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

May I remind you that you still have to provide evidence for Wotan and Krishna for them to be as likely as Yahweh. However I'm sure you wont instead you'll simply ramble a lot. " May I remind you that I have already shown these two 'gods' to be unlikely and you have agreed. I feel that , for the benefit of the reader, I should explain further my 'burden of proof' argument. If I was to declare that pink unicorns exist, I would have to demonstrate this. If I did not do this, I could not criticise people for rejecting my claim on the bases that they haven't disproven it. Think about it, there are countless things that we cannot disprove. Indeed, we cannot disprove that Wotan or Lord Krishna exist. We can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster. My opponent is claiming victory because I haven't disproven the Bible or the existence of Yahweh. "You're failure in showing error is good enough for me. " Not only did I show error, but even if I didn't, the burden of proof is not on me to show error. I cannot disprove the Bible, just like my opponent cannot disprove the Koran. Just like in the example I mentioned above, if you're claiming something which cannot be disproven, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence, otherwise there is not reason to believe it's true. Readers are again reminded that my opponent failed to prove the Bible to be valid. ". .. he provided only an assertion "Does this inconsistent, self-contradicting article constitute valid evidence? " which I mocked. Only after that did he support his claim. " At least I did support my claim, which is more than can be said for my opponent, who has failed to provide any evidence for the source he uses to support his claims. "- Virgin birth. Since this doesn't affect me I wont bother. " My point here was showing inconsistency in the Bible (a mistranslation) which my opponent has not refuted. "1. The Greek word for "first" in Luke 2:2 is protos and can be translated "before. " Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, "This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria. "" You could probably say this about any verse in the Bible in order to justify a particular opinion. Readers may also like to know that there is no evidence of any census taking place. Since the census of 6AD does have independent evidence, it's reasonable to think that this census would as well. It does not. "Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions and there were actually two censuses taken. The "first census" mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during his first term as governor. .. " Again, my opponent has provided no evidence of this census. "As far as pornography and cursing is concerned then yes but all these revolution happened in religious times. .. .how can secularism lead to equality (mere curiosity). " My point here is that humans have lead to the equality of other humans, god played no part and so it seems he doesn't care. Here is how secularism leads (or rather can lead) to equality: Secularism - a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations (wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn ) By not taking into account religion, we are free to choose our own moral values (as we don't have to follow any scripture). As a result, people have free speech (because they do not have to act in accordance to any dogma). Groups of people who are not satisfied with the way they are treated in society can come out and say so. They can campaign for equality (women, blacks, gays etc. ) without fear of condemnation on religious grounds. Since people in power don't have the excuse of 'the Bible says so,' they have little reason to deny people equality. Over time, people will come to be treated equally, as the issue of their inequality will raise awareness and gain support from others. As humans, we are naturally sympathetic towards other people, for good evolutionary reasons. It is worth pointing out that in the developed world today (UK, USA etc) there is a high degree of equality amongst different groups of people. In the developing world however (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan etc) in which the governments are not secular, there is a high degree of intolerance and inequality. For example, two boys in Iran were publicly hanged for being gay. This abhorrent intolerance is the result of scripture and these things would never happen in developed secular countries. "They said that they saw Jesus or have you not read what I've posted in my previous rounds ? " I could say that I saw Jesus, so could anyone. Just because people said something doesn't make it true. "The fact is that the tomb was empty and the fact is that many people were tortured for what they knew to be true or not. What are the opposing facts ? Well people can't come back to life by laying in a protected tomb for three days. I suppose that just means that there shouldn't be evidence for the resurrection but there is. " There isn't though. Since you can't verify the Bible, you have no evidence that the resurrection happened. "- You will notice that women are treated by men like their possessions. This is how the society worked in the past, true. " God obviously approved of this, as he spoke of it with no revulsion in his own book. If you're wondering what the relevance of this is, a being of infinite wisdom and intelligence would not hold these irrational views, if even us humans can get over them. This reduces the credibility of Yahweh, although of course it does not disprove him, as I have mentioned, that would be impossible. Readers should also notice that religion often works on geographical terms. People in this place believe X and people in that place believe Y. As humans are not predisposed to believe any one religion over another, it is almost statistically impossible that such people would honestly and independently choose to follow a particular faith. This is a sign of childhood indoctrination. If my opponent had be born in Afghanistan, it is almost certain that he would be a Muslim and would believe in Islam to the degree that he believes in Christianity. This clearly undermines faith, as it is the result of where one happens to be born and seldom the result of honest inquiry. Indeed, the majority of people I know who have not been brought up in a particular faith are atheists. The point of this is to further show that Yahweh is unlikely, as my opponent only believes in him because of where he was born. I urge everyone to open their eyes. Science is a fascinating and inspiring subject; it leads to answers and explanations through honest inquiry. Over the millennia, we have acquired such a vast, diverse range of knowledge which we have been able to apply to our societies. We have wondered, ask questions and sought answers. It is worth noticing that god had not been necessary in any of this. Some things we cannot explain and indeed we may never be able to. But asserting an unlikely being is highly irresponsible and dishonest. We have explained the whole of life without the need for a god. God could have easily just made humans as we are, so we would know he must exist, but for some reason, he decided against this. When scientists have spent their entire lives trying to seek truth, uncovering minute details in very complicated events, which can explain so much, and someone then comes out and says "actually, a magical being just magically did it all" with no evidence, you can see why they would get annoyed and fight against it. Indeed, the heavy use of magic also reduces the credibility of the existence of Yahweh. Magically creating man, magically impregnating a virgin who has a son who magically performs miracles and magically comes back from the dead. This is serious ignorance of biology and physics. So, I have shown that Wotan and Krishna are unlikely; my opponent has not shown that Yahweh is any more likely (and the burden of proof is on him). I thank readers for their time.