Once again you completely dodged my questions because deep down you know that torturing people is wrong.

"The reason why people should believe that story is because there is documented evidence and eyewitness accounts who saw, felt, touched, and talked to this person."

I hate to break it to you but there were no eyewitness accounts. This is a common misconception that has been spread throughout the Christian community over and over again, and any biblical scholar will tell you that it's not true. You're still young so I don't expect you to know all this, so let me give you a quick rundown on the so-called eyewitnesses. I'll use only Christian resources so you don't think I'm just pulling stuff from an atheist site. According to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), neither Mark or Luke witnessed the events of Jesus' life [1]. Luke even alludes to this in his first two verses. Most Biblical scholars believe that the books of Matthew and Luke are actually based on the book of Mark and a few other sources, and that neither of them were eye witness accounts. So, now we've ruled out Matthew, Mark and Luke as eyewitnesses. So now we are left with John. Here is what Bible.org has to say about John. "The Gospel of John would be the last choice as a source of information about Jesus." [2] Most scholars don't even think it was written by John [3]. John "does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not, something that has been noted in Gospel of John commentary for hundreds—even thousands—of years." [4]

So none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. They are all just a retelling of stories they heard from other people. Now lets look at when each gospel was written.

Matthew 80–90 AD

Mark 50-70 AD

Luke 60-90 AD

John 45-110 AD, most scholars narrow it down to 85 to 90 AD.

So not only are they not eyewitness accounts, but they weren't even written until 45-110 years after the events are said to have occurred. That's hardly a reliable source of information. So here is what we are left with.

-Person A tells person B they or someone else witnessed some 45 to 110 years ago.

-Person B writes down what person A said.

How do we know that person A didn't exaggerate or completely make up the story?

How do we know that person B actually got the story from person A and didn't just make it up or exaggerate the claims of person A?

How do we know that the people who translated the story didn't embellish it?

What's more likely?

1. There is a a magical being that can create an entire universe, know the thoughts of every living creature simultaneously, and exists outside of time and space.

2. Some guy exaggerated or made up a story.

For the sake of argument lets pretend there were eyewitness accounts. Are eyewitness accounts always reliable? Thousands of people claim to have witnessed different gods, big foot, fairies, aliens, etc. Why don't you believe them? Mormons have several eyewitness accounts to back up their strories. Do you believe them? Of course not. So why do you believe the second-hand accounts from the Bible but not the first-hand accounts in the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith said he saw god and that god told him to found the Mormon church. That is a first-hand account. Why don't you believe him?

"Also the difference between all of the other religions is that Christ actually came to live on this earth and actually was on here. No other gods came to die on the cross for our sins and rose again from the grave!"

Again you are basing this off of second-hand accounts written decades after these event supposedly happened. You're also trying to force the scenario to only fit your god. I could just as easily say no other gods saved the human race from Zeus like Prometheus did.

"Belief is a choice."

You can say it as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true. Do you believe there is an invisible elephant standing outside your house? If you can't make yourself believe there is one then belief is not a choice. If you disagree then present a counter-argument.

"When I present the evidence or the factual things that I have researched from multiple sources and stuff you and others deny the evidence and come up with stupid and lame excuses dismissing the subject. Basically saying that you don't believe in that kinds of things."

You've never presented any evidence to me, so don't say "you and other will deny the evidence". I hear you say this over and over to people when you say you have evidence for something and they ask you to show it to them. I've been here for almost a year now and I don't think I've ever seen you actually present any evidence. You keep saying you have it but never show it. How would you feel if I said I have evidence that Zeus is the true god, but I'm not going to show it to you because you won't believe it anyway? Have you ever considered that maybe there is a reason people don't believe your evidence? Maybe because it's not good evidence. How about you actually show me some. Even if I don't believe it, what's the harm in showing it to me?

"I chose to believe in God because of what I saw in others and how Christ was working through their eyes."

You would have to give me some examples of what you're talking about.

"...when Christians try to tell people about Christ and they give evidence that He lived on this earth. You guys deny the evidence and you don't believe it because you think it's false."

Just like you deny the evidence for all the other gods and don't believe it because you think they are false?

"So basically when you don't believe in God you are basically telling God that you don't need Him in the earthly life and that must also mean in eternity as well."

You keep making it seem like we're consciously thinking, I don't like god so I'm going to choose to believe he doesn't exist. I've said it before and I'll say it again, belief is not a choice. How does is sound to you when I switch gods? So basically when you don't believe in Thor you are basically telling him that you don't need Him in the earthly life and that must also mean in eternity as well. Therefore you deserve eternal torment for not believing in him.

