THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!

[achilles12604]

I am so tired of hearing this statement asserted as fact dispite its obvious incorrectness.

So I am creating a thread about it.

Atheists please explain to me how you can continually claim there is no evidence when the theists here continually put forth the following:

1) The Gospels
2) Paul's letters
3) Jospehus
4) Letters of church Fathers
5) First cause
6) Moral argument
7) Nazarenes
8) Lime stone outside of Nazareth

And many others.

Perhaps we are tripping over the defintion of evidence.

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Please take special note of the last definition. Witnesses, records, documents, objects. We theists continually present these exact things and we are greeted with, "there is no evidence."



Ok well now I challange you to explain yourselves. Why do you say there is no evidence to evaluate when there obviously is?

[achilles12604]

Hi Achilles,

You on the night shift?

Anyhow…

Let me break this down so I can explain my frustrations.

Granting all that there is still no evidence

This is the phrase which I find frustrating. You go on to SHOW why.

because none of that evidence is adequate

This part of the sentence shows that there WAS evidence, but that the evidence which DID exist, was simply inadequate in your opinion. BUT there WAS evidence to discuss.

This dissemination is what I am trying to get across.

Lets take another look at that frustrating phrase with the sentence it came in.

Granting all that there is still no evidence for Christianity’s validity

I’m happy to admit the historical texts count for something, and though this ain’t exactly my strong area I’d say there is something to be discussed about whether the figure of Jesus is historical or mythical, and whether his tomb was found empty. But….we are talking about the validity of Christianity. And I interpreted that to mean Christianity with the supernatural connotations I.e. God, sin, resurrection etc. The evidence needs to be able to support the inference of the supernatural for Christianity to have made a valid conclusion about the supernatural. And my point is that all those historical texts, Turin shroud and so on on are inadequate for that inference. What I did not make explicit, is that no new discovery of new texts or reinterpretation of known evidence will ever be sufficient for the leap to the supernatural. Simply put - it is the wrong kind of evidence for that purpose. So even if it could be proved that Jesus existed, was crucified and his tomb was found empty - this does not serve as evidence for the supernatural. And thus there is no evidence for the validity of Christianity.

I look at it this way - the Christian needs to be inspired to make a leap and accept the supernatural. They may well find that inspiration in the Gospels, and everything that surrounds those writings. But inspiration and logic are two different things.

Ok I think I understand what you are saying. Basically the various evidences presented by christian's in support of our faith are insufficient to prove the supernatural aspects necessary within Christianity. They are also the wrong TYPE of evidence to prove the supernatural.

I agree with this. Christianity does require a certain amount of "faith". Of course I also hold that atheism takes a certain amount of "faith" as well but that is for another thread.

However, I must still say that insufficient evidence is an opinion and it is also not equivalent to "no evidence."

Perhaps the argument would be a little different if I had stated "plausibility of Christianity" rather than "validity of Christianity."

[Furrowed Brow]

However, I must still say that insufficient evidence is an opinion and it is also not equivalent to "no evidence."

Ok. Lets say it is eventually proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus existed, was crucified and his tomb was found empty, and various witnesses saw him alive thereafter. Now I’m sure there will be plenty of theists who will say that is evidence of the supernatural. But it ain’t. It would be evidence that Jesus was crucified and his tomb was found empty, and he was seen alive…and stop.

Digging a bit deeper it might be evidence of some sort of conspiracy, or that like some patients who wakes up on morgue slabs after being pronounced dead - Jesus woke up in his tomb. It could be evidence of a lot of things. But what it ain’t evidence for is that the universe is from God. Trying to explain these set of circumstances in terms of human deceit, or strange happenstance requires a completely different kind of commitment than that required to impute God and the metaphysical superstructure that goes with it.

The problem is that the leap towards accepting the supernatural is still gargantuan and requires a gymnastic pirouette; it is an outrageous gravity defying somersault unwarranted by an empty tomb. The leap of the imagination required is no more outrageous than saying JC was an alien and he had been taken back to the mother ship where advanced technologies brought him back to life.

Ok a bit of hyperbole there. But I think it is needed to try and shock you theist crazy guys to your senses. Don’t get me wrong….I think this is supposed to be the point of faith is it not…the letting go and putting your trust in JC/God is not a reasonable itty bitty step, or even a medium size step. Its Evil Kerneval trying to leap the grand Canyon on a bicycle.

Now, it is a gargantuan leap given that Jesus was real, was crucified, and was seen alive again. But there still a debate to be had over whether these are the facts. So I'm still to be convinced you've got a bicycle.

[Easyrider]

Ok a bit of hyperbole there. But I think it is needed to try and shock you theist crazy guys to your senses. Don’t get me wrong….I think this is supposed to be the point of faith is it not…the letting go and putting your trust in JC/God is not a reasonable itty bitty step, or even a medium size step. Its Evil Kerneval trying to leap the grand Canyon on a bicycle.

Evel received Christ as his Savior recently at the Crystal Cathedral in LA. No hill for a stepper.

