intro

[stromboli]

Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

So i would modify your stance as spiritually defining yourself as Christian. Whatever.

How many times does this have to be pointed out? Your god is one of thousands. It is no more provable or valid than any other. Your belief stems from what you were born into or introduced to, not what is demonstrably true or provable. If you were in the Middle East you would be a Muslim of a Jew. Southeast Asia, a Buddhist. India a Hindu.  You yourself said that you can't prove the truth of your religion- which, by the way, is not an ideal place to start debating from.

Based on our experience here we know that theists come on here to enlighten us, and most often do so from a stance of moral superiority. So nothing you bring is new, challenging, enlightening or unknown to us. So why are you even here?

[Moralnihilist]

You should have read all my post, many questions you asked were unnecessary. As for telling everyone that I am a Christian to start things off is just honest. Being deceptive to start things off would have set a bad example and garnered no trust, there's little here as it is. What makes you believe I have any other motive other than to join in on discussions, that's what I stated and I've shown nothing different.

I ask the same to all theists due to them usually ending up the same.

As for being truthful, that remains to be seen. The interesting thing is that I have yet to actually come out and say what my beliefs are. Now granted if a person has a functioning brain it wouldn't be too difficult to discern.

As to what makes me think that you have an ulterior motive, that comes from sheer experience. As I stated in my post only a few select theists are honest enough to make it here. Most simply come in, much as you did, claiming no ulterior motive and then proceed to shit all over the place as soon as they figure out that their sky daddy gets no special privilege when it comes to evidence needed.

But the response you gave me enough answers to simply write you off as someone who is worthwhile of having a discussion with. Simply put, you have shown to be intellectually dishonest and unwilling to deal with something that may make you doubt your faith.

[claytojar]

I did not "bail out" dumbass. You really are clueless. It takes a lot more guts to become an atheist- the 10-15% of the population- versus the 75-80% christian. I have a set of balls. The same set I had when I left the LDS Church previously, which lost me my family and my inlaws- because I had the guts to take a stand and stand for my beliefs.

Why are you so irritated with me, for the life of m I can't figure out what I've done. As far as being dumb I'm far from it and, okay, you left the Christian faith, by the way I'm not clueless either. Could you please explain how the LDS Church lost you your family, it's probably the most family oriented church I know of, I ask this only if you want to, I don't want you to think I'm being nosy.

Oh, and what about Bart Ehrman, former devout Evangelical, now agnostic, former pastor, highly recognized expert of biblical and Christian history? Heres the thread
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5341.0

Pointing out in his book "Forged" that 11 of 27 of the New Testament books were likely forgeries, shit like that. And pointing out that Jesus was not a mythical god but a human preacher, nothing more.

The difference between you and me is that I did what the bible said- ...."prove all things; hold fast to that which is true." (1 Thess. 5:21) I didn't take it for granted and I didn't buy into it without testing it.

Go ahead, truly test your faith. You haven't got the guts.

Bart Ehrman made his choice through his free will, the same as you did, that doesn't make him any smarter that other Christians, it only makes him a nonbeliever.
As for myself, I've tested the waters and found God to be very real, I have no doubts actually I know He exists, funny how two searches can lead in two different directions. You can say all you want that I did not search out things correctly and I could say the same to you but, I doubt it would change anything. By the way, the Bible verse you used doesn't impress someone who knows the real meaning of the verse, if you're going to us the Bible to support your positions you need to use those that might be relevant.

[Nam]

Excommunication isn't just a Catholic thing.

-Nam

[claytojar]

The difference with me is: i became an atheist at 12-13 years old but didn't come out until i was 18 to my immediate family (my mother cried, cried more when she found out my brother was an atheist, too [i found out that when she did] and my sister became sn atheist at 11), and but to everyone else a few years after that. See, Christians only have "love" for Christians like them; especially SB's. Ever read the SBC handbook--what hate spews from that book.

Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision. I can understand at 18 but, early teens. You say Christians only have love for other Christians, does that mean the tears your mother shed were out of hatred, IMHO they were out of love, that's the way a mother's heart works. You'll need to show me where the SBC spews hate, a statement like that requires proof.

I could be wrong that a god or gods exist, i am not wrong the "Christian" god doesn't exist and the biggest evidence one has for that is the multitudes of sects and revisions of the Bible they believe is the "inerrant word of God" that they keep changing to their own SPAG.

