Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 2047 by JohnA]

Noevidencenobelief wrote:

Except for random ramblings of various sorts, we've had Goose claiming that a putrefied brain-dead, heart-dead, maggot-infested carcass of a carpenter, with blood fully clotted in its veins and failed liver, kidneys, lungs, etc, after decomposing in the middle-eastern heat for 3 days, came back to life and then flew into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

His evidence for this: He claims that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

Sonofason wrote:

You are somewhat mistaken I think. You see it is not a claim that some people wrote down that they saw it happen. It is a fact that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

JohnA wrote:

He never claimed it was. He said that Goose claimed that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

This statement of yours shall be justly ignored by me, as it holds no weight whatsoever, and adds nothing to the atheist argument. It is completely void of content. It means absolutely nothing. The fact is that people wrote down that they saw it happen, just as I said. People can make claims all day long about what the book says, and those claims are all meaningless. The book speaks for itself, and doesn't require justification by atheists or theists as to what is contains. People saw the empty tomb. People saw the risen body of Jesus Christ. Their testimony speaks for itself.

JohnA wrote:

Sure, it is a fact that I just read your post and now replying. But that does not imply that the fact supports a claim. It does not mean because of the fact that some people wrote down words the words are true and can be used as a factual information to support a claim - to convert the claim itself into a fact.
What is so hard about this to understand?
You already admitted you have NO evidence. Why are you trying your best to contradict yourself, your scripture and your central tenant of you religious dogma (faith), is absolutely beyond me.

Of course it does. Personal testimony is evidence. It is not perfect evidence, but it is evidence. And it speaks for itself.

I have no evidence to show to a closed minded atheist who refuses to acknowledge reasonable evidence. And so I say I have no evidence to show. I have no evidence to show you. I have no evidence for YOU. But I have quite substantial evidence for reasonable people who accept reasonable evidence as evidence. Don't even try asking for it, because I refuse to even try to show you one shred of evidence for anything in the future, ever. I am not trying to convince you of anything. If you should find yourself in hell, because you won't believe in God, I will be laughing my way all the way to heaven.

I completely support your statement that personal testimony is evidence. Tho' I expect there are almost no non theists or atheists here who agree with JohnA's position an anything, particularly his iconoclastic buffoonery on what evidence consists of, wouldn't you agree it is neither helpful nor instructive to suggest you "will be laughing ... [your] way all the way to heaven?"

Great Danmark,

You remembered the JohnA. Progress at last!

You are now once again rejecting your (or was it Wikipedia's?) definition of evidence:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

Can you clarify what you mean by personal testimony is evidence?

Pick A or B or state a C or more.....

No, I'm not going to follow your efforts to set up answers according to your terms. Evidence by the definition I gave and you agreed to and quoted is in fact anything that tends to support an assertion. One's personal testimony that he has experienced God tends to support his assertion there is a God. It may not satisfy me as persuasive evidence, but it IS evidence. Where you continue to err is in a belief you have yet to acknowledge; that you mistake epistemology in general for the particular epistemology of empiricism. There has been a long andy hearty debate in epistemology regarding evidentialists vs reformed epistemologists who "assert that ordinary religious experiences of awe, gratitude, contrition, etc., ground the beliefs implied by the believer's sincere reports of such experiences."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology

I am not pleading the case for 'reformed epistemology.' I am merely asserting that there is more than one approach to the search for knowledge and the arguments for methods to attain it. If you could confine your rhetoric to claims about scientific empiricism instead of claiming it is the only way 'to know,' you would be on firmer ground.

No, I'm not going to follow your efforts to set up answers according to your terms.

What are you scared of Danmark? Surely you should be confident in your claims. Especially since you just wrote that this god does not exist, but now you say there is evidence for this god.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 525#612525

The former does not exist, but the arguments are coherent

^^ the way I am reading it is that the "former" is the Christian god.

Evidence by the definition I gave and you agreed to and quoted is in fact anything that tends to support an assertion.

But Danmark, that is not the definition from Wikipedia or the definition that you gave before.

Wikipedia says:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

It does not say:
anything that tends to support an assertion.

You see Danmark, you can not redefine your definitions and call that fact in order to support your incoherent claim AND claim I accepted it.

That is is not being truthful here Danmark.
We covered this already where a request for evidence is not evidence unless it has been approved (shown to support, NOT tend to or assert to support the assertion).
That is besides the fact that you are rejecting the definition of faith, the Christian faith dogma, and asserting that this god does not exist.
No wonder you refuse to answer my simple question. I even left it open ended for you to offer a C, D, etc.

Oh dear, oh dear. Maybe the torque tightness got hold now....

One's personal testimony that he has experienced God tends to support his assertion there is a God.

But how Danmark?
Let's assume faith dogma is wrong, ok?
A supernatural can not have evidence in the natural without the being rendered natural? This is simple logic Danmark.
Tends to support. Well, do you think a court of law will convict is the information/data/facts TEND to support the claim, or do you think it NEEDS to support it? You see Danmark, this god existence thing is a scientific issue since it claims of the supernatural and breaking the laws of nature. A tend to is not good enough, it is not even close, lets not even bring in falsification or the fact that we can explain this personal experience with KNOWN phenomena (delusions/hallucination/dishonesty). I wish I could take you to sit through a few court cases to see how this works in practice.

It may not satisfy me as persuasive evidence, but it IS evidence.

No Danmark. You are once again rejecting the very definition of evidence.
And it is not about YOU being satisfied at all. I covered what I meant by authorities and the source of this information/data/tests. It is about teh evidence, not about the authority Danmark. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary authorities.
You need to show that Information/facts/data are indeed in support of an assertion before it becomes evidence for that assertion. That is what courts of law do Danmark. Lawyers argue about how this Information/facts/data supports their claims, and then a verdict is reached. This verdict is the point where it is decided if this Information/facts/data is evidence for the claim, or not. Have you ever been in a court of law Danmark?
Let's bring science in.
There is not even a hypothesis in science for "god exists". It is a mere idea, a question "does a god/gods exist". It has not been promoted to a hypothesis because it needs evidence in order to formulate a hypothesis in science. So, let's forget about the Christian faith dogma, the definition of faith for now. Science tells us there is no evidence for gods because none can even formulate a hypothesis. Do you understand the sceintific method Danmark?

