The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

As we come to a close it is good to look back and see where we have been. In the context of this debate the only place we haven’t actually gone is into the discussion about the topic, and that is pretty disappointing. While I have done what I could to address topics in a clear and logical way, my opponent seems to have mistaken my responses at times. For that I apologize, I only wish that he had taken the time to get clarification before making an unfounded assumption. This debate is about the bible being used as sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity, and it would have been good to define what “Christian beliefs” are, as well as what “sufficient” means. In round two of this debate, both were defined and the only thing put forth in refutation was an assertion that I was creating a straw man by defining the fundamental beliefs of a Christian per Wikipedia, and that my definition of “sufficient” was a redefinition to avoid satificing, also known as the moving of a goal post. No better definition has been provided for what Christian beliefs are, nor was the term satisficing accepted, as it was not “sufficient”. Throughout the debate I attempted to gain further insight into the arguments being put forth by pro in vain, but here is my understanding, to paraphrase the key elements of this debate: The Christian god is not interested in perfection, or the maintenance of his man dictated message as it passes around the globe and is translated. The book is intended to be read as a set of fables and moral teachings, and little more, because that is how the majority of the believers find it useful. Given that you are talking to a “non-specialist” classed person he will find the bible satisfying and sufficient evidence because it is useful for guidance, on the whole. This is primarily because we don’t apply logic and reason to our everyday lives, as is evidenced by a paradoxical situation where we are in between and equidistant from two food sources. This is where logic breaks down. Waiting for science is not pragmatic, since it has such high standards. As you can likely see, this discussion only pokes holes in the Pro position. It implies the bible has a loose disregard for factuality and my opponent puts forth “fable” in its stead. Fable: fabrication; a deliberately false or improbable account; a short moral story; legend; a story about mythical or supernatural beings or events. This is about the only thing that my opponent and I agree upon. I will draw upon two quotes from earlier posts to this debate. “An interesting response indeed, Please note one key sentence offered up by my opponent: “Bear in mind that these are from a translated Bible. Also remember that the Bible is not the word of God, rather man's interpretation of it. Man is prone to errors.” This statement invalidates any further argument that can be made, because if the bible is not only an interpretation (implying it is incorrect) and man’s interpretation of god’s word (implying it is incorrect) how can it be useful to use it as a sole piece of evidence for the belief in the Christian god.” “Following the last quote, “Bear in mind that these are from a translated Bible. Also remember that the Bible is not the word of God, rather man's interpretation of it. Man is prone to errors,” my opponent states “Based on Galup and a national religion survey, more than 60% of americans do not take the bible literaly.” This is of course added to my case, because in spite of the lack of accepting the literal nature of the bible many of those who are included in the 60% are likely Christian, and thus have found more than the bible to believe in christianity.” In the response to these two arguments my opponent puts forth “Jesus spoke in fable, yet people believe in what he preaches. Furthermore, Con keeps saying that Christians must have other reasons to believe in God, but provides no evidence for this.” I will point my opponent to a website called X-Evolutionist.com [1]. If My opponent requests more examples of Christians looking at more than the bible for their beliefs founding I will gladly show him further citations, as in Lee Strobels “Case For” books for instance where the arguments are from historical context supporting the bible, “logic” and emotional appeals, to name a few. There are no fables that are accepted into evidence, beyond testimonials of one god or another. Even something as widely taught as Santa Claus being real is subject to scrutiny and disappointment as one grows older. I will even go as far as to say that my opponent is not a Christian who believes it strictly because of the Bible and its contents. Moreover, studies are showing that there are increasing numbers of people who are biblically illiterate [2]. While my opponent does not believe the bible is literally true, in 2002 “28% of Americans [believed the] bible [was the] actual word of god” [3], and in 2007 “1/3 of Americans [believed] the bible [was] literally true” [4], from two gallup polls. It stands to reason that if you believe a book is literally true then you must have reason for it other than the book itself, be that personal experiences, historical evidence or your own brew of logical form. My opponent has been unable to support his case, and has put forth only peripherally related discussion. He has asserted that his “beyond logic” decision process is the only road because I didn’t respond to it; that this method of decision making is rational, in spite of being “beyond logic”; that issues with science are related to this topic, and that when the standards used within science are asserted on the bible the bible comes out on top of whatever evidentiary bar is chosen. These things do little more cloud the issue and make excuses for a statement that has not yet been shared directly, but it is implied by this “beyond logic” position. One must have faith in order to believe in the Christian teachings, and that is available with or without the bible. Oh, and if my opponent says you should vote Pro, don’t listen to him. You should vote Con. 1)http://x-evolutionist.com... 2)http://wiki.answers.com... 3)http://www.gallup.com... 4)http://www.gallup.com...