The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,653 times Debate No: 46411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (3)




Debate Structure:
First Round: Statement Of Position/acceptance.
Second Round: Arguments
Third Round: Rebuttals.

Definition: Substantiated:
"provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

"they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations"
synonyms: prove, give proof of, show to be true, give substance to, support, uphold, back up, bear out, justify, vindicate, validate, corroborate, verify, authenticate, confirm, endorse, give credence to, lend weight to, establish, demonstrate; From Google.
"To substantiate is to give support to a claim. We’d really like to believe in the Tooth Fairy; however, more evidence is needed to substantiate her existence (besides that quarter in your pocket)." From

In other words: The Topic is about verification/justification of the substance within the belief or disbelief.

Underlying Question:
Does Atheism or Disbelief in God have more justification for it's position than belief in the 1st century prophet/messiah/God, Jesus Christ.

This is to be taken on proper Historical and Rational considerations, such as:
1: Which is more justifiable using Historical Evidence.

2: Which is most probably Correct when philosophical and rational analysis is taken into account.

My case will be for the Justification of Disbelief.
In simple terms it means that I cannot possibly believe strongly in what cannot be verified to my physical senses and empirical rational analysis.
To believe in something so strongly that I actually worship it, there must be some very amazing, irrefutable evidence substantiating it as worthy of worship.
This is why most Atheists are Atheists, because they have never found enough evidence to make them believe Jesus/God is worthy of their worship.
Most Atheists require Substantiation for what they believe in, failing that, they prefer to simply disbelieve.

Problem for Con is that in order for Jesus Christ (God) to be worthy of worship, they must be able to provide some pretty amazing irrefutable evidence that Jesus is indeed worthy of worship.

Tough ask!
So I don't expect many takers!


Thank you pro, for hosting this debate.

Pro said a lot of things. I just want to make it clear what this debate is about.

The Resolution

Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

This is the resolution. I in no way have to provide irrefutable evidence to show Jesus is worthy of worship. How the resolution is worded, me and my opponent share the BOP. I have to substantiate the worship of Jesus better then he substantiates atheism.


According to my opponent's definition of the word substantiate and the resolution, he must provide more evidence to support Atheism then I give to support Christianity.

Unerlying Question

My opponent asks for 2 things to be considered when judging arguments.

1. Which side is more justifiable using historical evidence.

2. Which is most probably correct when philosophical and rational analysis is taken into account?

I accept my opponents terms and understand them in the way I have described.

My Arguments

My opponent has given a brief description of what he will try to do. I will do the same. I will be leaning heavily on historical evidence of Jesus's existence and divinity. I will do my best to provide more actual evidence for my side then my opponent can use for his. I will also do my best to discredit any philosophical arguments he attempts to use.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Con for accepting the challenge:

I will refresh the Objectives for this debate:

I am to show that Disbelief in Jesus Christ/God or Atheism is more Substantiated than belief that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship.

My points are:
  1. If Jesus existed, he is still not worthy of worship unless he can be confirmed as being capable of Saving Souls.
  2. If scripture has it that Jesus saved souls and was resurrected and ascended to Heaven to take the role of God, this is still not evidence that he actually did anything, because that scripture needs to have the backing of impartial, eye witnesses that he actually performed such miracles.
  3. Only if Jesus can be proven to exist with actual impartial, contemporary, eye-witness testimony to his ability to perform miracles and he was actually resurrected and ascended into Heaven as God, would worship of Jesus be substantiated.
  4. Failing any of those above, then worship of Jesus is unsupported by evidence and thus Irrational, since it cannot be substantiated that he is a Messiah, nor that he is God.
  5. If the worship of Jesus is unsubstantiated, then it follows that disbelief in Jesus as a Messiah is indeed Correct and thus the position of Atheism is indeed Substantiated and worship of Jesus is definitely Unsubstantiated.
The primary questions in most Historians minds are when applying Historical Methodology are:
Source: Wikipedia: The Historical Method
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?"

Considering all 6 points of historical evidence for the deeds and divinity of Jesus Christ.

1: Where was the evidence produced (Sources are only from Written accounts, no sculptural, pictorial nor archaeological evidence exists for Jesus Christ.

Note: There have been no Contemporary Eye Witness accounts to any of the life of Jesus Christ.
All accounts arose after his death. His disciples were illiterate Aramaic speaking people.

