/christian/ - christian

>>25517
>but it doesn't change the religion
No, there's a very clear delineation between Judaism & Christianity in the New Testament. Christ Himself is the 'scandalon' (rock of offense in the Greek), and was anathema to the Jews. They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 

With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today, regardless of the deeper truths of God that extend back past before the time of Abraham. I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today. Jesus & the rest of the NT are quite clear that we are distinct groups, and that we have been "grafted in" as additions, not replacements.

>tl;dr
Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.  :^)

>>25518
>'Judeo-Christion' is a political term not a theological one.
Fair enough. But I know of a lot of nominal Christians in the evangelical Protestant branch who claim that that phrase is both completely-real, and applies to themselves directly. There are plenty of Jews themselves who are promoting this idea as well.

Please understand I'm not disagreeing with you you Anon, 

>>25519
>With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I get what your trying to say. But I feel that you are mistaking what is identified as Judaism today, Rabbinic Judaism, with what was practiced during the time of Christ and the Apostles, ie 2nd Temple Judaism. The consensus is actually beginning to shift and show that during that time there were multiple sects of Judaism being practiced. The most well known sects being the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Christians. The Christians being the only ones that accepted Christ as the messiah of course. However, as the others fell away after the destruction of the Temple, Christianity survived and continued the 2nd Temple liturgical practices with some modification to place emphasis on Christ. Nowhere at this time was anything resembling what we know today as Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism came about much later primarily as reactionary movement against the growing influence of Christianity among the remaining Jewish population. There was no complied Talmud or Masoretic text at the time of the Apostles. And these texts would not appear for another 500+ years. The Judaism today is not the Israelite religion. The Israelite religion is Christianity. Another good video that debunks the claims of Rabbinic Judaism is Marching on Zion. 
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8cVL0ViBB7E

>They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 
That does not invalidate the fact that the religion was the same. It simply reiterates what we already know, that some Jews refused to see Christ as the messiah and the Son of God. 

>Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I agree with this, because Rabbinic Judaism is much younger and lacks direct continuity with the 2nd Temple. I just want to emphasis again that for the Apostles, while there was a change in some practices and views within the religion with the coming of Christ, the religion stayed the same. Our worldview is the same, and our worship is directed toward the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We don't say that Abraham and Moses have a different religion from each other just because the pre-incarnate Christ revealed different things to each of them, or that their worship patterns were different, one with an altar outside and one with a tabernacle. So in that respect Christ revealing Himself to the Apostles doesn't change the religion to a distinct separate religion, it simply deepens the fullness of our religion. Everything that the prophets foretold, the apostles believed and witnessed through Christ. This was the acceptance of the faith of their fathers, that the prophets were correct and God is now among them.

>Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.
An orthodox Jew practices Rabbinic Judaism. Again this is a much later reactionary innovation.   

>I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today.

>>25523
Hey you seem to be quite well informed on these things and my interest is in the early Quakers, basically do you know if they have any biblical authority on refusing to call their worshipful meeting houses "churches"?

I know they have expedient reasons for doing so, but I don't really know if they have biblical proofs for doing so. I miss decorations and embellishments and big pipe organs. Also if you're going to have a structure that is not primarily used/owned for humble ploughwork then in what way is it any different from the other buildings whose main function is worship?

Semantic autisimo is not sufficient for me to hold an idea as a divine necessity.

>>25524
To be honest I am not very familiar with the Quakers. You may have to fill me in a bit on this, but I guess I would want to know how they are defining "Church" that they would refuse to use that to define their place of worship? Is it a reaction to the idea of a controlling hand of "Big Church?"

>>25525
Basically this. But they said people who were humble shepherds made better adherents and were used to prophetise more as the result so we should get back to that somehow. Funny thing is I don't know any Quaker groups who even in fine weather would take their meetings outside any more. I assume they view dedicated church buildings as just another ritualist extravagance like all the other Catholic stuff.

It's not an outrage or anything to come to this conclusion it's just that the idea of permanence of a meeting house where it's sole job is a meeting house makes it sound a lot like a church house doesn't it. A lot of them were just accomodating homes that a Quaker lived in, but I think if you're going to have a permanent structure it should be used for humble work foremost and praying in it should be it's secondary purpose. It's that or you're not respecting what the decree was trying to put across.

