I call BS on Christianity".

"Answer: I see, so Christian values are important to Christian beliefs (okay seems like a great start here), even though you don"t believe Christians when they tell you these values are what caused them to believe. So it would follow that you do not put very much value in these Christian values because you claim that you still do not believe (are not a follower of Jesus). Therefore I can dismiss Christian values for the same reasons that you have without a fight here".so carry on." Perhaps I'm dumb, but this response didnt make much sense to me at all. That is, I couldn't comprehend the point you were making. Could be you, could be me. "Answer: So our needs as atheists is your only concern? Sorry, non sequitur responses draws out non sequitur conclusions on my part." Aha! Right. Got you now - it wasn't SUPPOSED to make sense! "Answer: The bible is not a historical relevant collation historically and cannot be used for claiming historical events." Well, the historical historicity of history's historians isn't what is up for debate. (Did I use too many of the same word here? Please forgive me - forgive me like a Christian), what is up for debate is the values and guidance that Jesus taught. " The bible as you know it appeared hundreds of years after the claim life of Jesus." I appreciate that the biblical accounts of Jesus don't meet the exacting standards of modern day verification, nor even of their more advanced, more civilised contemporaries, but the passing down of history and of story's through the oral tradition - until such times as those storykeepers were ABLE to write them down - has been a feature in the recorded history of cultures the world over. I will grant you that these stories oftentimes are embellished and take on a life of their own, mythical, fantastic, grandiose. But, well, what do you want to do - write off entire cultures as fabled? The Picts existed, but they never wrote anything down. The early Celts didnt record anything until they were able, and when they did, they recounted the stories and legends of their people that had been passed to them orally. And both these people's lived AFTER Christ. Shall we write their existence out of history for lacking the foresight of the standard that was to come? Or shall we accept them for just what their capabilities were at the time? "Answer: There is no evidence to suggest Jesus ever lived so I guess I disagree" I would like my opponent to acknowledge the fact that he is out on a limb here. The existence of Jesus is not refuted by the majority of historians. His existence is generally accepted as historical fact, supported by the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus. I will provide a link if requested, however, you can peruse many alternative sources for yourself by typing "historical jesus roman records" into your search engine. "The bible at its best, and using the bible as its own reference here is nothing more than a collection of texts written by (mainly) self-professed illiterate Hebrew slaves who are said to have written and narrated the bible in Greek generations (at least one) after an otherwise un-witnessed claim/event." I would simply have to reiterate my point about utilising the oral tradition until such times as a people were ABLE to record it in text. Your assertion that they were illiterate, if true, certainly helps to prop up this argument. I don't think the ability, or lack thereof, to write should lead us to devalue the accounts whence they were written down. Of course, a measure of common sense and critical thinking should always temper our judgement, but I would harken back to the point I made about the Picts and early Celts as a warning against writing a people's history out of history. ". The best example I can come up with at the moment is this".the academic world and public schools are allowed to study the bible at their leisure, they are NOT however allowed to study "from the bible" for reasons I just mentioned (but not limited to)." The inherently dubious nature of the bible as an accurate, historical, literal source. Yep. I get that. I agree with it. "I have many sources to apply support here, but I didn"t feel it necessary as I am the one who needs to critique (call BS) on what you have to say in support of your belief as a Christian. Yes I know you claim not to be, but I"ve heard this from many Christians that do not want to end up sounding foolish by linking themselves to such an absurdity." What Christian would, like Peter, deny Christ? I'm not all that convinced at what you say here, unless of course the Christians you were previously debating had to fold under the enormous pressure of your argument and eventually come clean that, yes, all this time, I've been a Christian in disguise. You'll allow me a little good-natured facetiousness here I'm sure? I can positively state, for the record, that I am NOT a Christian, nor a Christian in disguise. In this regard, I would ask that you simply have faith (;p), since I cannot prove the fact of the matter through text or words alone. "Please note that "you do not have to respond to this post" as it is I who has to undo (call BS on) your Christian beliefs"whether you are one or not." I must remind my opponent that in fact I DO have to respond to this post, lest I forfeit the round! But onwards! Christian soldiers. If we accept that Jesus was a historical figure, which goes unopposed by a significant majority of historical scholars, and if we use discerning towards the more questionable acts he supposedly performed and take everything that he did or said in the bible which meets with the laws of reality as we know it, and broadly concur that they did occur, then I posit that Jesus was a wonderful, wise and exceptional man. Jesus Christ is of course the central figure in the religion that sprang up in the aftermath of his existence. To know Christianity, we only need read the words of Christ. All those who came after, and hung upon his every word, and systematised his words do not represent Christianity. They only represent themselves and their interpretation of Christianity. Might you agree? If I may use a simple analogy to hopefully better illustrate the point I seek to make, should my original point falter... The Constitution of The United States I believe could be somewhat applicable here. The spirit of the Constitution as it was written has been used to form the societal and legal guidelines of the US since its inception. The Constitution - unarguably one of the worlds great manifestos - was written in a pure spirit. It's purpose was noble. It's guidelines clear. The constitution remains the backbone of the American way, yet it creates a schism amongst its adherents. Why is this? Interpretation is our culprit. Whilst hanging off of every word of the constitution (and its amendments), different schools of interpretation spring up around this one central manifesto. It divides opinion. Whoever has control of power can use their interpretation of the constitution to justify their acts. I posit that it is not the constitution itself that is to blame, nor the founding fathers who wrote it, but simply the interpretations which followed. How does one come to know the true meaning of the constitution? Should one defer their own judgements to the interpretations of others? I believe one should read the constitution, read the words of the founding fathers as they wrote them, for oneself and arrive at ones own conclusion. Similarly with the teachings of Jesus Christ. But here the analogy ends. Why here? Because the constitution was written with the intent of organising a society, a civilisation, a country, whilst the words of Jesus were spoken with the intent of delivering salvation to the spirits of humanity, the intent was inward, the enlightenment of the individual and not the shaping and parameter bounding of the masses. To be continued...