Prove a "Judeo" Religion

"Yes, other than me not wanting people to get hurt or suffer, I have no reason to be moral. I don't need a religious text to tell me what's wrong and right, I trust myself to judge my decisions on their "morality". I don't need the threat of eternal punishment to keep me from doing bad things, and this can be said for the vast majority of people on Earth because of the adaptation of empathy, as I mentioned previously." The threat of eternal punishment is not the reason most Christians/religious people are moral. We are moral because our God commands us to be moral and we do what he says because we love him. But...I still don't think you get the big picture. There is no such thing as right and wrong without God. Without God, your opinion on what is right/wrong becomes just like your opinion on what ice cream flavor is the best. It doesn't matter! In other words, we do need a God to tell us (objectively) what is right and wrong or else you could never have any reason to be moral (expect for selfish reasons) or do anything right and wrong. As for empathy, you have no reason to feel bad about anything if there is no real right and wrong. You're reasoning is circular. You claim that morality is subjective and that you wouldn't say murder is wrong for a fact, but then you claim that the majority of people of earth do "moral" things because they have the desire to do what is right (empathy). See the problem here? You say morality is subjective but then seem to acknowledge that all people have an objective sense of what is right/wrong. "My opponent, again, fails to provide a single source that contradicts mine and simply points a finger saying that the source is not credible. This "random dude" is a credible New Testament scholar who got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was actually quoted in one of your own sources. Again, if you think the source is wrong, provide another, more credible source, with different information and we, along with the voters, can judge the sources side by side." I provided the Bible as a source which has been around for 2,000 years and I also provided links about the apostles setting up churches. I even explained the fact that Jesus preached for three years before he was murdered. So when a source tells me there were only twenty Christians during that time period, a red flag goes up. I don't remember the author of your source being quoted in one of mine. But either way there were way more than twenty Christians. The truth is, all we know is that Christianity spread fast (http://myocn.net...). We don't know the exact number of Christians there were but we do know that Christianity became very popular. "But couldn't I say that you do the same? You trust a source because you assume to know what is possible/impossible, that God makes everything possible? " No, you couldn't say the same to me. The Bible is the book that convinced me that God is real and that he could do all things. I didn't start reading the book with the same assumptions you have. "My point is that the "scientific worldview" is much more rational and doesn't require the constant "God did it" cop out. Humans used to use that card on just about every natural phenomenon until scientists came up with ideas on it actually happens. If you heard about a man that flied, it seems much more reasonable to listen to the scientist that tells you it's physically impossible and that it didn't happen rather than the person that says "God did it"." You misunderstand. All I said was that God was responsible for the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. I am not claiming that everything that happens on earth is the result of supernatural intervention. But I would claim that God is the best explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus and the creation of the universe. "There are also many cultures that describe dragons in similar ways but that doesn't mean they're real. I did indeed look at the rest of the link, and it only speaks of the "Sumerian King List" documents. The "Babylonian documents" in question are not mentioned or referenced in the rest of the article." The Sumerian King List document is one of the Babylonian documents and that is the only one the source mentions. If that isn't enough for you take a look at this source if you have some time (http://www.livius.org...). As for the dragons, it is a little different since most ancient sources (those that include dragons) include the beasts in their stories. Also, as your link pointed out, dragons might have been based on other creatures. After all, back then (200 yrs ago) rhinos were refereed to as unicorns. But as for the flood, almost every culture (see past links for details) has a record of a flood. This is pretty significant if you think about it. "I don't think the Bible is complete fiction, so it is not surprising to me that some things in the Bible can indeed be easily confirmed. However, as mentioned, this does nothing to prove the legitimacy of the things the Bible is actually attacked for. Other legends/myths also have elements of truth such as the real existence of Mount Olympus in Greek myths or the real existence of Troy and the Mycenaeans in the myth of the Trojan War." No actually, people are almost trying to discredit the Bible on its historical correctness. People for years attacked the Bible for its mention of the Hittites. No one believed this civilization existed. But then people found the remains of the place and now no one attacks the Bible on that subject. The difference between the Bible and legends are that the Bible is told from eye witnesses that were actually there and not by Homer. The Bible actually claims it isn't a myth for whatever it is worth to you. And besides, myths take a long time to develop. But the Resurrection of Christ was written about 40 yrs after the event happened. There was no time for a myth to form. "Another source-less, empty claim. I have a source written by a Bible scholar and historian that clearly says that the spread of Christianity was rather slow." Your source is a biased agnostic. But aside from that see my link above to see how fast Christianity spread. "We might as well assume every historical myth and legend to be true because we "know" that God can do whatever he wishes." No...you should trust the Bible because it has given you no reason to discredit it. On the other hand, every other source that has legends/myths do have actual reasons to discredit them. For example, other sources contradict themselves, were written by people who thought a demon was speaking to them, and were told as stories merely for entertainment, not historically correct, were not supported by archaeology, and have no proof of the people in its "tale" existing (King Arthur?). The Bible is not guilty of any of these things and therefore you should trust it. "Well we know, possibly unlike the Bible's authors, that the Earth is not flat so you can't technically have water below it." Not true. The Bible says in Job that the earth is (Job 26:7) suspended in space. Nothing indicates that people thought that the earth was flat. "Now, let's just assume that somehow God did spawn all of this water. My next question would be, where did it go?" I did give you a link on the flood since I didn't have time to go into it. You should go back and read it if you have time. Here are some more links if interested... https://answersingenesis.org... https://answersingenesis.org... https://answersingenesis.org... "I think I already have and I continue to support that position. I'm not even going to go into the ideas that God just spawned a man and made a woman out of his rib, but my position on Noah's flood stands." Your reason for discrediting the Bible is because you assume to know what is possible. Once you accept what the witnesses of the time period say about Jesus, you can accept that all things are possible with God. I mean, is it really that difficult to accept that an all powerful God could do all of these things? "I'm a bit disappointed that my opponent ignored my arguments, questions rather, on the topic of Noah's flood that I presented in Round 3 (presented in a, b, c, d, e format). I was curious to see what you could come up with, although it would most likely be the "God did it" card, I haven't ever found a way to really answer those points without the pulling of this card." Yes...and I am disappointed that we couldn't go into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus since we had to spend so much time on Jesus' existence. But I did and have given you some links on the flood and maybe that will help you out with the questions. "And even if I am wrong, I don't understand why both accounts wouldn't have the same things written down. Why didn't the second author write anything about the wine or the "it is finished" phrase? Let's not dwell on this too much, I am not in such strong disagreement with my opponent on this point." When a crime happens, all the witnesses gather together and individually tell the police what happened. Not a single witness will describe the event the same way as the others. Same with the Resurrection, you got four witness that record things slightly different but not in a contradictory way. "Unfortunately, we could not cover everything in this debate such as Evolution, but I found this to be a fantastic debate. " I would love to have a debate on evolution in the future if so desired. But for now, I thank you for a good debate. I have enjoyed this as well and I am am happy to know that I wasn't the only person to have learned something new during this debate.