#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

Rules, this is a formal debate in so much that the evidence presented must meet the described standards"the same rules you read when you signed up in this debating forum. This is NOT a squabble, it is a debate which means facts rule and philosophies about facts drool. Semantics, the dictionary is your friend, I don"t care what your Christian religion states about the semantics of a term. If the term has evolved, then it evolves as a case in point, not just as a comfort to protect a disingenuous religious views. If it was written, so let it be done". : ) Evidence MUST be sourced! This means a valid source MUST be provided, and a quote from and that source rendered (example; you can"t just say "well if you read so and so"s book, you will see that I am right.") Electronic sources only, I am NOT buying some crackpots book, just to counter an argument. I say crackpot, because he was and to top it off, the book never stated what was quoted. Use http://owl.english.purdue.edu... if you have to. I am not an expert in the use of citations, I am not asking for APA OR MLA styles, just who and where it came from, and a link to the source is fine. Anecdotal evidence, unless you have a valid source and reason, don"t go there. : ) It's valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years. (Secular web, Mathew) http://www.infidels.org...... See Chart at the middle of the page. Academic sources are always a bit of a slippery slope. Mr. Roll-Me-A-Fatty might be an expert in cannabis smoking, but does he have the credentials and motivational mental schema outside of a Kantian philosophy to convince me of his expertise of why medical cannabis should be legalized? Let"s let credentials and accreditations speak for themselves. Christianity "IS" the default position, and therefore the 2000 year old Christianity bears the burden of proof because their claim is older than I am. If this is not acceptable, then one round (only) will be used JUST to discuss this issue. IF, you are not going to take the offensive for Christianity because you don"t think you are a Christian"then don"t do Christians the dishonor by trying. I apologize if this seems offensive or abrasive, my first experience here went just like thatand I found a little distasteful, if not dishonest. This debate is NOT open to deists, so don"t accept if you are or if you plan to use a deist argument. You are either a Christian or you are a spectator on the sidelines. : ) Final round is for closing arguments only; no NEW material that wasn"t previously addressed can be added. Opening Statement: I am for the purpose of this debate, an atheist. I don"t practice atheism as there is no such thing in my opinion. It is a loose term with only offers abstracts and conjecture. I am an atheist, I am not a social group".though I have put on weight lately. : ) Postulation, I see no evidence of Jesus Christ. This is the Pro"s position and the argument is NOT that you as a Christian see evidence, but rather to convince me and the Judges there is evidence of Jesus Christ. I am not telling you what to do here if you really feel a need to go there".Be assured that I believe you believe there is evidence or you wouldn"t have taken this debate".I just want to see this evidence and avoid going round and round with someone that claims there is evidence but won"t post or argue for it because they don"t feel it relevant to do so"yes, this happened the last time. : ) Any questions or rule changes or additions you wish to make to the rules, or shall we begin?