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. (Same as our debate about the existence of God). I will however address my opponent's paragraph where he discusses that ". .. if you believe that morality is subjective, you could never tell someone that they were doing something wrong. .. you wouldn't even have reason to do anything moral since there would be no universal standard of morality". I am fully aware of the things that come along with believing that morality is subjective. I honestly don't think anyone has a reason to act morally beyond Earthly consequences. 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). The majority of people feel guilt or that they've done something wrong if they hurt someone because of empathy (a basic biological adaptation). There has actually been research that shows that psychopaths aren't just people who decide to do evil, but that they have a smaller, underdeveloped amygdala (the part of the brain responsible for many emotions including empathy). Anyways, I just don't think that one can say anything is wrong for a FACT because there are always underlying circumstances that make the situation virtually impossible to judge. . http://www.livescience.com... "Your unreliable source. .. " 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. "People confirmed" The source my opponent provides gives a list of kings and pharaohs that are mentioned in the Bible that seem to have existed in reality. This doesn't seem to prove much, at least not to me. I never said (nor do I believe) that every word in the Bible in incorrect. I concede that this adds a bit of credibility to the Bible as a source but the mentions of certain kings and pharaohs is not what the Bible is attacked for. It 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. "Events" My opponent's source for this says "A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same Flood". Unless the source is referring to the Epic of Gilgamesh (which is not the "same flood"), I have not found any such Babylonian documents and request that my opponent refer me to them. The source goes on to speak of the Epic of Gilgamesh as if it is the story of Noah's ark and that it describes the same event. This is simply false. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written 900 years before the Bible, they are not describing the "same event", though I don't doubt that the two are related (maybe even a copy) because of how similar they are. . https://books.google.com... . http://www.religioustolerance.org... "Archaeology" Again, this adds minor credibility to the Bible, but does nothing to prove the things that the Bible is discredited for. "It is literally like your source just made up the number to make Christianity look bad. " Then please provide a source with evidence to the contrary. Christianity spread very slowly, which shows that there weren't very many initial followers. By spread, I do not mean geographically, but by popularity. Essentially, Christianity was not really a religion until centuries after the supposed crucifixion of Christ. "Did you even read the links about scholars pretty much universally agreeing that Jesus was a real person. His existence isn't really debatable" First off, it isn't really my job to read the links. 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. However, I am indeed looking for truth, not just a win so I am fine with reading the links, but keep this in mind for future debates. Secondly, your statement above is not an argument. In fact, you are committing the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Saying that "scholars pretty much universally agree that Jesus was a real person" is not an argument. I could just as easily say "scientists pretty much universally agree that evolution is true" and with this, trump your entire case. But this is a logical fallacy. I would have to explain and PROVE that evolution is true, just as you have to PROVE that Jesus existed by providing actual evidence. "So basically you disregard the Bible as a reliable source merely because you assume Christianity to be false and that God cannot do all things. " That's not at all what I said. I said: "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)". I do not assume that God "cannot do all things" but the "God did it" cop-out is far too commonly used. In regards to the flood itself, I ask a simple question. Where did all of the water come from? "Jesus' last words" My opponent provides a link in which the Gospel accounts of the last words of Jesus are put in chronological order. However, 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? "Error in Geography" I agree with the source only to a certain extent because it depends simply on a different interpretation of the Bible's words. The wording is ambiguous to a large extent and because of this, I will no longer push this point because it is difficult to prove one side or the other. Indeed let the fun continue.