[Cogitoergosum]

Ok a bit of hyperbole there. But I think it is needed to try and shock you theist crazy guys to your senses. Don’t get me wrong….I think this is supposed to be the point of faith is it not…the letting go and putting your trust in JC/God is not a reasonable itty bitty step, or even a medium size step. Its Evil Kerneval trying to leap the grand Canyon on a bicycle.

Evel received Christ as his Savior recently at the Crystal Cathedral in LA. No hill for a stepper.

did he? Damn then christianity must be true, what was i thinking saying it was non sense?
Repent, repent, the end is near. {sarcasm}

[Confused]

I think there is evidence that someone wrote the gospels. It is likely someone named Jesus existed. He may have even preached. But the problem here is "is there evidence that Christianity is real in the sense of the bible?" Unfortunately, I can't think of anything in the bible that has been proven to have occurred that would lead me to believe a supernatural cause was behind it. Half the places have yet to be even proven to have existed. I think where my failure is right from the start. The Christian religion was organized by the Roman Empire. Why? A polytheistic culture who still believe angry Gods determined the fate of wars and natural disasters. This is the culture who took the roots of Christianity and organized it into what we now know it to be. This is the culture who determined the NT. What to include, what not to include. This is the culture that abused it. The one that headed the Holy Wars, initiated the inquisition, forced all to convert to THEIR form of Christianity. Destroyed anything that didn't agree with them. Shall I go on. This is where you evidence is from. How much faith can I put in what has been tainted by such a culture.

[The Duke of Vandals]

I think I'm a far better atheist than you'll ever be.

This reminds me of Easyrider. You're so cute when you try to fight back.

If your litmus for 'better' happens to be "arguing like a retard in favor of Christian dogma, using the same fallacies Christians make and ignoring evidence in favor of unsupported folklore," then I most wholeheartedly agree with you. You are a 'better' atheist than I.

You claim to be interested in the historical aspects of Christianity, but what you meant to state was that you're interested in Christianity's unsupported claims of what happened in the fist century ce. As I've demonstrated, there's no evidence to support these claims and considerable evidence suggesting they're invented.

The rest of your post really isn't worth my time. It's 1/3 ad hominem ("So you are either mistaken, or more likely, a liar"), 1/3 lip service to Christian dogma ("I don't need to rely on poor arguments like the Christ myth 'theory'"), and 1/3 unsupported nonsense ("There are traditions in the gospels that might derive from historical actualities"). You've assumed the Christian claims are historical and, with the zealotry of an evangelical, hold to them.

PM me when you're ready to SHOW UP to this debate.

[Easyrider]

You claim to be interested in the historical aspects of Christianity, but what you meant to state was that you're interested in Christianity's unsupported claims of what happened in the fist century ce. As I've demonstrated, there's no evidence to support these claims and considerable evidence suggesting they're invented.

Day 131 and the same unfounded claims are made. There's a ton of evidence, alright, and these fora contain a wealth of arguments and evidences for the veracity of the NT. You'd be better off stating there's no evidence you choose to believe, rather than saying there's no evidence at all.

[Cathar1950]

You claim to be interested in the historical aspects of Christianity, but what you meant to state was that you're interested in Christianity's unsupported claims of what happened in the fist century ce. As I've demonstrated, there's no evidence to support these claims and considerable evidence suggesting they're invented.

Day 131 and the same unfounded claims are made. There's a ton of evidence, alright, and these fora contain a wealth of arguments and evidences for the veracity of the NT. You'd be better off stating there's no evidence you choose to believe, rather than saying there's no evidence at all.

I never fail to enjoy using Troy as an example.
They found Troy. Does that mean that Zeus is real and a god?
Are we to believe all the tales of Homer were true even if we found the original draft? If it made claims about a cyclops would that be supported?
The NT gospels can't support the claims it makes.
We can look at these second centrury or later copies of copies but there is nothing to indicate they are eyewittness accounts as they are not by their own admision. The evidence tells us otherwise.
We can see layers of traditions and stories and a prcess of embelishment as time goes by and the later dating of the writings. That no one mentions them until well into the second century should be another clue. Even if we found first century manuscripts this would not support the claims. The claims are beyond any support any writing could produce. There is no way the NT can show that the stories are true or fact.


I am about to order this book because I think it might help understand what the unknown author of Mark was trying to do. Jesus is the hero in the tale. It is not a news account or item.

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis R. MacDonald

[The Duke of Vandals]

Day 131 and the same unfounded claims are made.

What are you talking about? Christianity has been around for about 1900 years.

There's a ton of evidence, alright, and these fora contain a wealth of arguments and evidences for the veracity of the NT.

*yawn*

Same Easyrider: all talk and no support.

You're aware you're the worst debator on the forums, right?

[Easyrider]

Day 131 and the same unfounded claims are made.

What are you talking about? Christianity has been around for about 1900 years.

We're talking about an estimate of the number of days you've been offering up your lackluster claims.

Same Easyrider: all talk and no support.

You're aware you're the worst debator on the forums, right?

I'm not the one steeped in denial here sport.