Apologies for how late this is, got somewhat busy after school but I’m active again. I’m in the process of making it but what exactly do you mean by above logic? Does this being just have some type of dominion over logic or does it exist separate from the existence of logic?
Although I’m still gonna leave this open for anyone that’s curious, the definition I laid out for evidence leaves a bit of wiggle room for me I believe
Hey man im sorry I just lost interest in the debate (sorry for wasting your time) im just getting a little burnt out over debating theism & christianity (Just not too knowledgeable on the subject, dunning-kruger effect) so im going to conceded the debate, again sorry for wasting your time.
Hey man im sorry I just lost interest in the debate (sorry for wasting your time) im just getting a little burnt out over debating theism & christianity (Just not too knowledgeable on the subject, dunning-kruger effect) so im going to conceded the debate, again sorry for wasting your time.
I’m not quite sure what your arguing, your saying they believe because as Jesus said “thou believes because he has seen me” are you admitting the disciples saw Christ after death? If so I’m what sense?
25 years is not unreliable, especially not in the 1st century. As I said he was an senator so he would have access to documents from Jesus’s time. Tacitus was not one to report gossip, and was no friend to Christian’s, he called them a disease later in the passage I believe. Even if that’s the issue I provided another document the abgars-Tiberius correspondence which mentions the crucifixion, and is dated to the mid 30’s in the 1st century. Although it should be noted Suetonius also wrote about the prosecution (same as Tacitus) which provides multiple attestation to Atticus and the claim about Jesus being executed
Yes I am pro, I wasn’t trying to prove the resurrection with Tacitus, I meant crucifixion in the original post, my apologies
I pointed out 2 sources saying he was executed, that is paydirt for 1st century history, why are you holding the crucifixion to an higher level of proof than anything in history?.
I’ll link more sources since you dispute it
Mara bar Sarapion
Mara bar sarapion when he was a pow (atleast if I remember correctly) sent a letter to his son, the letter read
“ What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down”
The wise king is referring to Jesus because it corresponds with tiberius-abgaras on him being executed by Jews, and talks about the “new law” he laid down which would correspond with the alleged account the gospels give.
In conclusion we have 3 sources talking about the resurrection, an 1st century event, if we don’t know the crucifixion happened then we don’t know if anything in 1st century history happened
He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it, yet most consider it genuine because we must consider he most likely had access to records & information based off of his connection to Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, 25 years for 1st century history is not a bad amount to be distanced from something.
And he doesnt mention the resurrection, but it does appear as if he alludes to at least some sort of execution by saying he suffered the extreme punishment.
Now if he says jesus was executed, wouldnt it follow he died? Are you appealing to the swooning theory?
Oh I dont consider Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum accurate, I believe its very likely it was tampered with by an Christian scribe, I was contrasting the tone of it to Tacitus's, although im unsure which of Josephus's works your referring to, perhaps I haven't read it though, id be interested if you'd link me to it.
I represented 2 documents, 1 heavily alluding to an execution, the other directly stating it. I dug through some of the documents I have, I can provide some more if you wish.
Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection, he is most likely knowledgeable on the Christians for 2 reasons, 1 he was a Roman senator so most likely had access to Roman documents (keep in mind most Roman documents did not survive to now) and 2 he was apart of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis which was an group that kept a watch on religious cults (keep in mind Christianity was considered a cult) given these 2 we can consider him accurate, in his annals book 15, chapter 44 he wrote:
“… called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
The text shows no sympathy for the Christian’s opposed to say Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum (another text referencing Jesus that imo was most likely tampered by an Christian scribe) most likely meaning this isn’t an biased text.
It’s also worth pointing out the agbar-Tiberius correspondence (the earliest mention to Jesus to my knowledge, although I’ve only looked at around 30) mentions the execution of Jesus
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf
There are probably few more references to it but I don’t have all of the documents on my phone, so I’ll check my computer when I get home.
Thats completely my mistake I didnt see your reply, I didn't do it out of spite or anything because you missed one round. Would you perhaps like to create another debate for this?
Now Korea if you wish we could do another debate about god where you make counterarguments against it, since it seems as if you like the problem of evil.
Would you perhaps like to do another one of those?
You misunderstand what I’m meaning. People alone doesn’t prove it 100%, yet it points towards it
Subjective opinion are actually logically incoherent
Well why wouldn’t it? 2 possible outcomes therefore we’d expect it to have a lot more murderers since there is supposedly no evidence in either direction
I’m not saying it’s objective because the majority think it, that’d be conventional morality.
I’m saying that the majority agreeing on something is pointing towards there being a higher standard that people follow. If morality was subjective we’d expect a lot more people to be murderers.
Is it not always wrong to abuse a child? Or is that subjective as well?
Is the Catholic Church covering up their priests sexually abusing kids, were they wrong or did they just have a different opinion?
The idea that morality is subjective comes with a price tag, you can’t tell anyone they’re wrong, if you do then your pushing your own opinion onto someone.