Primary sources: Gospels,
Historians estimations on the period that the Gospels were written as between 30 to 100 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

Secondary Source for Jesus Christ's life comes from the writings of Saul of Tarsus.
Saul's writings appeared around 20 years after the Death of Jesus.

External to the Bible accounts of Jesus:
Josephus Flavius: Accounts 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus.
Cornelius Tacitus: 70 to 100 years after the death of Jesus
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas 110 years after the death of Jesus.

There are others, but in all cases, they are from hearsay, possible legendary evidence and thus irrelevant to proving anything concrete or Substantiated about Jesus Christ.

They are only evidence of The Legend Of Jesus.

2: Where was this evidence produced: In all cases, this is actually unknown. Nobody can pinpoint a location for the original writings for the New Testament.

3: By Whom was it Authored:
Gospels: Authors are completely unknown, they were not the Disciples whose names they stole for possibly devious reasons, they were written in Greek, which not one of the disciples could read, write nor probably speak. So The Bible Accounts of Jesus Fail The Test For Authentic, Contemporary Authorship. The Gospels are thus Unsubstantiated as Evidence For Jesus.

Writings attributed to Saul: Handwriting experts believe that 3 of the writings attributed may have been Sauls as they appear to have been created by the same person, the rest are dubious at best.

Writings of Josephus Flavius: From a study into the original documents, it appears that there has been some alterations (interpolations) made by devout Christians afterwards, likely to try and create more evidence for Jesus.

Other writings: Authorship appears to be correct, though being so long after the life of Jesus, they can be discounted as illegitimate as confirming evidence for any of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

4: From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
No pre-existing legitimate material can be located. The Bible Fails Such Analysis When Referring To The Life Of Jesus Christ.
Some historians cite a document called simply 'Q' as the source for the Gospel of Matthew, but it cannot be located and it's existence is unsubstantiated as being the source.

5: In What Original Form Was It Produced: (Integrity)
Original Form was purely oral tradition: The most unreliable form of information transmission: No Integrity Exists In 30 years of Oral Transmission:
The Gospels which bear the Apostles names were written in a language foreign to the Apostles, in Greek, where
>> Thus The Gospels Offer Absolutely No Historical Integrity:

6: What is the evidential value of the accounts of Jesus Christ. (Credibility)
All Wrintings Concerning Jesus Christ are From Hearsay Accounts, passed on by Oral (extremely unreliable) Transmission over a very long period of time, thus not one account of the Life of Jesus Christ has any Credibility.

Summing up the case for the Historical Jesus using The 6 Point Historical Method:
Evidence for Jesus Christ FAILS in all Six Historical Points:

Okay it appears from historical evidence that Jesus is a dubious character, he possibly lived, but maybe not, his existence cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt by evidence.
But, existing does not make him worthy of being worshiped.
To Be Worthy Of Worship, He Must Not Only Have Existed, But Be Proven As Divine.

Well, It Reads Like This:

If Jesus was really Resurrected, he is the Messiah/God and thus divine and worthy of worship.

If Jesus was not Resurrected, then he was just another False Prophet and not worthy of any worship.
Though Fact Is, There Is No Verifiable Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ.

I will draw the attention of Con to this fact: No Resurrection, No Justification nor Substantiation in the worship of Jesus Christ.

Here is one of the world's leading NT scholars, Bart Ehrman, stating why Historians do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As Bart Ehrman states in the lecture: When a Historian considers any evidence for the past concerning any events, they must consider only the Most Probable Natural (simplest) Conclusion, where in all cases, Unnatural Events Like Miracles Are The Least Probable (most complex) Conclusions, thus when considering all evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, any good, honest Historian, must conclude that it did not happen, Jesus Was Not Resurrected, Thus Jesus Is Not Worthy Of Worship and Such Worship Of Jesus Christ As Divine, Is Unsubstantiated.

Making Atheism the Far More Substantiated Position!
Over to You Con:



The Historical Method

My opponent bases his argument on source criticism, to invalidate the reliability of the historical evidence of Jesus. According to my opponents own source (Wikipedia), it is rare for a historical document to meat all 6 criteria he listed[1]. So we should just focus on meeting as much of the criteria as we can.

1. When

When an important event it is acceptable to use oral tradition, in places that have a strong history of oral rememberance [1] such as the Jews had in that time period. From that perspective the time from Jesus's death and resurrection until the time of writing is small enough to be considered reliable.

There must be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question [1]. The bible meets this criteria as well. It has the 2 original sources for the gospels Q and Mark as well as the historian Josephus, the Apostle Paul, and the Gospel of the Hebrews [2].

