The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

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. Con expects to debate a fundamentalist This is an unnecessary statement. I have not once alluded to you being a fundamentalist or directing the conversation toward any such thing. I have only expected a reasoned and reasonable debate. You may have found yourself hung up on the term fundamentalist in the definition of what a Christian believes, but as I stated in the previous response – “If you do not agree with the beliefs I have posted please feel free to define your own.” Since this has not been done, I guess the only thing I can do is accept that you don’t agree with the definition of being a Christian until you define it yourself. Regardless, you should agree that the bible is not a sufficient form of evidence to hold the Christian beliefs (whatever those are). Lack of taking the bible literally, Morals & Fables If taking the bible is not meant to be taken as factual, what good is it as a form of evidence? A film, “Inglourious basterds” portrayed a set of events where a small Jewish-American group of soldiers rose up against the Nazis and took to scalping as a form of putting the Third Reich in its place. This did not happen, in spite of the fact that Nazi’s Jews and many of the characters from the film actually existed. Clearly this film cannot be used as evidence for anything beyond the film having been written, and apparently you agree with that. Your thoughts on the matter are non-consequential, though – it is your job to be arguing the Pro side of this debate, and as such you need to address the sufficiency argument. Prevalent Christian view? This debate is not about any prevalent Christian view. The topic is the sufficiency claim put forth by a theist, which has yet to be shown to be correct or founded. This is a non-sequitur and only clouds the issue being discussed. Bible is about moral precepts That has nothing to do with sufficiency as evidence either. Re: Church, Religion, and double standards… I am not entirely sure what this is coming up for, because it has nothing to do with the sufficiency argument. I would like to suggest a more direct route be provided so I can understand what you think this has to do with the bible being used as a form of sufficient evidence for the belief in the Christian god. Re: Satisficing NOT sufficient, rationality, intuition and fundamentals I did not assume any such thing, as when you provided the link I was quick to go look it up as well. This term is not in any way what is being discussed, and even if you accept that the bible is satisficing evidence for the beliefs in question, that is not the topic of this debate. Rationality, intuition and axioms are also quite far away from the topic. The last four sections are all examples of the Pro side changing the debate to be about something that it was never intended to be. This is not a discussion about the moral concepts, turpitude or lack of factual nature of the bible. This is a discussion about the fact that you cannot turn to the bible as a sufficient form of evidence to believe in the Christian god. This is not a discussion about science, axioms or paradox, because those do not apply to the bible; this is not a discussion about contradiction within the bible, because those, alone, do not address the sufficiency claim. I hope that in the next round my opponent will be more willing to put forth some more substantial arguments for the Pro position.