Not a believer now but was for a while. The generic arguments of first cause, ontological etc have some merit at first reading but even then they struck me as too generic. Even if true, they tell us nothing at all about the god/s involved.
But there are some aspects of Christianity which struck me as remarkable. There are counterarguments of course or I would still be a believer, but that's another question.
In no particular order:
How did it go from a disorganized dispirited rabble to a growing group willing to martyr themselves in a year or two?
Why, in a society where women's testimony was worth less than men's, would a group telling false stories have the first witnesses to resurrection, its core claim, be women?
When all Biblical prophecies claimed the Messiah will set up an earthly Jewish kingdom of God, why would a group choose to fake the story of a Messiah who made absolutely no progress toward that, when you have say the Maccabees handy as alternatives?
Why have a Messiah die a disgraceful death fit for terrible criminals? That's not a prophecy to fulfill, but it is a detriment to his credibility. Why wouldn't a fake Messiah die peacefully in his bed? Or gloriously in vain attempted rebellion?
Jewish messianic and eschatological sects were common at the time, but few if any tried to expand into non-Jewish groups. Jews at the time were famously insular and parochial and indeed some ultra orthodox groups still are. Why would that one just imagine a Great Commission out of the whole cloth? What made them seek Gentile converts when their cohorts shunned Gentiles altogether?
Yes I can counter all those now, but many people who hear them cannot, and together they do form a general image of a unique situation with some remarkably original motivation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
