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?

[Lotan]

Lotan the AINO wrote:

Ha ha! You couldn't even wait til the body of the text to start making ad hominem remarks! I am NOT an atheist in name only. I have no belief in any gods or supernatural beings, so if you think that there is some other requirement to be an atheist that is entirely your problem.

This reminds me of Easyrider.

I see that you called him "the worst debator on the forums". What a compelling (ad hominem) argument you make! Although I don't agree with Easyrider about much (if anything) at least, unlike yourself, he backs his arguments with evidence. You seem to prefer the 'personal' touch.

If your litmus for 'better' happens to be "arguing like a retard...

Excuse me, "retard"? Moderators...

...in favor of Christian dogma...

Oh, another lie. No surprise.

...using the same fallacies Christians make...

So much rhetoric, so little substance...

...and ignoring evidence in favor of unsupported folklore,"

Sorry, did you say evidence? Was there evidence? I must have missed it. Speaking of evidence, how about those pre 1CE Jesus cults? Are we ever going to see the evidence for them? Ever?

You are a 'better' atheist than I.

Yes I am. I don't need to rely on the half-baked 'theories' from second rate 'scholars' and third rate websites in order to argue for the non-existence of a human being simply because his later followers based a religion on their beliefs about him.

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.

No, that's not what I meant to state. That's just your strawman mischaracterization (spelled L-I-E).

As I've demonstrated, there's no evidence to support these claims and considerable evidence suggesting they're invented.

You haven't "demonstrated" diddley squat. You made an assertion that Jesus was a composite of "multiple people" (that's what we're discussing, in case you've forgotten) and failed afterward to present evidence or a compelling argument that that was the case.

The rest of your post really isn't worth my time.

A child could see through that excuse Duke.

It's 1/3 ad hominem ("So you are either mistaken, or more likely, a liar")

No, that's not ad hominem, that's a bald, documented fact. You are a liar. Anyone who cares to read our last few exchanges can see it for themselves. If necessary, I'll pull up the quotes (again).
I'm guessing that you need to misrepresent me because that's all you've got. If you actually had an argument one would assume that you would have made it by now.

...1/3 lip service to Christian dogma ("I don't need to rely on poor arguments like the Christ myth 'theory'"),...

The Christ-myth 'theory' is a poor argument. That's why reputable scholars won't touch it, and besides, the existence of an historical, human Jesus of Nazareth doesn't support Christian dogma anymore than the existence of an historical, human Mohammed supports Muslim dogma. You're confusing theology with history to misrepresent me here.

...and 1/3 unsupported nonsense ("There are traditions in the gospels that might derive from historical actualities").

Wrong again!

You've assumed the Christian claims are historical...

Oh! Another lie! I've already told you many times that that isn't the case, and I have produced plenty of evidence to support my view.

...and, with the zealotry of an evangelical, hold to them.

Now this is ironic, because I think it is you who is the zealot. You claim that Jesus is a composite figure, based on some "rabble rousing rabbis" (presumably you enjoy the alliteration) when in fact, none of the Jesuses that you presented were rabbis at all. Nor is there any striking resemblence between them, singly or as a group, to the Jesus of the gospel stories. You said they "Made trouble for the Romans." Could you possibly be more vague? They "Preached about the end times." Do you have any idea how widespread apocalyptic beliefs were in the 1st century? They "Were flogged by Romans." Imagine a Jewish peasant named Jesus being flogged by Romans! I'll bet there were no more than 2 or 3... thousand! Which Jesus healed the Syrophoenician woman Duke? Which one said "the first will be last"? Your composite Jesus 'theory' is a joke, and you have provided nothing even remotely persuasive, let alone conclusive. Any remotely objective person would admit that it doesn't account for the evidence and yet you persist. Zealously.

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

Don't hold your breath.

[otseng]

If your litmus for 'better' happens to be "arguing like a retard...

Excuse me, "retard"? Moderators...

Please do not call anyone a "retard".

Also, to report a rule violation, please use the button. That way all moderators will immediately be notified, rather than having to rely on a moderator to read through the post.

Finally, I think that's enough personal chatter. Please just resume with the debate rather than making personal observations about each other.

[Lotan]

One more small point about this multiple Jesus nonsense. One of the alleged similarities between Jesus and the other Jesuses is that he supposedly "Made trouble for the Romans." but I don't recall him doing anything like that (at least not according to the gospels). The author of gMark would seem to agree...

And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. Mark 15:12-14