This first argument is against a particular argument put forward by Cliffe
and Stuart Knetchle repeatedly, which deals with the proof of Jesus's
resurrection. They ask:

"How could so many people testify about the resurrection of Jesus even
when they knew they'd get killed for it?"

My response: Well, if people in the first century were told that if you
believe and die for what you believe, you would immediately get to Paradise,
there would be many people who'd die for it, claiming that they saw Jesus
rise from the dead. After all, isn't the saying that "blessed are those who
have not seen, yet believed"? Just look at Jihaad-ists who blow themselves
up because they are promised rewards in Paradise for martyrdom.

Argument 2: "Sin is Obvious"

If sin was indeed obvious, then it would not have been necessary for one
to use a book to prove it. However, a Christian may say that the book is
simply the singular source that we all point to, although what's in the
book has always been obvious to us. Now that's a fun argument.

However, I'll have to go back to what made me think of this argument. It's
when I read the Sermon on the Mount. The people there were amused, because
he spoke as if he was in authority. Basically, the people did not know what
they really had to believe until he told them that. It just resonated with
their feelings, as opposed to them knowing it verbatim all along.

(Islam's claim that the Sunnah had been the same from the beginning.)
(It ignores the entire idea of etymology and archaeological history.)

Arguments Against Christianity

Argument 1: "Resurrection is Proven"

Argument 2: "Sin is Obvious"

Tags