Mark was Peters assistant. Mark collated the preaching notes or narrative-testimony of Peter, another eyewitness. Then we have the writings of people like Polycarp and Irenaeus, the disciple of John and then his disciple. They confirmed that John's gospel and letters were actually written by John the disciple/apostle. At that time, no, not just anyone could write a book. If you look into Textual Criticism (ahem, risk dispelling ignorance by looking), then you will see why people consider these narratives authentic and reliable. Search in Youtube for user knowwheretorun1984, now Chris White. Here are some of his links that I have not referred to

A case for the historical existence of Jesus, in 4 arbitrarily divided segments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CycbvARsxWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d496xMLacSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AUXDsA_yVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au4xnyfxf1s

Now, if you are interested in whether or it's, what did you say, highly unlikely that only the earth is inhabited, that's beside the point. Look up youtube user "alien resistance" and riffle through his videos. They talk about the physics involved in space travel, the likeliness of alien life, and what it would mean theologically. Michael S. Heiser (a guy who knows 13 languages and can translate them) has some pretty good stuff there. Excuse my presumptuousness, but Heiser is a hell of a lot better educated than the people on this forum, and a much clearer thinker for it, too!

Now, are you going to look at evidence, or be willingly ignorant? Willing ignorance is a mark of immaturity and lack of character (you'll understand better if you have kids already). It's not that hard to lift a few fingers just to find out what you think you know. Better yet, you'll grow for it. Worse, you have nothing to lose anyway.

If anyone really wants to take pot shots at these things, you're better equipped if you have the real information--and that means not just sticking to people you already agree with. I listen to people I don't agree with so that I can clearly understand what they are saying. The detractors on here get dramatic about not wanting to look at the things I've recommended. That's shooting yourselves in the feet. If you want ammo for your arguments, look at me recommended material and use it for fodder.

And the inquisition

and the new world "converting"

Shroud of Turin.

Oh, and it can't be carbon dated as it has been handled by too many people throughout the years.

Rofl, medieval forgeries. Yes it can.

You say, "with no hard proof", but when directed to those who handle the evidence, you refuse to look. You're arguing from a vacuum.

If it indicates that something is true, then it is evidence that it is true. If there is no evidence, then you need to explain how it is possible for someone to form a belief without anything indicating to them that it is true. The Romans were no slouches at executions. It's not even humanly possible to believe something without evidence. Belief is being confident in your knowledge. If you want to argue against something, it's generally wise to figure out why Christians believe in God and not in Santa. It's really strange that you would claim there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials and then immediately contradict yourself by giving evidence for them.

Wrong, religion has no proof.

Ah, good, the crusades and forced conversions in the new world. This is what I was writing about earlier while waiting at work and I lost the post accidentally.

Now, for anything to be truly Christian, it must match the Bible (handled in CONTEXT, of course). If you examine the Crusades, which were horrible, you'll see that there is nothing Biblical behind them. Go ahead, criticize the Crusades. Then try to match them up to the Bible and you'll see that they were politically motivated. The Roman Catholic church was using religiosity and people's spiritual beliefs for political control. That's not inherent in Christianity, but is an abuse of Christianity. Likewise, the inquisition was a political control mechanism. If people discovered their individual accountability to God without "mother" church mediating for them, then the RC church would lose the control.

Lastly, converting the New World was done in a completely unbilbical manner. We have no license nor authority to kill anyone for not-being-Christian. (Whereas muslims are permitted to kill at will--their own will.) We are actually instructed to spread the message, make disciples, and where seeds don't take root, move on. The "for God" motivation of exploring new lands, science as exploration of creation, fine. Killing unbelievers "for God"?? No way. Now, are these my _opinions_? NO! You must compare things to scripture. If you were to do that, you would immediately see that what these people were doing was not only un-biblical, but counter to the Bible's message and teachings. Then you would see the separation between Christianity and the actions of fallen, sinful people who claim to be Christian and aren't.

If Christianity weren't around, they would have used some other motivating factor to kill and control.

If you look at the numbers of dead from atheism alone, all the Communist dictators, nevermind New Age (Nazism, Theosophy), the deaths cause by people who claimed to Christian (Crusades, inquisition) are a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by the results of atheism. And on either side, every murder is tragic, painful, and sinful against both God and man.

Go look up the numbers.

On the contrary, you can find passages to back up whatever actions you're taking (slavery, warfare, non believers, etc.)

The primary purpose of the crusades was not to spread Christianity. There were a number of unchristian things that happen in the name of Christianity which were unfortunate, but the fact remains that Europe would have been overtaken by Muslims if they had not happened.

Still, I'm looking for a source to back up his claim that early Christianity was spread by the sword, so I'm looking for something that predates the Crusades by at least 1000 years.

The northern europeans (vikings, etc) were forced conversions on threats of death.

Why would you think extraterrestrials exist if there's no evidence for them? Oh, because you imagine that there's a chance. When looking at the "fine-tuning of the universe, " the balance is so UN-likely and yet you don't see a chance that God exists? My better-spoken-"friend" is right. You do contradict yourself.

I'm going to accuse you. You don't believe in God because it means that he's above you, that you're not the master of your life, morally, and that you're accountable to him--because your sin nature wants you to be god in your own life. It's a mixed form of pride and idolatry--first commandment. Guess what? We all have that same sin nature and that same desire. We're all guilty before a holy and loving God, who is rightfully wrathful at those who cling to their sin instead of the forgiveness make material by Jesus dying to pay for our sins. So, yes, we know where you're coming from. And willing ignorance fits right in with that pride.
Regarding the vikings, see my earlier post regarding the Crusades and New World killings.

( I hope I'm not ruining anything for you, Soyeong, or making things more difficult for you with my explanations. )

No it's actually the christians with this arrogance, everything was made especially for them, they're at the center of "god's plans", etc.

Again, that happen after Christianity became established as the official religion of the Roman Empire. I'm talking about the inception of Christianity, not something that took place hundreds of years later.