Shadow thread for Resurrection H2H

[Zzyzx]

.
Anyone interested in commenting on the Resurrection H2H (For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx) is welcome to do so here.

[Zzyzx]

.

My two cents is that your head-to-head debate should be temporarily suspended.

Opinion noted – same response as to “advice� previously. “If I was seeking advice about debate, you would not be the first person on the list to ask (or on the list at all).�

Until you and your opponent can establish what level of "truth" or "proof" is required then you guys will likely not satisfy each other's expectations. There is some evidence of that happening based on a few comments in your debate.

Although it may be difficult for some Apologists to understand, I expect VERIFIABLE evidence. Evidence that can be shown to be truthful and accurate. Those who have no such evidence often shuck and jive trying to avoid admitting they have nothing but unverifiable tales, folklore, oral tradition, testimonials, etc.

“You accept other historical documents� FAILS completely since 1) I have not indicated accepting other historical documents, 2) none of us likely accepts tales about supernatural feats by Odin, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, or any of the other 2000 “gods� proposed, 3) even if one does accept some historical documents, they are not obligated to accept all or others -- as indicated when Christians accept their favorite supernatural / god tales and do not accept similar claims from other of the world's 4000 religions.

From what I can tell not just from For_The_Kingdom, but also based on other debates, the acceptance of the resurrection is on the level of HISTORY using historical standards which involves accepting written documents as evidence.

Acceptance of the “resurrection� is on the level of FAITH and BELIEF – not upon historical evidence. There is no evidence that the claimed “resurrection� occurred other than tales in the book that makes the claim.

Admittedly, there are alternative explanations for the empty tomb, but the plausibility is debatable, which I assume will be part of the debate.

"Alternative explanations� are NOT required. The person making a claim has the burden of proving that their empty tomb stories assure that a dead body came back to life.

And lastly, For_The_Kingdom made a comment about wanting to use the Bible as evidence, and this should be allowed, not just because he wants to but also because the forum rules says so.

Kindly read C&A Guidelines (which were agreed by both H2H participants) that clearly state:

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

Bold added

What part of that is not clear or is difficult to understand?

Why does an atheist moderator find it hard to follow all forum rules?

When complaining it would be prudent to at least start with correct information. The “Atheist Moderator� is instead a Non-Theist (clearly specified in signature).

The forum rules clearly mentions that the Bible can be used as evidence for people, places, and events.

C&A sub-forum Guidelines clearly state “4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.�

Thus, the Bible is no more authoritative than the Quran, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad Gita, Book One of Scientology / Dianetics, etc

Historians use other ancient works in the same way. You want to accept that Plato exists but yet with the same level or even better evidence for Jesus you deny the existence of Jesus. Hmmm.

Kindly try to learn to keep things straight. The “Atheist Moderator� you seem to have a personal problem with 1) is not an Atheist, 2) does NOT maintain that Jesus did not exist. Instead, I acknowledge that a wandering Jewish preacher (by a different name) preached for a few years and was executed.

Are moderators allowed to restrict people to rules that CONFLICT with the pre-established forum rules?

See “no more authoritative than any other book�

If not, why do we have one moderator speaking as if the Bible does not count as evidence when in fact, the forum rules clearly state that it does?

“My mother said so� is “evidence� to some people. “He said so� or “This company literature says so� are compelling to some people. Feel free to cite such things to demonstrate strength of claims made (and let readers decide if such things are valid / credible support of whatever argument one tries to make).

[OpenYourEyes]

And lastly, For_The_Kingdom made a comment about wanting to use the Bible as evidence, and this should be allowed, not just because he wants to but also because the forum rules says so.

I don't see the point to your complaints, especially concerning the debate in question.

You suggest that a rule #3 that you found should apply here.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

But what does it apply to in this debate?

It's not going to serve as evidence that there actually were eyewitnesses. All it could possibly serve as evidence for is that the authors of these texts claim that there were eyewitnesses.

That's not the same as evidence that there actually were eyewitnesses. Neither is it evidence that what these supposed eyewitnesses might claim to have seen actually happened.

All it can serve as evidence for is that the authors of these stories made the claim that there were eyewitnesses.

I think Z has already acknowledged that much. He has acknowledged that the Bible makes claims about there supposedly being eyewitnesses. That in no way amounts to "evidence" that there actually were any eyewitnesses.

So I don't understand what the problem is.

Z most certainly isn't violating or ignoring this rule. He acknowledges that the authors of the Bible claimed there were eyewitnesses.

What more do you expect?

This is from Zzyzx, post #3 of his H2H debate:

“Disciples believed� is NOT evidence that the event occurred.

Elsewhere, he has said the Bible does not count as evidence.

Contrary to Zzyzx's opinion, what the disciples believed or wrote can count as being part of *history* and evidence, it's just not evidence that we can verify with absolute certainty, just as we can't for a lot of historical claims. The main problem is that statements, like the one I quoted of him, take away from the Bible being seen as evidence in any type of light because ALL of the biblical writers wrote what they believed, just as all other historians do. Except that I'd qualify "belief" with belief based on what they saw and experienced.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Action

Since this thread became a debate in its own right, I have moved debating posts to C&A

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I'm not sure if For_The_Kingdom reads this thread, but the following caught my eye:

From post 9

Right, so you believe that GW or JH was the first President of the United States, and you can give reasons why you believe it. Well, we (Christians) believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead based upon.

1. We have historical evidence that Jesus existed

If you feel so inclined, FTK, please join us in the following thread and present your case for the above.

History Again: Jesus
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=30736

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I'm not sure if For_The_Kingdom reads this thread, but the following caught my eye:

From post 9

Right, so you believe that GW or JH was the first President of the United States, and you can give reasons why you believe it. Well, we (Christians) believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead based upon.

1. We have historical evidence that Jesus existed

If you feel so inclined, FTK, please join us in the following thread and present your case for the above.

History Again: Jesus
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=30736

Thanks. Don't mind if I do.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I'm not sure if For_The_Kingdom reads this thread, but the following caught my eye:

From post 9

Right, so you believe that GW or JH was the first President of the United States, and you can give reasons why you believe it. Well, we (Christians) believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead based upon.

1. We have historical evidence that Jesus existed

If you feel so inclined, FTK, please join us in the following thread and present your case for the above.

History Again: Jesus
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=30736

Thanks. Don't mind if I do.

Cool, looking forward to it. Keep in mind that there is now another thread:

Jesus' Existence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=30821

You may want to jump in there instead. I have a feeling the previous thread I gave you will die out now.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You may want to jump in there instead. I have a feeling the previous thread I gave you will die out now.

Niceee. I will have at it tomorrow.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

I don't want to distract too much from your debate so I will limit my discussion here. I just would recommend on your next head-to-head that you admit that you are really looking for SCIENTIFIC verification for stories in the Bible. If you admit your scientific agenda from the start, then perhaps many won't go into these trying to debate you on a historical level.

Less frustration and confusion for both parties involved.

Scientific evidence requires the presentation of actual physical examples to establish a valid claim. Spiritual claims on the other hand are indistinguishable from make believe and imagination. "It's true because that's what I have been told and that's what I believe" may be a valid reason. But it's an empty argument.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Just wanted to say I respect you For_The_Kingdom for honorably throwing in the towel. Most users just wander off and leave debates hanging rather than admit defeat.

In the MPG I gave you I incorrectly said you didn't admit defeat, when you actually did. I can't edit that post, but the sentiment remains valid.

Great job taking on Z and giving it your best.

[Zzyzx]

.

Just wanted to say I respect you

Great job taking on Z and giving it your best.

I second both -- and add compliments.