2. Where

The original sources can be traced back to a specific location. Experts at picking up on these sorts of things have recognized key indicators that the Bible has been translated from Aramaic. Here is a pun from the bible that can only be understood in Aramaic; "Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[3]"

3. By whom was it authored

The culture that this comes from has a strong oral rememberance anything with-in 150 years of the actual event would be almost as good if not just as good as the original source. Given the parallel sources of the event, the gospels are very reliable.

4. From what pre-existing material was it produced

Even though the "Q" document can't be located doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The similarities between Matthew and Luke, that don't correspond with anything from Mark, strongly indicate an alternate source material. Unfortunately most writing that old even important writings are lost forever.

5. In what original form was it produced.

Oral tradition in this part of the world is incredibly reliable. There are other oral traditions that are considered fact by historians that have more significant lapses in time then 30 years.

6. What is the evidential value of the accounts of Jesus Christ.

Evidential value can be established by looking at a few criteria.

1. Multiple attestation- The Bible meets this test by having multiple independent sources agreeing to the same events[2].

2. Tendencies of developing tradition- The oral tradition laws have been determined to show what the earliest parts of the text are and therefore what is most reliable[2].

3. Embarrassment- The gospels do contain embarrassing elements that the original authors would have found embarrassing. For example the story of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, which would indicate Jesus being of lower standing then John the Baptist [2].

4. Sitz im Leben- This is the historical, cultural and political context of the Bible. It shows that the stories of Jesus match the context quite perfectly.

I have proven the historic reliability of the existence of Jesus.

The resurrection of Christ

I agree with my opponent that if Jesus can be proved to be resurrected he is worthy of worship. I need not give any other evidence that Jesus is worthy of worship other then his resurrection.

1. Eyewitness testimony

The choice of the eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection is very interesting. "In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses"[4]. Why in the world would they be chosen as witnesses? This comes back down to the embarrassment factor. If these women were in fact not witness to the resurrection of Christ, then the gospel writers would have at least invented some male witnesses to place there. This embarrassment factor lends a lot of credibility to the resurrection story.

Outside Resistance

Very shortly after Jesus's death, his followers started preaching about his resurrection. Given the proximity to the location and to the time, if that tomb had not been empty then the Roman guards and the Pharisees would have came out in massive numbers to squash this rumor. Instead we don't see this happening [4]. If even the enemies of the Christians in this time period didn't object to the claim of an empty tomb then why should people as far removed as us do so?

Not a Conspiracy

It would be ridiculous to think these 12 disciples came together after Jesus's death to commit the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. We're talking about 12 men coming together and deciding to die and be tortured in the name of a silly hoax. This just simply would not happen. This men's faith was so strong because they had seen the resurrected Jesus several times.


There is enough historical documentation to show Jesus existed. The fact that his body was missing and several people seen him after his death shows he was indeed resurrected. All the Roman's had to do to stop this myth, had it been true was to produce the body. Their failure to do this indicates the body was missing. 12 men wouldn't have gotten together in the name of perpetrating a hoax. The only reasonable explanation for everything I have explained is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Debate Round No. 2



My opponent appears to have confused Oral Tradition with Oral History.

I will allow the following passage from UNESCO to state the difference between the two.

Oral tradition and oral history share a common oral nature. While it is deceptively easy to propose distinctions between them, it is more difficult to sustain the differences in practice. There is often much similarity in the ways they are collected, processed, stored, and made available to researchers and in the equipment required to record and preserve these materials. In common practice, both those who concentrate on oral history and those who work with oral tradition belong to a common class of oral historians and share many of the same interests, concerns, and objectives, methods and procedures.

Oral traditions are those recollections of the past, orally transmitted recounted, that arise naturally within and from the dynamics of a culture. They are shared widely throughout the culture by word of mouth even though they may be entrusted to particular people for safekeeping, transmittal, recitation, and narration. They are organic expressions of the identity, purpose, functions, customs, and generational continuity of the culture in which they occur. They happen spontaneously as phenomena of cultural expression. They would exist, and indeed they have existed in the absence of written notes or other more sophisticated recording devices. They are not direct experiences of the narrators, and they must be transmitted by word of mouth to qualify as oral tradition.

