What is Reddit's opinion of Argumentation and Debate?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> Granted. I should have said, "their belief in the resurrection was never the reason why they were willing to die". It could have been a factor for some, but even then it doesn't prove WLC's case that the resurrection was what he claims it was.

Regardless, you're using extremely selective reasoning and downplaying the significance of the resurrection as a motivator for first century Christians.

> This isn't saying much of anything.

Well, it is saying a lot, but you're using selective reasoning when it comes to the resurrection

> And none of those beliefs had anything to do with the resurrection. There were Jews who believed in the resurrection as well, and they were not persecuted because of that either. Their belief in the resurrection was not, and is not why they are persecuted even today.

Show me any Jews in the first century CE or prior, aside from the early Christians, who believed in a dying and rising messiah.

> and is not why they are persecuted even today.

Just as a heads up, you need to stick to your argument which is about Rome and persecution in the first century and stop referring to Christians today. It's completely irrelevant to the topic.

> Yep, and those beliefs were specifically in their insistence upon being honest, refraining from idolatry, and forking over any of their money to the state religion.

I'll bet you that I can find earlier citation in the New Testament narrative of disciples preaching a resurrection (like Acts 2, which in the narrative is after Jesus' ascension but prior to the evangelistic outbreak of the disciples) and its importance before you can find them preaching about refraining from idolatry, being honest, and whatnot. Again, you're using selective reasoning and blatantly ignoring all the resurrection stuff.

> Again, it isn't clear that this teaching has anything to do with a physical bodily resurrection.

"It isn't clear" isn't an argument. Jk, I'm somewhat mocking your "it seems to be isn't an argument" statement, which is wrong and shows a massive lack of understanding on argumentation.

>The fact that it is a belief of the early church doesn't prove what they believed.

What? A belief that a person or group holds isn't what they believe? You might want to rethink that one.

> Belief in an afterlife is not a key belief of just Christianity. Pagan Rome also held belief in an afterlife.

False, and demonstrative of a poor understanding of logic and/or English. The fact that Pagan Rome held to this belief doesn't make it NOT a key belief in Christianity. Just because a key belief isn't unique to one group doesn't make it no longer a key belief.

> I'm not following. What's your point? They were Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah. That's what set them apart, not the resurrection. Most Jews believed in the resurrection already.

Again, feel free to show any first century or earlier source of Jewish belief in a dying and resurrecting Messiah.

> False. Even today, there are Jewish messiahs who have followers who claim that they are still around long after they died, e.g. the Lubavetcher rebbe, etc. Again, Jesus wasn't the only Jewish messiah to proclaim the idea of a resurrection.

Another excellent example of you not being able to stick to your topic. Is the Lubavetcher Rebbe from the first century? C'mon buddy. Your own OP clearly talks about the first centuries, not today. For the third time, do you have any example of dying and rising Jewish messiahs during the first century or close to that time?

> Christianity became popular. It was the dominant state religion. That's why it didn't fall apart. There were plenty of religious people prior to Christianity who also believed in an afterlife. That's not what set them apart from Christianity.

Christianity survived for about 300 years prior to being a state religion, during a time that also included persecution. That's pretty darn significant. Also, I'll ask for the fourth time, please list any first century or older Jewish movements that believed in a dying and rising Messiah, because that made them more unique than anything else about their beliefs in their first century context of being a Jewish sect in a Greco-Roman setting.

>The gospel accounts in particular indicate that it isn't a physical bodily resurrection e.g. Christ's body walks through walls, it cannot be touched, it appears and vanishes, only believers can see him, etc.

False, I even linked a gospel account in my last post that shows Jesus being touched and eating food to specifically prove he is not an immaterial nonphysical body. Jesus even says "see, ghosts don't have flesh like I do." How did you miss this? Well, as I said, selective reasoning.

> To say, "and it seems" is not an argument.

I'm gonna end on this note because this statement speaks volumes. You don't really know how debate works, and after a brief follow up, it's apparent and confirmed in this thread and your post history and people's responses to your posts. The words "it seems" do not make anything less of an argument. If anything, it's a type of humility. For example, if you said it looks like it's going to rain today, and I said "well, there are no clouds and the sky is blue and the sun bright, so it seems you're wrong." That IS indeed an argument.

Also, I would argue that the reason no one else reads Craig's statement like you, at least not anyone educated on these topics or familiar with debate or the topic at hand, is because you're making a rookie and novice mistake. This is also why continuing this pseudo debate is a bit pointless for me, so you can feel free to just conclude that you "won" or something because I can't bother responding to this much longer. That said, I do highly recommend this book on the topic of debate (though older editions are just fine), something I think a lot of people on reddit need to read, whether they know it or not. Debate is like a sport, and many don't know how the game works.