Subjective morality would be opinion (thats subjective)
Objective morality would be a fact (thats objectivity)
that's why this debate is about if objectivity can be grounded in atheism.
by objective I mean proving its not a opinion that things like murder, rape, assault, etc are bad for everyone and isnt just a opinion, instead its a fact.
As for if religious answers have no objectivity, id argue there is answers religiously why things would be objectively immoral, but thats not what the debate I proposed is about.
Hey metal. The topic was poorly phrased (hence why I conceded in the debate) although if you take the idea I intended that the Quran contradicts science I think there is alot of texts that do, I But I don’t think all texts contradict science, I think it’d be ignorant if I said so since there are soo many religious texts
Well this debate was about if faith is a valid basis to come to a belief. The challenge of this debate is also expanded to you if you wish, since my original opponent vanished.
Hey there lemming. Just to clarify my stance, as a Christian I believe people should have evidence or at least a reason other than pure "blind faith" [1]. Although I do hold the stance that faith alone is a valid point for a basis of belief, meaning you should develop reasons for believing in it, as I believe alot of theists, especially apologists do.
[1] - 1 peter 3:15: "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you,"
Hello there Korea, I want to clarify your stance on this. Are you a gnostic atheist(meaning you have evidence god doesn’t exist) or a agnostic atheist meaning your uncertain?
I’m personally a gnostic theist and I’ll will be debating this from a Christian perspective
Yes that would be preferred, if you want to use another argument we can always do a continuation and I’d be for that
I didn’t put that in the writing of the debate so you very much could if you wanted to but i would not be able to respond to it
Apologies but I have school and reply after
Alright I’ll make it an put you as the contender
Apologies for how late this is, got somewhat busy after school but I’m active again. I’m in the process of making it but what exactly do you mean by above logic? Does this being just have some type of dominion over logic or does it exist separate from the existence of logic?
Apologies someone has already accepted it but I will make another one for you as well once I get out of school
Although I’m still gonna leave this open for anyone that’s curious, the definition I laid out for evidence leaves a bit of wiggle room for me I believe
I could certainly make a debate over that, although given the fact it’s late I’ll probably make it tomorrow and I’ll make sure to tag you in
Hey man im sorry I just lost interest in the debate (sorry for wasting your time) im just getting a little burnt out over debating theism & christianity (Just not too knowledgeable on the subject, dunning-kruger effect) so im going to conceded the debate, again sorry for wasting your time.
Hey man im sorry I just lost interest in the debate (sorry for wasting your time) im just getting a little burnt out over debating theism & christianity (Just not too knowledgeable on the subject, dunning-kruger effect) so im going to conceded the debate, again sorry for wasting your time.
I procrastinated and missed the other round, want to do another debate over the same topic continuing it?
Mb sum, I missed the time. Do you want to extend it to r4 where I can respond to it there?
Mb I missed that, would you go into more detail about your theory in the next round?
I’m not quite sure what your arguing, your saying they believe because as Jesus said “thou believes because he has seen me” are you admitting the disciples saw Christ after death? If so I’m what sense?
ur good ill just extend my argument to r2, address it there please.
25 years is not unreliable, especially not in the 1st century. As I said he was an senator so he would have access to documents from Jesus’s time. Tacitus was not one to report gossip, and was no friend to Christian’s, he called them a disease later in the passage I believe. Even if that’s the issue I provided another document the abgars-Tiberius correspondence which mentions the crucifixion, and is dated to the mid 30’s in the 1st century. Although it should be noted Suetonius also wrote about the prosecution (same as Tacitus) which provides multiple attestation to Atticus and the claim about Jesus being executed
Yes I am pro, I wasn’t trying to prove the resurrection with Tacitus, I meant crucifixion in the original post, my apologies
I pointed out 2 sources saying he was executed, that is paydirt for 1st century history, why are you holding the crucifixion to an higher level of proof than anything in history?.
I’ll link more sources since you dispute it
Mara bar Sarapion
Mara bar sarapion when he was a pow (atleast if I remember correctly) sent a letter to his son, the letter read
“ What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down”
The wise king is referring to Jesus because it corresponds with tiberius-abgaras on him being executed by Jews, and talks about the “new law” he laid down which would correspond with the alleged account the gospels give.
In conclusion we have 3 sources talking about the resurrection, an 1st century event, if we don’t know the crucifixion happened then we don’t know if anything in 1st century history happened
He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it, yet most consider it genuine because we must consider he most likely had access to records & information based off of his connection to Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, 25 years for 1st century history is not a bad amount to be distanced from something.
And he doesnt mention the resurrection, but it does appear as if he alludes to at least some sort of execution by saying he suffered the extreme punishment.
Now if he says jesus was executed, wouldnt it follow he died? Are you appealing to the swooning theory?