Oral history, on the other hand, is usually identified as an activity, a detached and academic process of inquiry into the memories of people who have experienced the recent past directly. This inquiry and the responses it generates are recorded to supplement written records that have been found wanting in some measure for historical analysis. It is a studied, abstract, and analytic practice of historians and other social scientists, and it relies heavily on a recording device, whether manual, mechanical, or electronic."

In summary of this statement: Oral Tradition has no Author connection and no Historical Value, it is simply the Culture of a society (Tradition) being passed on from those who are considered as holders of the Tradition to members of the culture.
Oral History is only considered as accurate when the statements are taken soon after the event by first hand eye witnesses. Oral history passed down is not considered at all accurate, where Oral Traditions are a reasonable statement of the Culture of the tribe.
BTW: UNESCO employs professional collectors of Oral Traditions and Histories of cultures that have no literature and thus they are experts in the field of collecting Oral traditions and histories as the are trying to preserve as many cultural traditions as is possible, they deserve out support.

Taking into account Con's arguments:
1: Here Con attempts to use the Oral Tradition Fallacy, as explained above.
Historical events do not get accurately portrayed in Oral Tradition, only the cultural significance and not the details of an event are ever recorded into Oral Tradition. The Resurrection may have been culturally significant but such details as time, place and how many witnesses, rarely ever get recorded, it would be recorded as an event signifying divinity and that is all that would be taken acount of.
Though the complete disagreement between Gospels also destroys the Accuracy of Oral Tradition fallacy.
This fallacy is not Con's fault, it is widely utilized by Christian apologists like William Lane Craig as an attempt to sway listeners to believe that the Gospels exhibit accuracy that they certainly do not.
Lane Craig and other apologists use it to obfuscate the fact of inaccuracy in the Gospels.
Though the conflicts and contradictions within the Gospels alone paint Apologists as devious frauds.

Here is an Honest NT scholar in Bart Ehrman, debating with the rather Delusional or Dishonest NT scholar in William Lane Craig. Notice most of Lane Craig's notions are not Rational, but entirely Subjective. Many of those studying the statements and writings of William Lane Craig are under the impression that he is telling lies to get more money from his Christian sponsors.
In the same way that Ken Ham tells lies to gain funding from Creationists.

2: Where

Con tried to state that the location was established, though as noted above in Oral Traditions, like the Gospels, Authorship and Location never get recorded in Oral Traditions, which the Gospels indeed are. The Gospels are not accurate in Oral History, there is no passage in any Gospels stating where the Gospels were written.
From National Geographic: "The New Testament Gospels were written between A.D. 65 and 95, though scholars have no way of knowing exactly who the books' authors were. These four Gospels tell similar, but not identical tales of Jesus' life and teachings. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are so similar to one another that they are sometimes called the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of John differs the most from the others."

Note: There are 30 other Gospels that were rejected when they compiled the Bible, possibly some of those were more accurate than the Canonical Gospels they chose, likely for political reasons.

3: Authorship: As already stated by many sources: The Authorship and thus location of the writing of the Gospels is an Absolute Unknown.

The books of Luke and John had no Disciple input as they were written around 50 to 100 years after the event and no disciples lived that long, as the average life expectancy in that era was 45 years.
As I have explained and UNESCO states, Oral History is no longer accurate when recorded after such a length of time, none of it would ever be accurate, even in the first of the Gospels, Matthew and Mar, after 30 to 50 years after the event. '

Saul was the only Chronologically near Author, in fact Saul's writings were almost a decade before the first Gospel. Though after 20 years, any Oral History would be practically disintegrated.
Though there is also the Possibility that some Historians lean towards that Saul actually created Jesus Christ, and Chronologically, they may be correct.
Jesus Christ is possibly a creation of Saul of Tarsus.

Those later accounts pointed to by Con as Supporting Accounts by Josephus, Tacitus and others, would remain unchanged if Jesus had been Created by Saul of Tarsus.
They would still have heard by Hearsay about Jesus, but they would not be hearing actual history accounts, but Legendary stories.

As actuall historical evidence for Jesus, all impartial, external accounts cannot be used to validate Jesus Christ's life or resurrection, due to the fact of time and probability that their accounts would be identical, whether Jesus lived or he was fabricated by Saul and they are writing from Oral Traditions (legend) only.

4: Sitz im Leben: Only as Oral Tradition (legend) or Theological (subjective) accounts of Jesus are useful for Christianity. It ignores the fact that Oral History of the Gospels conflict in every account:
Date of Crucifixion, Last Words of Jesus, How long between his Resurrection and Assension.

