You're right that I care, otherwise I would not have made my initial comment. I apologise for being rude, I just didn't have the time to write a proper response.

The reason I commented is because I think that it's important that the discussion about what is pagan and what is not is taken with all the facts in mind. It just so happens that I watched a video where an expert explains that, although many people think so, there is in fact no evidence that Christmas trees are a pagan tradition appropriated by Christianity.

The reason I made my rude comment is that you dismiss the evidence I provide for my claim. I am very aware that people might not believe me at face value, which is why I provide evidence for my claim. I am making the, to your eyes "fucking ridiculous and wrong", claim, so to you the burden of proof is on me. I then provide proof. The reason i got frustrated is that you refuse to even engage at the evidence. At first you decice that you won't watch the video. I assume this is because you prefer to read instead, which is fair.

You take a cursory look at the channel and deem it "nuts", instead of looking into who the author is, what his credentials are and most importantly, you don't look at the sources for the video which are books and other material written by other scholars. I link the blogpost because I assume you don't care enough about this issue to read several books on the topic, and you dismiss this as well because it "has screenshots from twitter". The whole point of the blogpost is the same as my initial comment; to correct a longstanding myth, which is why it "responds" to twitter-posts. The blogpost is written scolar, although, I will admit, not an expert in early christianity like Dr. Mark Henry of Religion For Breakfast.

I am not trying to defend Christianity; I'm not even religious. All the video points out is that Christmas trees were likely a recent invention, and that we have no evidence to suggest that they were appropriated from a pagan religion.

Again, sorry for being rude in the previous comment. I hope you now understand why your behavior made me upset now, and I hope you will engage with the provided sources now. If you won't, then I stand by my original comment.