Oh I dont consider Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum accurate, I believe its very likely it was tampered with by an Christian scribe, I was contrasting the tone of it to Tacitus's, although im unsure which of Josephus's works your referring to, perhaps I haven't read it though, id be interested if you'd link me to it.
I represented 2 documents, 1 heavily alluding to an execution, the other directly stating it. I dug through some of the documents I have, I can provide some more if you wish.
I am going to write an response, but 1st off I have an question, are you appealing to the swooning theory?
Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection, he is most likely knowledgeable on the Christians for 2 reasons, 1 he was a Roman senator so most likely had access to Roman documents (keep in mind most Roman documents did not survive to now) and 2 he was apart of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis which was an group that kept a watch on religious cults (keep in mind Christianity was considered a cult) given these 2 we can consider him accurate, in his annals book 15, chapter 44 he wrote:
“… called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
The text shows no sympathy for the Christian’s opposed to say Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum (another text referencing Jesus that imo was most likely tampered by an Christian scribe) most likely meaning this isn’t an biased text.
It’s also worth pointing out the agbar-Tiberius correspondence (the earliest mention to Jesus to my knowledge, although I’ve only looked at around 30) mentions the execution of Jesus
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf
There are probably few more references to it but I don’t have all of the documents on my phone, so I’ll check my computer when I get home.
Then why did you accept the debate?
what shape do you think the earth is?
Okay im unsure why I debate with you then.
I find Korea’s position reprehensible, but we ought to show him the risks of cm so he doesn’t go forward thinking it’s okay.
Sure id debate that
Ill debate that.
Depends on the topic
What does extend mean?
For sure, ill make it. Again sorry for the mistake
Thats completely my mistake I didnt see your reply, I didn't do it out of spite or anything because you missed one round. Would you perhaps like to create another debate for this?
Oh no, all is well I was just curious since most atheists are naturalists
Alright, also just to clarify are you a naturalist?
Now Korea if you wish we could do another debate about god where you make counterarguments against it, since it seems as if you like the problem of evil.
Would you perhaps like to do another one of those?
Alright we’ll see, I’ll post my argument in a bit
Would you be interested in having a debate over this? I can make one
You misunderstand what I’m meaning. People alone doesn’t prove it 100%, yet it points towards it
Subjective opinion are actually logically incoherent
Well why wouldn’t it? 2 possible outcomes therefore we’d expect it to have a lot more murderers since there is supposedly no evidence in either direction
I’m not saying it’s objective because the majority think it, that’d be conventional morality.
I’m saying that the majority agreeing on something is pointing towards there being a higher standard that people follow. If morality was subjective we’d expect a lot more people to be murderers.
In a world we’re objective morality exists nothing is wrong, not a thing.
People follow a standard (atleast the vast majority) which points to a objective sense of morality.
Is it not always wrong to abuse a child? Or is that subjective as well?
Is the Catholic Church covering up their priests sexually abusing kids, were they wrong or did they just have a different opinion?
The idea that morality is subjective comes with a price tag, you can’t tell anyone they’re wrong, if you do then your pushing your own opinion onto someone.
Subjective morality would be opinion (thats subjective)
Objective morality would be a fact (thats objectivity)
that's why this debate is about if objectivity can be grounded in atheism.
by objective I mean proving its not a opinion that things like murder, rape, assault, etc are bad for everyone and isnt just a opinion, instead its a fact.
As for if religious answers have no objectivity, id argue there is answers religiously why things would be objectively immoral, but thats not what the debate I proposed is about.
Hey metal. The topic was poorly phrased (hence why I conceded in the debate) although if you take the idea I intended that the Quran contradicts science I think there is alot of texts that do, I But I don’t think all texts contradict science, I think it’d be ignorant if I said so since there are soo many religious texts
Well this debate was about if faith is a valid basis to come to a belief. The challenge of this debate is also expanded to you if you wish, since my original opponent vanished.
Hey there lemming. Just to clarify my stance, as a Christian I believe people should have evidence or at least a reason other than pure "blind faith" [1]. Although I do hold the stance that faith alone is a valid point for a basis of belief, meaning you should develop reasons for believing in it, as I believe alot of theists, especially apologists do.
[1] - 1 peter 3:15: "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you,"
I forgot to say it but I thank you for the debate as well Korea, I wish you a pleasant evening.
I’m good with that, are you?
I forgive ya man dw about it. you want to continue this debate after the next phase? I could make another debate with 10 rounds.
You were suppose to respond to my rebuttal in the next round, not this one.
Thanks for the civil discussion kiana, our conversation had some difficulties but overall it was pleasant to have.
Sorry Willy I didn’t see this, the definition me and Korea are going to cover is a Christian god, so all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc.
Hello there Korea, I want to clarify your stance on this. Are you a gnostic atheist(meaning you have evidence god doesn’t exist) or a agnostic atheist meaning your uncertain?
I’m personally a gnostic theist and I’ll will be debating this from a Christian perspective