atheist debate

So today I had lunch with a Jewish kid, born semi-religious, now an "atheist" and he brought up (I didn't start the debate) G-d / Judaism.  This initiated a whole conversation - what made it so difficult was that we were eating with a Christian as well - this idiot thought he was arguing on my side when really I'm as much against him as I am against the atheist.  His arguments were hurting my own - he believes in G-d because he has this ridiculous story that G-d came to his grandfather and helped him recover his stolen car.  And when I started to argue the uniqueness of Sinaitic revelation, I had my hands tied behind my back - I couldn't contrast with Christianity being a whole big fake without losing focus with the Jewish kid and having a debate with a Christian (which I have zero interest in doing)

There were a few interesting points in the conversation which I think are very instructive.

The "atheist" at first argued from archaeological / historical questions, but you could see they weren't his main problems.  These "proofs" don't prove anything - how do we really know by looking at some dust what went on 4000 years ago? (Especially If G-d decided to mess around with the dust for some reason = ananei hakavod, revelation at har Sinai.)  He similarly at first argued that there is no plausible reason to believe in G-d, but again soon abandoned that track.

Then came the shift- how do I explain that G-d put to death by stoning a person who gathered sticks on Shabbos?  How do I explain the genocide that occurs as we enter Kanaan?  If the universe is 100,000 yrs old (which I don't necessarily assume, but he did), how do we explain that G-d just sat on the sidelines and laughed for 95,000 of those years?  If G-d cares about us, shouldn't he answer prayers?

So there are 2 parts to my answer.  The first is that he wasn't understanding the written law in the context of the oral law - if you accept the torah, you cannot accept one without the other.  The person put to death by stoning accepted his punishment in front of two witnesses (al minas kein ani oseh) before being killed.  The kanaanites were also sent messengers of peace - they could have accepted the seven noahide mitzvos and prevented the genocide.

But the second part of the answer is more important.  This atheist comes claiming that as a scientist, he accepts the truth and only the truth - well, me too.  I don't accept religion because it is comforting.  I accept it solely because I believe it to be true.  G-d's morality not fitting with our own, while it may be an important and perplexing philosophical topic, has no bearings on the existence or lack thereof of G-d  or the truth of Judaism.  G-d says no to some of our prayers - G-d said no even to Moses- who am I to be answered?  That's not comforting- but its the truth.

He asked me if I thought that I would believe in Judaism if I were born a Buddhist.  I responded that I would probably not.  He asked, "doesn't that make you wonder about the validity of your belief in Judaism" I said no.  He said what does it make you think.  I said, "Thank G-d I wasn't born in India"

He laughed, but then asked if I wasn't being hypocritical.   I said that this goes back to the same point as before.  I keep to Judaism because I believe it to be true - all that we can possibly do in this world is what we believe to be true - we have no other choice.  The fact that I wouldn't believe it in different circumstances says nothing about whether it is true or not - only about how frail humanity really is.  So I thank g-d that he made me lucky enough to be put in a position where I can believe in him, since so many people are not granted that opportunity.  The frailty of mankind doesn't take away from the fact that where I am now, I believe Judaism is true - emes is mechayev - We have no choice but to follow our beliefs.

I think this conversation is to be continued.  I wish my rebbeim were here to talk instead of me, because they could probably do a much better job.  Now I have to go find the chazals to back up what I said - I think the targum yonasan openly mentions al minas kein ani oseh by the mikoshesh - and its a whole discussion in the rambam in sefer hamitzvos and hilchos melachim about k'naan.  I would very much appreciate (and I'm very serious about this) any advice from those of you out there who are older and wiser (that's probably all of you.)  Thanks!