The Instigator
Projectid
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
simpleman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 43085
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Projectid

Con

This debate is in response to a comment Simpleman posted about what atheist believe and the burden of proof:

" No matter the opinion of atheism simply being a lack of theistic belief, this is but a proposed definition of the term; sheer nonsensical linguistic games being played in the interests of not taking responsibility for espousing the view with it's ramifications. Eradicate God from being an explanation of reality or origin, you still must replace Him with a belief in something as an explanation for it. You may be simply believing the nonexistence of God, but this is within the realm of choice, not merely a facet of genetic chance, and certainly not in the absence of weighing alternatives. Quite childish to continue dodging the inevitable circumstance of coming to grips with what you do believe. The more you dodge answering this, the more you seem to let on that you yourself don't truly know what it is you believe. Either give an answer or cease judgement and be silent on the matter, but do stop wasting our time with incoherent ramblings. Such is quite antithetical to reason and logic."

This is me calling out simpleman to bring to the table evidence , proof of one of the most important points to the Christian faith, the resurrection of their Messiah. Only I would like to hear what non-bible proof he has for the death and resurrection of Christ. So I went on http://rationalwiki.org..., which claims to be a Christian site and found this criteria for what qualifies for good evidence:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.
2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.
3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

The reason for non-belief in any god is lack of reason to believe, so if Simpleman can merely show evidence for the resurrection for each of these criteria then we would have the evidence we need to believe in Christ. Since he has given us (atheists) the put up or shut up statement from the above posted comment, I will give him a chance to give us a reason to believe or not to believe.

Of course atheists have been called out to give proof of our atheism, more to point, our proof that god does not exist. The problem is that we only need to look at the evidence that is known to determine whether something is viable, since the heart of Christianity is the resurrection of the belief, as stated by people like Janetsanders733, then to remove our disbelief in said god, merely requires the evidence for it. I am not so concerned with the death of Jesus, but more so with the evidence for his resurrection, for this would truly convince the world that Jesus indeed was who people claim he is.

Simpleman is required to post his evidence in the first round. Last round he is to post "No argument as agreed upon".
It is required that sources be made for all evidence. Any forfeit of any round, which means if you do not post an argument you forfeit, results in a loss of the debate.

Just so we are clear, simpleman is required to give evidence for each of the 3 sited criteria from above, which derive from a Christian site about what constitutes good evidence, this just merely needs to be applied to the resurrection of Jesus.

If Simpleman cannot bring forth what qualifies as "Good" evidence then he has no basis for his beliefs in god , the bible, Jesus, and Christianity, if he can, then as an atheist I certainly have no basis to reject this evidence, and have no rational reason to be an atheist or remain an atheist. If he cannot present said evidence then I am perfectly rational in my atheism when it come to Christianity.
simpleman

Pro

Gladly I shall accept the challenge presented. I do feel that it is fair to issue also an equal challenge to the challenger in this debate. I am a former skeptic and opponent of Christians, God, and the Bible, which is held to be the revelation God has given to man of Himself, His work in creation, His interaction with man throughout history, and the ultimate destiny He intends toward us, by His law and His sacrafice on our behalf regarding our sins as it were.
My challenge to Projectid is to give me reason or evidence that can perhaps persuade me of this alleged falsity of the Christian claim. I wish to see what logical failing, or scientific evidence to the contrary can be shown so as to provide leverage to the claims of atheism. Please demonstrate where I have gone wrong in adopting the Christian faith to the abolishment of my former skepticism, which was based on both science and my own opinion of reality as I myself was determining it from experience and what I interpreted in scientific terms.
I issue this counter challenge so as to alleviate the problem of this debate being unilateral in scope. Why should I doubt my faith and my God? That is my question. Thank you for your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Projectid

Con

I'm sorry that is not how this works, you accepted a debate with the understanding that we would debate the topic which is to present:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.
2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.
3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

.....for the resurrection of Jesus

If you want to start a different debate choosing your topics then feel free, but for now you should have presented your argument, which is the 3 types evidences for the resurrection of Jesus noted above.

If you cannot do it then forfeit, instead of wasting my time, you are the Pro make your argument.

As for my challenge or responsibility, this will be to refute your evidence (that you did not post in your first argument as per the agreed rules of this debate.
So we can either start over in the next round with your arguments for the evidence stated or we can discard this debate, you tell me, since you have wasted your first argument round with general conversation which could have been done in the comment section or after you presented your argument in your first round.