Where you continue to err is in a belief you have yet to acknowledge; that you mistake epistemology in general for the particular epistemology of empiricism.

This is a red herring and a straw man.
I already corrected you that I am not asking or suggesting empirical data is the only evidence. In fact, there is no evidence for gods, NONE. So how on earth can I be asking for only empirical data as submission for evidence?
Also, I explained to you that espistomology is not science, it is part of philosophy. Why is that so hard for you to accept that Danmark?
Your desperation has now been appended with projection. You are now trying to claim that you KNOW my beliefs. That is just absurd Danmark. That is besides that fact that I have already told you that I do not hold that belief (scientism). There is a word for this which I am not going to use. I think you know what it is Danmark. You should not misrepresent people on purpose. I can understand you are desperate here, grasping at straws and red herrings. But hey, be realistic, I am reading this nonsense you are trying to sell, this incoherence that you are masquerading as fact.

I am not pleading the case for 'reformed epistemology.' I am merely asserting that there is more than one approach to the search for knowledge and the arguments for methods to attain it. If you could confine your rhetoric to claims about scientific empiricism instead of claiming it is the only way 'to know,' you would be on firmer ground.

Danmark, you are now way off. I can tell you are getting very desperate here, ridiculously.

You are now reverting again to accusing me of scientism rubbish even though I have explained to you very clearly my position on that. In now way have I said that empirical data is the only evidence. I have repeatably said that information and/or facts and/or data can qualify for evidence (if it supports the claim). Many other "ideologies" rely on falsification as well, not only science. If you have ever been in a court of law you would realize that they use falsification as well in some areas, especially for sceintific matters. And if you are suggesting that this god can break the natural laws as discovered by science, then this god's evidence require falsification to be applied.

I have once again shown that your post is way off. You have once again demonstrated that you REFUSE to back up your claims. You continue to straw man me, and continue to rely on obscurantism, projection, desperation and now even made an attempt to redefine definitions and claim I accepted that - that is touching on not being a fully truthful debate style.


Danmark, you are in a very awkward position now.

You seem to claim that a non-existent supernatural god can have evidence in the natural. Can you explain this? Use any terms you like. I suspect you will use the silence and ignore terms, correct?

[Danmark]

But Danmark, that is not the definition from Wikipedia or the definition that you gave before.

Wikipedia says:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

It does not say:
anything that tends to support an assertion.

You see Danmark, you can not redefine your definitions and call that fact in order to support your incoherent claim AND claim I accepted it.

You make a distinction where there is none worthy of argument.
Go ahead, explain to us the difference.

But it will not matter because you are demonstrably wrong. The same Wikipedia article says:
" evidence that tend to prove or disprove the point at issue is strictly governed by rules"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So you are wrong in claiming there is a meaningful difference between the statements and you are wrong in claiming Wikipedia does not define evidence as something that "tends to prove... the point at issue...."

If you could possibly be any more wrong it is beyond my imagining.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 2075 by JohnA]
You understand the difference between 'a shirt' and 'a red shirt', don't you?
Well, the difference between 'evidence' and 'weak evidence' is like that.
Noun, and Noun-with-qualifier.

You are invited to judge an argument. You listen with care and attention, and an open mind, to the evidence from both sides. You weigh that evidence impartially, both for internal coherence and against other, external sources.. You decide the evidence from side A is strong enough to convince you that A's argument is correct.
This does not mean that the evidence from side B was not evidence. It just wasn't convincing. It was insufficient. It was weak. But you considered it. You treated it as evidence for B's argument. So it was evidence.


There is some evidence supporting the story that Jesus existed; that he preached around Palestine around 30 CE., that he claimed to be the Son of God, and that he was executed. There are some, (albeit mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent) testimonies that his tomb was later found to be empty, and there are some claims that some people saw him alive and preaching after his execution.
This is not very strong evidence. In fact I would say it is very weak evidence. It isn't backed up by other, material, evidence, so it is WEAK EVIDENCE. Saying it isn't evidence is an unnecessary and inaccurate claim.
I can't see where you're having difficulty with this, JohnA.

[cnorman18]

That would be correct. A verbatim quote, from my own rabbi: "Yes, the old saying: the only dogma in Judaism is that there is no dogma." [NOTE THE LINK HERE:] "Judaism has no dogma, no formal set of beliefs that one must hold to be a Jew. In Judaism, actions are far more important than beliefs, although there is certainly a place for belief within Judaism."

But that in itself is a belief! Below you also say some beliefs are forbidden.

I thought we were talking about "dogmas," which are REQUIRED beliefs with set definitions and meanings. Judaism does not contain those. You're straining pretty hard here: I never said that there are NO beliefs associated with Judaism -- just that the beliefs are OPTIONAL, and left up to the individual.

And, yes, some beliefs are forbidden, like multiple gods; and those beliefs are therefore not required either. If NOT believing in something is a dogma, then atheism must be a dogmatic belief, no? Of course it isnt, and neither are beliefs that are ruled OUT. Seems clear enough to me.

Furthermore, the mere fact that you hold a belief in Yahweh anchors your Judaism as based on belief.

Except that Who or What "Yahweh" is (which is not a term used by Jews) is also left up to the individual. A Person? A Force? Intelligence itself? That which give Order to the universe? All have been proposed. Don't assume that belief in an UNDEFINED God equals belief in the Bearded Sky Daddy. It doesn't.

Besides is Rambam's thirteen principles of faith not a dogma because you call it principles? Does your version of Judaism reject this completely - the 13 principles and the word faith?

You're not listening, and not reading the links I gave you. The 13 Principles were disputed from the day Maimonides published them; they are useful, and most are generally accepted by most Jews, but they are not REQUIRED. You seem to be having a hard time with that concept. DOGMAS are REQUIRED beliefs. The 13 principles are NOT required.

That is true of most religions, but certainly not all. Judaism is without question a "religion" -- the oldest religion in the West, in fact -- but it does not fit that description as far as "beliefs" are concerned. Did someone once tell you that Wikipedia is the ultimate authority and is always 100% correct? They were wrong.

You need to decide here is Judaism is a religion or not. We already established that it has beliefs and dogma (13 principles of faith).

No, YOU have decided that. Did you not read the links that I posted? Let me quote again: "Judaism has no dogma, no formal set of beliefs that one must hold to be a Jew. In Judaism, actions are far more important than beliefs, although there is certainly a place for belief within Judaism."