Modern Quakers are a co-opted white guilt activism worse than Anglican/CofE (maybe "no leadership lol" lets it all get in idk) so the plain conservative variety have retreated to the hills to form tiny pockets that barely hold onto continuity. I should see what happened to the Moravians and see if their outcome has been any better.

If I'm to keep on the topic of the thread and on the original followers from Judea, what other yard sticks besides faith and obedience can be used to measure belief in the fir

The biggest dangers for Christians as of now are three things:

1. Lack of care for understanding. People want ready-made narratives to feel a sense of the bigger picture, but the devil lies in the details. "You are a good person if you believe in this conspiracy anon, you hate evil, right?" - /x/ schizo who claims Jesus is the antichrist and empaths are psychic vampires. 

2. Lack of care for common ground. Some people disagree with the exact doctrine or distrust mainstream "faith" institutions. A lot of Christians feel like they are crusaders for Israel and need to stomp out different viewpoints other than their internet scribble doctrine. Justly some feel repelled and stay MAGA-con, go roider Nietzschean or even pagan. They could have been your average Christian. 

3. Nobody reads the bible on their own, nobody goes to mass, nobody goes to catechisms. People claim to be representatives of their faith, but they don't even abstain from meat on Fridays. But they will shout at you for believing in "Satanism" like paranormal research, alternative medicine or that the three Magi who came to Jesus' birth were starseekers of old. There has been a big emphasis on raw discipline, obedience and intellectual shutdown from the people who are the least likely to ever go to mass regularly.

1. Satanism is best or easiest defined as worship of ego and of the self. If you find a problem with that definition, please point it out.

2. Other religions of the world are false idol worshippers - not Satanists directly. If you find a problem with that definition, please point it out.

3. Conspiracy Theory means 'a group', 'to conspire', and 'to theorise'. There's some anon here who seems to have a problem with a theory not being the same as or as proveable as 'a law' but the reason these theories have traction is because there is evidence for them to such degree that they are almost laws - to the tune of "if you let go of this apple then it will fall". If you find a problem with this definiton, please point it out.

4. The OY VEY question - whether or to what degree 'THE' Jews are a problem, and whether or to what extent something should be done. Clearly Zionist Jews are a problem. At least in America they are. One state paying hundreds of millions of dollars to another state is outside the norm and the tax payers of such a country deserve to know why.

The main thing I think should be done is to insist on talking about it specifically more. People may say to me the soapbox has been tried and has not worked, or the ballot box has been tried and has not worked, but consider that a spokesman for the president holds a press conference and takes questions every other day; the weight of obligation, to ask about Israel funny money EVERY SINGLE TIME can and should be placed on 

>>25487
1. Lack of care for understanding can be seen more in my opponents than it can in me, even if I don't care enough to remedy what I do not understand - I'm only just learning enough to shelter my own neck. My opponents include the Archbishop of York who cannot decide if God's love is manifested paternally or maternally or through some otherkins variety (until he is forced to backpedal not because of faith but because of vested interest in his career and the filthy commoner backlash). I don't see lack of care for understanding as a problem, unless you mean situations like these.

2. The common ground was not mine to disrupt. I get that you don't necessarily concern yourself with Protestantism but this affects Catholics as well. When your religious representatives proclaim God to be non-binary, what grounds for commonality do you expect is left to be shared in?

3. No way I never heard of no meat on Fridays... What is it, and why such a decree? No really, WHY. I don't care for starseeking because obedience to stellar bodies = worship of created works - I've heard women explain their cheating on a guy because Saturn was out of alignment and such. Lots of mental new age mysticism. I don't go to mass because I've watched every castle of faith fall or become corrupted. I act ashamed of my faith in fact. Letting this happen among other things. I don't evangelise or preach to people. Prayers are private seclu

>>25506
Losing the forest for the trees.

Also this board is a psyop and the owners want you to be ignorant of occult powers. Don't bother digging into the same old things, research.

