Instigator / Pro
21
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Topic
#684

Jesus of Nazareth existed

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Dustandashes
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Dustandashes

The policy on tied votes which allows for their removal was only implemented after RM cast his vote on this debate. Since rules are not applied retroactively, his vote is essentially grandfathered in. It's obviously not a good vote, and not a "perfectly fine" one either, but it is not a removable one.

-->
@bsh1

Is this a joke? So someone could put out an honest and legitimate vote but have it removed for not being detailed enough, but a tie vote (which is against policy in this case because there's no explanation) that uses profanity is perfectly fine?

-->
@Dustandashes

So, the use of profanity, unless it is insulting another user specifically, is not grounds for removal. RM's vote has been left up because it was not in violations of the standards in place when he placed the vote.

-->
@bsh1

So far you have deleted several votes for supposedly not following guidelines, but on this debate and my other one with virtuous, rational madmans profanity has not been deleted. What's up?

-->
@Sparrow

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sparrow // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Pro at least provided arguments backed up by evidence, whereas con just questioned the credibility of that evidence without providing counter-evidence. I also consider it poor conduct because he is trying to shove all the BoP onto pro even though by default nothing can be assumed to either exist or not exist without some kind of logical or empirical basis for that conclusion, otherwise you may as well make no assumption either way.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and conduct points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how sources impact the debate, (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) compare each side's use of sources. The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must explain how the violation was " excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate."
************************************************************************

-->
@Alec

gracias

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Nice joke in R1.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The thousands of biblical manuscripts...

-->
@Dustandashes

Since the debate has chilled out now. I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily think that Jesus didn't exist. It's too difficult to prove one way or the other. I tend to lean towards the con side because there are no contemporary accounts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't exist. In fact, it's probably quite likely that some Jesus like character existed, although, I'm not sure if he would 100% match the biblical Jesus. At the very least, the supernatural parts of the account are completely unprovable.

-->
@RationalMadman

Can you stop leaving profanity and tie votes on my debates?

-->
@killshot

Your opinions do matter. Any voter can vote however they choose so long as they adequately explain their voting decision and so long as they are not engaged in cheating. There are site rules (linked below) which determine what constitutes and adequate or sufficient explanation for a voting decision. These rules are fairly broad, and they are broad precisely because we do not wish to circumscribe the range of opinions open to voters. To put it another way, moderation does not adjudicate voters on how they voted (which is the "opinion") but rather the extent to which their articulation of their voting decision met the baselines rules for sufficiency. We do not moderate against opinions, only how well they were explained.

Comments are not judged to be part of an voting decision unless so stated explicitly within the vote itself. Therefore, I was not permitted to include them in my review of your vote. The adjustment I encouraged you to make for your vote was relatively minor, and could have been accomplished in a sentence or two.

I am sorry that you find this to be an abuse of power, but, in fact, it was a simple application of the rules of the site, and was clearly explained in my moderation verdict post. Quitting the site over this is an overreaction, and I hope you will reconsider. Nevertheless, the decision stands. You are always free to re-vote if you wish to comply with site rules.

-->
@killshot

Dude, he told you your argument one was sufficient, he only removed it because your conduct explanation wasn’t, please don’t leave :(

-->
@bsh1

If my opinions don't matter, why should I bother voting or using this site? If mods are simply just going to overrule me and replace my opinion with their own, it's an enormous waste of time and they should be the only ones voting. I read the entire debate, and formed my own subjective opinion. I then, explained my opinion, from my perspective. I'm sorry you found it inadequate, but it was not a two sentence vote. I put effort into explaining why I disagreed. After being interrogated for my own opinion, in the comments section, I continued to explain and defend my view using sources such as DM Murdock (scroll down in the comments to my last one). I felt my vote was sufficient in it's point, but nonetheless I continued to defend it in the comments. I'm sorry we disagree, but that's the nature of debates, and I find this to be a selective abuse of power. I will not be recasting my vote, or continuing the use of this site as I feel my efforts can be better spent elsewhere. Respectfully, KS.

Killshots RFD (2/2)

4) Pros rebuttals of the historicity of Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, etc for me fell short for one reason: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan). If Pythagoras never existed, I could care less - the math still works. If Jesus never existed, there is an entire indoctrinated world view that would collapse and have enormous impacts on society. His argument just isn't convincing when we're referring to a messianic figure.
In the end, pro's arguments all came down to unverifiable non-contemporary testimony. This is not extraordinary evidence and it is not compelling for the existence of Jesus. I feel that pro failed on every attempt to meet the burden of proof, and that is why I have to give this debate to con. I tied them on sources and spelling/grammar because I think they both did a good job of conveying their arguments.