The 13 principles of faith of Maimonides are not binding, and never have been. They are part of a very long conversation that Jews have been having among themselves for centuries on end. You dont get to define something as dogma by quoting from a site which explicitly declares that they are NOT dogma. You dont get to redefine Judaism because it doesnt fit your preferred stereotypes.

Google defines Religion as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
There are many definitions of religion, and Judaism is one, so is all of it's denominations/congregations.
Is there some ultimate authority that is always 100% correct? Am yet to find anyone or any evidence for this wild claim that religious people hold.

What wild claim would that be? I dont defend religion in general. Im talking about JUDAISM, and the Jewish religion has no dogmas and never has. Sorry about that, but you dont get to overturn 3,000+ years of Jewish tradition and teaching because it doesnt fit Wikipedias casual definition of ALL religion.

Sorry, but that's wrong too. There is no central authority in Judaism, no Jewish Pope, no Supreme Council, nothing. Every congregation is independent, and we hire our rabbis after "tryouts" and interviews; we fire them if we don't like their performance. Further, the practices of each congregation are determined locally, within broad guidelines that are determined by the consensus of the Jewish community.

Now you are straw manning me. I never said that Judaism has a central authority.

You defined it as a top-down religion, and equated it to the Roman Catholic Church -- which DOES have a central authority. Squirm all you like, but thats what you said.

Even though I can argue that your Yahweh is this central authority.

So now youre ADMITTING that you claim Judaism has a central authority? Contradict yourself much?

Sorry, that wont wash, either. The Hebrew God does not speak, and if He ever did, His opinion is no longer of consequence. That is a formal Jewish teaching, contained in the Talmud, which I have discussed many times. In other words, you dont get to cite God as an authority any more, because we dont allow that ourselves. No one is authorized to speak for God since the age of the Prophets ended, and God Himself isnt talking.

The Rabbis are the authority for the congregation/denomination and I could argue that the Jewish community is the central authority as well.

So the rabbis, who can be and are FIRED by the congregation when they say or teach something the people dont like, are their central authority?

And the whole community is the central authority for ITSELF? You do realize that that makes no sense at all, dont you?

So, this still fits in perfectly with the Definition(s) of Religion. So, what exactly did I get wrong here?

Youve redefined every term youve used to suit your own stereotypes and assumptions, ignored without actual argument or logic everything Ive told you, dismissed the references that YOU requested, then concluded that youve somehow proven that youre right.

Okay. I dont care to debate people who only PRETEND to debate.

You might want to pick up a good book on basic Judaism if you're really interested, rather than relying on what you think you know or what other non-Jews have told you. Beware of websites; most are Orthodox, and they speak for only 10% or so of modern Jews. Basic Judaism by Milton Steinberg is good; so is Judaism for Dummies.

Sure, your version of Judaism is correct and the others are wrong...

Thats pretty hard to take, since Ive said -- explicitly -- that ones beliefs are up to the individual in Judaism. So how am I saying that other versions are wrong?

Further, I havent spoken of my version of Judaism at all! My own personal beliefs are not the subject here. I am speaking of the general principle that belief itself in Judaism is optional, and the content of ones beliefs are up to oneself. Thats all.

...so are all other religions. Care to back this up?

Whoops! I NEVER said, and do not believe, that all other religions are wrong. That is NOT a teaching of Judaism, and if you knew ANYTHING significant about that religion, youd know THAT. Our religion does not claim to be the one true faith or anything like it. If God chose to speak to some other peoples in some other ways, that is no business of ours.

Nice try, but youre only confirming that you know little to nothing about the Jewish religion other than stereotypes about religion in general.

Are you non-orthodox (i.e. conservative or reform) where the Rabbis do not follow halacha (Jewish law)?

Who told you THAT? I am a Conservative Jew, but we are NOT a non-halakhic branch; we say that Jews ought to follow Jewish law (e.g. the Kosher laws, the family-purity laws, etc.), but that it is a choice best left to the individual. Even the Reform branch respects those who follow traditional observances, and respects ones freedom to follow those traditions or not, as one chooses. Are you trying to say that only Orthodox Jews are real Jews? If so, you disagree with most of the Orthodox themselves, most of whom recognize the other branches as Jews, though we disagree on many matters.

You're entitled to whatever opinion you like, but that's just not the Jewish approach. What you believe doesn't really matter much, in our religion; the nature of God, of the afterlife (if any -- we have no formal teachings on that subject), and so on -- those are left to the individual to determine for himself. What matters, in the Jewish religion, is what you DO.

OK, now your version of Judaism is a religion, or are you speaking for all versions of Judaism? Is this the Jewish approach for your Judaism or for all the others, or just for ethnic Jews, or just Jews in general? Does this apply to atheistic Jews as well? Am not quite sure why you say my understanding is not the Jewish approach.

The details of BELIEF are not an issue for any but the most ultra-Orthodox of Orthodox Jews. What you DO is the issue, in ALL the branches. That seems to be a difficult concept for you, as it usually is for both atheists and fundamentalists, both of whom regard belief as the central essence and meaning of religion. If youre not willing to even CONSIDER that there might be a DIFFERENT perspective, then theres really no point in going on.

Put simply, the Jewish religion is about doing good. Its about making THIS world and THIS life a better place for EVERYONE, not just Jews. BELIEVE what you want, but DO GOOD. The rest -- the nature of God, the nature of Heaven (if there is one), how the world was created, and so on -- is interesting, and we talk about such things a lot -- but we consider them extraneous, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who knows the answers? We dont claim to -- but we spend MOST of our time talking about what is the right thing to do in a given real-life situation. Thats what most of the 60+ volumes of the Talmud is about -- arguments over ethics, not doctrines or dogmas. Judaism is a very PRACTICAL religion.

You hold a belief in a g-d, you have faith...

Not so fast. What are you ASSUMING I believe in when we talk about God? We dont define God in the Jewish religion. We dont claim to know what kind of Being He is, or if He is a being at all. We think of Him as we choose to, when we think of Him at all (God is the center of the Jewish faith, but not its focus. That may be a bit beyond your grasp as well, but thats the way it is.) Even the word He is a convention, used because Hebrew, like English, has no non-gender-specific term that is suitable. It is said that God is the Ein Sof, the wholly Other: your beloved Maimonides once wrote that Whatever you can conceive, that is not God.

