Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[rsb]

On a related basis, what evidence do you have that Ra (the Egyptian sun god) was not real in jewish theology.

...
Asking for evidence that something did not happen or did not exist is a rather pointless exercise.
...

That is exactly the point of this thread.

It is absolutely pointless to use weak arguments that was not some random guy named jesus claimed to be the king of the jews and was crucified.

The arguments against the OT/Torah are actually stronger, and equally undermine both jewish and christian theologies.

---

Actually no, the sum of their argument is that you can't use the 5,800 ancient Greek or the 20,000+ ancient Latin Biblical manuscripts as evidence because they "don't count" or "aren't high quality" or whatever other bullshit they use, despite the very good quality early manuscripts that do exist, etc.
Well more importantly there's direct archaeological proof, many crucifixion nails have been found - even one that was still embedded in the victim's heel bone. Also many crucified bodies have been excavated.
The Bible never mentions "three wise men", it mentions "wise men" which means two or more.
Incorrect.

Evolution is just like gravity - we know what it does, but we do not know what it is. Einstein believed that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time, and thus postulated his theories special and general relativity. We put satellites into orbit, we send rockets to land on the moon - and don't use either of those two theories. What we use is Newtonian Mechanics, despite the fact that we know for certain it's wrong - we use it because it's "good enough".
Yes the evidence for its existence, but not the evidence for how or why it actually works. Another question I could easily ask you is why does a subatomic particle have spin - what mechanism causes it to be?

So for my own clarification here, are you saying that you follow Christianity because you believe the Bible to be historically factual?

Starting at the end and working backwards, I am not christian at all. Parts of the bible may be slightly factual, such as the existence of ancient empires, however mostly not as proven by real history.

You are completely wrong on evolution, at it is not a good comparison to gravity. We can calculate gravity to exact detail in every case we can observe. We are actually building massive and complicated machines the size of our whole solar system (earth orbit) to hope to catch some error in our precision. But we really have no basic understanding of what it is. It is really confusing.

By contrast, we have evolved animals over and over by our own intention. We have made new dog like creatures from foxes over 50 years. We have incredibly detailed evidence of many modes of evolution, ranging from gene switching, all the sex related stuff that is quite literally not overstated by saying sex is an focused alien evolution machine. We have inside the body evolution of immune responses by yet another alien evolution machine. We have observed and used artificial radioactivity to create single base mutations. The freaky part is there is so much evolution that we keep finding over and over and over again. I am not sure when if ever we will stop finding new alien like evolution machines hidden in life, or what new ones we will create. So more like a massive landscape we have explored, but which shows no visible boundaries to further exploration.

As to archeological evidence absolutely, just no execution records. Fossil is not record. Science remains are not historical writing.

As to your observations regarding historical religious writings, I basically agree with your characterization of the serious study and I think the argument is basically silly, you cant presume the validity of one theology's historical records to disprove the validity of another regarding fairy tales of prophecy and saviors or future events at all. ADDED In fact, all words are fundamentally meaningless, in my version of the Buddhist philosophy. You are actually just seeing me, relating metaphors and and parables about my existence in the universe, and somehow we babble these nonsense words similarly without fully understanding how our brains work.

Regarding spin, no I can't explain it at all, it is simply a new observable that some math approximates, and it is quite simply beyond our older and larger observable universe. Trying to use flatland like parables about it fundamentally misses the point, that we only have limited observables, and we know it exists, and correlates to certain math, and that is really all we know. I look forward to new observables like proton decay and monopole particles. All observations of it are also clouded by another effect, which is that electrons are not points, they are more like fluffy clouds. They don't have a probability of being in many places, they actually are in many places at once and only change to a new cloud like form when interacting with other things. And both things are like nothing in the larger more historically observed universe, no mater how many parables and metaphors I use.