"So it's not really God that sends people to hell it's all really the person who sent themselves to hell because of their unbelief in God and not willingly wanting to accept God into their life. God made a way for people to go to Heaven but people decided to live their own way. "

They live their own way because they think your god is fictional just like you think the other 4000+ gods throughout history are fictional. It has nothing to do with not willingly wanting to accept God, it has everything to do with believing that the god is just one of the many fictional gods that man has invented throughout history.

Again, lets swap out the gods and see how it sounds to you. So it's not really Odin that sends people to Helheim it's all really the person who sent themselves to Helheim because of their unbelief in Odin and not willingly wanting to accept him into their life. Odin made a way for people to go to Valhalla but people decided to live their own way.

"You should take the Christian story more seriously because there was no man named Odin that came to this earth to die for our sins."

Once again you are trying to force the scenario to fit your god. If I told you, you should take the Greek story more seriously because there was no man named Jesus that rescued us from Zeus like Prometheus did, would you take it more seriously. Of course not, because you think Prometheus is fictional.

"No eyewitness accounts for Odin and no documentation that He lived. We have documentation and eye witness accounts that prove that Christ lived on this earth! And how He did die on the cross for our sins and rose again from the grave!"

As I already pointed out, there are no eyewitness accounts but there are many eyewitness accounts by Mormons, alien abductees, big foot enthusiasts, etc. If eyewitness accounts are so reliable, why don't you believe in those things?

So here are the questions I want you to answer, and if you dodge my questions again I'm done with this debate. I'm not going to waste my time if you're just going to keep dodging my questions. I know the cognitive dissonance is probably killing you, but you need to work through it and answer what you truly feel.

1. Are eyewitness accounts a reliable way of determining if something really happened?

2. Do you still think that belief is a choice?

3. If it were up to you to decide what punishments to give people, would you torture people for eternity for not believing in something?

4. Would you torture people for eternity for choosing the wrong god?

5. Would you torture people for eternity for being born in a country where Christianity doesn't exist?

Try not to take any of this personally. I have no ill will towards you. I may get a little frustrated with you at times but it's nothing personal. You actually remind me a lot of myself when i was a Christian, so I know where you're coming from. Religion can be a very emotionally charged topic but I think it's important for everyone to examine their beliefs throughout life to see if they are built upon a strong foundation.

Eyewitness accounts aren't that reliable, for example back in 2007, a man broke into a womans house and sexually assulted her, throught that time she thouroughly examined his face so she could give an accurate description to the police. A few weeks later she identified a man in a police lineup and that man was sent to prison, however DNA tests proved that it was not the man who raped her and her real rapist was taken into custody later and the other man was let go. Btw I don't hate you, I am trying to help you, I used to be a Christian and believe in alot of what you do, but then after doing some research and taking the time to think about it, I realized that there was nothing logical supporting my beliefs. Once you break free from indoctrination you will feel relieved my friend and enjoy and cherish your life even more, because its the only one you'll ever have.

There are people of other faiths who are convinced of their religous miracles too, there have been reports of miracles from Islam as well, for example, back during the 2004 tsunami in India, there was a Mosque that went completley undamaged. How do you explain that? Btw, the bible also instructs to kill infidels. Exodus 31:14 "observe the sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it shall be put to death; those who do any work that day must be cut off from their people."

You also realize that Jesus didn't write the bible either right? In fact the bible is a collection of different stories written by different people, many whom wrote them about decades after the events "supposedly took place.". That is why the bible is so full of condradicting accounts, because it was written by many different people in different time periods.

The concept of the trinity, many of Jesus's teachings are strikingly identical to the concept of Karma, the existence of two possible afterlifes (one for salvation and the other for damnation), Satans backstory is taken from the concept of the Destroyer God Shiva, the Garden of Eden is based off of Hahmans origional creation of the world which also included a serpent. Also if you have the right to talk about Hinduism even though your not a Hindu, I should have the right to talk about Christianity even though I'm not a Christian.

There are also many Christians who search for the truth in other faiths, there are many Christians who have converted to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Exodus 11:5 (KJV) specifically states it. There is a back story obviously in Exodus which leads up to the killing of any first born (which would include babies) in Egypt. But nonetheless doesn't excuse his actions.

So you basically lied when you said you read the whole bible, isnt lying against one of your ten commandments buddy, or did it just slip your mind?