You call that reasoning to establish there is no Christian God, sounds week to me, if what you have reasoned can be used to disprove God, then some sciences are in trouble because of the descent between different theories within the same science. Or it could be we are all trying to figure out things. No revision has ever changed the original meanings established in the scriptures, you will need to show proof that anyone other than the JWs have changed the Bible's meaning.

Then you're not a Southern Baptist.

Sounds like a lot of opinions and guessing which equate to SPAG'ing. But don't feel alone: every single Christian SPAGs.

-Nam

That's funny, an atheist trying to tell a Christian what he isn't, really rich.

[stromboli]

Why are you so irritated with me, for the life of m I can't figure out what I've done. As far as being dumb I'm far from it and, okay, you left the Christian faith, by the way I'm not clueless either. Could you please explain how the LDS Church lost you your family, it's probably the most family oriented church I know of, I ask this only if you want to, I don't want you to think I'm being nosy.

Bart Ehrman made his choice through his free will, the same as you did, that doesn't make him any smarter that other Christians, it only makes him a nonbeliever.
As for myself, I've tested the waters and found God to be very real, I have no doubts actually I know He exists, funny how two searches can lead in two different directions. You can say all you want that I did not search out things correctly and I could say the same to you but, I doubt it would change anything. By the way, the Bible verse you used doesn't impress someone who knows the real meaning of the verse, if you're going to us the Bible to support your positions you need to use those that might be relevant.

The words you used were "bailing out of Christianity." I didn't bail. That is an insult. Leaving the LDS Church and then the Christian church were hard decisions that caused serious conflicts in my life. When I left the LDS church, people I had known for years stopped talking to me, my family and inlaws disowned me. You call that bailing? The easy choice is to go with the flow, not buck it. The LDS religion puts their faith before families- non members or former members are treated like pariahs if they won't convert.

Bart Ehrman knows the history of your religion forwards and backwards, far better than you do. the fact that such a learned and knowledgeable man who was deeply religious as an Evangelical and then a pastor can become an agnostic shows how flawed your religion is. And by the way, you have not provided one stick of anything like evidence to back your beliefs. Why don't you read some of what Ehrman, a very scholarly man, wrote- and see how that jibes with your world view.

We've been doing this for years. Every theist that comes on here is the same, making belief statements that are simply that and nothing more. If you can't back what you believe with hard evidence or any evidence, then  gtfo. 

[claytojar]

So i would modify your stance as spiritually defining yourself as Christian. Whatever.

You might modify it, but I do not, and since it's my life and I've lived it for many years now I'm a bit more qualified to determine my stance in life.

How many times does this have to be pointed out? Your god is one of thousands. It is no more provable or valid than any other.

Did I say there were no other gods, even the Bible agrees with you, there's the god called money, one called career, another called car, but the most often over looked is the god called self, I could go on but I think you see what I'm saying. There is only one God who is able to save a person from these other gods and I do know Him.

Your belief stems from what you were born into or introduced to, not what is demonstrably true or provable. If you were in the Middle East you would be a Muslim of a Jew. Southeast Asia, a Buddhist. India a Hindu.  You yourself said that you can't prove the truth of your religion- which, by the way, is not an ideal place to start debating from.

That argument holds no water, the bucket you use is full of holes, those holes are called Christians, Christians are in large numbers in all those areas, plus you want to deal in what ifs, they have nothing to do with real life and here's the proof, Christians in all those areas you mentioned. What ifs are a terrible place to start a debate from. 

Based on our experience here we know that theists come on here to enlighten us, and most often do so from a stance of moral superiority. So nothing you bring is new, challenging, enlightening or unknown to us. So why are you even here?

By moral superiority do you mean they profess to live by a standard they believe in, you know if they didn't they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so it seems to me that they are true to what they believe and from what I've gathered here from reading threads, the atheist live by what they consider the moral high ground. How many times do I have to say I'm here to have discussions, period. If anyone becomes enlightened from the discussions I have, it will be because they wanted to, you act like I'm here to force something on you. I will stand for what I believe and if that bothers you and atheist standing for what they believe doesn't bother you then you will have a dishonest opinion of me. How could you possibly know I do not have something new or different, I know this, without civil discussion we want know.

[Nam]

Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision.

