Debate with a Christian

[Mudhammam]

There's really no debate to be had, at least not one that I can see would be very worthwhile. He believes we can not only determine the probability that an event occurred based a few accounts (written by Christian missionaries no less) but more over, that we can interpret these experiences merely on the opinions of the first-century non-skeptical illiterates who had them. Why not just debate if Big foot exists instead?

If pocaracas refrains, we can debate several things.

"Were the gospel writers Christian missionaries?"

"Were the gospel writers non-skeptical illiterates?"

There is much we can debate. I will wait to see if pocaracas would like to debate.

Before we go further, I think you should do more research on what it is you're arguing for. I say this because most of your arguments have been dealt with before and offer nothing interesting in which I would find it worthwhile continuing forward. A good place to start is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa.../luck.html