If anyone else volunteers for the Christian side, they’re undoubtedly more qualified than I and I’ll gladly yield. I’m a Christian and a go for debate, BUT my personal views, that there are a number of inaccuracies in the Bible and that the god of the New Testament is not omnipotent in this world, may be too liberal for this particular challenge, as I gather that my would-be worthy opponent is only interested in challenging naive fools and religious simpletons.
I will debate that there will be no debate.
No debate at all on any topic?
DEBATE ME, PLEASE!!
Mel, will you, PLEASE, debate me?
Choose another topic, if you have to (although religion is my favourite subject), just DEBATE ME!!
Thank you, I’d love to. I’m not a formidable opponent, but I enjoy the process. Even when I end up annihilated and humiliated, I learn something from that failure.
Specifics: I’m game for almost any “religion” topic so long as I have enough room to honestly present FOR my liberal beliefs (similar to Unitarian). What would be some religious topics of interest to you?
Time: I’ve never engaged in a formal computer debate before (unless you count email to email), so I’m not familiar with the different protocols. I’d have to have segmented, flexible time, almost like e-mail debates. I can’t promise being available to sit at the computer at any particular time, nor for any particular length of time, so I guess I’d have to ask for an almost email-like segmented, extended debate with limits on response time (respond to opponent within x hours??). Would something like that work for you?
Looking forward to it, thanks again for the offer.
NOTE: I’m really not a good debater, so place our debate at the bottom of your debate hierarchy, if you get offers from other opponents. Patience is one of my strengths – more time to prepare. 
Also, consider that my required type of segmented response, as with segmented game playing moves, allows you to engage in other debates concurrently.
Great! Thankyou.
Im not much of a ‘debater’, either.
Your idea of taking our time to respond suits me down to the ground, so to speak.
You identify yourself as a ‘‘christian’’, but then seem to exclude yourself from the category of ‘‘naive fools and religious simpletons’’ (please dont be offended)???
Could you explain this to me, please?
What makes a person a ‘‘christian’’?
What makes YOU a ‘‘christian’’?
(I haven’t got much experience of debating, but i believe this is going to be ‘fun’!!)
I’ll gladly answer those questions, once we ascertain they will not be the topic of debate 
. You’ve subtly suggested a couple of good topics already. Why don’t you make a short list of suggested topics, then I’ll edit them and pass them back to you, and we’ll go back and forth until we’ve settled on one? Or is there a better way?
Question: Since we’ll have time for responses, would you be OK if I used my husband samm (on this forum) as a resource/adviser? Conversely, I’d freely allow you consultation with anyone you might choose.
I like to trust you with the details (translate: scut work), if that’s OK, like judges or whatever – I’m pretty easy as long as we’re mutually agreed on the topic and protocol of responding. rebecca
That all sounds fine. I’ll think on that “list” tonight, and show you what I have (probably and hopefully) tomorrow.
Thanks. Dan
Debate me on christianity. Why will the question “why is a person a christian?” not be part of our debate? This is a philosophy forum, for your own good, if you are a ‘devout’ christian, and are intelligent (an intelligent christian???) don’t debate me on christianity, go on another forum; there are plenty of “christian forums”!!! Christianity is RETARDED; there is no such thing, in this reality, as a “clever” christian!!! I am, as a friend of mine worded it, a “real philosopher” (I’m still not getting it), if you debate me on this I WILL win.
PS: I’m pretty clever you know; and I think I have worked out who you are… (Your real name, if I’m right, begins with J). Debate me on christianity if you want, and dare- but I’ll probably just show you why its a load of superstitious horse-shit, so to speak.
OK, now what is the specific proposition or question we might be debating? I’ll need something a little more specific than Christianity is superstitious horse poop and/or I am a naive fool (because I am a Christian?), or all Christians are superstitious fools. I don’t mind answering any of your questions, I just want to be sure that they are not directly part of the debate, since if they are, I might want to answer them during the debate.
What’s your decision about allowing samm as my counsel (and you with the right to consult anyone of your choosing at any time – no need to inform me about it)?
No J’s in my name. Why would you think that I am other than rebecca, wife of samm, 60 year old woman and fairly new to this forum where I use the name melonkali? There’s nothing secret or notorious about me.
Win or lose, I hope we enjoy a good, lively debate and exit shaking hands as we did when we entered “the ring”. I hope we both come out just a little bit more respectful of and knowledgeable about the other’s position. rebecca 
This is the debate! its fine for you to ‘‘consult’’ whoever you like; have a bible at hand, and the pope on speed dial, if you like (this is, after all, just anonymous crap, on some meaningless message board on the internet- dont worry about it!).
christianity is an ancient mythology, dreamed up by a rather primitive civilisation- not much more than a ‘‘tribe of savages’’, really!
I dont believe that any christian can be exepted from the category of ‘‘naive fools’’- can you explain me how they can?
about me thinking you may have been somebody i know: just forget it; I MIGHT have been wrong (it happens often enough, believe me!)