Shall we try again, Simpleman please post an argument for the debate topics you accepted or just type in forfeit.
simpleman

Pro

As I thought, you are fearful of your bankruptcy in the context of dialogue as opposed to monologue. Sorry, but if you cannot offer the same courtesy you expect me to furnish you, this is a lost cause. I will post an argument if you do the same, but I will not post argument in return for your criticism. I figured you had no ground to stand on if equally challenged. The choice is yours how we shall proceed.
Debate Round No. 2
Projectid

Con

It is a simple case of having no Contemporary, Derivative and Comparative evidence for the resurrection. This wasn't a discussion it was debate, you are a Christian who claims grand things and cannot present good evidence for the resurrection.

So next time just reject the debate instead of wasting peoples time.

Again you cannot provide evidence, instead you insist on me giving an argument for a topic which has nothing to do with the debate. Simple evidence that you cannot provide, why believe if you cannot do this simple thing, simpleman?
simpleman

Pro

Again, I reiterate that I am willing to give examples of all three forms of evidence requested, but not on a unilateral basis where you are poised merely to give criticism and not provide anything to lend coherence to your position. That was my simple contention, and you were afraid to agree to a dialogue. Here you have yet proven it again. If you are afraid to wrestle with your own conclusions to seek for truth and veracity, truth shall e'er remain elusive to you. By all means, if you are satisfied with your conclusions, so be it and I shall wish you well in that which you have placed your confidence. But from experience, I know that you will have to remain in the frame of lying to yourself to deaden the curiosity that arises over the big questions pertaining to origin, identity, purpose, and destiny that a naturalistic framework of belief holds no answers for. Even Aristotle knew that a wise man can entertain an idea without endorsing it.
My position as a Christian is not one of thinking I am certain of myself, rather it is because I am admittedly uncertain that I turned to faith in my God who gives me an identity to be certain of. Neither is it a statement of strength, for I know how feeble my frame is in and of myself. Neither is it a statement of wisdom, for I am not wise, but I believe in Him who alone is wise who leads me in His wisdom despite my foolishness and ignorance. The faith of the Christian admits weakness; it doesn't proclaim an illusory strength.
Debate Round No. 3
Projectid

Con

All the Pro had to do was post his arguments, he has failed again. We are running out of rounds.
simpleman

Pro

simpleman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Projectid

Con

Again all the Pro had to do to begin the debate he accepted was to post his opening arguments, he has failed to do so.

If there is anyone who wishes to take on this debate and actually make an argument let me know in the comment section.
simpleman

Pro

simpleman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Through the Inquisitions, Christians actually Massacred Atheists.

Christians are lucky most Atheists are also Humanists.

Theists Massacre in the name of their Religion.

Atheists never Massacre for the cause of Atheism.

Theists are so lucky that Atheists are such a nice, thoughtful, Intelligent and caring group of individuals.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Christians have been persecuting Atheists/non-believers for over 1500 years.

It's only right that they should get some of their own medicine back in return.

LOL!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Simpleman has no idea that Atheism exists, simply because there is no evidence for God.
Had a God provided definitive evidence for its existence, Atheism wouldn't exist.

It is not the Atheist's fault that they cannot see nor find any evidence of a God.
It's the Theist and their God's Fault that no evidence has been presented.

If Theists could present, sound, irrefutable evidence for their God, they would not have to put up with Atheists questioning their belief in their invisible friend.

The only reason Atheists attack Theism is because Theists are always trying to get Atheists to worship their God and Attacking Atheists, calling them heathens, infidels, etc......

Trouble here is the Hypocrisy of Theism, they consider it right that they can denigrate and persecute Atheists/non-believers and other Religions, but, when Atheists question their Theism, they scream Persecution.
Such Theists are really a total bunch of bigoted, Hypocritical Morons!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro, claims to have been a Skeptic, yet he accepts Christianity @ face value, because it truly has no evidence for any truth in their claims for Jesus, no justified evidence for miracles nor the resurrection as Pro has not provided any, simply dodging the issue with empty semantic drivel. Hardly a point winning performance there.