>>25507

1. They know what the doctrine is. They wilfully choose to subvert it. Not just ignore it - they lie and say it confirms the things they're pushing. You know this.

2. Their dogmatism, i.e. their willingness to excommunicate you for wrongthink is stronger than mine is. If they're pushing people out then there isn't middle ground to lean into. You know this.

Your psy operation, produce evidence or examples please, and your examination of the occult maybe worthwhile except that it's less powerful than to do as you said and get stuck into the bible instead.

There's no "I win" to any of this stuff here either, if it wasn't worthwhile to post I wouldn't do it. I'm not gonna sit here and flex piety on you as I tried to demonstrate prior that I haven't got any.

>>22819 (OP) 
Hes not wtrong. Most men are duplicitous faggots.

>Thread >>25418 on this subject is gone.
I should have guessed so, it was full of insults and overly-emotional statements. No archive either. I'll have to find my previous genuine responses in my offline-notes. Will post momentarily, if I can find them!

sad_.jpg
[Hide] (30.3KB, 451x458)

I don't 'want' Sunday to not be the sabbath as I don't want to believe so many people could be wrong. And I would 'like' to believe that maybe the "it's Saturday" people are just misinterpreting whatever callender says the day changed. I fear heaping 'difficulties' on my life, despite knowing it is most likely 'wrong' of me to feel this way. I'm also find myself (refrencing the patterns of my previous behavior and my current-emotions) too 'lazy, prone to procrastination,' & 'afraid' to verify for myself, the 'truth' of the 'Sunday is incorrect' idea. I suspect these are flaws within myself.

'Found this, it might be helpful:'
https://biblehub.com/library/watson/the_ten_commandments/2_4_the_fourth_commandment.htm
https://archive.ph/QCYET
I should next show you the modes, or manner, how we should keep the Sabbath day holy; but before I come to that, we have a great question to consider. 

'How comes it to pass that we do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath as it was in the primitive institution, but have changed it to another day?' 

The old seventh-day Sabbath, which was the Jewish Sabbath, is abrogated, and in the room of it the first day of the week, which is the Christian Sabbath, succeeds. The morality or substance of the fourth commandment does not lie in keeping the seventh day precisely, but keeping one day in seven is what God has appointed. 

But how comes the first day in the week to be substituted in the room of the seventh day? 

Not by ecclesiastic authority. The church,' says Mr Perkins, has no power to ordain a Sabbath.' 

(1) The change of the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first was by Christ's own appointment. He is Lord of the Sabbath.' Mark 2: 28. And who shall appoint a day but he who is Lord of it? He made this day. This is the day which the Lord has made.' Psa 118: 24. Arnobius and most expositors understand it of the Christian Sabbath, which is called the Lord's-day.' Rev 1: 10. As it is called the Lord's Supper,' because of the Lord's instituting the bread and wine and setting it apart from a common to a special and sacred use; so it is called the Lord's-day, because of the Lord's instituting it, and setting it apart from common days, to his special worship and service. Christ rose on the first day of the week, out of the grave, and appeared twice on that day to his disciples, John 20: 19, 26, which was to intimate to them, as Augustine and Athanasius say, that he transferred the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord's day. 

>>25454
The Gospel scriptures themselves specifically spell out the days involved. 'The first day of the week' is definitely Sunday. As Christians, we have adopted it as our holy day, in honor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We're not Jewish, we're Christian, Anon.

Why would you help the poor if you need to scam people in order to become and remain wealthy? Actually wealthy and successful people charge protection money from small businesses or vandalize them or set them on fire. They collect "charity funds", pocket the money and distribute absolute pittances if anything at all while benefitting from loopholes in the tax law. 

Christians need to be aware that the entire economy is a ripoff, that charities are a ripoff and that they cannot be sheep in this era.

In order to do anything effectively, build groups around your own kind. Basic in-group, out-group dynamic, the kind that is commonly demonized. Prioritize Christians. CHRISTIANS. Do you understand?

>>25385
the healthy do not need a doctor

>>25385
The idea is to make the non-Christians into Christians as you give food and water.

>>25386
those without sin deceive themselves.

