Christianity is the one true religion

Point 1 Bury god or religion? My objective here is not to bury any gods or religion, all I have to do is show that Christianity is not the one true religion. You have evaded my point and have given no proof concerning it. The question was merely inquiring how you determine, out of all the gods and religion of the world , which one is true and why? You have the burden of providing us with WHY you believe Christianity to be the one true religion. Happiness and peace are not evidences proving that Christianity is the one true religion. Your points about morality does not prove this as well, you have stated that morals can come from many sources, to which I agree, but does not prove your point. Atheism as a religion: How can the lack of belief in something be a religion? I really would like you to answer this question. First of all define for us religion, then tell us how atheism fits in that definition: RELIGION DEFINED 1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods 3 an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group http://www.merriam-webster.com... Its seems that even the dictionaries are confused about religion. Number 3 makes no sense to me but I did not want to leave it out, but if you think about it everything would then be defined as religion that anyone finds interesting or any activity that is very important to a person or a group. So any hobby can be a religion, to which I do not agree with. To say that atheism is a religion without defining atheism or religion is moot and does not prove your statement. I do not believe in gods, therefore I am an atheist, I practice no rituals, adhere to no organization that practices any observance to supernatural claims of the world and mankind. I am sure you have heard the example of the non stamp collector: " If stamp collectors demanded that people who don't collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people, and with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby, or a religion." http://skeptico.blogs.com... How does one consider atheism as a belief system? By default it becomes a position when you cannot believe in god or gods, this is not something I chose, yet rather it is the only position I am left with after careful study of world religions. It is also interesting that you claim to be anarchist towards Christianity, when all of Christianity is already and has been in a state of disorder and chaos since it arose, much like all religions. Point 2: Dinosaurs did not die and resurrect from the grave, so really it is not a valid point that I need to know what dinosaurs looked like, we know that they existed, hell I am sure that the Jesus of the bible was not the only man named Jesus in that time period, yet he is the only one being pronounced as being raising from the dead and being god or god's son, either way my opponent has conceded point two. Comparing our knowledge of Jesus or the bible to our knowledge of dinosaurs does not make my point invalid. NOAH'S ARK FOUND? You almost got this one by me, it sounded like you said that we have found Noah's ark, please clarify your statement with certainty and evidence, because I am sure they have found it many time over and over again. Point 3 Again it is not that the bible does not contain truth at all, but that it makes great claims about certain things, as for the mistakes, yes we all expect errors in historical documents because of certain issues, but these other documents are not claiming to have the answers to life here and afterwards and if they do make these claims then there needs to be compounding evidence to support them or else we wouldn't know what to believe or why we should believe them outside of our own personal experiences. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle never claimed to be writing god's word, so again the point is moot. Using the historical validity of the constitution in comparison with the validity of the bible as an valid historical source for great claims is like comparing apples and oranges. The constitution does not make the claims of such things as the dead rising. The PRO stated this: "Sometimes, things are more about testimony evidence and not physical evidence." I agree, that is why in my first post I stated that this is what many call faith, but this does not prove anything about Christianity as being the one true religion and this can apply to all the religions of the world. I have already shown that atheism is not a religion so I do not find it in this category, on the contrary I find atheism to be the position that refuses to accept things on a subjective personal basis, just because people claim to have supposed personal experiences does not make something true. Point being that you do not believe in the gods of Hinduism, yet many people have claimed to have had experiences with them. My position on atheism is not required to point out that Christianity is not the one true religion, I could just as well be a Buddhist or a Muslim. Conclusion: 1: The Pro need not only deal with my arguments, but he is in the affirmative and needs to bring his evidence for the agreed topic, showing that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION. The PRO cannot do this beyond a subjective position. 2: The three types of evidence that makes something believable beyond personal subjectivity cannot be provided and the PRO has already conceded to this. 3: Historically the bible holds some truth, yet it matters not, only because we are seeking to find out how the bible proves that Christianity is the one true religion. My point was that the bible makes great claims about something that is the pinnacle of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, which has no evidence to prove its position. First because the bible is not as reliable as many make it out to be as I stated in my first post, secondly, if we cannot prove the resurrection of Christ, there is no reason to believe what Paul or the bible says about the resurrection: 1 Corin. 15 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up"if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. NKJV So why is it that we apply rational logic to most things in our lives except this great claim of a man being raised from the dead? Paul says that your faith is futile if Christ did not rise from the dead. You cannot prove that Christ was raised from the dead, so what position are you left with? If you cannot prove the Christ was raised from the dead you have no basis for Christianity being the one true religion. Note that just because I take kindly to my opponent due to his gracious demeanor and likable spirit, this does not mean that I take kindly to Christianity or religion, but I must remind my opponent that he has a burden to prove here. I offered some points to get the ball rolling with the debate, showing why I do not believe Christianity to be the one true religion, but I must I encourage the PRO to bring forth the evidence that Christianity is the one true religion, so far he has not done this. I look forward to hearing your arguments.