5 and 6 have already been answered: They almost become irrelevant since The NT fails all 4 so far.

Who Was Jesus Christ:

On the Gospel contradictions:

A supernatural event is the least probable occurrence!
The less probable the occurrence, the greater the evidence required to confirm it as occurring.

A Supernatural event, such as a Resurrection, Thus, requires Fantastic Evidence.

The very poor Evidence for the Resurrection leaves woship of Jesus Unsubstantiated.

And the Disbelief in Jesus/God as Substantiated!

Thanks again Con!




I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttals. My opponent posts a video to another debate about the same topic. The video is 2 hours long and isn't even used as a source. It is just a substitution for my opponent making his own argument. Since my opponent is using the video as a source, I will use it as well.

1. When

I did not confuse oral tradition with oral history. Oral tradition is reliable as evidence for the events that took place during Jesus's time period. Oral history would be the equivalent to interviewing holocaust survivors to learn more about the events. The people of Jesus's time and location have a strong oral rememberance of the past. It is pretty much agreed across the board by New Testament scholars that Jesus lived, died , had an empty tomb and had people see him after his death. Even Erhman in the video agrees on those 4 points. If my opponent wants to discredit my arguments he should do it with sources that disagree with my arguments. Erhman my disagree with the conclusion I present here but the arguments he mostly agrees with. Also I would like to note and it is confirmed in my opponents video source the time gap between the events and Paul's writing to the Corinthians briefly mentioning the event are with-in 5 years of it. Are there some inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection? Yes, as would be expected of multiple testimony to the fact. All the important parts of the story agree. It's the insignificant details such as the exact time of Jesus's death that conflict. I can't remember what time I had lunch yesterday. I do know that I had lunch yesterday despite that. Anytime we have recollections of the past and discuss them with friends our facts don't always match our friends facts, but the main part does. It's the main part that is important.

2. Where

As I pointed out the location of the gospels are verified because of the traditions only someone living within a few years of Christ's death would have known about. The location is also able to be deduced by the puns in used in the New Testament. My opponent fails to refute my mention of the puns that can only be understood in Aramaic.

3. By whom

This has already been covered and if you look at my opponents 2 hour long YouTube clip, you can see that Paul can be verified as the author of Corinthians. My opponent also equates oral tradition with legend or myth. This isn't the same thing
These books aren't written as legend. They have a bunch of embarrassing facts that would have been disregarded if it was mere legend. The female witnesses would have been left out, the baptism showing Jesus as inferior to John the Baptist would have been missing. Also irrelevant facts would have been left out. Before Jesus saved the prostitute that was about to be stoned, he drew a line in the sand. This fact was placed in the story for practically no reason. Other facts that a legend or a myth would have included are left in as well.

4. Sitz im Leben

These inconsistencies are relatively unimportant things we are talking about people remembering important things and then forgetting the insignificant details, such as the exact time of death. The traditions and other things mentioned help verify the dates and this point hasn't been refuted.

My opponent has failed to refute my evidence for the death and ressurection of Jesus. He has also dropped several of my points, such as my argument about outside resistance that would keep the disciples honest or how it would be ridiculous for men to die, to protect a fraud. In the video my opponent produced you can see Erhman (my opponents source) agrees with me on these 4 points.

1. Jesus existed
2. Jesus died
3. Jesus's tomb was found to be empty
4. Jesus was seen after his death

This is evidence substantiating my claim. Where is my opponents evidence substantiating the opposite claim.

Revisiting the Resolution

"I am to show that Disbelief in Jesus Christ/God or Atheism is more Substantiated than belief that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship."

This is confusing wording. I touched on semantics in the first round to give my opponent a chance to better explain his resolution. He altered it to what I quoted above and it isn't much better then the original resolution. My opponent even gives the definition to the word substantiate so it would be used properly.

Based on the resolution and my opponents definition of the word substantiate here is how the arguments should be judged. Please revisit round 1 and the beginning of my opponents argument in round 2 to verify this.

Did my opponent offer more evidence for Atheism then I did for Christianity

It may sound unfair that he has to provide more evidence for a negative then I do for a positive, but keep in mind my opponent created that burden of proof for himself. He then reaffirmed that's what he needed to do in round 2.