>>23703
There is never going to be a christian 4chan board. I's write a big textwall about why but who cares: nobody. Because the born agains are going to come here sometimes and like Christiana they'll let the dirt sink to the bottom and drink, they're used to that at church anyways, actually I wouldn't even describe this as a puddle, it's more the born agains just come to put water on parched ground because there's a christian sign on the ground and they're confused. Being a leader of falsehood will not make the judgement easy, you know the requirements for bishop and elder. He say, "Oh it's not that serious" Oh I know this is not that serious, that's the problem. But I say this all for no reason (Matthew 21:45).

If you try to make friends on here you won't be allowed, but that would be much more helpful than anonymous whatever, to have someone. For example my grandfather has helped someone get off crack cocaine. He did it by being there for him whenever the man was tempted he would call him and God has been with both of them very wonderful. The netizen is a loser and when he gets saved he's still like that, I hope no one comes here for serious stuff but for the happiness when you see another pilgrim. But netizens don't really exist anymore either, which is good. But it takes a netizen to give his life to internet stuff that others just come by for sometimes. But nothing will change, but with enough compl

>>25373
>There is never going to be a christian 4chan board
There "is" it's called /his/

>>25374
Actual 4chan is definitely not going to have one, hopefully not. Because there's no independent boards there, so if Hiro or whoever owns that website now made such a board you have to understand the person in charge of such a thing is also in charge of the rest of 4chan. And if you want a church run by mcdonald's CEO people will go, sadly. Blind men, and as blind men they lead the blind and they both go to hell. Or maybe they took "theology and religious studies" in college and got a big fat head and a shrunken skull.

But I do mean 4chan as in all the futaba imageboards.

>>25375 
I understand that, I was remarking on how everyone on the history board over there seems to be roleplaying as either internet Christians, Muslims, or atheists. I never went on that board until recently and found it an awful place where nobody actually seems to know much or is interested in sharing their knowledge, yet are keen make arguments among themselves with each poster being convinced of his own genius.

>>25374
/his/ used to have a strong Christian community but recently it's been flooded with atheist blasphemers

Why is romantic love (certainly in a woman) based on immodest degradation OP? Specifically from a divine context, not evolutionary theory?

Asking for a friend. Also, mainly for myself. I want to know because it fucks with my head how horrible the dynamic is despite being the one necessary to give new life. I feel that God didn't have to include that dynamic at all.

Also while on the subject, explain to me how I'm supposed to love all of God's creation? I struggle to give all the roundworms and flatworms and tapeworms pet names... Really I just don't know why most things exist, and I don't wanna be told through a bunch of Jewish obfuscation terms, I just want an answer for how potato blight bacteria was made for man's custodianship the same way as, say, a zebra.

Oh and here's another one... If marriage is so important according to Christ, then why doesn't the Bible detail the mechanisms for saving a marriage that's on the ropes and close to sin/infidelity? I've given relationship counselling before and it works okay, but it's all based on fallen world stuff. None of it has been really biblically based. I think the specifics of frame holding/losing/regaining in a relationship ought to be spelled out more given man's/woman's propensity to cheat.

I'm a Christian, but it's really notional only once you dig below the "Christ is manifest virtue" rhetoric. The rest I've not been able to make sense of.

>>25322
You can do it to any book, interview or article in any context, though. Print the snippet you want and leave the part out where you have to be capable of repentance to not be judged.

Out of every problem I've got with Christianity, that it operates as a bit of a free love cult except (until recently) for sexuality doesn't really bother me. I do not think that aliens will ever come visit us until we're capable of expressing Agape as a matter of default. I think Christianity is right to try to reach for it aspirationally.

>>25325
>Why is romantic love based on immodest degradation
Can you explain what you mean by this? What is immodest degradation?

>>25328
Vanity or immodesty are a prerequisite to romantic love. From a male point of view, men care about your fertility and not your feelings, as the norm rather than the exception. Visual appearance is a clue to that fertility. If you're ugly, whether it is anybody's fault or not, your list of potential suitors goes down. So women focus on vanity naturally, and it's kind of our fault.

