It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

Rebuttal: 1. I did not say Christianity is not a result of chance because it is old. I was pointing out it was foretold in the OT thousands of years before it happened. Foretelling something will happen by various persons is hardly by "chance". The fact that the Jews do not accept Christianity because they think the Messiah did not come yet makes it unlikely that this came about as a "cultural evolution". The Jews who are the most likely to be subjected to the next phase of "evolution" who believes in the OT rejects Christianity. A cultural revolution is usually specific to a particular culture. In this case Greeks, Syrians, Ethiopians etc. became Christians and not one specific culture. People died for what they believed because they were convinced what they believed was the truth. 2. I asked for a relevant contradiction based on salvation requirements. Judas and how he died is therefore not relevant to this debate. Secondly, there is not even a contradiction with Judas, but if Con wants to, we can debate this some other time. 3. Con states there is no evidence for the Christian God although there is historical proof. I asked for historical proof from him to counter that which exists but he failed to give any. 4. Con states: "A miracle will always be less likely than a natural explanation because it is a violation of a law of nature. The laws of nature are generalizations that all of our experience supports - almost by definition, there is nothing that we have more evidence for than the laws of nature". As pointed out the big bang theory contradicts all the laws of nature and is therefore evidence that these laws can be violated if true. If not, evolution cannot be true either. I repeat myself because Con did not refute what I stated. 5. Con uses a typical argument that is directed against Pascal's wager that is irrelevant to this Debate. The argument of "which God" is not what the resolution asks for and by accepting the Debate Con should argue the resolution. Con states that another religion can make the same wager against me and he is right. This will require a different formulation of the specifics of the argument as I mentioned before and IS NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. If I wanted to argue against another religion in this Debate I would have included it in the resolution, BUT I DID NOT. In fact, I have started the same Debate against Islam as well and directed it specifically against Islam instead of Atheism. The resolution must be adjusted because the specifics are not the same. This applies to the "anti-god" as well. The "anti-god" argument fails because it is stated: "3. The Christian God and anti-God have an equal probability of existing". The Atheist view does not include any possibility of a God existing and again IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE. I also pointed out that Con"s example is self contradictory because the non-existent "anti-god" can only cause someone to go to hell is he or it EXISTS. Basically, the argument compared with what Con presents above in step 1 to 4 proves himself wrong. 6. Con quotes from Islam and I do too and all it shows is that there are contradictions within that religion regarding salvation which I stated from the start when it was mentioned. Two wrongs (Christianity & Islam) do not make a right (Atheism) as Con would suggest. It is a fallacy to think the opposing view must therefore be automatically correct. All merciful is self explanatory regardless of what a Muslim or Con thinks. 7. I said the evidence for Christ is evidence for God and not Christianity per se. 8. The jail example was mentioned because you incorrectly said my argument was based on hell rather than accountability. Conclusion: I am not missing the point of Con's argument; I am saying it is IRRELEVANT to this Debate"s resolution. Con has not dealt with the basic claim that the Christian view is better than the Atheistic view. There was no argument presented by Con to deal directly with this claim by showing how the Atheistic view can be better. The argument is based on probability and as mentioned leaves opens the possibility that the Christian view can be wrong and the Atheist right. Therefore Con's concern whether I have to prove God exist is quite irrelevant. I state again as before: "The atheist has a 50/50 chance of escaping accountability where as the Bible believer is 100% safe whether right or wrong compared to the Atheists position". Con has not dealt with this in any way so far and is the crux of the mater. I can see Con put thought into his replies and probably did some research (I suspect) and would like to commend him for that. I am more than willing to Debate Con on the Problem of evil or the existence of God should he wish to do so. Perhaps Con can answer my question in the last round because I am curious: Since you believe God does not exist, then in the absence of God, why does evil exist?