And -- faith? What do you mean by faith? The certainty that God loves us and will protect us? Sorry, but the events of the mid-20th century kind of killed that faith in us. Try again.

Judaism talks about existence and humanity (The Messiah will come, The dead will be resurrected, etc.).

Whoa! Youre seeing Judaism through that Christian filter again. Nothing about resurrection of the dead when Messiah comes in Jewish tradition -- and the Messiah was or is to be just an ordinary man, not a God-man, not a Son of God, not resurrected from the dead, not a savior from sin or any of that. Those are all Christian ideas, not Jewish ones.

Of COURSE Judaism talks about existence and humanity. Dont atheists? Doesnt EVERYONE? How is that supernatural talk or dogma?

So what exactly have I got wrong here? It seems to me that you just assume you are above me and that I do not understand for the sake of it.

No assumption required. You keep PROVING that you dont understand the most elementary things about the Jewish religion. Sorry about that, but I wont pretend that the wrongheaded assumptions you hold are correct in order to prevent you from claiming that Im being arrogant.

What you believe doesn't really matter much

I find that quite derogatory. That is another reason why I despise religion.

THAT was a deliberately truncated misquotation and distortion of what I said. The complete quote, which you actually give below, makes it clear that I meant the general you -- that is to say, What one believes doesnt really matter much, in our religion.

The problem, I think, is that because you so despise religion, you are forced to defend the idea that all religions are and must be the same. They arent. Im very sorry if thats hard for you to accept, but that doesnt mean I have to agree that youre right when I dont think you are.

What you believe doesn't really matter much, in our religion; the nature of God, of the afterlife

The above is a belief and so was the rest of that quote from you.

That what one believes is of less importance than what one does -- is a belief? All right. I can accept that, I suppose, as long as we note that Jews are allowed to disagree with that too.... I just dont see what your problem with that belief is.

The very word "religious" in Judaism has a different meaning; it means "ritually observant," as in keeping the Kosher laws, attending services, fasting, wearing tallit and tefillin, and so on. You might hear it said of a certain Jew, "He doesn't believe in God, but he's very religious" or the inverse. You show your religion by what you DO, whatever you "believe."

But previously you said there was no beliefs, now you say it is what you believe; to DO, to action your beliefs, and some beliefs are forbidden (mentioned later).

One more time: I NEVER SAID that there were no beliefs. I said that there were no REQUIRED beliefs.

"Kosher laws, attending services, fasting, wearing tallit and tefillin, and so on" - these are all beliefs and grounded in 'dogma'. You may not call it beliefs / dogma but it fits perfectly with the definitions of it. That inverse and the use of Jew/Judaism/ethic, etc. seems to me pure obscurantism.

And yet once again; I never said that there are NO beliefs in Judaism, which words you keep trying to put in my mouth; I said that beliefs are OPTIONAL and left up to the INDIVIDUAL.

Dogmas are REQUIRED beliefs. There are NO dogmas in Judaism, and what you BELIEVE is up to you. Why is that so HARD for you to understand and/or accept?

Sorry, but that's objectively and provably false.
"...once the conversion procedure is complete, the convert is as much a Jew as anyone who is born to the religion."
I know this for a fact; I am a convert myself who became a Jew at the age of 50. There are many converts in my synagogue, and we are considered -- and consider ourselves -- as Jewish as any Cohen or Levi.

As an atheist, I can not become a Jew.

Of course you can. When i was going through the conversion process, I was never instructed on what to BELIEVE, nor was I told any beliefs were REQUIRED; my commitment was to the Jewish PEOPLE, to the Jewish community as a whole, and not to any set of beliefs or doctrines or dogmas. There is even a branch of the Jewish religion, Reconstructionist Judaism, where belief in God is explicitly optional; and another branch, Humanistic Judaism, that is explicitly atheistic. (Did you even KNOW that?) Both accept converts. Feel free to begin the process. It took four years in my case, but others may not take as long. I dont profess to know.

Without adoption religion (giving up something in my case) I can not become a Jew. Is that objectively and provably false?

I think I just proved it so. I never said you didnt have to give anything up at all -- I gave up being a Methodist -- but you can become a Jew, like anybody else can, atheist or not. What you think youd have to give up, I frankly couldnt guess. Sorry to explode another assumption, but facts are facts.

I have to convert/adopt to the religion called Judaism (probably the orthodox version).

Why the Orthodox version? I didnt go that route. No one HAS to, though one can CHOOSE to.

So, I have to give up my critical faculties to accept some Yahweh exists when your 13 principles of faith says there is no evidence by the very mention of the word faith.

Not to go over this ground AGAIN, but who says you have to accept the 13 principles? Guess where I found out that they were all in dispute and have never been required; in my conversion class.

It is better to convert via orthodox because conversion via non-orthodox are not recognized as valid converts by many people.

By many people, of course, you mean SOME -- not all -- of the 10% of Jews who identify as Orthodox. It is perfectly true that some ultra-Orthodox or Haredi Jews dont accept me as a real Jew. So what? I dont care; I dont hang out with them, and I dont care to. The Jews in my own community accept me as fully Jewish.

When I was a Christian, I didnt hang out with the snake-handling fundamentalists either, and they didnt accept me as a Christian. I didnt care what the extremists thought then, and I dont care now. Why would you think its required that I, or anyone, do so? Why would it be better to?

Is that according to: "To be a Jew" by Maurice Lamm and "This is my G-d" by Hermann Wouk?

Why do you ask? Do you hold their opinions to be supremely accurate and determinative?

Do you hold that Jimmy Swaggart, or Pat Robertson, or for that matter Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptists, are the supreme authority on what it means to be Christian? Ive read those books (although I think you mean Becoming a Jew by Lamm), and theres much of value in them; but I dont think either of those men, particularly Wouk, will tell you that theres only one way to be Jewish.

You see, the problem here is definition and confusing terms. Jew, Jewish, ethnic Jew, Judaism, orthodox, non-orthodox. This makes it hard to understand, but I think my understanding is being confirmed by you. Thank you, it is hard to decipher obscurantism.

So, because you find the history and details of a 3,000+-year-old tradition hard to understand -- as very many people, and even many Jews, do -- you ASSUME that its all a deliberate conspiracy (which is what obscurantism means) to make it difficult for YOU?