What makes a person a ‘‘christian’’?
lets debate!!!
I posted from my partners account (Faye-23), accidently; sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
OK, let’s go. As soon as I can get back to my own computer (obviously typing from samm’s right now), after samm digs a not-too-bright clumsy little kitten out of the ceiling above it, or sometime today or tonight (real life hassles), I’ll lead off with an argument or two concerning the origins of Christianity as more than man-invented superstition.
Re: citations in our debate: I’d appreciate the freedom, which would apply to you as well, to occasionally give an informal citation vs. digging through stacks of old books, BUT I’ll always make sure that I can access and formally cite any factual claim I make, in case there is disagreement about the facts, and I’d expect the same from you. Deal?
Re: Faye 23, I hadn’t noticed that. I have a grown daughter named Faye. Please tell me you’re not in Tennessee.
Back at you later today or tonight, depending on Sunday hassles; the day is NOT beginning well.
Hey, maybe I’ll dress samm up like the consulieri (Robert Duvall) in The Godfather 
Don’t tell him I said that. 
rebecca
Dan –
I think I’d like to begin with the origins of the earliest known organized religion, the ancient Sumerians. It’s my impression that you believe all ancient gods are of man’s imagining, but not only is that theory not evidenced by the data, the available data in some ways contradicts such a theory.
No, I’m not going to argue for “Sumerian ancient astronauts”. I guess that is one possible explanation for the anomalies associated with humanity’s leap of civilization, but there’s really not any hard evidence to support that theory, either (not a single hubcap), and there IS evidence which, IMO, might contradict it. For example, the SumeroBabylonian astrolabe evidences no knowledge of the outer planets or knowledge which could not have been obtained from earthly observations. If we’re talking ancient astronauts, per the usual ancient astronaut theories, wouldn’t the Sumerians have likely had access to better knowledge of the cosmos?
However, more and more mainstream researchers are expressing puzzlement about the ancient leap of civilization (a.k.a. urban revolution) with the sudden appearance, from out of nowhere (no transition layers, no footprints), of very smart and powerful beings, known as “gods”, along with suddenly-smart humans and high civilization. The high civilizations of Sumeria (Mesopotamia), Egypt and the Indus Valley appeared suddenly in co-existence, complete with a triangle sea trade going back as far as the earliest cuneiform records. The oldest discovered cuneiform tablets are trade inventories, evidencing not only an established triangle trade but also the harvesting of natural resources from distant regions (for example, South Africa, the Caucasus Mts), especially minerals.
Germany’s Max Planck Institute is supporting a multidisciplinary team to begin back at “Square One” in ancient Mesopotamia, to see if earlier scholars and researchers may have mis-stepped, since none of the anticipated data to fill in the “anomaly holes” has appeared after over 100 years of digging. Not one shred of explanatory data (for the sudden appearance of high civilization). Nothing. Our present, standard theories of the origins of the great leap of civilization simply can not adequately explain the available data, so the German team is slowly back-tracking to be certain nothing critical was overlooked.
One of the most difficult anomalies to explain is the math. Transition layers go from one to one bead correspondence to sticks serving as 10-markers (10 ones) to cuneiform tablets with sexagesimal (base 60) algebraic and quadratic equations. This is abnormal. Very abnormal. It requires an explanation which so far has not been forthcoming. Of course, occasionally someone will offer a personal explanation for the leap of math, but no theories have been even close to universally accepted. For further explanation of the SumeroBabylonian math problem, you might start with the foundational work of Dr. Otto Neugebauer, but even a Wikipedia article on Babylonian math may suffice.
The purpose of the above was to argue that we do not have sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the origins of the ancient Sumerian (and Egyptian and Indus Valley) civilizations, nor their gods, to declare that the gods were human inventions – in fact, quite a bit of the evidence we have seems to be arguing against that theory. Our standard cultural anthropology evolutionary theories have failed in the face of the evidence, and new theories and understandings are needed. What those understandings and theories will turn out to be will depend on the data that is uncovered; there is no consensus in any direction as of yet, at least none that I am aware of, including no consensus that the ancient gods were inventions of men. That would be our usual explanation, but, again, the data in this case does not support the usual explanation.
This is my first point of debate, that a reasonable person cannot put forth as absolute truth, or even highly probable truth, ANY theory of the origins of the ancient Sumerian (or Indus Valley or Egyptian) gods, because there is not enough data to reasonably support any theory, and there is plenty of data which contradicts the usual “Ockham’s Razor” invention-of-man explanation.
I’m focusing on Sumerian mythos (vs Indus Valley or Egyptian) because the Sumerian mythos is the primary origin of early Judaism. To go from the Sumerians to ancient Christianity, one can easily track Judaism from the first Semitic peoples in Mesopotamia who interacted with Sumerians (Akkadians and Assyrians – Sumerians were non-Semitic) on through the West Semitic tribes of the Levant, their languages and gods, including the Hebrew god(s) of the Old Testament.
