Do you have proof that he was NOT real?

This is a bad question. One cannot provide proof that something doesn't exist, one can only point out that there is no objective evidence suggesting its existence.

For example, do you have proof that vampires or dragons are not real? You cannot have such proof, however you can point out that no evidence of the existence of vampires or dragons has ever been found.

Yes Moses was real. Who wrote the first 5 books of the Torah?

No, that is NOT a bad question. It is an EQUAL question to the one asked.

Do you have proof that Moses ever existed? Probably not, if you refuse to eliminate from consideration all Hebrew history - which is something some of these idiots will do. It's kind of like having PROOF that the American government felled the WTC Towers. There is NO PROOF, but Hevusa and others believe it as if they had participated in it.

I'm calling "check mate" on their stupidity.

Then let us get right to the point. I make the claim that God does not exist.

I have no evidence that God is fictional; but I claim that there is no evidence that God is real. In the same fashion, I have no evidence that dragons and vampires are fictional, but I also have no evidence that they are real. Because I have no evidence that these things are real, the most logical belief is that they are not real. So I do not believe in vampires, dragons, or God.

Where do your beliefs differ from mine?

Goodie for you. You choose to believe what you choose to believe, and I'll do the same.

But let's not make believe that all belief-systems are equal, and are based on equal evidence. Even The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, and PBS have done documentaries on Moses and/or the Exodus - and they've not done it with only the bible as their source.

There are literally hundreds of geographical/historical names mentioned in the bible that we know were factually true. That doesn't mean that the bible MUST be the, or the "only" revealed word of god, but it does lend SOME legitimacy to it.

I really don't get you at times.
You pound your chest, and you act rather convincing...
... at least convincing to the effect that you believe your efforts are successful. But habitually, it is baffling to think that you may actually believe that as you give such lame responses and refuse to actually debate the issues at hand.

Take your response here for example. You just claimed that I "Get your butt pounded on one point, so you try to deflect it and head in a different direction..."
But the truth of the matter is that YOU REFUSED TO ADDRESS the previous point. So how any rational person could think that I lost a point you couldn't even bring yourself to address is beyond me.

And moreover, YOU INSISTED that I stop with the previous point. You cried and whined and cried some more until I relented. I explicitly stated that the fact that you couldn't discuss the point regarding the flood proved my point, but here you are pretending that I was the one trying to deflect.

Are you just beating your chest because that's all you can do? Toss out lame rejoinders and insist you're winning as you avoid actual debating confrontation?


And the basis for this statement is where?
Or did you just say it because it's convenient, like most of your statements.


The WORDS OF THE BIBLE THEMSELVES never say it was "homosexuality".
Introducing MODERN REINTERPRETATIONS of "homosexuality" is what the MODERN versions of the bible did. Interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth historically have NOT regarded homosexuality. That was a more modern re-invention of the story.

Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These lies of yours will not change the truth.
How could I "deflect" from a topic YOU NEVER BROACHED? (i.e. the flood issue)

It lends legitimacy to the parts of the Bible which have been historically and geographically validated, however it does not lend legitimacy to the claims of supernatural activity or the existence of God.

For example, the Illiad and the Odessey are books which make mention of the Greek religion. Now, archeological evidence, the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel have found evidence that some of the events of those stories actually happened. However, this does not mean that I believe in Neptune, the mighty God of the seas, nor his cyclopses.

The documents of many other religions have contained some historically accurate information, but you do not believe in those religions, correct? So why Christianity?

Oh yeah. And you're such a bastion of open-mindedness and finding other people's links as "credible"...

I suppose you will have no problem finding this web-site credible...
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
< end sarcasm >

Your link presents the following:
"Summary of Theory
A large comet or asteroid impact in a glacier ice sheet produced the Biblical Great Flood which brought the last Ice Age to an abrupt and sudden end."

The obvious check would be to see if the Bible's time-line of the flood coincides with any METEORITE strike, or with a timing of an ice age.

The bible gives a rather explicit chain of events establishing an age of the earth. Some Christians have balked at science which dates the earth because the bible supposedly gives them a time-frame for the earth's age which is significantly different from science.

The flood? 2344 BC
A Chronological Bible Timeline: Part 1, 4000 BC - 2343 BC

The last ice age? About 10,000 years ago.
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Providing a glaring hole in the story.

And on another note, this "link" you offer can't even figure out the difference between an asteroid, a comet, and a METEORITE.
meteorite: a meteor that reaches the surface of the earth without being completely vaporized

Meteorites hit the earth. Not asteroids.

To claim that an "asteroid" hit the earth is like claiming a man gave birth. It demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the astronomical terminology and classifications, which would be rather embarrassing for any legitimate scientific paper.
I guess it's a good thing that your article wasn't that....

Well...considering you didn't even answer any aspect of any of my questions...why should I feel obligated to answer yours?

I wasn't makings points to be refuted, I was asking questions.