RE: "[Stark] estimates that in 40AD there may have been 1000 Christians in the Roman Empire, but 32 million (or 53% of the population) by 350. There may have been 700 in Rome in 100AD, but 300,000 (or 66%) by 300. That is some church growth."

Not surprising at all! And the numbers escalated at an even more phenomenal rate! In 313, with the proclamation of the Edict of Toleration by a tolerant, but highly superstitious Constantine, freedom was given to ALL religions. By 381, under a totally intolerant Theodosius, anyone who did not profess a belief in "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" could be executed! Within a generation, the persecuted became the persecutors! and they exercised that status with relish! No wonder, "conversion" became so popular - and the "growth of Christianity" was so spectacular! :-)

Oh dear another White Anglo whitewash of Christian history.
Milk and honey flowed where ever Christians went, oh and we didn't kill half as many as people think we did... and oh look over there those nasty Islamite their the nasty ones.

The bit when the reviewing repeated the old chest nut of Christian bigotry "which is why science arose only in the Christian West!" made a little sick come up.
All Stark has done is continue his Christian apologetic writing repeating the lies and distortions that have been shown to be wrong over and over again. Like all good Christians Stark is ruled by his faith not facts, and it shows.

Muelenberg wrote: "Many of the supposed great scientific, literary and artistic achievements of Islam were in fact due to the dhimmies – conquered Jews and Christians – living amongst them. And most subject peoples were "free to choose" conversion – with the only other alternatives being death or enslavement."

The above is lying and Christian apologetics. The early Muslim domains discouraged conversion to Islam as Islam was regarded as a religion for Arabs, and Muslims did not pay taxes. It is only later that Islam became a missionary religion.

During the Middle Ages universities in Christian areas were open only to Christian students. Universities in Muslim areas were open to students of any faith. Of course non-Muslims could make contributions to knowledge. The same privilege was denied to non-Christians in Christian areas. The author has made Christian bigotry a virtue.

If the length of time a religion has existed is an indication of its worth than Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are all more worthy than Christianity.

The dominance of Christianity is an accident of history. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius in the fourth century gave the religion a great boost.

Richard Fletcher's "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" tells how, with the exception of Ireland, Europe was Christianised by violence. eg. Charlemagne gave pagan Gauls the choice of beheading or Christianity.

The same pattern was followed in the Americas, Oceania and Africa. Missionaries were in general supported by state violence.

Christianity has in general been spread by violence.

Be all this as it may, and much of it is arguably doubtful, the fact still remains that the whole Christian/Abrahamic thing is a myth without one iota of proof offered in support. The whole story is categorical nonsense. Nothing perennialy worthwhile can come out of a gigantic lie. The sooner all belief systems that rely upon legend and ancient suerstitions are replaced by a rational undertanding of the world around us, the sooner everyone can all get on with enjoying our individual specks of existential experience.

As secular humanism has no basis for absolutes they specialize in twisting truth. It is no surprise they also do it with history ignoring that the fact that humanist have murdered many more than all religions put together. If they faced this fact they might indeed need to examine their own fallen nature.