There's as much evidence that Wotan and Lord Krishna exist as there is that Yahweh exists

Regarding my claim of my opponent's logical fallacy: We are, here, having a debate. Points that are made should provide reasoning for a particular claim. Why then, did he bother to make the completely irrelevant point about how many Christians exist? If he was using it against my argument that the Bible is self-contradicting, then he has committed this fallacy. He said my claim is rejected by 2.1 billion Christians, well I ask then, what is the significance of this if it is not to support your view that my claim is incorrect? If he has not used this statistic against my claim, then he is causing ambiguity by making irrelevant points. The reader should also note that my opponent has still made no attempt to prove that the Bible is valid; he is assuming the Bible is valid, therefore every point he has made using Biblical quotes is invalid unless he can show that the Bible is valid. Regarding my claim of the contradiction I pointed out, my opponent has asserted an explanation. I would first like to challenge his 'evidence' of the omissions from Matthew's list. These omissions are based on Bible verses, which he has not shown to be valid. Indeed, this omission suggests inconsistency and causes ambiguity. Because this debate is not about the consistency of the Bible, I shall not continue this argument. If you look at the two lists, the descendants are not even in the same order, so even if there is not a direct lineage of descendants, the lists remain mutually exclusive. My opponent has asked me to clarify the inconsistency I claimed in the book of Luke. Jesus, according to independent evidence, was born between 5BC and 3AD. So, according to Luke, the censor I mentioned must have taken place during this time (as this this is claimed to be the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem). Independent evidence shows that this census was only a local census, and took place in 6AD, which is after Jesus was born. This therefore cannot be the reason that Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem and so this account in the book of Luke is false and the Bible is therefore inconsistent. Now, my claims about the immorality of the Bible. My opponent has, in a nutshell, suggested that this was the way things were in those times (i.e. the inequality of women), which I agree with. Since the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god, why would he use these abhorrent examples of morality in his perfect book? Why does it take mere humans to decide that women have feelings too? In any case, men are taking priority over women. This no longer happens? Why not? Because of feminism, more generally, because of secularism. Because the low status of women is condoned in the Bible, Christians have treated women unequally for many centuries (i.e. witch burning, women not being allowed to be bishops). The Bible is still the same as it always has been. Shouldn't you then be promoting the inequality of women, as it is in your holy book? Women are now treated equally in spite of what the Bible says. My opponent is then pleading with me not to visit atheist websites but consider the Christian view. This is clearly biased. I take a more objective view and advise that everyone interested in the Christian vs Atheist debates, to visit both Christian and Atheist websites and then draw conclusions. "I think it is clear that my opponent has not read the Bible" = assertion; I have indeed read the Bible. "I don't believe in the Quaran, but I'll never support the arguments you made there against it." (not my spelling mistake). Have you read the Koran? If not, you are not in a position to judge my arguments against it (I have read the Koran). You may also wish to read about the Danish cartoon scandal and the conviction of Salman Rushdie. As for the Isaiah quote. My opponent has demonstrated that there are different ways to interpret this. He has not proved his interpretation to be true and neither have I. This is true for the rest of the Bible, hence its invalidity as a source of evidence. Indeed, this ambiguity leads to extremist views, and potentially terrorism (as is the case with Islam at the moment. The Christians are no exception; The Holy Inquisition can be justified using the Bible). In Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan, he does indeed state that he believes the Christians to be sincere about their beliefs. However, using this as evidence for the resurrection is a logical fallacy. Just because Pliny believed that the Christians believed that the resurrection occurred, it does not imply that the resurrection did occur, only that the Christians thought it did (in Pliny's opinion). To give another example by way of comparison, the Mormons sincerely believe many aspects of their religion, such as the golden plates etc. despite the fact that their leader was a convicted charlatan. Anyone can believe anything; without valid evidence, these claims cannot be verified. The passage from Tacitus is very distressing, but again, this does not prove that the resurrection occurred. Also, the tomb being empty is not conclusive proof that the laws of physics were suspended for the desires of an individual. My opponent is valuing the words of uneducated people above the laws of physics. "I ask you to find something as believable as the resurrection..." I think the resurrection is not believable, as it involves manipulating the laws of nature, therefore I have done this. To justify my claim that the resurrection is not believable, I recommend the following: www.godisimaginary.com/i15.htm This debate, for my opponent, concerns proving that Yahweh is more likely to exist than Wotan or Krishna. So far, he has used an unverified source to attempt to prove things that are not related to this. I ask him to provide (valid) evidence that Yahweh, specifically, exists.