Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

> My opponent began round 2 by stating that: "Christianity is not based on any kind of truth but purely on myth." Which he claims is the entire foundation of his position. I covered that perfectly when I said that my opponents arguments can be boiled down to, "that which is seemingly impossible should not exist." It is my hope that the audience will see that I am not mistaken in understanding this resolution. I think you have to use my own words what you're arguing against otherwise, this is just one huge strawman.I showed how under the assumption that Adam & Eve are just a myth, it is equally probable that the story of Jesus' sacrifice is also a myth. This makes my opponents entire point null and void of any meaning or value to this debate. OK - Jesus's sacrifice is a myth. Then Christianity has no basis to exist and we are done. The reason why is that Christians literally take his virgin birth, sacrifice and resurrection as literal. You make this mistake because you are not a Christian.If I am to work under the premise that the Bible IS a myth then it still does nothing to negate my argument that Christianity has a valid basis to exist. If Jesus did not resurrect then I have no idea what version of Christianity you are claiming to be defending!Regardless of the stories being false or not, the fact that they are even stories still being told or read, in itself, validates the basis for its existence. Yes, it can exist but certainly not as a religion, which is what Christianity is. So what form is this supposed 'Christianity' that takes everything as a myth supposed to take? And how is it related to the actual Christianity that we are arguing here? Furthermore, I have shown why your standards are inadequate, unjustified, and illogical and am still waiting for your justification for such a poor standard based solely on your misunderstanding of how the falseness of something does not deny nor rebut the existence of it. Nor have you shown why such existence wouldn't have a valid basis when I have shown that it does indeed have one by the very act of transferring the meaningful information to one another. I addressed in my previous post, and rebuted your point throughout this one, but let's repeat.Firstly, if you hold that all the stories of miracles, etc. are a myth then there is actually no religion of Christianity. There would be no reason for people to kill or die for what they take to be a myth. It is exactly what I am arguing that then Christianity would not exist.Now, the New Testament would continue to exist as a set of stories, which I believe is your central point, but there woud certainly be no religion and therefore no Christianity. As I pointed out earlier, you seem to be parsing out 'exist' from my arguments and forgetting the religious aspect of it, which is what Christianity actually is.> This is the basis for Christianity to exist. We are the basis. We keep it alive. Err, no! Discussing something doesn't mean it still exists in the real world! If you're saying that everything exists just because we talk about it then you're saying that Harry Potter's world exists too! Here you are being willful in creating a strawman and therefore your point falls apart.I am not talking about Christianity as a 'collection of myths'. I am talking about Chrsitianity as a living religion with believers that take the myths to be true. Whatever, you are talking about is not Christianity but a discussion of Christian ideas; which of course only exists metaphysically. My opponent literally contradicts himself. Furthermore, my opponent is still operating under the assumption that "falseness or impossibility" holds any relevance to the Resolution, whereas I have shown that it does not. I ask that my opponent try to uphold his BOP as Pro. To repeat, my good opponent is arguing a strawman. On the one hand fully accepting the foundations of a Christianity being a myth, yet expecting Christians to also accept the same and continue to be Christians. Such non-believing Christians likely are not Christians and therefore do not practice Christianity. "But Christianity doesn't exist as a story though does it? It exists as a factual set of claims of miracles and impossible acts being the basis its religion."No, but it is comprised of stories that can be found in Christianity's holy book known as the Bible as I have shown above. The claim of whether it is factual or not falls into the realm of subjectivity as I have also shown above. Once again, your point is null and void of any ground in this debate when attempting to determine a valid basis for Christianity to exist. Once again, you fail to understand that Christians believe the NT miracles to be actually true. The mere fact that these commandments are still upheld today provides yet another example for the valid basis of the existence of Christianity. To claim otherwise would then say that such laws have no valid basis to exist which is a claim that has yet to be justified. I believe that you are confusing common sense laws that also exist without Christianity with Christianity itself! The basis of Christianity is not the 10 commandments nor that they still seem to hold in the modern world. The basis of Christianity is his sacrifice as an innocent for our sins, and his resurrection and deification.Until you understand what Christianity is, which is the belief that the miracles are literally true, then you are arguing against a weird strawman version of Christianity far removed from the religion we are debating.ConclusionMy opponent has invented his own version of a religion that doesn't believe in its own miracles in order to make a point that it still exists. In order to continue please define 'exist' and describe what Christianity is.