Typical debate between believer and atheist.

 Today, I am sharing an amateur debate exchange I had with a believer on Reddit.  It is still ongoing, but I'm pretty sure things have ran their course at this time.  This highlights the flawed reasoning behind the most common talking points presented by christians. 

I have discussions like this a few times a week, and this is more or less an accurate picture of what typically happens.

Enjoy!
 
 

B:  God is real and those who say otherwise just dont want to believe it

A:  What's the STRONGEST evidence for a god that you can think of?

B:  Existence itself and the complex nature of life and the universe itself.

If that doesn't suffice, there's always Jesus Christ, who was real and risen from the dead.

A:  The first sentence is just god of the gaps. That argument has changed many times over the years. As our understanding of the universe improves, we have more and more reason to think everything occurred by natural means alone.

The second sentence relies entirely upon second hand written stories that were written decades after the event in question.

Here's my question about the "resurrection", why would Jesus only stick around for a month or less, and never speak with anybody of importance?

He could have easily spent a week with Pilate and gotten some official testimony into the history books, instead of just a couple stories written by people who were severely biased.

B:  Written by people who were biased? Saint Paul literally hunted Christians and executed them before Lord Christ revealed himself to him.

And as far as Pilate goes, or the Hebrew Rabbis, or any other figures, they would not have believed, even if Christ revealed himself to them.

It is certain that even if Christ Lord reveals himself today and shouts to the whole world, "I am risen, I am your King" Many people would still choose not to believe.

And the reason why is simple, because if you were to believe, you would have to change your entire way of life, your entire world view and mindset. And most non-believers simply don't want to do that.

Besides, Lord Christ has actually revealed himself to many historical figures, including Emperor Constantine.

A:  It's very likely Paul had a hallucination. A perfectly rational explanation.

The Jews rejected Jesus because he did not meet the criteria of the Jewish Messiah. I HIGHLY recommend that you study those criteria, from the perspective of the Jews. He completely failed in multiple categories. Read up on that here: Isaiah 11:1-10

It's not for you to decide whether a person would have or would not have, the issue is that the ascension of jesus provides a VERY convenient way of explaining why he didn't have more witnesses, especially prominent historians.

"It is certain that even if Christ Lord reveals himself today and shouts to the whole world, "I am risen, I am your King" Many people would still choose not to believe.
And the reason why is simple, because if you were to believe, you would have to change your entire way of life, your entire world view and mindset. And most non-believers simply don't want to do that."

This logic is terribly flawed. Again, you are assuming to know the hypothetical actions of people before they even occur.

But that's not the worst of it. You have presented just within the short comment above, a GROSS double standard that you can't even see as you wrote it.

You present Paul and Constantine as examples of people that changed their minds and believed, because your version of god allegedly did reveal himself to them. IN THE SAME COMMENT, you claim that people won't believe if your god revealed himself to them.

Your entire argument is based on a double standard.

B:  The Lord revealed himself to Paul and Constantine because they were important and he needed them. And like I stated before, there are exceptions to those who see him and believe.

Why should he reveal himself to someone he doesn't need? Those he doesn't need should be the greatest believers, because they shall beg for his grace. And those who believed without seeing him shall be blessed.

Also, you claim that Paul had a hallucination, which is terribly funny. It shows how desperate you are to be an apostate. However, I tell you this: On judgement day, You will stand before the Lord and be judged, because you refused his grace. And the Lord will show you a book with million pages. In that book will be every sin you ever comitted. And among those sins will be, "Apostasy." You will stand there and say, "But Lord, you gave me no proof!" And the Lord will open the book and show you every instance where the proof was given. And you shall be speechless.

A:  It's a really flawed argument that is almost entirely based on the concept of "wait until you're dead and then you'll see how wrong you are".

If you can't defend your beliefs in this life, then maybe they aren't defensible.

People hallucinate things all the time, it's a known psychological concept. There's another important psychological term, "bereavement hallucination", which is a very strong candidate for the testimony of Jesus only appearing to people who were his most fervent followers.

Also, I find it very telling that you are making zero effort to address the argument that Jesus failed to meet the criteria of the Jewish messiah, even when I provided a direct scripture reference.

Is it so painful to consider the idea that Jesus was just another apocalyptic preacher, like so many others of that time period, that you cringe away from even considering that possibility?

Edit: almost forgot, one other point to raise.

Why were Paul and Constantine important? What about the millions of people who were living in Australia, South America, North America, the many islands of the South Pacific, and so on and so on? Why didn't your god send anyone to those places until CENTURIES later?

I guess they weren't important? Just regular people that didn't need to hear the gospel?

B:

A) There's no need to address jewish messiah criteria, because the prophecy is still being fulfilled.

B) Based on your assertion that all miracles/Jesus sightings were hallucinations, proves that even if Lord God revealed himself to you, then you still wouldn't believe in him. (Exactly proving my point)

C) The importance of Constantine and Paul is blatantly obvious, there's no need to explain such.

D) As far as natives, etc. are concerned, they would 100% misinterpret any revelation from God and mix it up with their pagan demonic beliefs.

Anyway, the belief in God itself is not as important as the belief in His will and our submission to it. And because mortals like us often refuse his will, even many of those who believe in his existance alone, are not going to enter paradise.

A: 

A) There's no need to address jewish messiah criteria, because the prophecy is still being fulfilled.

There is zero, absolutely NO scriptural basis for saying, "the messiah can do some things now, and the rest 2,000 years or 3,000 years later".

No fine print, it's all or nothing. That is precisely why they crucified him.

B) Based on your assertion that all miracles/Jesus sightings were hallucinations, proves that even if Lord God revealed himself to you, then you still wouldn't believe in him. (Exactly proving my point)

That's not what I said. Some of the miracles are likely legends that grew with time. Remember these events took decades or longer to make it into print.

And if, indeed, some type of god appeared to me, I would have to make an effort to verify it was real and not just a mental problem of my own.

Everybody believing whatever vision they get creates problems, such as the Mormon church.

But if your god is truly all knowing, then he knows what level of proof will convince me, and he refuses to even try and present that.

C) The importance of Constantine and Paul is blatantly obvious, there's no need to explain such.

Okay, that doesn't convince me. Low effort response means low effort rebuttal.

D) As far as natives, etc. are concerned, they would 100% misinterpret any revelation from God and mix it up with their pagan demonic beliefs.

Interesting. That sounds a bit racist. So only the white European/Roman civilizations benefitted from god appearing to them? Good luck defending that thesis.

Anyway, the belief in God itself is not as important as the belief in His will and our submission to it.

If I don't accept the evidence for your god, I don't have any reason to submit to its will.

And because mortals like us often refuse his will, even many of those who believe in his existance alone, are not going to enter paradise.

Sounds like a personal problem. For you, not for me.



Thanks for reading this far, past this point nothing new really develops, this is pretty much the core of both our arguments.