I can't speak for my siblings but i can for myself: the utter hatred spewed in the SBC churches i attended prompted me to read the Bible and in doing so i realized--at such a young age--that the Bible was a book of hate guising itself as a book of "love". Also, while the "teachers" at Sunday school were spewing rhetoric over the mythology of other religions (including Catholicism), the same things they denounced against them was the same things in which they believed in their religion. It was hypocritical. And I knew that at 12-13 years old.

I can understand at 18 but, early teens. You say Christians only have love for other Christians, does that mean the tears your mother shed were out of hatred, IMHO they were out of love, that's the way a mother's heart works.

My use of "Christian" is a generalization. Where as I feel all Christians (and other religious/theistic believers) have an indoctrinated delusion, that does not mean that i believe each one only loves each other; however, in a simplified way they perhaps do while not wanting those of us who do not believe--they have no problem thinking (consciously or unconsciously) that "we" are deserving of a hell their god/religion created. That, in of itself, is not love--not love by a god/religion that places them in such a scenario and certainly not love by them fearfully accepting it.

You'll need to show me where the SBC spews hate, a statement like that requires proof.

The handbook. If your church is a member of the convention then you can get the updated version. The version I had was from the 1990's, I believe. But I did post a topic on it at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/ or http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php -- now, what I consider hate (things against women, homosexuals, overall prejudices, bigotry, racism etc.,) you may not. Or, like many Christiansâ,,¢ state that isn't hate but love or deny any of those things exist in their particular sect unless behind closed-doors.

Also, the SBC did nothing to stop the massive amounts of racism spewed in the South by the churches who were members; in actuality, they helped promote it.

You call that reasoning to establish there is no Christian God, sounds week to me, if what you have reasoned can be used to disprove God, then some sciences are in trouble because of the descent between different theories within the same science. Or it could be we are all trying to figure out things. No revision has ever changed the original meanings

Yes, it has. By changing words, by leaving out words, by rewriting sentences one is attempting a "watered-down" version until that version becomes non-existent.

I recommend you read the KJV and The Message, and then come back here and show to me how every single verse is exactly rhe same (in meaning). You won't be able to do it because people SPAG.

established in the scriptures, you will need to show proof that anyone other than the JWs have changed the Bible's meaning.

How have the JW's changed the Bible's meaning?

That's funny, an atheist trying to tell a Christian what he isn't, really rich.

That's funny, a Christian trying to tell an atheist he has to provide proof when the Christian never does.

-Nam

[claytojar]

I ask the same to all theists due to them usually ending up the same.

As for being truthful, that remains to be seen. The interesting thing is that I have yet to actually come out and say what my beliefs are. Now granted if a person has a functioning brain it wouldn't be too difficult to discern.

Actually one would have to be dead to miss your little hints, so it wasn't hard to figure out. I've given you no reason to believe I would lie to you or anyone else here, maybe if your nature was a little less suspicious you might find conversations with Christians to be enjoyable. I realize there are Christians who come to thee sites to push their agenda and I think it's a shame to do so. They should consider the God they represent in this world and be respectful of those who differ in belief. I need to clarify something here, for me one can be respectful of someone with a different belief without accepting the things they do. I can have respect for a murderer, thief, drug dealer or whoever, I do not by any means have to accept their wrong actions. Respecting a person is different than accepting what they have made of themselves. 

As to what makes me think that you have an ulterior motive, that comes from sheer experience. As I stated in my post only a few select theists are honest enough to make it here. Most simply come in, much as you did, claiming no ulterior motive and then proceed to shit all over the place as soon as they figure out that their sky daddy gets no special privilege when it comes to evidence needed.

Just because your experiences with others haven't met your acceptance, you have no reason to expect the same from me, I've given you no reasons, it's your suspicious nature that has lead you to any conclusions about me. As for any single evidence I have none you will accept, I know your criteria for evidence I haven't come here as an unknowing child.

But the response you gave me enough answers to simply write you off as someone who is worthwhile of having a discussion with. Simply put, you have shown to be intellectually dishonest and unwilling to deal with something that may make you doubt your faith.

Doubt what I have knowledge, hardly. You will need to show me where I was dishonest and if you really believe what you say you do not have to enter discussions with me. This can be the last time you have to speak to me.

