If Jesus were born today he would be an atheist (don't vote w/o reading plz!)

Please excuse me for forfeiting my last round, unfortunately I had more pressing matters to attend. I posted my R3 in the comments sections. I will restate it here as well. Allow me to sum up my opponents points. 1.) If Jesus was born today he wouldn't be the same person. 2.) We don't know what he would be. 3.) More than 50% of the world's population is theistic so we can extrapolate that there is a greater than 50% chance that Jesus would be theistic as well. R1>On the surface this arguments seems to make sense. But that is only on the surface once the argument is examined more closely it crumbles (Largely due to the fact that it fails to take in key information.) Let's use an example to illustrate the inadequacy of my opponent's argument. Imagine that I have a basket with 100 trinkets in it. 75 of the trinkets are red and 25 are green. You close your eyes and randomly select a trinket from the basket. Logically there is a 75% chance it will be red. But.... suppose i give you a bit more information. I tell you that of the 100 trinkets 90 are round and 10 are square -and- All the square trinkets are green. Now we do the same experiment; you close your eyes and randomly select a trinket from the basket. Without opening your eyes you can feel in your hand that the trinket you've selected is square. Now what are the odds that the trinket is red? ZERO. Information has a large role in determining probabilities. Willingly disregarding certain information leads to misrepresented probabilities. This is exactly what my opponent has done. He has disregarded key information about the nature of Jesus. R2>"If Jesus was born today, he'd be a completely different person. And we don't know whether he'd be an atheist or not" As I stated in my introduction of R1 : "The debate will obviously be nothing more than speculation on both sides." of course we cannot know for certain but i provide a well grounded argument for my claims. An argument my opponent still fails to refute. We do however know some things about what Jesus would be today that my opponent has disregarded. If any part of Ancient Jesus was manifest today it would be his nature or essence (i.e. his personality) He would have the same nature/personality regardless of when he is born b/c that is the only thing that would make him distinctively Jesus. I'm obviously not talking about the physical material that made up Jesus 2000 yrs ago, so the only distinct thing we can say would be consistent would be his essence, or soul if you will. If his essence/nature/personality were not the same then we would not be talking about Jesus. This debate is focused on whether the character who was Jesus would be the same if he was born today. My opponent seems to say we cannot know what his character would be today. Well this isn't true. His character cannot change bc if it could it wouldn't be Jesus we were talking about. When i said that Jesus was created today it is the essence of Jesus that was referred to. We know the essence of Jesus bc of what he did in the past. If we take our knowledge about the nature of Jesus into account my opponent's probability argument does not hold. A> It is clear that people have different personalities. We do not yet have a full understanding of these personalities, or whether it is even possible to categorize them. There are some obvious distinctions though. Examples are Extra/introversion dominant/submissive types. Etc. My argument holds to the notion that some ppl are just wired for some things and other ppl are just wired for other things. In this case, some ppl are just wired with a desire to understand the world around them. Most people are not truth seekers but there is a small percentage of ppl who are. In ancient times these ppl were religious visionaries (b/c they lacked adequate evidence*see below*) today they are scientists. *there are four motivations for believing a religion is true: 1. everyone around you agrees it is and/or your ancestors said it was. 2. you have religious experiences which seem to correctly depict reality. 3. it brings your life meaning. 4. fear of eternal torment. A truth seeker (even in ancient times) disregards #1, 3 and 4, which most ppl actually rely on. Today we have evidence to refute #2. Evidence they didn't have in Ancient times. A "truth seeker" in ancient times would have relied on #2, today a "truth seeker" does not. Jesus was a "truth seeker" today Jesus would disregard #2. So >> the probability of being religious today is greater than 50% if you're an average person but we know that Jesus was not an average person. Therefore it is right to conclude that the probability of a "truth seeker" being religious today is infinitely low. Jesus as a truth seeker would not have been religious. B>The key bit of information that was missing from my opponents argument was Jesus' nature. His nature was to understand the world around him. In this sense he is like the square that must be green. He was a truth seeker and truth seekers use all the evidence available to make conclusions about the world. The available evidence today does not point to god. Therefore Jesus would not have concluded that god exists. (he would be a 'weak' or 'passive' atheist) When we include the information that Jesus was a truth seeker we see the probability of him being a theist is not what my opponent suggests. << To be extremely clear: I Am In No Way Saying That Every Atheist Is A Truth Seeker. What I Am Saying Is That Every (True) Truth Seeker Is (At The Very Minimum) A Passive Atheist. (whether they are aware of this or not :P)>> How do we know that Jesus was a truth seeker? For starters: Matthew 23:1-39 Jesus openly condemned religious authority in his day. Questioning something that you're supposed to believe/accept just bc someone says so is the hallmark of a truth seeker. b/c of this fallacy http://www.nizkor.org... But mainly he had visions of "god" which he assumed to be real b/c of a lack of evidence in his day. He then based his philosophy on these visions. Mark 1:10-11 Conclusion: I successfully disproved my opponent's probability argument and presented a just and valid argument for my side. vote PRO. That is all... thank you blond_guy that was very enjoyable. I remind the readers that in this final round it would be unfair for blond_guy to bring up an entirely new argument. All he can do is attempt to refute mine.