"Your stance is a negative in my view, so you can't prove your negative either. You can't prove God doesn't exist. So I guess we're at a push." Can't prove a negative has nothing to with stances. What "you can't prove a negative" means is that it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something that DOESN'T EXIST. You can't prove that trolls, fairies or unicorns don't exist, do you know why you can't have evidence that such creatures don't exist? Exactly because of that, because they don't. "Can't prove a negative" relies on the core principle of logic and ration, which dictates that the burden of evidence is ALWAYS on the person making the claim. What that means is that if you say X exists and I say X doesn't exist, it's ALWAYS the one that claims X exists that has to come with evidence to support his claim, you understand that right? You can't just say something exists, don't provide any evidence, then expect someone else to prove to you that it doesn't exist, logic doesn't work that way. See? This is exactly there's no point debating with people like you. First of all, you don't understand basic principles of logic, like the fact that it's always the person making the claim that has to do the proving, not ME. Then you twist logic to make it suit your own purpose and you declare a tie. What tie? It's fucking bullshit, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT HAS TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE, we're not "at a push" and your claim is still invalid, because you still haven't provided any real evidence.

"If a space monkey had been born in Bethlaham 2000 years ago, travelled around preaching doctrine that was recorded, and was seen by thousands of people, it would be a different story. But that wasn't the case." Again, you keep making these claims, but again, no evidence to support it. Don't you find it the least bit curious that NO historian that lived in the times of Jesus recorded his existance? Don't you find it curious that it was only after Jesus died that people starting writing about him? Read this : http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html I beg you, read it until the end.

"Stalin was embalmed, twice. They only put wax on a couple of bodies, and it isn't a preservative, so it shouldn't matter anyway." You said it yourself, there was a smell of flowers when they found the bodies of these saints, that's proof of embalming, not proof of God. The wax is applied to make the bodies look more alive and in a better state. It does matter because those perfectly looking bodies that you see are actually mummified remains that look pretty much like this : http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/7/670093/1276282104270.JPEG Those bodies don't actually look like they're not decomposed at all, you do realize that right? they're basically more like wax statues than real bodies. If you're going to say that it's not true, I ask you again for you to show me scientific studies + videos + pictures that actually show these 700 year bodies looking like they died yesterday. I can't even fathom how you can believe such claims based on some crappy picture of a wax figure, without actually seeing ANY studies and evidence that proves the bodies are actually in perfect condition, with no decomposition whatsoever. You know why you won't be able to find such evidence? because it's bullshit and EVERYONE decomposes, mummification doesn't prove shit, not even if it's a case of very very good mummification. Even if these bodies would look like they died 30 minutes ago, it STILL wouldn't be proof of God, as you'd still have to prove that God is real and he's the one that made it happen, not some freak occurrence, artificial preserving or even freaking aliens.