[stromboli]

The  big events of the bible:

Garden of Eden
The Noah flood
Exodus
Jesus

The Garden of Eden/creation myth
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/babylonian.html

The Origins of the Creation Account

For many centuries, both Christian and Jewish theologians believe that the stories were given by God and thus owed their origins purely to divine inspiration. However in the nineteenth century, British archaeologists unearthed seven tablets containing the Babylonian [a] myth of creation known as Enuma Elish. Like the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, archaeologists have assigned the date of composition of this work to around 2000 BC. Although the story differs in specifics to that told in Genesis, the similarities in the general tone has convinced archaeologists that the Genesis account had been fundamentally derived from the Babylonian one. Some of the similarities include:
The reference to the initial state as being a disordered chaos of water.
Genesis 1:1 refers to the “darkness” upon the face of the deep. In the Babylonian myth, in the beginning there was only Apsu, the sweet water ocean and Tiamat, the salt water ocean. In fact, archaeologists have generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word for the chaos of the waters or “the deep”, tehom, is actually derived from the Akkadian Tiamat.
The creation of a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below.
In Genesis 1:6-8 God is said to have created the firmament on the second day of creation. In the Babylonian myth, Marduk, son of the Ea the god of wisdom, killed Tiamat and split her into two. The upper half of Tiamat was fixed onto the sky to keep the waters above in place.
The sequence of successive acts of creation.
In the Babylonian myth, after Tiamat was killed, the firmament was created by Marduk to separate the waters above from below. Then he created the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars. Finally man was created. This order is very closely paralleled in Genesis I where the firmament was created on the second day, the sun, moon and stars on the third day and man on the sixth day. [1]
It thus cannot be denied that the creation myth from Genesis must have been derived from the Babylonian one. To quote the late Professor S.H. Hooke (1874-1968) an expert on Old Testament Studies:

n spite of the complete transformation of the Babylonian material effected by the priestly writer, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the original form of the creation story upon which he is depending is ultimately of Babylonian origin. [2]

The similarity betwen the above myth and that of Genesis’ is obvious to see. The similarity include:

The setting- a garden in paradise.
The watering of the gardens with water from the earth.
The consumption of forbidden fruits, by Adam and Eve in Genesis and by the god Enki in the Sumerian myth.
The curse upon the person (s) who ate the fruit.
The creating of a female from the rib of the male in Genesis and the creating of a female to heal the rib of the male in the Sumerian precursor.
The name of the female thus created. In Genesis, Eve, or in its original semitic form Hawah, means life. In the Sumerian myth, the word ti from the name Ninti has a double meaning; it could mean either ‘rib’ or ‘life’. Thus Ninti can be rendered as “lady of the rib” or “lady of life”. [5]
That is not all, the Babylonian myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh also contains an episode that doubtless also influenced the writers of Genesis. In it Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality, was told by Utnapishtim (the Babylonian “Noah”) that there exists a plant at the bottom of the sea that has the property of making the old young again. Gilgamesh dived into the sea and brought up the plant. However the plant was stolen while he was taking bath. The thief who stole the plant of everlasting youth away from him was none other than the serpent! [6]

That Babylonian myths should influence the stories in the Bible is really not surprising. The Babylonian empires were influential throughout the whole middle eastern region for over three thousand years. The history of Jews is also very closely tied to Babylon. For it was there that the Jews were taken into exile in the year 587 BC.

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Dr-Fi/Eden-Garden-of.html

The story of the Garden of Eden is an allegory. It explains how humans fell from a state of innocence to one in which they must suffer during life and eventually die.

allegory literary and artistic device in which characters represent an idea or a religious or moral principle

The peoples of ancient Mesopotamia* also believed in an earthly paradise named Eden, located somewhere in the east. According to some ancient sources, the four main rivers of the ancient Near Eastâ€"the Tigris, Euphrates, Halys, and Araxesâ€"flowed out of the garden. Scholars today debate the origin of the word Eden. Some believe it comes from a Sumerian* word meaning "plain." Others say it is from the Persian word heden, meaning "garden."

[claytojar]

The words you used were "bailing out of Christianity." I didn't bail. That is an insult. Leaving the LDS Church and then the Christian church were hard decisions that caused serious conflicts in my life. When I left the LDS church, people I had known for years stopped talking to me, my family and inlaws disowned me. You call that bailing? The easy choice is to go with the flow, not buck it. The LDS religion puts their faith before families- non members or former members are treated like pariahs if they won't convert.