Meanwhile women have a more obvious or direct degradation mechanic to me. They will sit at a bar imagining or mentally cucking you. I barely understand the dynamic, but by point of comparison I ought to try looking like a better protector and a better provider, in the way of physical or social muscle or throw some cash around. On the quiet I only care about these things to be more useful to others, but when dating it helps that you can flex immodestly.

If you confuse Eros for Philio, or Agape and you're not careful to cross the beams then you'll be deemed to "catch feelings" and dropped for being a man with desperate vibes, or for being emotionally needy. You basically have to love conditionally, or at the very least form an omission of the truth if it isn't.

Further still, if you consider being kicked out of the garden of Eden as being given exactly the kind of environment you need or maybe even asked for as a species because you all wanted to understand truth by having some frame of reference (I realise may not be canon

>>25330
I don't think I have a good answer for you but here are my thoughts.
You're talking about two different things. First is the situation of people finding certain things attractive and some people being more attractive than others. The second is people's responses to that situation. Is the first thing a bad thing? Is it a sin? It's hard to say that it is. Beauty exists and it is good. Beauty of body, of behaviour, of character, and so forth. You can't blame people for being attracted to attractive people and some people are just more attractive than others. Regarding the second part, vanity is a part of our fallen world. I don't know if all attempts to make yourself more attractive are vanity or sin in some way. Maybe it depends on motive or circumstance. Maybe it depends on how you do it. If any women are sitting there mentally cheating on men then that's a sin and part of our fallen world as well.

The problem you have is that people realise what the game is and then go to desperate lengths to make themselves appear more attractive. The problem is when they are consumed by it right? That obsession is what drives them towards vanity. They have set up a false god in their hearts. It compels them into the mentality of both "I'm never good enough" and "my girl/boyfriend isn't good enough." They act on that and it compounds their sin and degrades them by their subjection to the false god. It's easy to say

8a615e56d629825da5c45b44b11fce107b752f107a2b0fa3197aa1a624598609.png
[Hide] (250.3KB, 431x322)

>>24957 (OP) 
who would win? 
Thousands of years of documented and verified history, evidence, and supporting rationale.

OR

some random guy on /pol/

>>24972
The guy on /pol/ is also referencing history as well.

dont think it matters, seems like a cope for antisemitic christians to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their religion having association with JEws. 

Might be a useful trope to use to evangelise to 'alt-right' types.

>>24981
i think youd cause more harm in the long term using that to evangelize to WN because then youd have to go through the works of abolishing the lie you created.

Italians uses "hebe" to call all the jews because for them they're all the same.
Antisemitism isn't just against jews, semites so all hebes.
Happened like that in history, it's the english that turned it into "all hebes are jews and jews are hebes"

was_abraham_a_jew.png
[Hide] (275.7KB, 804x1320)

Not sure if it's what you're looking for, but here's OC responding to a common misconception.

>"christianity is based thread"
>most posts about how bad the anti-christians are
pretty retarded tbh

>>17824
>schools
>thinking
schools were utter bullshit even way before any subversion

>>21843
Sure thing, (1) one and done. Mind addressing the ((( Bolshevik ))) problem, rather than your red herring?

>>25013
Well to be fair anon, You can usually get a clear indicator on how something should be approached by how your enemies view it. In fact the best way to tell if something is wicked is too see how far is strays from the bible for the most part. I'm going to go into detail with this so please be patient and read if you want to know more about history. So firstly let's go back... All the way back to the times of Noah. This is relevant because Jesus claimed that the End days would be similar to the days of Noah In Matthew 24:37 which reads like this
Matthew 24:37
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Now we need to identify what the Days of Noah were like. And we can figure this out by simply reading about it in Genesis 6. 
Genesis 6:4
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Notice how in the days of Noah the "son's of God" were mingling with the Daughters of men and when you read on further it gets even clearer.
Genesis 6:5-7
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
In other words things got so bad that God was straight up going to destroy all of his creation. Because they only had evil thoughts continually. Just looking at the average person nowadays shows that this is reality. I'm firmly in the camp that the vaccine was really the mark of the beast and that everyone that took it is going to meet the same fate as the Jews who are the definition of what an anti Christ is 
1 John 2:22
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
Exactly what the modern Jews are. Moreover anyone who helps the Jews are actually liable to get the same punishment as they get. 
2 John 1:9-11

>>25192
I understand and sympathise with this attitude. It's humbling, sobering. Still, a more sensible bet would be for us to cultivate our own intellectual class. If we did so, and the Lord allowed it, we could experience something like at least a spark of the Patristic Age again. It was just as rife with heresy, but also with no shortage of men of knowledge that were full of the Spirit.

