Debate: Is there life after death?
Side: Nope, just a dirt nap!

As I said, if validity of other claims is any measure, then Hinduism beats any other religion hands-down. You want to talk about Adam-oldness? The vedas refer to Hinduism as 'Eternal Religion', as is confirmed in all the stories, and the term 'Hinduism' was coined by external parties entirely. So, it has been around as long as souls have, and they have been around as long as God has (excluding cardinality). Value of pi was calculated accurate to 4 decimal digits, and then there is the entire trigonometry. They don't talk about eternal lives in any heaven or hell - those are all temporary till you reach God himself by devotion. If I can reject their stories as being fabricated, then I surely can reject yours. (Not to mention the historical evidence that they might be true.) That won't really be a significant thing on my list. Only a few people wrote about Jesus - and I'm tempted to think they fabricated so much due to administrative necessity - which is specifically not how recording history works. The prophecies were made after it had all happened (reminds me, I'm yet to see the rapture). He couldn't even have magically risen days after death with godly powers. It has all been too geographically isolated to take seriously. As he died (again) long before the word could spread, I don't think any of it can be true. All of it has been to keep people in line. (Again, history confirms how those who deviated were punished.) They didn't care about not having it grow too much because they never thought that the purpose would ever be over, and thus it has grown into a big religion. Also, circular reasoning doesn't create for a valid line of arguments. Like any preacher that I have argued with online (the number isn't big, though), you haven't tackled most of my questions directly. Now that we belong to big republics (I assume), I don't need to give in to old tools to survive in a society. Without the danger, the number of religious affiliated people is decreasing. As predicted in the vedas. (Also, the Hindu God doesn't exist outside of space and time, so it is even more believable. But they say that God provides evidence based on what you want to believe - an archaic play on the confirmation bias - which is a red flag big enough for me. Faith has no value in truth.) So, rather than assuming that the biblical God exists and using other ancient folklore to prove it, there should be a line of arguments based on the directly observable, or the directly knowable and undeniable. All the observable noumena is available to start from - and the scientific methods of reasoning that anything that has happened for long enough will continue to happen and what necessarily follows from true premises is true. As to the remaining part of your argument, I doubt that Jews would have written such a thing. Unless they converted, that is. The powerful get to decide recorded history, and with all of this, christianity has been powerful enough (they made great administrative tools for the purpose) to decide what shall be written. I'd rather believe someone who wasn't affected by their power - and it has all been geographically isolated during the time, which isn't a necessity for someone with godly powers. But for weak and slow humans, it is.