I retracted what I said, I agreed that you left. If saying you bailed on Christianity is an insult then is using language towards Christians you know we find insulting is somehow not. I haven't shown the first bit of malice toward you, I did choose the wrong word by using bailed, but there was no malice intended, bailed is a common term used where I live and doesn't necessarily come with malicious intent. I'm sorry your family has treated you in an unchristian way and it's unfortunate that many Christian churches do also, however, that's not true for all Christians or churches. I'm sorry for the choice of word.

Bart Ehrman knows the history of your religion forwards and backwards, far better than you do. the fact that such a learned and knowledgeable man who was deeply religious as an Evangelical and then a pastor can become an agnostic shows how flawed your religion is. And by the way, you have not provided one stick of anything like evidence to back your beliefs. Why don't you read some of what Ehrman, a very scholarly man, wrote- and see how that jibes with your world view.

I've read Bart Ehrman and find his writings to contain to much of, if this, this might be, maybe this and ect., which for me and anyone that reads things closely would consider Bart is trying to fool people because he decided to leave Christianity. There are many scholars who have as much and some even more knowledge of Biblical history and the Bible that disagree with him, have you ever considered reading what they think. By the way the last I heard Ehrman has softened his thinking towards Christianity, haven't confirmed this yet but it did come from an atheist and he was upset by Ehrman's new stance.

We've been doing this for years. Every theist that comes on here is the same, making belief statements that are simply that and nothing more. If you can't back what you believe with hard evidence or any evidence, then  gtfo.

See I haven't done a thing and you dismiss me as if you knew me to be a really terrible person, you confuse me. I've been in discussions for many years with atheist, I'm no stranger to this. I'll never be able to give you the evidence you require, if there's one thing I've learned over the years atheist will set a standard no one can reach, to preserve their non-belief.

[Sargon The Grape]

I saw the quotes, got curious, clicked "display post." Good golly, this guy is quite the arrogant prick, ain't he?

[stromboli]

The Noah myth

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

The Genesis flood narrative is similar to numerous other flood myths from a variety of cultures. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[2]

There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Searches for Noah's Ark, sometimes mockingly referred to as "arkeology",[11][12][13] have been made from at least the time of Eusebius (c.275â€"339 AD) to the present day. Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found.[14][15][16][17][18]

The Genesis flood narrative is one of several similar flood myths. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[2] Later and very similar Mesopotamian flood stories appear in the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical flood-story derive from the Mesopotamian versions, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written Mesopotamian stories of the Great Flood, and because the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia,[23] particularly during the Babylonian captivity.

The parallels â€" both similarities and differences â€" between Noah's ship and that of the Babylonian flood-hero Atrahasis have often been noted. Noah's ship is a rectangle, while Atrahasis was instructed to build his in the form of a cube; Atrahasis's ship has seven decks with nine compartments on each level, while Noah's has three decks, but he is not given any instructions on the number of compartments to build.[24] The word used for "pitch" (sealing tar or resin) is not the normal Hebrew word but is closely related to the word used in the Babylonian story.[25]

The causes for God/gods having sent the flood also differ: in the Hebrew narrative the flood comes as God's judgment on a wicked humanity; in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh the reasons are not given and the flood appears to be the result of the caprice of the gods;[26] whereas in the Atrahasis version of the Babylonian flood story the flood was sent by the gods to reduce human over-population, and after the flood other measures were introduced to prevent the problem recurring.[27][28][29]

The impossibility of the ark:
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
From the National Center For Science Education. I understand you like scientists.

[stromboli]

Exodus
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

Egyptian record keeping
It is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary Egyptian records. That's easily 2 million people (assuming one man, one woman, 1.5 children, which is very conservative[11]). But no Egyptian account mentions them. Or the plagues, which would be similarly unlikely not to have been recorded. There is no evidence of any of this. Given the standard of Egyptian record keeping of the time, this is an absence that would require explanation.
Bible literalists claim that it did happen, but that the Egyptians destroyed all the records, for reasons generally unspecified, though embarrassment has been offered. This is contrary to the normal archaeological practice of testing a theory against the evidence, rather than the evidence against the theory.
[edit]Sinai Peninsula


