Debate: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

[Glacier]

[Geckonidae]

David Wood provides us with a rare example of why the human race actually needs religion. David Wood is a sociopath. Based on his own description of his life before he found Jeebus, the only thing preventing him from being a serial killer is the fear of eternal damnation. David is a highly intelligent and extremely manipulative sociopath, and he is incredibly confident. So that makes him very good at debates. When you put him up against someone like John, David is going to stomp all over him. They could have been debating the existence of Smurfs, and David would have had people looking under mushrooms for tiny blue people.

David Wood is full of crap, but at least he's only figuratively bashing people in the head with the bible now instead of bashing them in the head with a hammer. Most of us know that murdering someone is wrong. If people like David need to believe in a fairy tale to make them believe that murder is wrong...I sure as hell wouldn't want to convince them otherwise. He can believe Jesus lived, died, rose from the dead and ran away with Smurfette. If it keeps him from murdering people, that's fantastic.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2015/05/dr-david-woods-shocking-conversion-story.html

[Glacier]

Do you really think David Wood won the debate? If so, why? Because he was more confident? I have been told before that confidence carries more weight than substance in a debate, though that probably depends on the audience.

[I Think]

The Christian church borrowed the idea of resurrection from a number of religions
Attis was a Phrygian god.
Quetzalcoatl was one of the great gods of the various peoples of Mesoamerica.
Tammuz.
Lemminkainen
Ganesha,
Odin is the chief god of Norse mythology
There are several versions of the myth of Osiris from Egypt, but all of those tell of his death and rebirth.
To name just a few. Pretty silly to believe your guy was the only one to be resurrected.

Virgin birth follows the same pattern, there were a number of "immaculate conceptions" the Christians liked the idea and borrowed it.

[Geckonidae]

Do you really think David Wood won the debate? If so, why? Because he was more confident? I have been told before that confidence carries more weight than substance in a debate, though that probably depends on the audience.

I didn't watch the whole thing...I just skipped through to a few points here and there. From what I did see, David was simply better at presenting his arguments and was more articulate. John seemed very uncomfortable, but maybe that's because he was debating a violent sociopath. A debate like this does get people talking, but in the end it changes nothing. People will watch this debate, declare the guy who argued in favour of what they already believed to be the winner, and no minds will be changed. People who believe in the resurrection do so because they accept the bible as a historically accurate document and they use circular logic to support that belief. Other see the resurrection story as nothing but myth because there is simply no reasonable evidence to the contrary. John isn't going to shake anyone's faith and David isn't going to present any new evidence. It's a pointless debate.

My favorite debate has to be this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA

This isn't a debate that can be boiled down to "fact vs. fiction" or "evidence vs. wishful thinking". The topic for this debate, "The Catholic church a force for good in the world", is purely opinion. You can be a Catholic, atheist, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist and come down on either side of this motion. This is a debate that can result in people changing their minds, and in fact it does change minds. A debate about whether or not a mythological figure actually rose from the dead when we have no conclusive proof that he even existed...that's just a waste of time.

[OREZ]

What would you accept as proof that he actually existed?

[Atomoa]

No he didn't.

The tooth fairy turned out to be a sham too.

[Hmmm]

The Christian

Did you know the term Christian is insulting to Christians? (or most) Since terms like "*bleep* and other terms are not allowed, how about keeping the conversation less insulting?

[I Think]

Sorry, but in most instances Christian is more accurate than christian.

[Hmmm]

Sorry, but in most instances Christian is more accurate than christian.

I understand, some of them really bug me too.

[janalta]

What would you accept as proof that he actually existed?

That wasn't the subject of the thread - the question would be - what proof is there that he, or anyone else, has ever risen from the dead ?
The answer to that question would be - none. there is no proof outside of biblical myths and second hand accounts, all written decades after his supposed death.

There is limited and speculative evidence that there could well have been a man named Jesus, who was a spiritual leader of sorts. There is no evidence however, that he was anything but a man named Jesus.
No proof that he was the son of god. No proof that he had any omnipotent powers, or that he was able to perform miracles.

So, to answer your question...I suppose if the big guy returns and can prove who he is...that would be the only proof of his existence that would be acceptable to the great majority of the world's population..

[OREZ]

What would you accept as proof that he actually existed?

That wasn't the subject of the thread

Obviously, my comment was in response to the previous comment which denied his existence. If we can't even agree that he existed in the first place this discussion is a waste of time in my opinion.

There is limited and speculative evidence that there could well have been a man named Jesus, who was a spiritual leader of sorts. There is no evidence however, that he was anything but a man named Jesus.

And if I pointed to the writings of a first century secular historian like Josephus for instance, you'd probably say that was a fraud too.

No proof that he was the son of god. No proof that he had any omnipotent powers, or that he was able to perform miracles.
So, to answer your question...I suppose if the big guy returns and can prove who he is...that would be the only proof of his existence that would be acceptable to the great majority of the world's population..

People believe things for which they have no proof all the time. So many people who claim to only trust science couldn't pass a 12th grade math or physics exam to save their lives. For them , there is in effect no proof of many of the things they buy into because they cannot claim to actually understand the "proof". They just prefer to be on that side of the debate because they think it makes them look smart.

It seems to me like the majority of people who reject the Bible and embrace science have never studied either and that's absolutely fine but why they often have such strong opinions on the subject is a question I often ask myself.

[I Think]

probably got sick, then recovered, just like the girl who'se crying was heard as she was in a closed up coffin.
If indeed he did exist.
Lots of religions before this claim resurrection and virgin birth.

[OREZ]

?

[janalta]

And if I pointed to the writings of a first century secular historian like Josephus for instance, you'd probably say that was a fraud too.

That would be about it for your 'proof', other than biblical references.
So, like I said, limited.
One would think that if Jesus was indeed the son of god, performed miracles, carried out even half of what is stated in the bible - that more than one historian would have picked up on the story.

People believe things for which they have no proof all the time. So many people who claim to only trust science couldn't pass a 12th grade math or physics exam to save their lives. For them , there is in effect no proof of many of the things they buy into because they cannot claim to actually understand the "proof". They just prefer to be on that side of the debate because they think it makes them look smart.
It seems to me like the majority of people who reject the Bible and embrace science have never studied either and that's absolutely fine but why they often have such strong opinions on the subject is a question I often ask myself.

Wow, a whole lot of extremely judgmental and arrogant assumptions in that one.