”I was following your discussion with interest until I read few things from your atheist friend

I am not an atheist. You assumed it.

”1- I really can’t take serious anyone who think Ehrman or any work on the source hypothesis is valid criticism of Christianity”

Why should it matter to me who you take seriously? Are you somebody important? Do we know one another?

”2- I also can’t take serious any one subscribe to Christ mythicist like Richard Carrier”

I am not a Chris mythicist and have not recommended Richard Carrier anywhere to my knowledge. To uphold the evidence that the Tacitus accounts are forgeries is not to say Jesus never existed, necessarily. However once again you are not anybody of sufficient importance that who you personally take seriously should matter to me.

”3&4- “et tu” the same can be said about atheists who strongly inclined believe stories which reinforce their unbelief in Christianity like Christ myth, Tacitus didn’t write what he wrote, thus atheist tend to uncritically trust one another’s testimonies as they did with Godless by Dan barker, or taking someone like Ehrman seriously.”

Again, I am not an atheist. Like most Christians, you have reflexively assumed that any white, English speaking non-Christian must be an atheist. I speculate this is because in the minds of Christians, the only two possibilities they take seriously are Christianity and atheism, so they do not consider the chance that their interlocutor does not fall into one of those two groups. This same “If not my religion, then none” mentality is also why many Christians assume that if they can discredit the scientific account of origins, it means Christianity is automatically true.

”It seems to me your atheist friend rule of engagement is if you can’t answer it call it irrelevant or deflect.”

No, you’re thinking of Don earlier in the argument when he said comparisons to other religions were “uninteresting” to him. The only parts I have not addressed are long walls of text where Don quotes scripture at me which does not constitute any sort of argument or evidence in and of itself.

”He remind me of the parable of the rich man and lazarus “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This is another common Christian mentality I have seen a lot of. First, in their imagination, they pretend I have been shown lots of proof of Christianity. Then they imagine me stubbornly refusing to believe in spite of it, shaking their heads, sighing and thinking how unreasonable I am.

The thing is, those proofs were only shown to me in their imagination. Back in reality they haven’t shown me anything like that. They can’t. That’s why they fantasize about being able to, flattering themselves and disparaging me by pretending I would not change my mind if shown proof.

This imaginary scenario is very fulfilling/validating for the Christian which is why they indulge in it. But it is not the same as actually presenting any of the proofs I would supposedly reject when shown.

I post text here, often accompanied by images and sometimes video. People then clap or don't depending on whether they enjoy what I posted.

I post text here, often accompanied by images and sometimes video. People then clap or don't depending on whether they enjoy what I posted.