Killshot's RFD (1/2)

Ok, so this is a subject I'm fairly familiar with, and I enjoyed reading their arguments & rebuttals. That being said, I feel this was a clear win for con, for many reasons which I will outline below.
1) Pro came into this argument citing a source with known historical interpolation issues, which I find either dishonest or lazy. The Josephus account is clearly an interpolation made by a Christian who is transcribing the text from a previous source. Even numerous Christian scholars agree this is not a good extra-biblical account for Jesus's historicity. Answers in Genesis also recommends not using Josephus as a source. Furthermore, historians such as Robert Price, DM Murdock, Richard Carrier and others have argued that the writing style is different from Josephus, once again, demonstrating its failures in authenticity. I did not in any way find this argument compelling or creative. I do wish both pro and con would have delved deeper into this, but I certainly had to side with con on this. Because of these sources, I gave con the point for conduct.
2) Pro cited Tacitus as another source. Even if it is a legit source, it was not contemporary, as con pointed out.
3) Con required pro to cite a more parsimonious explanation as to the rise of Christianity, assuming it did not come from a literal Christ figure. As con, pointed out, providing a new hypothesis is not a requirement in order to disprove an existing one, but he provided one anyways. I think con's example of how it was derived from Judaism as a product of active attempts to fulfill a prophecy goal makes more sense and actually is more parsimonious. New religions popped up constantly in this area and it's neighboring tribes; many of the ideas were amalgamated. Using Occam's razor, I find this option much more parsimonious than pros failed attempts to show that his was the one of many that were actually true.

-->
@killshot

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: killshot // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Posted above.

>Reason for Mod Action: The justification of argument points is sufficient. However, the point awarded for conduct is not explained in sufficiently-conduct related terms. The voter's explanation makes the issue one more central to sources than conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by awarding sources points instead of conduct points for the Josephus issue, or by rewording the justification to make it more centrally an issue of conduct.
************************************************************************

-->
@Melcharaz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Pro shows historical evidence of the existance of Jesus.
Con argues validity of it by assertion of "Which" Jesus or "What" Jesus and that it was after his death or that it was religious inspired.
History shows that jerusalem was attacked in 70 A.D. and that many documents were recovered afterwords, therefore not negating historical possibility.
The rest is semantic babble.

>Reason for Mod Action: First, the argument points are insufficiently justified. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the sources points are not sufficiently justified. here is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was indicated. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Melcharaz
@killshot
@Speedrace

Thanks for the vote input everyone. This was my first debate for Jesus's historical existence so this was a new experience for me.

at Speedrace. even I thought that sentence I mad about historical standards for Jesus was confusing. lol. So yeah. I mostly posed counter examples just to show good faith to my opponent. I didn't want to find out at the end of the debate that he was right about needing an alternative, lol. I always appreciate vote comments.

-->
@Dustandashes

You're going to have to be more specific about "why" DM Murdock's claims are wrong, aside from the fact that you just say so. I can't comment on the Atlantis press stuff, because I am unaware of the drama you're referring to; however, a press not publishing something does nothing to lend to the validity of her work or support your case.

In her book "Suns of God", she clearly believes the Josephus passage you are referring to, specifically, is also an interpolation. There are many other scholars who also are mixed regarding it's validity, and the other Christ passage written by Josephus was an obvious forgery. The totality of this makes it a bad source. Considering you knew all this and still used it, that's why you lost the conduct point from my perspective. If you are going to sneak in a highly suspicious source, you could have at least been open about it and written details about it arguing why you believe it is valid.

I'm open to evidence, I don't care either way if it's true or not. In fact, I'd find it more interesting if it were demonstrably true, because I'm a Jesus mythicist. Even if Josephus did truly write it, and DM is wrong, it doesn't prove Jesus's existence because it's still not contemporary being that it was written around 90-100 AD.

If you disagree with me, that's fine - we can agree to disagree. I was just giving you my honest evaluation.

Below is an article written by DM regarding this specific subject:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

-->
@killshot

Also, two last things, DM Murdoch was anything but a scholar. Her publications couldn't even get into reputable journals which is why Atlantis press had to pick her up. Also, since you didn't tie us on conduct please let me know where I could get improved

-->
@killshot

Actually killshot, the Josephus reference I cited was NOT the one suspected of interpolation, there are two Jesus reference in antiquities, and the one I cited was not an interpolation. I cited that one specifically to avoid that issue.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Haha, I've never heard of Tacitus or Josephus until I came to DDO and now DebateArt. I watched The Case For Christ, which was really interesting in my opinion, but yeah, the thing about the time difference between the writings and his actual life is totally valid.

-->
@Speedrace

I appreciate you pointing out your objectivity, but it's all good.

I would be a fool to think that this argument doesn't sound good to some people.

It's not like I'm the arbiter of good evidence.

I have my biases as well whether I want to or not.

I think your judgment was good. Thank you speedrace

Please let me know if you aren't satisfied with my evaluation. I tried my best to be impartial, but you never know in religious debates.

-->
@Dustandashes

Nice rebuttal :D

Historical

Biblical or historical?