Prove a "Judeo" Religion

"I will essentially ignore my opponent's first 8 paragraphs in this Round simply because it is a dead end. We cannot truly argue about morality because we have different opinions, neither of which can be substantiated with evidence." What a cop out that was. I can support my position on morality with evidence as I have already done so. If you can't then I'd suggest you go ahead and rethink your position. "I honestly don't think anyone has a reason to act morally beyond Earthly consequences." This sentence is incredibly disturbing. If you have no reason to be moral, or if there is no moral standard, you could never have a reason to prevent someone from being killed. You would have no reason to stop a man like Hitler from rising to power. Don't you understand why your worldview is so messed up? "I personally don't think anyone can do something so bad on Earth that they deserve eternal damnation for it (so I don't believe in a hell)." Christians believe that when people go to Hell, they are there because they reject God. And since God is the giver of all things good, people will be stripped of these good things in hell and therefore will continue to sin and be punished for it for the rest of eternity. "The majority of people feel guilt or that they've done something wrong if they hurt someone because of empathy (a basic biological adaptation)." But with your worldview there is no universal standard of wrong. Why feel guilty about something that doesn't exist? People have no reason to be moral (if it is subjective) like you have already stated. So why feel guilty about anything that happens? "My opponent calls my source unreliable and argues against it. If my source is unreliable, prove it. You can't just say it's unreliable and not provide an alternative source that is more credible and disproves mine." Your source was some random dude with a blog that had absolutely no sources of his own and he claimed that there was only 20 Christians after Jesus' death. I have already explained why this is impossible. "It (Bible) is considered unreliable for the events it mentions (such as Noah's flood) for which my opponent provided a source that I will address below." Okay...so you see it as unreliable because you assume that there isn't a creator and that he couldn't flood the earth. Again, you shouldn't disregard a source merely because you already assume to know what is possible/impossible. "I have not found any such Babylonian documents and request that my opponent refer me to them." If you read the rest of the link, it shows you some of those documents. But there are many cultures that describe a worldwide flood (http://www.icr.org...). "Again, this adds minor credibility to the Bible, but does nothing to prove the things that the Bible is discredited for." How can you say that? The Bible has places proven to exist, and people proven to have existed (including Jesus), and events that have actually happened? How does this add only a minor amount of credibility to the Bible? "Then please provide a source with evidence to the contrary. Christianity spread very slowly, which shows that there weren't very many initial followers." I have the Bible which states the Jesus appeared to over 500 people after his death and this source has survived for over two thousand years and you still can't give a good reason to deny it as an unreliable source. We also know for a fact that Jesus preached to people for over three years and that he had many followers. Even Josephus said that Jesus was a good teacher. How on earth can someone just say that there were only 20 Christians? Nothing about the spread of Christianity was slow. It spread like crazy after the death of Jesus. "I read what an opponent writes in his argument, his links should be merely sources confirming his information. They shouldn't be speaking for him, otherwise, I could just paste a bunch of links that support my point of view and count that as my argument." Usually I don't have to debate the existence of Jesus because it is generally common knowledge. I was hoping not to spend so much time on that. That said, my argument wasn't that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because scholars do. My argument is that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because the Bible, many early historians say his was real (such as Josephus) and because the majority of our scholars acknowledge that he existed. Also, claiming a theory to be true is much different then claiming that a person existed. "I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible)" Not true, I have already shown you that cultures had a story of a worldwide flood (http://www.talkorigins.org...). So there is obviously something to be said about a worldwide flood. And aside from that, you can't say a source is unreliable merely because you assume that a God doesn't exist and that he can't flood the earth he created. "In regards to the flood itself, I ask a simple question. Where did all of the water come from?" There are many theories (https://answersingenesis.org...) on this but the fact is that an all powerful God could do anything he wanted. The Bible specifically says that God used water below the earth and above it. He could even create new water if he wanted to. The point is you shouldn't deny the Bible as a source merely because you assume that God does not exist. "I am still confused on whether "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." or "It is finished!" were his last words because by Luke, Jesus "breathed his last" after the former, but according to John, Jesus "gave up His spirit" after the latter. So which one is it?" The words "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" are the last words of Jesus since he breathed his last after saying those words. You can read about Jesus drinking the wine in Luke. That is when he would have said "it is finished." Where are we know? You dropped everything in my argument about morality and about Josephus. Does this mean that you believe that Jesus was a real person now? As for the Bible, are you going to be able to come up with an actual reason to discredit it?