Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Here is your source's parent page linkThe only piece I found an outside reference to - non religious based source not funded by any religious organization I mean, was that house of David did exist. That however is not the spirit of my argument. Many individuals existed in the Bible, however there is no proof of the things they claimed they had done in most instances. Herod was a real king as well as David. Jesus though, the protagonist, shows up nowhere despite this source's claim. Nor are any of the more spectacular claims present anywhere else from plague to pestilence. The writer understood this, and stated that Rome at the time was anti-Christian and pro-pagan. This is not true, they put that in to cast doubt. In fact at the time Rome was quite Christian, they had not been Pagan for a number of centuries by-and-large.You'll notice your souce links no studies. It asks the individual to check the information themselves. A college freshman would get a C on this at best, and you are using it as a legitimate source. Your specific religion has become adept at disseminating information in a quasi-acedemic fashion, all while offering not a bit of background information.Look up our founding fathers for instance, and they are all born again for the first 3 pages of a Google search, though there was no such thing as "born again" until a handful of decades ago. The internet is great for tricking people because you only need to know how to spell and understand SEO, and suddenly you're a legitimate source on a debate site.Whether a vague character in the Bible did or did not exist, I will not argue. I will with confidence argue though, that the bible is not only not 100% true, that the stories it is based on, none, are based on fact. They are based on what someone said someone said someone said someone said... all with an obvious bias.And that unfortunately passes as proof due to 1. over 80% of Americans are Christain 2. You use simple fake sources that look legitimate and most are too lazy to check sources.On the flip side, I an atheist who makes up less than 5% of the US population and less than 10% of the world population, must actually site sources while trying to prove a negative. The playing field is not fair to say the least.But compare how thourough and well documented one of my many sources are, compared to yours linkYou'll notice exact citations both scientific and from the Bible. You'll notice it is written in a 100% non-biased academic fashion, with 0 interpretation and no opinion inserted within any of the text. No where does it try to claim, "well so and so wasn't Christian so take that into account while accepting everything I say as true." No, they compare actual up to date interpretations of the Bible next to confirmed sources.And my opinion of your religion doesn't come from being an atheist. Quite the opposite, it comes from being indoctrinated at an early age and till young adulthood into your religion,and it is only through a deep desire to learn the truth and be honest with myself, that I've managed to shed myself of it.So, find a documented source of the bible's legitimacy, and find one not born into your religion (and not freshly out of prison or off drugs) who seriously believes your source is not 100% biased despite it's facade, and perhaps I'll take a second look at your religion.Warning though, I'm morally against praying to an all powerful being, whether they exist or not. They should be bigger than seeking the praise of a mere mortal, that's the behavior of a diva.