Sorry. You know, understanding quantum mechanics and the Navajo language is difficult too, but I dont think anyone accuses the physicists or the Navajo of being obscurantists. Not everything is as SIMPLE as you might insist it OUGHT to be, but thats not a judgment on those things. It MAY be a judgment on YOU.

Nope. An ethnic Jew may convert to Christianity, but can no longer claim to be practicing the Jewish religion. There are no beliefs required of Jews, but there are some which are forbidden; and the belief that a man could be God Incarnate is one of them. The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ are two separate and distinct concepts, anyway.

How can you say NOPE, when you follow that with a ethnic Jew can convert to Christianity? I think you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
A Jewish person is not necessarily adhering to Judaism (or any form of that religion or it's denominations/movements), and a non-Jew can NEVER become this Jewish person (without being indoctrinated into some form of Judaism). That is way off.

There is a difficulty here, but its not all THAT difficult. The word Jew may refer to ethnic, or cultural, Jews, and it may refer to those who practice the Jewish religion. They are not the same, but neither are they mutually exclusive. One may be either or both. Woody Allen proudly proclaims himself a Jew, though he practices no religion; I proclaim myself a Jew BECAUSE I practice that religion, though my ancestors are Scottish on both sides. Sorry if thats complicated (though not very), but thats the way it is. People have been deliberately, or from ignorance, using that bit of confusion against us for centuries. Nothing new there.

You see, this is what I despise about religion.
Terms and words are so distorted and redefined that it becomes hard to question and challenge it.

Theyre not deliberately distorted and redefined. Times change, and the characteristics of religions change with them. If thats what you despise about religion, you must REALLY hate science... I mean, heliocentric, geocentric, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics, quanta...!

No wonder we have so many religions and denominations.

Well, after 2,000 years, there are more than 35,000 Christian denominations. After perhaps twice that long, we Jews have five -- two of which have arisen in the last 30 years or so, and until about 200 years ago, there was only one. Not so much of a problem for us, especially since we still acknowledge each other as Jews even while we disagree.

That, however, is true. One may be an observant Jew and an atheist.

But an Atheist can never become a Jew, unless it surrenders to the Judaism belief system and accept authorities (Rabbis and Jewish community). How is that fair?

Dealt with above. Look up Humanistic Judaism and find out a few of the things that you didnt know.

That is true -- unless the person goes through a process and ceremony of formal conversion. It isn't the marriage that makes one Jewish; it is that process and the decision of a bet din, or Jewish court.

Jewish courts, Jewish communities, Judaism's 13 principles of faith and belief dogma that there is no dogmas. You do have a belief, grounded in 'dogma'. You have no excuse to say the question of evidence does not apply to you. The fact is, you have no evidence and your FAITH based belief seals that.

If youre going to ignore and redefine and distort everything Ive told you -- a little irony there, I think -- I dont think this conversation is going any farther. Jewish courts are about what people DO, not what they BELIEVE. The Jewish community is a group of PEOPLE, not a set of beliefs or dogmas. The 13 principles are NOT BINDING on ANY Jew, though I fully expect you to cite them yet again (as many others have before you). My beliefs are my own (and rather unconventional, even for liberal Jews, as it happens), and not subject to ANY authoritys approval or disapproval -- because THERE IS NONE. Id also note that I havent even DISCUSSED the details of my own beliefs in this conversation; they arent the topic. But if you insist: My beliefs dont require evidence, because I dont profess to know even if there IS a God, in any conventional sense, and I dont believe in the supernatural (few Jews do -- we dont have faith healers and the like).

I follow the Jewish religion because its insights into human nature and morality MAKE SENSE to me, whereas supernatural religions dont.

If the Jewish court does not approve of a conversion then then the person can not be a Jew. That is ridiculous.

It would be, if it ever happened. Its basically a formality; the rabbi who has supervised the conversion process normally sits on the Bet Din, and its more about confirming ones commitment than an examination. In medieval times, when phony converts were trying to infiltrate the Jewish community in order to denounce Jews for heresy and blasphemy before Inquisition courts, they might have been more like a real court; but thats no longer the case, and hasnt been for centuries. Thanks for exhibiting your ASSUMPTIONS and STEREOTYPES again, as opposed to your INFORMED KNOWLEDGE.

How can you say that it is not a belief if it is based on formal procedures (what I would call dogma - Validation of religious bills of divorce (get, pl. gittin), Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers (Hechsher), etc.) and not authoritative?

Is a divorce decree in an American secular court a dogma?

Kosher certification is OPTIONAL, too; no one HAS to eat kosher, and no restaurant HAS to be kosher. By that standard, again, inspections by the Department of Health are dogmas. Youre really stretching here, and youre NOT proving your point.

Neither is Judaism. We have accepted converts from the very beginning, in Abraham's day. There are Jews of every race and nationality on Earth, and that has been true for centuries.

But there is the Jewish law and Jewish courts. Furthermore the word "Jew" has multiple meanings: ethnic Jew, Jew race, Jewish nationality (every Jew are entitles to Israeli citizenship), etc. The fact remains, an atheist can not become a Jew (at least it seems I can become an Israeli citizen by residence). I find that to be a form of discrimination.

Again, already dealt with. Sorry if you dont want to accept the facts, but they remain facts anyway.

I can't speak for Islam, but as far as Judaism is concerned, your suspicions are ill-founded.

But that is ill-founded on your behalf. You do hold a belief in Yahweh. You do have the 13 principles of faith, Jewish Law/courts, 'dogma', refusing atheists to become Jewish, allowance of some beliefs, etc.

Repeating your points, AKA misunderstandings and assumptions and stereotypes, over and over again doesnt validate them.

I've given some references, but again, your best course for obtaining information on the Jewish religion is to find a good basic book on the subject.

Many people think they know all about the Jewish religion, but few non-Jews actually do. I was a seminary-trained Methodist minister 35 years ago, and I thought I did; I was wrong.

It's no shame and nobody's fault. Unlike most other religions, Judaism does not seek converts, though we do accept them; and we don't talk about our religion much outside the community for that very reason. We don't want to be seen as proselytizing.

Just don't assume that what you think you know is accurate. Stereotypes and myths abound. Find out for yourself from a reputable source -- and try, very hard, never again to lecture an actual follower of a religion about what he or she is supposed to believe. Thanks.

