greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 12:20pm:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 12:15pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 12:06pm:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 12:00pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 11:46am:
Well done on demonstrating yet again the paucity of your debating style by using a deflection. And your case was weakened pretty substantially by denying His existence in the first place. So far, you are not doing real well at this.
The title of this thread is: "How gullible are some people?"
My answer is: "Very".
Exhibit A:
"His existence is beyond doubt. There is far more evidence for Jesus' existence than most figures of antiquity." Then why don't you cite references to support your position?
Doesn't work that way, old chum.
You are the one claiming that Jesus Christ existed: it's up to
you to provide evidence.
However, I can play your childish game if you wish ...
The world was created by an invisible purple unicorn that lives at the bottom of my garden.You think I'm wrong? Well, in that case, why don't you cite references to support your position?
It would be quite easy to do, but the problem is that it would be a complete waste of time. I have observed your debating style and to be frank, you are very second-rate. You accept only evidence that agrees with you and even then, only your own. You reject out of hand anything you don't like. You play word games despite not being particularly good at it and most of all, you do not accept the principles of debate and argument.
The de-facto overwhelming global position is that Jesus Christ existed and in any debate worthy of the name, I don't have to support it. If you wish to debunk it then do your best and an actual debate can ensue. But so far, all I have seen from you is the kind of childish actions of someone determined to be heard despite not having any facts to back you up.
If you want to play in the adult's corner then go ahead and join us. I suspect however, that you will simply remain the faux-intellectual, sniping from the edges and trying to impress while actually making very little genuine impact in ta debate.