Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

Rebuttal:My opponent appears to have confused Oral Tradition with Oral History.I will allow the following passage from UNESCO to state the difference between the two." Oral tradition and oral history share a common oral nature. While it is deceptively easy to propose distinctions between them, it is more difficult to sustain the differences in practice. There is often much similarity in the ways they are collected, processed, stored, and made available to researchers and in the equipment required to record and preserve these materials. In common practice, both those who concentrate on oral history and those who work with oral tradition belong to a common class of oral historians and share many of the same interests, concerns, and objectives, methods and procedures. Oral traditions are those recollections of the past, orally transmitted recounted, that arise naturally within and from the dynamics of a culture. They are shared widely throughout the culture by word of mouth even though they may be entrusted to particular people for safekeeping, transmittal, recitation, and narration. They are organic expressions of the identity, purpose, functions, customs, and generational continuity of the culture in which they occur. They happen spontaneously as phenomena of cultural expression. They would exist, and indeed they have existed in the absence of written notes or other more sophisticated recording devices. They are not direct experiences of the narrators, and they must be transmitted by word of mouth to qualify as oral tradition. Oral history, on the other hand, is usually identified as an activity, a detached and academic process of inquiry into the memories of people who have experienced the recent past directly. This inquiry and the responses it generates are recorded to supplement written records that have been found wanting in some measure for historical analysis. It is a studied, abstract, and analytic practice of historians and other social scientists, and it relies heavily on a recording device, whether manual, mechanical, or electronic."In summary of this statement: Oral Tradition has no Author connection and no Historical Value, it is simply the Culture of a society (Tradition) being passed on from those who are considered as holders of the Tradition to members of the culture.Oral History is only considered as accurate when the statements are taken soon after the event by first hand eye witnesses. Oral history passed down is not considered at all accurate, where Oral Traditions are a reasonable statement of the Culture of the tribe.BTW: UNESCO employs professional collectors of Oral Traditions and Histories of cultures that have no literature and thus they are experts in the field of collecting Oral traditions and histories as the are trying to preserve as many cultural traditions as is possible, they deserve out support.Source: http://www.unesco.org...Taking into account Con's arguments:1: Here Con attempts to use the Oral Tradition Fallacy, as explained above.Historical events do not get accurately portrayed in Oral Tradition, only the cultural significance and not the details of an event are ever recorded into Oral Tradition. The Resurrection may have been culturally significant but such details as time, place and how many witnesses, rarely ever get recorded, it would be recorded as an event signifying divinity and that is all that would be taken acount of.Though the complete disagreement between Gospels also destroys the Accuracy of Oral Tradition fallacy. This fallacy is not Con's fault, it is widely utilized by Christian apologists like William Lane Craig as an attempt to sway listeners to believe that the Gospels exhibit accuracy that they certainly do not.Lane Craig and other apologists use it to obfuscate the fact of inaccuracy in the Gospels.Though the conflicts and contradictions within the Gospels alone paint Apologists as devious frauds.Here is an Honest NT scholar in Bart Ehrman, debating with the rather Delusional or Dishonest NT scholar in William Lane Craig. Notice most of Lane Craig's notions are not Rational, but entirely Subjective. Many of those studying the statements and writings of William Lane Craig are under the impression that he is telling lies to get more money from his Christian sponsors.In the same way that Ken Ham tells lies to gain funding from Creationists. http://www.youtube.com...2: WhereCon tried to state that the location was established, though as noted above in Oral Traditions, like the Gospels, Authorship and Location never get recorded in Oral Traditions, which the Gospels indeed are. The Gospels are not accurate in Oral History, there is no passage in any Gospels stating where the Gospels were written. From National Geographic: "The New Testament Gospels were written between A.D. 65 and 95, though scholars have no way of knowing exactly who the books' authors were. These four Gospels tell similar, but not identical tales of Jesus' life and teachings. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are so similar to one another that they are sometimes called the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of John differs the most from the others."From: http://www.nationalgeographic.com...Note: There are 30 other Gospels that were rejected when they compiled the Bible, possibly some of those were more accurate than the Canonical Gospels they chose, likely for political reasons.3: Authorship: As already stated by many sources: The Authorship and thus location of the writing of the Gospels is an Absolute Unknown.The books of Luke and John had no Disciple input as they were written around 50 to 100 years after the event and no disciples lived that long, as the average life expectancy in that era was 45 years.As I have explained and UNESCO states, Oral History is no longer accurate when recorded after such a length of time, none of it would ever be accurate, even in the first of the Gospels, Matthew and Mar, after 30 to 50 years after the event. ' Saul was the only Chronologically near Author, in fact Saul's writings were almost a decade before the first Gospel. Though after 20 years, any Oral History would be practically disintegrated.Though there is also the Possibility that some Historians lean towards that Saul actually created Jesus Christ, and Chronologically, they may be correct. Jesus Christ is possibly a creation of Saul of Tarsus.Those later accounts pointed to by Con as Supporting Accounts by Josephus, Tacitus and others, would remain unchanged if Jesus had been Created by Saul of Tarsus.They would still have heard by Hearsay about Jesus, but they would not be hearing actual history accounts, but Legendary stories. As actuall historical evidence for Jesus, all impartial, external accounts cannot be used to validate Jesus Christ's life or resurrection, due to the fact of time and probability that their accounts would be identical, whether Jesus lived or he was fabricated by Saul and they are writing from Oral Traditions (legend) only.4: Sitz im Leben: Only as Oral Tradition (legend) or Theological (subjective) accounts of Jesus are useful for Christianity. It ignores the fact that Oral History of the Gospels conflict in every account:Date of Crucifixion, Last Words of Jesus, How long between his Resurrection and Assension.5 and 6 have already been answered: They almost become irrelevant since The NT fails all 4 so far.Who Was Jesus Christ: http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com...On the Gospel contradictions: http://www.philvaz.com...A supernatural event is the least probable occurrence!The less probable the occurrence, the greater the evidence required to confirm it as occurring.A Supernatural event, such as a Resurrection, Thus, requires Fantastic Evidence.The very poor Evidence for the Resurrection leaves woship of Jesus Unsubstantiated.And the Disbelief in Jesus/God as Substantiated! Thanks again Con!