Your argument illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.
If it's just a belief in God, then why call it Christianity? Does the historicity of the Bible have no bearing on what it means to be Christian?
Instead of confronting the origins of the claim of God's existence, you carefully dodge it by saying I can't disprove the existence of God.
Of course I can't disprove the existence of some ethereal diety, but I can disprove the existence of Jaweh and Jehova, at least as they are described in the Bible.
So if the story of God in the Bible isn't history, then why should I fall back on a belief of God in the abstract? If I can illustrate the origins of the Christian God as fraudulent, then I see no reason to assume the existence of a God anywhere outside fiction.
If it's just a belief in God, then why call it Christianity? Does the historicity of the Bible have no bearing on what it means to be Christian?
Instead of confronting the origins of the claim of God's existence, you carefully dodge it by saying I can't disprove the existence of God.
Of course I can't disprove the existence of some ethereal diety, but I can disprove the existence of Jaweh and Jehova, at least as they are described in the Bible.
So if the story of God in the Bible isn't history, then why should I fall back on a belief of God in the abstract? If I can illustrate the origins of the Christian God as fraudulent, then I see no reason to assume the existence of a God anywhere outside fiction.