also the xmas thing:the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)

For the Americans you could go with:  George Washington wasn't born on the 3rd Monday in February.  Or that the pilgrims didn't celebrate the subjugation of the native Americans *only* on the 4th Thursday in November.

Well, DarkAngel, it looks like I'm not the only person who thinks that website is poorly researched and presented.  If you want to continue to argue the validity of the site, it looks like you can go point-by-point with cilmbtree.  I found enough sensationalism and misrepresentation in the few parts I did skim--I don't need to read and research every word to tell that your source is not much of a valid or scholarly source.  The points I (and climbtree) made about the quality of research show this.  And, as such, isn't worth my time.

You weren't the only person who offered (read: spouted) websites.  You weren't the only self-proclaimed atheist.  I wasn't writing only to you.  You seem to have ignored the meatier part of that sentence that speaks much more specifically against many Christian ideas.  Apparently, you've decided to take the first one-third of a sentence and take it much more personally that it was intended to be taken by any one person.  If you're so offended by my obvious generalizations, start defending the born-again Christians I brought up in that sentence as well.

three different stories/books were all written before the bible. The oldest of of those being written in 1700 BC, still 200 hundred years older!

When do the events in these stories take place?  MANY BIBLE SCHOLARS AGREE (that's a fun phrase) that Adam & Eve were cast from the garden of Eden around 4000 BC (give or take a few years--the record is pretty scarce ​).  So, a few thousand years later separate civilations have similar stories...  Perhaps they all came from a similar source?
Let's look at this from a pseudo-eternal perpsective.  If Christianity is the true religion that will bring everyone to God, and God wants us to be brought to Him, would Abraham or Moses be the first to hear the Gospel?  That wouldn't make much sense, would it?  If God created Adam & Eve (Or Gilgamesh, or Lilith, or Frankenstein, or Elvis) wouldn't He want them to follow Him?  Wouldn't He tell them His laws?  Wouldn't stories about the Gospel get warped and misrepresented over time (just like they do today) by people who aren't quite following them, and even many of the people who are?  I assume you've played the Telephone game: imagine that, over a few thousand years into groups separated by miles of desert who continue to play amongst themselves.  How similar might their stories be by the time we dig up various records and compare them?  I think it can be agreed on that God doesn't spend all his time politely correcting the records of people who aren't doing anything He said to do in the first place.  So, the civilations who aren't following His word aren't going to keep flawless renditions of the creation (or any other story).  The Bible isn't a ripoff, its a record.  I believe it to be one of the more inspired records, but who's to say that all these mysteriously similar stories didn't originally come from a common source?

If you want to understand Christian religions you need to look at the whole picture they paint, not try to prove random traditions false.  Many of these tactics sound similar to the nit-picking I hear from Jehova's Witnesses who don't teach doctrine, they argue obscurities and tradition in hopes of confusing rather than converting.
So what if Jesus was born in what we now call April and not December, does that change who He was?
So what if he had long hair, short hair, no hair, does that change the means by which we can get to heaven?
So what if parts of the Bible have been corrupted by the Catholic church (which was started by Romans as a means of controlling people), does that change the nature of God?
So what if Moses brought down tablets with an indeterminate number of precise Laws on them, does that change the fact that obeying God is a good idea?
So what if Saturday (not Sunday) is, according to the Gregorian calendar, the Seventh day of the week, does that change the fact that we should worship God?
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matt. 23: 24).  Don't pick the Gospel to death, live it correctly and it will work out in your favor.

Why don't you read that website before you tear it down, and then try to explain how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity. I don't know how you can say "I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say." and then go on lumping me and others into the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD" category in one fell swoop. I grew up in the church and I also know what the scriptures say. And THAT is why I choose to not believe. Climbtree said the site was ridiculous but I didn't bother asking why because I assumed that was just his opinion. But if you actually read the site they list and cite all their reference and source material. Unless you actually review the site (and refute every single one of those sources), you shouldn't just assume it is "tripe".