Am still not sure what you are selling here.

Just to deal with that rather pejorative word -- Im not selling anything. Jews dont proselytize. Im trying to familiarize you with some of the FACTS about the Jewish religion, some of the specific ways in which Judaism does NOT fit the stereotype of what religion is supposed to be. Thats all. Youre determined to prove me wrong, apparently because you (in your own words, repeated more than once) despise religion. I dont have any interest in your feelings about my religion; Im just trying to inform. If you want to reject everything I say and cling to your own ideas, thats not my problem. Im rather used to it; Im a liberal living in a very red state.

And in fact, my understanding of Judaism and Jewish (the obscurantism versions) has not been shown wrong at all.

Oh, really?

Like I said; I dont think this is going anywhere.

The earth does TOO go around the Sun!

And, speaking of science, see below.

I do think that I have pointed out some misconceptions that you have of Judaism, religion and being/becoming Jewish.

Wait, what?

Some misconceptions I have about Judaism?

I AM a Jew. Ive gone through a four-year process of conversion to Judaism. Ive read something more than 300 books about the Jewish religion. And YOU have corrected MY misconceptions?

Tell me: How many books have YOU read about Judaism? How many articles? How many PAGES? Anything other than quick Google searches? You didnt even know that Humanistic Judaism EXISTED -- and youre pointing out MY errors?

And you accuse ME of being arrogant and assuming that Im above YOU?

Okay. This is getting clearer all the time. Thanks.

It is very clear that reading the Torah and examining historical evidence that Judaism/Jews promoted a tribal god into a monotheistic god.

Heres another little news flash that youre apparently unaware of: JEWS DO NOT DENY ANY OF THAT.

Pick up a Jewish Study Bible sometime and read the introductory articles. We ACKNOWLEDGE the roots of Jewish holy books in earlier civilizations and the development of the Jewish religion over the course of millennia. Didnt know that either, did you?

I find some of the Judaism/ Jewish teaching way off...

Which ones? Specifically? Youve demonstrated over and over here that you dont even know what Jewish teachings ARE (e.g., that you think Jews hold that only our religion is correct), so what teachings, exactly, do you think are way off?

...and quite insulting to people that holds no belief in a god/gods.

Really? You find the fact that people hold beliefs different from yours to be insulting? You must be very unhappy. I dont know ANYBODY who believes ANYTHING in exactly the same way I do, beyond the level of I like mustard on my hot dogs.

The mere fact that you can assert here that the question of evidence is beyond or not applicable to Judaism is quite derogatory.

Derogatory to whom? And why? For those of us who make no supernatural claims, why should the question of evidence be important? Some Jews DO make such claims, and for them your questions are quite valid; but not all of us do. That you dont know what to make of that isnt OUR fault.

Why not just admit that your FAITH says you have no evidence for your g-d or get on with it? Why define the content of your 'dogma' and post so vaguely that it becomes almost impossible for anyone to question it?

Why not just admit that you dont understand the Jewish approach to religion and life in general, instead of insisting that were deliberately lying and/or pretending to believe things that we dont in order to confuse and befuddle atheists? That doesnt seem like a big motivator to me, though Ive been accused of it before.

Why not just break down and read a BOOK on the subject, as opposed to searching Google and Wikipedia for mined quotes that you think will prove that youre RIGHT?

Or are you claiming that you REALLY KNOW ALL ABOUT this religion, about which youve demonstrated your lack of knowledge multiple times?

Judaism is not above any other religion, nor are Jews.

Who ever said that it, or we, are? I certainly didnt. I say that its DIFFERENT, and thats quite another thing.

(My bolding follows.)

You share the exact same burden of the rest of the religious do, and you will always be questioned how your faith can be rational and why you reject/appose scientific knowledge.

THANK you for ending on the most ludicrous note of all!

Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that Jews reject/oppose scientific knowledge? Are you? Really?

Did you know that more Jews enter the hard sciences as professionals more frequently, in proportion to our numbers, than ANY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE ON EARTH, and that this has been true for CENTURIES? Maimonides, whom you have cited yourself, was not only the greatest of our rabbis and teachers; he was also the premier physician of his day, who probably did more to advance and form the practice of modern medicine than any figure of the Middle Ages.

This is from your beloved Wikipedia: Feel free to find references that prove these numbers wrong.

Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population, (or 1 in every 500 people). Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of Physics, 19% of Chemistry, 13% of Literature and 9% of all peace awards.

Further: There are virtually NO Jewish creationists, but no doubt you didnt know that either.

Thanks for that. You couldnt have chosen a statement that more emphasized your total lack of knowledge about Judaism or Jewish history than that one, if youd stayed up all night planning it. NOT well played, sir.

And yes, let's not forget about the derogatory "racism" discrimination that I can not become a Jew unless I surrender my critical faculties.

I dont quite see how thats racism, even if it were true; but since Ive already proven it false, I dont guess thats an important question anyway.

I note in closing that youve ignored and failed to respond to my having proven your misconceptions about marrying a Jew, conversion to Judaism, acceptance of converta among Jews, and so much more. A non-answer IS an answer, of course.

You know, the way I learned it on this forum, when one has been proven wrong, one gracefully admits it and expresses gratitude for having learned something. I did that many times here. I guess thats fallen out of fashion now, and its only important to be RIGHT and never to admit to being WRONG. Too bad -- but then, thats why I dont come around much any more.

Thanks for the debate. Have a nice day.

Dont be surprised if I dont bother to reply to your next attempt.

[10CC]

Up until post #2043 this was an interesting and sometimes amusing thread. I wonder what happened?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 2047 by JohnA]

Noevidencenobelief wrote:

Except for random ramblings of various sorts, we've had Goose claiming that a putrefied brain-dead, heart-dead, maggot-infested carcass of a carpenter, with blood fully clotted in its veins and failed liver, kidneys, lungs, etc, after decomposing in the middle-eastern heat for 3 days, came back to life and then flew into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

His evidence for this: He claims that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

Sonofason wrote:

You are somewhat mistaken I think. You see it is not a claim that some people wrote down that they saw it happen. It is a fact that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

JohnA wrote:

He never claimed it was. He said that Goose claimed that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

This statement of yours shall be justly ignored by me, as it holds no weight whatsoever, and adds nothing to the atheist argument. It is completely void of content. It means absolutely nothing. The fact is that people wrote down that they saw it happen, just as I said. People can make claims all day long about what the book says, and those claims are all meaningless. The book speaks for itself, and doesn't require justification by atheists or theists as to what is contains. People saw the empty tomb. People saw the risen body of Jesus Christ. Their testimony speaks for itself.