Thank you Sagey for this wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Maybe Jesus achieved Goathead instead of Godhead, there may have been a mistranslation in the gospels.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Or absolute belief in your own delusion.
If you sound like you really believe it strongly or do really believe it , others will fall in line if it also suits their bias.
That's how such people, William Lane Craig, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, etc.. gain such strong support.
Their delusion runs in parallel with many other's wishes.
Posted by T5seconds 3 years ago
That was fascinating, thank you for your debate!
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
On the other hand, it takes true talent, to make bullsh!t sound resonable.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Though Wylted was right about the debate video I threw in, it was only for amusement to those who were interested in the blatant long winded stupidity of William Lane Craig. He's truly an Christian Apologetics machine puppet and will never amount to anything more than a deluded, mindless puppet.
His arguments are absolutely Irrational and he constantly draws on false support.
Claims like most Atheist philosophers support this or that, when actually such support does not exist.
Craig constantly makes Appeal to Authority Fallacies, Appeal to Illogical Reasoning Errors, such as assuming all humans think Irrationally like himself. Now that's the sign of a true Idiot.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
If people think Jesus's teachings are worthy of worship, then they would be more correct to worship Buddha or Confucius, as they originated those teachings. Though some historians also cite Pythagoras as a source of the wisdom espoused by Jesus.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
LOL :-D~
Speakerfrthedead thinks that I needed to prove Jesus did not exist to substantiate my claim.
Wrong my friend: Jesus lived, but he did not perform any miracles, nor was he Resurrected, that is my claim.

If Jesus did not perform any miracle, nor was he Resurrected to become a Deity, then my claim is Correct, Jesus did not fit the criteria required to form a religion and thus Christianity is Unsubstantiated.

Ronald Reagan lived, but worshiping him is not substantiated by his deeds.
Same goes for Jesus Christ, he did nothing worthy of worship.
All Jesus did was introduce Buddhist philosophy into Judaism.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
I used to be like Wylted, for the first 10 years of being an atheist, because of my experience as a Pentecostal street preacher and my Theological studies, I knew the Bible better than most theists, I could defend Christianity very well when taking the Christian side and defeat many Theologians when taking the Atheist side, I think, but I'm not sure, that I may have been the influence behind turning my Theology instructor into an Atheist as we often had very deep discussions when I announced to him my reading of the Bible like a novel and not the way he instructed me to read it (cherry picking to his references) and how this has exposed many flaws that I found inhibited my being able to believe in it fully, and that I had also taken to researching the history of religion and Christianity at the local library and using Encyclopedias, plus I had found some interesting books by Voltaire which did not embrace the teachings he had given us.
After I left theology, I would occasionally sit next to him at my family's table as he was a friend of my parents and we would sit and discuss theological concepts for hours.
One day at the table he announced to me that he too had lost faith in the Bible and actually started to regret his ministry and being misled for most of his life into believing what he was starting to believe was nonsense.
Yet at the time he only had a couple of years til his retirement and would keep on with his position until then, as there was nothing else for somebody with his age and lack of work experience.
So he retired an atheist and I only saw him a few times after he retired, though he actually felt more freedom as an Atheist than he ever experienced as a Priest.
He still had his followers from his church inviting him in for tea and cookies, but he refrained from talking religion to them, just asserting he is retired.
Though I attended his big church funeral, I knowing that the man locally revered as a Great Priest died an Atheist.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago

I know it's weird, but I enjoy taking both sides on debates that I find interesting. Plus I think I'm better at defending religion then most theists.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
@Wylted: For an atheist you sure defend religion a lot.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution had complications, conduct to Con. The actual debate seemed like a tie to me
Vote Placed by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: They both had BOP and pro cannot prove that Jesus Christ did not exist only that the absence of evidence suggests this. Meaning that he succeeded in justifying why he did not exist or have supernatural powers but he did not substantiate this according to the definition he provided. He did not provide evidence that Jesus Christ was not divine. He provided justifications instead but did not fulfill his resolution. However Wylted did pretty much the same. Since there IS no empirical evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ both opponents have tried to provide justifications and logical reasoning to support their stance instead of what they were meant to do in accordance to the resolution. Therefore I can only judge based on who gave more convincing justifications. Sagey did not address some of Con's points which were very convincing such as the disappearance of Jesus's dead body. Therefore points go to Con. Thanks for the debate, I had loads of fun reading it!
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate by both the sides. I'm rating only S & G to Con, as I found Con's formatting was better than Pro. All other areas I'm keeping it a tie as both the sides "Arguments", "Refutation" & "Reasoning" were equally better. I agree with Con, that the revised "Resolution" is confusing but that is not convincing enough to award "arguments" or "conduct" section.