Map of sites discussed in this article
The Book of Numbers gives a list of sites at which the Hebrews settled in Sinai and the immediate surroundings during the Exodus. Of these sites, some can be pinpointed relatively well by description and deduction. Two such sites are the Biblical Kadesh Barnea, modern Ein Qadis, and Ezion Geber, on the Israeli side of the border between Israel and Jordan, just outside Eilat. Both sites have been investigated archaeologically, and found to have been founded during the Ancient Near Eastern Late Iron Age â€" no earlier than 700/800 BCE,[12] with the obvious exception of early neolithic/nomadic activity.
[edit]Non‐existent cities
Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrison‐town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Grecoâ€"Roman accounts.[9] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[9]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/jews.htm
Settlement in Canaan

As barbarous newcomers to what was the land of Canaan, these semites (speakers of a tongue common to Syrians, Arabs and Mesopotamians) took up migratory occupation of the less fertile hill-country of the interior. Neither their limited sub-culture â€" an illiterate donkey nomadism; nor their social organisation â€" patriarchal and authoritarian â€" distinguished them from other tent-dwelling pastoralists. These early, polytheistic, Hebrews scratched an existence in an unpromising land on the fringes of the major civilisations, occasionally moving with their animals into the Nile delta in times of draught.

It seems as if they were joined, over time,by outcasts or refugees from the more sophisticated Canaanite (Phoenician) coastal cities. ‘Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society ‘ concluded Karen Armstrong, the noted religious scholar. (A History of Jerusalem, p23]

The Canaanite migrants brought with them cultic practices and images of their traditional gods. A major Canaanite god was El, and the phrase ‘El has conquered’ gives us the word Isra’el. The Canaanite god El had a ghostly presence in a host of Jewish heroes: Dan-i-El; Ezek-i-El; Sam-u-El, Ish-ma-El, El-i-jah, El-o-him, etc.

God-inspired names were common throughout the west-Semitic language region. Other Canaanite gods included Baal (a storm god) â€" also honoured in a host of Hebrew names, Asherah (a fertility goddess, consort of El), Shalem (a Syrian sun god â€" later to be honoured in the name Jeru’salem ), Milcom, Chemosh, etc. Ru’shalimum is mentioned in records of the Pharaoh Sesostris III (1872 - 1847 BC) â€" the settlement actually pre-existent long before the tribe of Hebrews made it their own. The site then appears to have been unoccupied for three hundred years until the Jebusites (otherwise known as Kereti or Peleti â€" Cretans or Philistines) arrived.

The numbers of Exodus amount to 2 million people in the Sinai desert for 40 years. time for a generation to die off and a new one to come along. The Sinai desert is one of the driest places on earth. Any remains of the dead would be mummified. There are no burial sites, no camp sites, no evidence of a mass exodus anywhere in the Sinai. No artifacts, no dropped items, nothing.

And no records by the record keeping Egyptians who apparently didn't notice that 2 million or so of their (known population) of 10 million just up and walked out of town.

[stromboli]

Jesus
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/12e2b6/virgin_mary_was_not_a_virgin/

We can determine with certainty that the virgin Mary was in fact not a virgin. Well, of course the concept itself makes no sense at all, but that's not what I mean. But how can we know that the virgin birth was not some miracle?
Well, the answer is translation. The original text of Isaiah is written in Hebrew. There are two different words in Hebrew, one means "young woman", one means "virgin". In Isaiah, the word for "young woman" is used to describe the mother of the mesiah that will come. When the new testament was first written in Greek, they used the term Isaiah used in order to fulfill the prophecy. The only problem is that in Greek there is only one word for "virgin" and "young woman". Which meaning of the word is required depends on the context.
Later on, the Greek text was translated into Latin. In Latin there are (as in Hebrew) two terms for the two meanings. Yet they translated the Greek word, that can mean both, as virgin and not as young woman. The meaning had changed. What they wrote was "a young woman gave birth to Jesus." What people understood was "A virgin gave birth to Jesus."
And that, fellow atheist who reads this, is believed by millions, billions of people today, even though the thought is completly ridiculous. Scientifically it cannot be true. We know that it's a translation error. Yet people still believe in it.
That is why you cannot argue with a religous person. They believe something, even if it's complete nonsense, scientifically proven not true and known as an translation error. Those people would believe anything their religion made up.
TL;DR: Virgin Mary was not a virgin, it's a translation error. Religous people believe it nontheless.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Jesus may well have been a man, but there many inconsistencies in his story
http://agnosticreview.com/birth.htm
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
http://www.weseekthetruth.org/articles/article105.html

Be sure and present your contrary evidence with sources and links.