The Bible contains lies, such as the story of Noah's Ark. To say the Bible is a lie is shorthand for saying it is full of lies. Pretty much the whole thing is mythology pretending to be fact. In my view, that's lying.

No, the Bible is not historical. It is mythological. And I doubt it is 5000 years old.

What does this have to do with anything?

You mean it was a mythology just like Chinese mythology or Egyptian mythology or Greek mythology? Yes, I accept that.

There are ZERO first hand accounts of Jesus. There are 4 canonical gospel *stories* about Jesus, and within those stories are claims that there were witnesses, but that's just a claim in a story. No contemporary historians mentioned anything about Jesus until long *after* his supposed death. And the gospels were also written much later, and not by any real disciples named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. The authors of the gospels are anonymous and unknown, written in Greek, not Aramaic.

Thomas also is a fictional character in your gospel mythology. To say that mythology is historical is a lie, yes.

Is there any evidence that Jesus even existed? No.

Jesus is a fictional character in a mythological story. He's like Superman or Buck Rogers. He's probably not even based on a real person.

I made no such claim. I do not believe in any gods. I can only be as sure of that as I am sure I don't live in the Matrix.

I am both a strong and weak atheist, as it suits my mood. I am also agnostic. And I don't believe it is possible for anyone to have proof of anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Logically, they are mutually exclusive.

None. Only evidence should be given weight.

Absolutely. But I have higher standards of evidence than a credulous person does, so I doubt their evidence would be compelling to me.

Either a god exists or it doesn't. Show me the evidence and I will consider it. But if all you have is faith and dogma, consider me unpersuadable.

So, now my question to you: Is all you have to base your belief on merely faith and dogma?

Eh, I'll take a swipe at this.

Okay, but don't forget that the burden of proof is on the theist for the existence of God. 

Let's start with Genesis.

God created light before he created the sun and the moon. Where did the light come from?

The moon does not produce light.

God punished a naked man and a naked woman that he created without the knowledge of right and wrong for being tricked by a talking snake with legs into eating a fruit that would give them the knowledge of right and wrong. God punished Adam and Eve for not having knowledge that he didn't give them. This is called an internally inconsistent argument.    

Let's see. God's punishment for the snake was to take away its legs. This is bullshit.

Noah's Ark is bullshit. Tower of Babel is bullshit. Lot telling people to rape his two daughters is atrocious. 

The Bible contains real locations, real events, and people that might have actually existed, just like the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, just like the Book of Mormon, it is primarily a religious text, and thus, everything it says is unreliable and cannot be trusted unless verified by other sources.

What is the Satanic Bible? Sorry, I didn't know such a book existed.

Certainly, you need some qualifiers on this question. Is some of it true? Yes. Is the rest of it bullshit? Yes.

Aw, you're going to make that ragged old argument. I don't understand why God has to adapt to human society and culture.

First hand accounts? You mean the ones that popped up decades after Jesus's death? 

Oh my, you have an obsession with capitalizing certain words. If there's no evidence that they occurred, yes. 

Um, aren't you using the Bible to.......

Jesus stated that kids who disrespect their parents should be condemned to death. Well, God lied a lot and God=Jesus. So, does that count? 

Assuming the veracity of the Bible for this question, no.

People die for their religion all the time. It doesn't mean anything.

Agnostic atheist. Secular humanism.

Definitely, but there's usually no evidence. Born again Christians are annoying. 

Conclusion: not true.

Um, a lot?

Oh, I have no problem applying the word "liar" to God - if He is remotely what the believers propose in knowledge and power, he ain't gonna be deceived...

No, we can't. Why?

Because otherwise we run the risk of engaging in a circular argument. If we're addressing 'God exists vs No God exists', and you're the claimant in favor of the positive stipulation that God exists, the discussion must start with you presenting evidence for your case!

No, I won't 'accept that small fact'. Why? Because you've provided no supporting evidence that would agree with your assertion that what you've stated is factual.

...Would I agree that the Satanic Bible is over 5,000 years old and was composed by 60 different authors?

No.

The Satanic Bible was written in 1969 by a singular author, Anton LaVey, an occultist and pseudo-philosopher who loved making media appearances and garnering attention with shocking claims and behavior. The bible itself was largely a collection of his personal perspectives on the world (most of them fairly secular and materialistic) as well as the ethics he thought one should live by and various dialogues as to why (it's actually a very interesting read, if not academically sound).

PRECISELY.

This is not a tome of knowledge, written by/inspired by a supreme being; it was a book written by men from the Bronze Age, attempting to reason how the world worked using mythical stories and allegory.

Now we know better than them, and should move forward.

None of the gospels are first-hand accounts. How could they be? They involved Jesus doing shit like flying into the sky and transmuting matter and risng from the freaking dead! At best, these are mythical popularizations of a man who was well-known at one point in time (I myself am dubious of this argument as well, given - again - a lack of substantial evidence to support it) - and this, the best line of reasoning one can put forward, still leaves us with a very different figure in history than the popularized Jesus Christ of Nazareth put forth in the Bible.