JohnA wrote:

Sure, it is a fact that I just read your post and now replying. But that does not imply that the fact supports a claim. It does not mean because of the fact that some people wrote down words the words are true and can be used as a factual information to support a claim - to convert the claim itself into a fact.
What is so hard about this to understand?
You already admitted you have NO evidence. Why are you trying your best to contradict yourself, your scripture and your central tenant of you religious dogma (faith), is absolutely beyond me.

Of course it does. Personal testimony is evidence. It is not perfect evidence, but it is evidence. And it speaks for itself.

I have no evidence to show to a closed minded atheist who refuses to acknowledge reasonable evidence. And so I say I have no evidence to show. I have no evidence to show you. I have no evidence for YOU. But I have quite substantial evidence for reasonable people who accept reasonable evidence as evidence.

BZZZZZ. Wrong. Time out. Stop right there.

Personal testimony is evidence. I agree with that. It's extremely weak evidence, and it can be discarded when it directly conflicts with overwhelmingly strong empirical and physical evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

What do you mean by "reasonable" though?

Lets recap the facts: On the one hand we have everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, etc. It's not COMPLETE knowledge, but it's knowledge so profound that it allows us to perform heart transplant, let people videochat for free across the globe, put satellites in orbit around the planet, land unmanned vehicles on mars, and recreate the conditions of the big bang in a lab.

On the other hand we have, at best , assuming no forgery, no exaggeration, no mistranslation, a few fishermen claiming to have seen a maggot infested putrefied carcass stroll into town and then fly into the sky.

Please explain, slowly and clearly, why it's reasonable to disregard everything we know about the universe, including the technology that allows you to read these words right now, and believe the words of a few fishermen (assuming they ever said them and assuming they ever existed).

Thanks

If you should find yourself in hell, because you won't believe in God, I will be laughing my way all the way to heaven.

Wow, you'll be laughing at the prospect of JohnA being tortured for eternity? That's horrible.

Irrespective of how much I find your ideas nonsensical and absurd, if I heard your daughter had cancer, or your wife got raped, or you got kidnapped and tortured by terrorists, I would be deeply saddened. I wouldn't even dream of saying something so fundamentally evil as what you said. It wouldn't even occur to me.

This is fundamentally why religion is evil. It makes otherwise decent people do and say horrible things.

If I wrote to you "If thugs break into your house, sodomize you and torture you with red hot knives, I'll be laughing all the way to my safe-house", my post would be immediately flagged as offensive and unacceptable. And rightly so!

And yet if you say "If demons capture your very soul, and torture and torment it forever in an eternal lake of fire, I'll be laughing all the way to a place of eternal bliss", it's totally ok.

Somehow it's ok for religious people to deliberately express pleasure at another human being's most intense and prolonged suffering imaginable.

This is repugnant and evil, and you owe everybody not only a heartfelt apology, but a solemn promise never ever again in your life to say something so shamefully offensive.

[no evidence no belief]

Up until post #2043 this was an interesting and sometimes amusing thread. I wonder what happened?

We ran out of theists. That's what happened.

[JohnA]

But Danmark, that is not the definition from Wikipedia or the definition that you gave before.

Wikipedia says:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

It does not say:
anything that tends to support an assertion.

You see Danmark, you can not redefine your definitions and call that fact in order to support your incoherent claim AND claim I accepted it.

You make a distinction where there is none worthy of argument.
Go ahead, explain to us the difference.

But it will not matter because you are demonstrably wrong. The same Wikipedia article says:
" evidence that tend to prove or disprove the point at issue is strictly governed by rules"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So you are wrong in claiming there is a meaningful difference between the statements and you are wrong in claiming Wikipedia does not define evidence as something that "tends to prove... the point at issue...."

If you could possibly be any more wrong it is beyond my imagining.

Sigh, Danmark.

The facts (not the evidence, but "presented evidence") are:

1) You reject or refuse to understand the christian dogma called faith
2) You refuse to accept the Wikipedia definition of Evidence.
3) You refuse to accept that Science has NO evidence for deities/supernatural - there is not falsifiable hypothesis for "god/gods exists"

More seriously:

4) You were caught with you hand in the cookie jar - trying to change the definition of evidence to suit your incoherent position
5) You accused the person that caught you as having approved you taking these cookies out of the jar - saying I accepted and approved of your "changed" definition.
6) You make claims that you REFUSE to defend - e.g. this Christian god does not exist
7) You claim that inadmissible evidence is accepted as evidence, is evidence.
8) You refuse to answer my questions when I question your incoherent information.
9) You are arguing that there is inadmissible evidence for a non-existing god.
10) You are now offering a red herring to try and justify that you were caught with your hand inside the cookie jar AND claim that the person that caught you approved of this "crime"
11) I asked before that you should stop rejecting accepted literature and come back when we can deal in fact. You refuse to do this.
12) You offer a perpetual regurgitation of ad hominems to try and discredit me, whilst you are just discrediting yourself.

I have addressed this rubbish of "tend to" support before, right after I caught you with your hand in the cookie jar. But here goes again:

Tell me, does this "tend to support" mean 10% tend to support, or 30%, maybe 67%? I mean what is the percentage? How do you determine this? What is a good "tend to" vs a bad "tend to"? According to you EVERYTHING is evidence, regardless if the other side and the court accepts it or not. The rock is evidence for a non-existing god. And so is the snail. Does the snail "tend to" support your claim more than the rock? Or is the rock stronger evidence than the snail for your assertion - no more need for your obscurantism request of "tend to" anymore? How do you determine this since according to you, it is not open for the other side to decide or for the courts to decide. Even your link provided says there are rules, it says "evidence presented", it does not "approved evidence" it refers to RULES. I can present facts as evidence, but that does NOT imply it is evidence, has been accepted by the other side or the courts.
If you say "look, there is the moon, it is a fact we can see it, and THAT is evidence that paper is made of wood". According to you the moon is evidence, regardless of what I think or the courts think. I mean, why need the courts then at all? Why need me to question your "presented" evidence" when you hold that there is no need to evaluation information/facts/data to understand if it supports a claim or not before a decision is made if it is evidence or not?

