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

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.