>>25192
This is a good point. Anyone considering seminary should be certain of its theological orthodoxy ahead of time, since many have drunk the coolaid of secularism. At many if not most seminaries today your teachers will, instead of teaching you how to lead God's people and defend the faith, attempt to do everything in their power to destroy your faith and convert you to damnable heresy. It is unlikely in 2023 they will even tolerate a believer, should they fail to shipwreck your faith.

>>25195
In the early 16th century when scholars and men of that sort still seriously believed and were not Marxists.

>>25210
17th*

>>25210
Erasmus was Catholic yet the reformers didn't see an issue with using the Textus Receptus he published as long as the work was good, not that much good comes out of today's liberal seminaries.

Modern academia wants to be loved by the god-denying secular world so that even if there are Bible believing Christians within their institutions they force them to shut up or face demotion unless they toe their lines that the Bible is a manmade creation, that God doesn't exist, that what scholars produce is always right like their denial of (what they call) the long ending of Mark or John 7:53 to 8:11, and that everyone else has to bow down before their credentials because they're indisputable geniuses. Yet none of that is worth anything because the castrated Bible translation that they produce, the New Revised Standard Version, is literally one of the worst-selling in existence with the only thing saving it being that they lobby liberal denominations to buy it in bulk to fill empty pews. The sad part is that historically orthodox Christian colleges like Harvard and Yale were hijacked by their perversion and conservatives need to assert their right to the institutions of their forerunners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBSOGG7amM

>>24182
I watched the related video on the channel you mentioned though which points out that Paul may have been counting from the weaning of Isaac in Galatians 3:17 which wouldn't work with this proposal, so I think some additional work needs to be done with what Paul meant by 450 years in that verse.

>>24183
After considering a few events for what the 450 years was referring to, it feels like it would best suit the period from Moses' birth until Samuel began his public ministry after the Ark was 20 years at Kirjath Jearim in 1 Samuel 7. 80 years for Moses' life, 40 years in the desert, 8 years for Joshua's conquest, and 322 years of the Judges.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I had an epiphany recently. Virtually all evolutionist arguments will inevitably allege that X trait of a creature developed for Y purpose, they'll pretty much always use the phrase "evolutionary purpose". What I realized is that when they do this, that means we win the debate. Because supposing that something has a *purpose* presupposes what? That it was *designed* for that purpose, not that the thing randomly magically appeared on its own for no reason. Evolutionist arguments actually suggest intelligent design and evolutionism is essentially an irrational superstition that unwittingly posits some kind of magic causes creatures to suddenly and fundamentally change when they "need" to. I think this is something to keep in mind when dialoging with atheists and something to pounce on whenever it comes up, so we can show them their worldview actually doesn't make any sense.

>>25081
Yes, and this has long been recognized by researchers. Specifically within origins of life research, the concept has been derisively-termed 'The hidden hand of God', relating to investigators setting up initial conditions, etc. in their labs, that are completely irrelevant to the initial conditions on Earth's surface ~3.8Gya.

>when they do this, that means we win the debate.
Not quite that simple IMO. When men can look out at this vast and truly amazing creation spread out all around us, and still say unironically in their hearts 'There is no God!111', then you're dealing with a serious psychosis condition, indeed a spiritually-depraved one. No amount of argumentation, nor directly observable, objective facts are going to sway someone in such a state.

My recommendation isn't to focus on 'turning' the ones adamantly opposed to God (or indirectly to you for proclaiming Him), and rather focus on the ones who are unsure. They are far more numerous, and indeed far closer to God already.