Danmark, the above 12 facts speak for themselves.
I am now submitting these 12 facts as presented evidence that your position is incoherent, and absurdly ridiculously, you could not possibly be any more (tend to be 100%) wrong.
It is beyond me what the readers of this forum would not accept my facts as approved evidence that indeed support the claim that your position is wrong, hopelessly wrong.


It is now open for the readers to "approved" of my submission of the 12 facts to become evidence.

Your position seems to be that you have no facts, but only offer logical fallacies. And that your HOLD these fallacies are already approved evidence for your claim that I am wrong, and for your claim that a nonexistent god can have inadmissible evidence. You are not even wanting or allowing for the readers to decide for themselves since your are TELLING them your information is already approved evidence (not disclosing that it is in fact only approved by yourself).

You could not be more wrong here.

I rest my case.
Please come back when we can deal in fact, not assertion fallacies and/or weak attempts at assassinating my character.

[JohnA]

Up until post #2043 this was an interesting and sometimes amusing thread. I wonder what happened?

We ran out of theists. That's what happened.

Do you admit then that you are wrong?
Wrong: these is no evidence for Danmark's nonexistent god?
Wrong: these is no evidence for the christian god / supernatural?
Wrong: your are way off to reject the Christian dogma of faith?
Wrong: your are way off to reject the literature on faith and the definition of faith?
Wrong: your are way off to reject the literature on evidence and the definition of evidence?
Wrong: your are way off to attempt to humiliate theists when they present information/data/facts as "presented evidence" to support their claim when it is obvious that there is NO evidence?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 2075 by JohnA]
You understand the difference between 'a shirt' and 'a red shirt', don't you?
Well, the difference between 'evidence' and 'weak evidence' is like that.
Noun, and Noun-with-qualifier.

You are invited to judge an argument. You listen with care and attention, and an open mind, to the evidence from both sides. You weigh that evidence impartially, both for internal coherence and against other, external sources.. You decide the evidence from side A is strong enough to convince you that A's argument is correct.
This does not mean that the evidence from side B was not evidence. It just wasn't convincing. It was insufficient. It was weak. But you considered it. You treated it as evidence for B's argument. So it was evidence.


There is some evidence supporting the story that Jesus existed; that he preached around Palestine around 30 CE., that he claimed to be the Son of God, and that he was executed. There are some, (albeit mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent) testimonies that his tomb was later found to be empty, and there are some claims that some people saw him alive and preaching after his execution.
This is not very strong evidence. In fact I would say it is very weak evidence. It isn't backed up by other, material, evidence, so it is WEAK EVIDENCE. Saying it isn't evidence is an unnecessary and inaccurate claim.
I can't see where you're having difficulty with this, JohnA.

Jax Agnesson,
You are right I am having difficulty with this.
And you have just compounded this difficulty.
The difficulty I now have is understand what you just wrote. You have not given me one point (information/fact/data) why I am wrong. You have not even stated what point (information/fact/data) of mine do you disagree with. All you did was made an assertion fallacy.

I will however, attempt to show where you went wrong by presenting facts for consideration as evidence. And I will do my best to avoid assertion or other logical fallacies. But I will give you the opportunity to show my fallacies, if any.
And for that I will present facts and submit that as "presented evidence" so that the readers can decide if it supports your claim that I am wrong. In other words, the readers can decide if my presented facts are evidence in STRONG or WEAK support of my claim that you are way off.

Facts:
1) You have not presented what my mistake is, you only asserted that I am wrong.
2) You have not explained how invalid information/facts/data can be evidence.
3) You have not explained how presented information/facts/data have become approved evidence.
4) In you above example (You are invited to judge an argument), you are assuming that ANYTHING / EVERYTHING is approved evidence for each argument, regardless if it supports a claim (assertion) or not. So, the red tie from presenter 1 is also evidence for his/her argument? You see, information/facts/data are presented as evidence, but that does NOT imply it is evidence at all. It is up to me to (impartially) decide if the information/facts/data supports side A or side B's argument. That is similar how courts works. The procession submits information/facts/data as "presented evidence" in order for the defense to rebut, and ultimately for the courts (judge/jury) to decide if the "presented evidence" is indeed in support of the prosecutor's claim. The verdict is the point where the judge/jury state if the accepted or rejected this "presented information/data/facts as evidence that supports (STRONGLY or WEAKLY) the prosecutor's claim. This is how it works. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The courts do not address innocence at all, only if guilty or not guilty.
5) There is NO evidence in support for the claim that the Christian god exists. If there were, then this thread would not exist, science would have confirmed it, and so would religion have (admitting their faith dogma is incorrect).
6) There CAN NOT be any evidence in support for the claim that the Christian god exists. That is because the Bible says the "followers" belief is based on faith. The existence of the christian dogma called faith confirms this. The epistemological literature defined faith as a belief based on NO evidence/proof for it's claims. Sure you can argue that the Bible is wrong, that the faith dogma is wrong, that the literature on faith is wrong, but that would only show that the information/data/facts being presented as evidence COULD be evidence to support a claim for a non-Christian god's existence.
7) Claims are NOT evidence. In fact, a claim is merely information/data/facts presented and needs to be evaluated if it supports an assertion.
8) Weak strong evidence. Your explanation of this is way off. The reference to strong or weak is in reference to the SUPPORT of the claim, not the evidence itself. Wikipedia supports this fact : "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence." I other words, information/data/facts that is direct proof of the truth of an assertion is STRONG support for the assertion. The strongest type of evidence reference is in relation to the SUPPORT, not the evidence itself. Wikipedia says the following on Types of Evidence (in law): " There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law)."
For Science Wikipedia states: "Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls." The strength of evidence is determined by based on the results of results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls and it STILL needs to show the Scientific information SUPPORTS (strong or weak) the assertion if the empirical data & analysis if used in a court of law. Science has to comply to court's "law", not the other way around.


You now need to address each one of these 8 facts and show them wrong in order for the readers to decide if your "information/data/facts" support your claim that I am wrong. If you can not, then the readers could accept my 8 facts as WEAK support for your claim that I am wrong. In other words STRONG support that I am correct (you are way off).

I rest my case.