You seem think that I think exactly like the die-hards I already separated myself from.  I don't.  I didn't assume it was tripe.  It is tripe.
I never named names on who the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD[ren]" were.  I don't know who they are.  I never said you were one of them.  (And I really don't know how that ties into me not considering myself a die-hard born-again--unless the paragraph separation and the rest of the ANGSTY CHILD sentence was lost on you.)  In fact, I said "most" of them "probably" are making for a pretty vague generalization that wouldn't necessarily include you.  More on the word "most" a little later...
My (very short) explanation on "how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity":  The Christian Bible as we have it today came from councils, many of which occurred several hundred years after the latest of the events recorded (one example).  That doesn't mean the account in Genesis was written then, it was assembled as part of the Canon (and rest assured that any book not in adherence to the council's voted-on beliefs were not included) at that point; It was written well before.  It has been translated into many languages and into even more languages from the multiple translations.  I personally own four English translations (among others) that have very different wording.  Obviously, the Bible did not escape 100% flawless and intact--I won't claim otherwise--but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it whatsoever.  Verbal and logical contradictions are rife throughout the book.  But, I don't rest my belief on the teachings therein on the hard-headed idea that it is a flawless book.

Your site says "Most scholars agree that Genesis was only written three or four centuries BC" and offers absolutely no citation.  "Most" is a great giveaway that you're reading speculation instead of fact.  What scholars are these?  Why should I believe them?  How did they determine this hundred year window portraying 6000 year old events?
Other phrases that aren't cited and indicate similar sentiments:

"Outside of the bible, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind wasn’t put on the planet by God, but gradually evolved from a now extinct ape forebear over the last 5 million years.  The evidence for this is massive."  (No citation)

  This point is still argued by scientists.  The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing".  It's a hypothetical animal at this point.  This is not the fact it purports itself to be. 

"The Tower of Babel did exist! But it wasn't demolished by God - but by Alexander the Great."

  Can you show me in the nine verses about the tower at Babel that God demolished the tower?  This assertion by the author(s) of your site preys on misinformation and incorrect verbal tradition of the tower.  The top of that page does say "In the city of Babel, a ‘Tower of Babel’ was built. It was meant to reach out to the heavens. But God punished the vanity of the people of Babel by tearing down the tower. Then He punished the people some more, by giving them different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other and spread them across the globe. (Genesis 11:1-9)" offering a "synopsis" of the passages.  But they've added concepts to the synopsis that aren't in the verses cited.  The author(s) are intentionally misleading (read: flat-out lying to) people to plant false ideas and banking on the notion that most people will not verify a source that's offered.

And that's just a few instances from just a few pages of your "Give them this link and walk away victorius [sic]" site.  It's not well researched, it's misrepresentative, and attempts to make half-truths look like full truths.  And it certainly does not "cite all their reference and source material" like you claim it did.  Have you read the citations?  Have you researched the scriptural passages they reference to check the context and applicability? 
I flipped through a few of the citations they do offer, and wasn't particularly impressed by their use.  But if you think I'm going to point-by-point argue every point made in every reference, you're mistaken.  I've done enough reading of the site and have seen sufficient lies and foolishness that I don't need to bother.

Additionally, how can I take seriously any site that advertises it's own Christianity-mocking comics?  Really...?  Is it even trying to be scholarly?  I chuckled at a couple of them, but this doesn't make the site any more reputable than a Bible-bashing website on Geocities complete with animated .gifs every two lines.

If the site claims that showing contradictions or logical untruths will prove the Bible isn't accurate, it just fell prey to its own contradictions and untruths.

Don't expect me to comment any further on that site (or any similar).  But, if you have any of your own points that aren't based on poorly researched concepts, I'd love to hear them.


This post edited slightly for formatting so dangerousned can read it... but the inline quotes are staying as they are.

But it will turn out like that.  They always turn out like that.  Two people with radically different views can not get anywhere in an argument without it becoming a shit fest.  This is fact and I base this on absolutely no research.

Nah, they don't always turn out like that (but they can easily get there--I can base that on field research).  In fact, if you want a legitimate discussion (debate implies there's going to be a winner) about Christianity, I'm willing to put out...
I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say. 
But, The Mike, if you bring a topic like that to forums like this one you're going to get stupid comments from the under-educated peanut gallery composed from the mindset of Atheism for Show: many of these self-proclaimed atheists are probably the teenaged sons of good Christian people who are trying to rebel against God and Man just to prove that they can--they'll snarl all through the sermon and everything.  Spouting websites that claim to single-handedly prove the Bible wrong is tripe--as much tripe as the born-again Christians who say that God personally wrote the Bible with His own ethereal, three-in-one/one-in-three hand and has ensured it to be an utterly flawless book that contains every word God has ever uttered or will utter, so we'd better memorize 7-10 passages way out of context and build a church on it. 

That said, if the masses want some good natured discussion, I'm down.