I will decide if I will begin to teach you how to discuss something in a reasonable way.
Let’s try starting simply:
Do you agree that the Bible contains (at least some) historical accounts with enough temporal information to be correlated with other known sources?
Oh how so mighty generous of you! Your not full of yourself now are you?
I am certainly not near your level.
Just your words, you said it, I am responding to its premise! Sounds pretty arrogant even to a laymen!
The offer and starter question stands.
Great! I will let you know if my time is worth investing in this debate with you! It should be based on mutual exchange, somehow I get the impression that it is not!
The offer stands
Let’s try starting simply:
Do you agree that the Bible contains (at least some) historical accounts with enough temporal information to be correlated with other known sources?
Simply tossing a coin to make choices out performs biblical prophecies.
Buddhists start wars for the same reasons Christians start wars. They are just less inclined to rally around the religion.
No not true! Tell me, have you spent any length of time in the aforementioned countries listed to know their culture intimately? Can you speak or are fluent in their languages? List more examples in human history that Buddhists have started wars! Surely the example you list so far is a poor and not accurate example! So try again!
Even Yamamoto was Buddhist. If he didn’t start the Pacific war in ww2, no one did.
Just like believers in any other religion, Buddhists rationalize and make choices that lead to war.
That is a false equivalency argument and I completely disagree with your assertion! I asked you tell me what what wars are started by Buddhist and you come back with this bullshit? Yeah OK! Also Yamamoto started a war in Japans interests not in Buddha’s despite his faith has nothing to do with Buddhists starting wars! Try again answering the question straight forward as it’s clear you know nothing of Asian culture and your just reaching on this argument !
So it sounds like you are inclined to not believe Christians… except when they say that they are fighting for Christianity. Then you believe them. LoL dude! 
You see… humans - Buddhists and Christians and atheists included - start wars over territory, water, resources, revenge, food, alliances … etc. What they use to justify the war and to obtain support for the war from their people is irrelevant to the question of their propensity for starting wars. Once you understand that, you will graduate to a higher level of thought than the one you are on.
Except you avoided answering the question altogether only to make a generalisation about wars started by people of faith as opposed to in the historical context in the name of religion! Your response at face value is disingenuous at best!
As far as my higher learning you know nothing about me and what I know to make that assumption! Again how many countries in Asia have lived in? How many of Asia’s languages can you speak? Funny how you just avoided that question altogether! As far as Christians and not believing them is another attempt at levity that has no basis! Start with facts and perhaps we can have a constructive dialogue, until then I will assume you are just like the rest of the hypocrites who call themselves Christians!
BTW, you can even have the last word as I have no need to waste?my time with people who regularly practice intellectual dishonesty! I have no use for people like you who construct such false narratives!
I didn’t call myself a Christian. I don’t claim to be a Christian. You make a mistake that is common among your ilk.
You are wanting to boast about living in Asia as though that provides you with greater credibility in your debate. If that logic is valid, then you must accept that unless you have fought in a war, your opinions on all matters relating to wars are invalid.
But your logic is not valid. So drop the ridiculous questioning about who has lived in Asia the longest. You are simply thrashing around with self contradictory statements calling Christians hypocrites yet believing them like a faithful alterboy when they have claimed in the past - such as during the Crusades - that their motivation for war and killing is their Christian belief.
Actually, this is not an absurd assertion, apart from the problem of any human having any idea what an omniscient, omnipotent being might be.
When you ask what this being is, how it does what it does and why, nobody has a meaningful answer (sorry all you deists). Saying that this being is a male brings a lot of further questions to explore: if this is true, then there must be a female God because that’s the whole reason for a male to exist. Then there’s the kids, which is the only reason for there being a male and female in nature. Making the assertion that God is a male is, in my opinion, a little better than just invoking an unknowable thing, because it can be explored a little more. Maybe futile, but it moves the ball a little bit.
This reminds me of dilemmas you see when you read the Journal of Parapsychology. Once you test whether people can see the future, a lot of questions arise downstream, like is it a fixed future or can you change it, and why? You can never really pin these things down, they’re beyond our understanding.
This (my) way of thinking on the issue is sometimes called “igtheism” a term that amuses me.
Hmmm… igtheism? the extension of that line of thinking would imply that before man fully and correctly understood and characterized the nature of a star, the existence of the sun was in doubt.
Why? When you look in the sky, you see the sun. That’s difficult to doubt.
Tell that to the igtheists. So maybe you are not an igtheist after all.
Quoting you…
Now early man had no idea what the sun was and how it does what it does. Your igtheists seem to demand that the what and how of a thing be correctly defined before one can know anything about its existence. But as you say, early man - heck… even a tree toad - knew the sun existed.