My favorite part in the Spiderman mythos is when Peter Parker unmasks the first criminal he'd ever caught - the man who shot his uncle - only to see that it's the same crook he'd apathetically refused to do anything about earlier that day, thus enabling him (through inaction) to commit the murder.

Just because a work includes messages or motifs or imagery that you find provactive or profound doesn't mean you need to see said work as more 'real'. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something very ordinary can't also be very meaningful.

Now you're begging the question.

Jesus was not a real person - he was a fictional character. Fictional characters are incapable of 'telling lies', because they're static entities.

None of the accounts where Jesus met people in the gospels were factual. Again, you're begging the question.

And yes, anyone today that claims to have seen Jesus or had Jesus 'alter their lives' is delusional.

I, personally, am a strong atheist. 'God' is an incoherent, ridiculous concept - and I'm certain that no deity exists (much less somehow 'created the universe'). I am, by definition, an agnostic atheist (someone who does not know, nor believes) - as are most people who claim strictly to be strictly 'agnostic' just because they don't like the 'atheist' label (...it would, frankly, be outright impossible for anyone not to be agnostic on the issue unless the entirety of the universe was perfectly and completely understood).

Yes, I am 100% certain (for all intents and purposes) that no deity exists who can magically conjure things into existence out of nothing (through mechanisms that not a single person has ever been able to detail), violating known principles of physics, and influences our daily lives through some enigmatic force.

Uh. Yeah, pretty much.

In terms of establishing an argument's validity, a person in andof themselves has no weight! I wouldn't care if Stephen Hawkings went on TV tomorrow and declared himself a Young Earth Creationist; if he had no more evidence than any other creationist to support the claim, his argument would be no more valid.

...What evidence?

If there's good evidence in circulation, I'd sure like to see it.

Compelling evidence in favor of God would likely alter my world-view in favor of seeing if anything could be done to dethrone our maligned dictator.

I've often found it interesting in looking at what it took to develop cheaper forms of paper and pen.

Anyway, Mathew was a Jew who collected Taxes for the Roman Government, He was thus despised by loyal Jews.  Very interesting character, anyway Mathew (ie Levi) wrote his Gospel account around 50 AD that puts his writing 20 years after the death and rising of Christ.

Mark was a very young Jewish Native of Jerusalem.  He originally met Christ through Peter.  After the death he traveled with Barnabas and also with Paul.  His gospel was written in 68 AD.  He spent a lot of his time documenting the works of Paul.

Luke was a Physician, very skilled in the medicine of the day.  He also wrote Acts and witnessed the Healings of the Sick.  He is more noted as the writer of ACTS as he documented the Works of the core Disciples and Apostles of the Early Church.  The Gospel According to Luke was written in 60 AD.  As well writing The Acts of the Apostles in 60 AD.

John was one of the original 12 Disciples and was with Christ since the beginning of his worldly ministry, he also was the Last Apostle his primary Gospel was written last around 85 AD.

When viewing these people historically it is quite clear that writing wasn't their first priority in building and spreading the "Word".  However, as the advent of the Church grew, it became evident that these First Hand Accounts needed to be written down.

I like how the simple arguments unfold that these people are mythical in nature or liars.

If the A God position is True, how might these mens words and witness be validated?  How should one view their world-view in light of these men's encounters and belief?  If this holds TRUE, then it must demand a verdict from the NO God position?

Isn't such a verdict easier to deny as FALSE than to examine a reality that holds out a very profound message?

This is dogma. You are getting your beliefs from apologists, rather than from real historians. Educate yourself. Learn the facts. It is known by all reputable historians that the gospels were anonymously written, and definitely cannot be shown to have been written by any apostles. And you have your dates wrong, too.

So, all you have to base your beliefs on is dogma and faith, as I suspected. Is this the best you have?

If you are so easily mislead, and so easy to shout out dogma, why should anyone listen to anything you say?

If you do not make the effort to educate yourself, why do you think we should respect your uneducated opinions, which are merely faith and dogma?

Muslims have faith and dogma too. So why don't you believe that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a horse, as Muslims believe? If you don't believe the Muslim faith and dogma, why do you expect that I should believe your faith and dogma?

If you are going to make claims, we are going to demand evidence. You claimed that someone named Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in 50 AD. Prove it. Show us the evidence. Likewise with Mark in 68 AD, Luke in 60 AD and John in 85 AD.

Prove that you have more than just faith and dogma. Prove your claims. Show us the evidence.

There is no authorship you can apply to the gospels - they are anonymous.  Just as the writers of the bhagavad gita and many other religious texts.

Sure, they all hold some truths - even the most wildly imaginative story holds some truths.  Baron Munchenhausen has some important moral tales.

Anyhow, it's all just Special Pleading.  You believe because you want to believe, and you want others to join in your delusion because it makes you feel better.  First, prove that a god exists, THEN you can try to show that your god is the X'n god.