I don't think Pro understands what skepticism is, as he is certainly not skeptical of his own belief system, as all skeptics are, he is doing the Saul trick, pretending to be an enemy before joining. Saul pulled that lie and got it accepted, it's a bit harder to do the Saul deception in this age of infinitely more knowledge.

Christianity is based on Asserting their Assumptions about Jesus, without Substantiating Evidence.
Science and History is based on Substantiation through actual Evidence.

Essentially, Christianity is an Unsubstantiated Belief System. It cannot be Substantiated (Validated).

The only Christians that I respect are those that don't assert that Jesus was Resurrected, but simply like the teachings that Saul and others attributed to Jesus, so they like to live that way.
In other words fans of the reported teachings of Jesus.

Because it has never been confirmed that Sermon On The Mount ever happened, nor that Jesus actually said what is reported in the New Testament Gospels, because they were not written down until 40 years later by people who were not witnesses. This is the dilemma of the Historical Jesus,.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
There was not a problem with making a defense for my beliefs, my main point is that could have been discussed before you accepted the debate. Your first post was supposed to be an argument, nit a discussion on whether I would agree to something. Still you have not offered an argument, so as I said before you have wasted the debate space with sermons and whatever else, just not an argument.

So know you insult me with sayings like "your view is nothing but a handful of shopworn criticisms"

You have yet to hear my arguments, because you never gave yours. Which is a fail for you, not me. You apparently cannot follow simple debate rules. If we were on stage having a debate, is this how you would approach it? You would accept the debate and then get up there in your first speech and say...."I think the Con should do this and this and this, and I will make no argument until he does, I am just going to waste space, even though I accepted the debate on the grounds stated, assuming that the Con will make no arguments in return"
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
Why must you not also have a ground for atheism? I did not fail to provide evidence or give the intimation I had none, rather I said you show also the ground upon which your view stands. As I figured, your view is nothing but a handful of shopworn criticisms, and it is far from being evidence based, elsewise such a counterchallenge would be no obstacle for you. This is the intillectual expression of hypocrisy at best. You prove the adage true that states there being a great difference between knowing what you believe and believing what you know. Thank you for proving this point. Good day to you
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
It was a simple debate with a simple task of bringing evidence for the resurrection, instead the Pro cops out by demanding arguments from me before he will state his evidence. This debate is a bust.

Simpleman cannot provide Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and neither can anyone else.

So why believe?
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
I'm sorry that is not how this works, you accepted a debate with the understanding that we would debate the topic which is to present:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.
2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.
3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

.....for the resurrection of Jesus

If you want to start a different debate choosing your topics then feel free, but for now you should have presented your argument, which is the 3 types evidences for the resurrection of Jesus noted above.

If you cannot do it then forfeit, instead of wasting my time, you are the Pro make your argument.

As for my challenge or responsibility, this will be to refute your evidence (that you did not post in your first argument as per the agreed rules of this debate.
So we can either start over in the next round with your arguments for the evidence stated or we can discard this debate, you tell me, since you have wasted your first argument round with general conversation which could have been done in the comment section or after you presented you argument in your first round.

Let me know.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Simpleman please accept this debate.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
You know simpleman, you jump into a comment section say something and then disappear before anyone can respond. I am giving you a chance to man up and prove to all of us that the evidence for the resurrection is good and valid, it is a simple task, your on the site right now, yet you won't even decline, just like last time I challenged you. You talk about put up or shut up, well I am putting up, where are you?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
ProjectidsimplemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to change the terms and refused to debate even though the terms were clear at the outside: conduct to con. Con demonstrated this in his post whereas pro did not argue the debate terms: arguments to con. Con only posted one source, so was more reliable than nothing at all: sources to con. Spelling and grammar about the same.
Vote Placed by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
ProjectidsimplemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proposed an argument for Pro to provide evidence but he failed to do so instead he attempted to place the burden of proof on Con, which wasn't the terms set forth by Con who started the debate. If Pro didn't want to provide the proof regarding the topic of the debate, then he should have kindly declined the debate in order to not waste time. This topic is one that is very interesting, which is debated among those who study this topic seriously, and it would have been an interesting debate if Pro accepted the challenge, instead of running away from it.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
ProjectidsimplemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro went and stayed Off Topic as well as forfeited, without providing any genuine argument for Pro's position nor references. Poor conduct and certainly not convincing of anything.