The decline and corruption of the Sumerian civilization began around 2000 BC, perhaps earlier, with the Third Fall of the city of Ur. Per Old Testament chronology, this could coincide time-wise (there’s not a consensus as to exactly when Abraham came to the Levant) with Abraham’s journey from Ur. Historical research tells us that there was indisputably a tribe of Hebrews among the West Semitic tribes in the Levant, and the Old Testament seems to be a mixture of sometimes accurate chronology of that tribe, the history of the Hebrews and other peoples of the Levant, mixed with sometimes heavy editing of Levantine history (obviously to promote Hebrew greatness and Hebrew legends), with convoluted remnants of ancient Sumerian gods.
Careful text evaluation of the old testament seems to show three versions of the ancient Hebrew high god, one of them (Yahweh) a typical West Semitic storm god. BUT ALSO, and this is important, the Old Testament contains some fairly pristine, albeit redacted, ancient SumeroBabylonian mythos (especially Genesis 1-11) which was adopted during the Hebrews’ Babylonian captivity (6th century, BC) – for example, the flood story of ancient Sumeria, adapted to fit the ever-evolving Hebrew high god. These myths can be and have been compared with older SumeroBabylonian cuneiform versions. The Hebrews were probably henotheistic (believed there were many gods, though they only worshipped one god) until the return from the Babylonian captivity and building of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, which is the true beginning of Judaism.
So this post roughly covers the history of JudeoChristianity’s origins up to the inter-testamental period (?350-0 BC?). Influences on Christianity other than Mesopotamian and Levantine may be discussed later, as indicated. For my defense of the reasonableness of Christianity, it is simply important to be aware of the still unknown origins of Sumerian mythos, as recently evidenced by archaeological finds, as described by Greek historians, and as reflected in parts of the Old Testament. It is important to recognize that not even high scholars are of a consensus that the ancient Sumerian gods were man-made imaginings, because these usual theories have failed in the face of the evidence, and that there are a number of anomalies which any reasonable person would admit require further explanation.
rebecca
Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say “I am a christian”, and then “I don’t believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world”. “Omnipotent” means “ALL POWERFUL”, so an omnipotent being would not only be “omnipotent in this world”, but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error?
Your position seems utterly ridiculous; you speak of “evidence”, but most of the evidence points to christianity being nothing more than delusion, invented because of, among other reasons, mans fear of death!
Could you answer my earlier questions please?
What makes a person a “christian”?
You do understand the difference between a “christian” and a “theist”, don’t you?
Ps: don’t worry about your daughter… I’m in England!! Lol.
Pps: I genuinely like you, and don’t want to offend you. However, I don’t believe you have much of an argument… Christianity is undefendable, unrealistic, ridiculous silliness (imo)!!!
Hi Dan,
Samm and I like you, too. Don’t worry about offending – I’m old, battle-hard and crusty. I’ll post a debate response this evening after the crisis du jour (one of our donkeys is injured, the veterinarian’s on the way). Samm, as you may know, is a pagan. He says that I’m actually a Christopagan – will 'splain later. What are you, spiritual/religion-wise? rebecca
Many people I speak to about this “shit” (pardon the language) think I’m an atheist… This is wrong! I’m agnostic (from the latin “ag nos co” meaning “I do not know”). I believe that the odds for, some kind of, gods existence are completely incalculable… So these odds can’t be known better than 50/50… To be honest, I could be described as a “borderline atheist” (if you know what I mean)… Could you explain me, in detail, what it is that you believe, spirituality/religion wise, please?
I don’t believe you are, what I would describe as, a “christian”… Dan.
Dan25, in a recent post you said, "Going back to one of your earlier posts on this thread: you say ‘I am a christian’, and then ‘I don’t believe (the christian) god is omnipotent in this world’. ‘Omnipotent’ means ‘ALL POWERFUL’, so an omnipotent being would not only be ‘omnipotent in this world’, but also in any conceivable world! I trust you recognise this error? RESPONSE: If, god is not omnipotent in THIS world, then it would follow that he is not omnipotent in ALL worlds. Also, the Bible was written in a time when this world was the only world known to exist. Aquinas has argued that an omnipotent god can create a world in which he is not omnipotent. Finally, the New Testament concedes that Satan (referred to as “the Prince of the Power of the Air”) is the ruler of this world.
Dan25, you also asked, “You do understand the difference between a ‘christian’ and a ‘theist’, don’t you?” A theist believes in a god; Samm is a theist like me, but his god(dess) is the Moon. A Christian believes in the one God described in the New Testament of the Holy Bible with some reference to the one god of the Old Testament. Now do you know that the Christian God made famous by the conservatism of the fundamentalists is not the only Christian God. A liberal, loving God is also portrayed in the New Testament, whereas the fundie god is more the god of the Old Testament. I agree with you that the fundie god is indefensible, but the liberal God is both worthy and capable of being well defended in our debate.
Samm for Becky