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

"Points that are made should provide reasoning for a particular claim. " Indeed this is something which you didn't provide hence I mocked this action with a statistical claim. After that you did provide arguments but this is irrelevant concerning this subject. "made no attempt to prove that the Bible is valid" You're failure in showing error is good enough for me. However I don't see how this effects our current arguments. "this omission suggests inconsistency and causes ambiguity. " This is a mere history fail. Its only another example of an intentional omission which was common in the past. "the descendants are not even in the same order" I am unwilling to dwell on this but Ill point out that: most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary's genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph's. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus' blood relative), though David's son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke's explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23). "Independent evidence shows that this census was only a local census, and took place in 6AD, which is after Jesus was born. " Evidence please. "Since the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god, why would he use these abhorrent examples of morality in his perfect book? " This is ignorance and not an argument. "This no longer happens? Why not? Because of feminism, more generally, because of secularism" Another history fail. Women got their equality by revolution, tears and blood. The same goes for equality in general. Men got freedom of speech in heavily religious times and women also got their equality when all people went to church. Secularism is very recent. Hence secularism had nothing to do with equality. "Women are now treated equally in spite of what the Bible says. " Now your ignorance simply cant be ignored. I cant believe I am even bothering to debate this with you but here is a website for your own education: . http://www.womeninthebible.net... " to visit both Christian and Atheist websites and then draw conclusions. " You've shown great ignorance which I usually don't find among other atheists hence I conclude that you don't take your time to see the other view. The same goes for "I have indeed read the Bible. " yes I am calling you a liar. "not my spelling mistake" Koran isn't the only correct spelling "If not, you are not in a position to judge my arguments against it" No but bad arguments are bad, and your arguments were bad. "My opponent has demonstrated that there are different ways to interpret this. " No you simply didn't read Isaiah. Please show me how your interpretation is correct when considering the whole chapter. The only conclusion one could draw from reading the bible is that evil is created by mans sin (separation from God). "Christians thought it did (in Pliny's opinion). " If I recall correctly I already told you this but hey the second time is more fun! Christians knew whatever or not they saw Jesus. " My opponent is valuing the words of uneducated people above the laws of physics. " Uneducated people ? !? Do you realize that you have no sensible explanation concerning this. "I think the resurrection is not believable, as it involves manipulating the laws of nature, therefore I have done this. " No you are failing terribly, very badly indeed. Resurrection by definition ignores laws of physics hence usually there is no proof of it but when it comes to Jesus for some reason there is an ample amount of evidence. "To justify my claim that the resurrection is not believable, I recommend the following:" 1. Its too late to present new arguments 2. Presenting this website to a Christian is like presenting Kent Hovind to an Atheist, simply inexcusable.