Do Christians actually want evidence?

[Yahweh]

Fuck all the bullshit. Fuck the bible, fuck faith, fuck excuses, fuck stories, fuck explanations, and fuck "educated" guesses. I want a speckle of evidence. If you can't provide that, then you lose.

---

Also, the fact that you choose to ignore evolution, which clearly contradicts and fully denies the creation theory, it proves you're choosing to be ignorant. You willingly choose not to accept facts, because you're scared your cunt god will make you burn forever? lawl.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I am noticing a "fuck" trend. And...I like it!

---

He doesn't even realize that meme is a slight on his gullibility. That is classic!

[Bad Wolf]

You don't doubt any evidence by physicists about matter and energy! Even though you, yourself are unable to recreate any of their experiments!
Or, even the fact that many other physicists may be unable to acttually recreate supporting evidence....or even explain it!

Not sure if you have heard of this thing but it is amazing and its called peer review. A scientist will put forth his experiment and results and conclusions forward for other scientists to meticulously examine. If they find a significant fault with the experiment or research or conclusions drawn, the deem it wrong or at least not right enough to put into a peer-reviewed journal. Not being able to re-create the results or 'evidence' of said experiment would come under the category of 'wrong' and therefore not scientifically proven.
So no, we don't just believe physicists because we can't be bothered to do their research and find it out for ourselves. Peer review does that for us.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Rondee, What's a soul made of? Why does alcohol affect your choices? Why do physical events effect every aspect of your conscious experience? What reason do you have to think that any part of your conscious experience of reality will extend beyond the physical processes that produce it? And if you think you have one...Can you picture being in heaven for eternity, as my mother does, while simultaneously knowing that your child's restored consciousness has only been restored to be tortured for every infinite moment that you spend in heaven? Does it seem as though you can maintain an idea of eternal bliss while having this knowledge? Does this ever occur to you? I have a feeling that you are willing to submit to God's will, even if that means the eternal torture of your child. Could anything your child have done be worthy of such a punishment? Is he not only but human, and as God made him? Seriously...What the fuck man? This shit doesn't add up. Close your laptop, and start putting your own beliefs in the hot seat. You only have one life. Start being grateful for it, and stop projecting value to a fantasy.

[Aractus]

1) There is sufficient evidence to believe the Jesus/God claims in the bible, therefore no faith* is required to believe.

You've skipped a step.

There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a real person and not a legend, and some basic facts about his life - that he was baptized by John, that he called disciples to follow him, and that he died on a cross and was buried in a wealthy person's tomb.

From there you can ask the logical questions - did he believe he was the son of God, and if so was he deluded, and did his disciples believe and accept him as the son of God and were they deluded? And of course, importantly, did he really raise from the dead? If he didn't raise from the dead then of course he's a false prophet. There is no counter evidence though that he didn't - and that's the important part. Yes it still requires faith, but if he didn't raise from the dead then somebody had his body - it wasn't the disciples because they didn't have the opportunity, nor the motivation to take it. And if the Romans stole the body then they would have produced it the second that the Christians claimed that they had seen Jesus raised from death in the flesh. That leaves the Jews - or rather the Jewish elders - and they too would have displayed the body and burned it publically to prove that he was mortal. So if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then somebody stole his body, and they weren't Christian, and they weren't Jewish and they weren't Roman and that's very unlikely, and no one has shown a plausible motivation for this mystery person to steal the body from the grave.

[Ryantology]

You base everything on "evidence". But, then you discount "evidence" found by "believers". Why do you look for something that doesn't exist in you mind, and heart? That would be foolish! Oue?

You don't doubt any evidence by physicists about matter and energy! Even though you, yourself are unable to recreate any of their experiments!
Or, even the fact that many other physicists may be unable to acttually recreate supporting evidence....or even explain it!

So... whats the difference?

There's nothing stopping me from re-creating a physics experiment other than my lack of desire to be a physicist. Physics is consistent, even if our understanding isn't. Physics doesn't operate in a special manner for certain people. I don't have to have faith in it, because it works. There are enough tangible results of physics all around me, from advanced electronics to cars to appliances, which would not operate if physicists were wrong about how certain functions of physics work.

A true believer, doesn't need any evidence... at least in a physical manner. But talking "spiritual" to an atheist, is like writing physics formulas on a kindergarten blackboard.

A true believer, by definition, cannot need evidence. Anybody who had a serious need for legitimate evidence would not hold religious beliefs. People like Christians, who define reality completely in the context of a crazy delusion, are people who trust only the evidence they invent for themselves, with that misplaced, wholly-unwarranted trust forming the foundation of their defenses against the real world and all the ways in which it contradicts their fantasy.

Talking "spiritual" to an atheist is like trying to convince a mathematician that there are perfectly spherical squares, if you only you open your heart and just believe it.

[Sword of Christ]

Can we at least agree that we have evidence of something and there are various ways of interpreting the evidence? We have evidence that the universe, life and humanity exists for a start and there is a good reason for all that. Yes there is evolution and all that business but these are interesting details not proof or disproof of anything. We have various other kinds of evidences as well just from what we can observe of the world, of history and from what people subjectively experience.

[Ryantology]

Can we at least agree that we have evidence of something and there are various ways of interpreting the evidence? We have evidence that the universe, life and humanity exists for a start and there is a good reason for all that. Yes there is evolution and all that business but these are interesting details not proof or disproof of anything. We have various other kinds of evidences as well just from what we can observe of the world, of history and from what people subjectively experience.

I don't agree that you have evidence of anything except a possible neurological condition.

[FreeTony]

1) There is sufficient evidence to believe the Jesus/God claims in the bible, therefore no faith* is required to believe.

You've skipped a step.

There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a real person and not a legend, and some basic facts about his life - that he was baptized by John, that he called disciples to follow him, and that he died on a cross and was buried in a wealthy person's tomb.

From there you can ask the logical questions - did he believe he was the son of God, and if so was he deluded, and did his disciples believe and accept him as the son of God and were they deluded? And of course, importantly, did he really raise from the dead? If he didn't raise from the dead then of course he's a false prophet. There is no counter evidence though that he didn't - and that's the important part.

I'm pretty sure that's not how history works. You can't claim something happened because there is no evidence it didn't, especially when the source you are using is something that has been written to support Christianity.

What is more telling is the complete lack of historical evidence from non-Christian sources at the time.

[xpastor]

[snip]

There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was a real person and not a legend, and some basic facts about his life - that he was baptized by John, that he called disciples to follow him, and that he died on a cross and was buried in a wealthy person's tomb.

From there you can ask the logical questions - did he believe he was the son of God, and if so was he deluded, and did his disciples believe and accept him as the son of God and were they deluded? And of course, importantly, did he really raise from the dead? If he didn't raise from the dead then of course he's a false prophet. There is no counter evidence though that he didn't - and that's the important part. Yes it still requires faith, but if he didn't raise from the dead then somebody had his body - it wasn't the disciples because they didn't have the opportunity, nor the motivation to take it. And if the Romans stole the body then they would have produced it the second that the Christians claimed that they had seen Jesus raised from death in the flesh. That leaves the Jews - or rather the Jewish elders - and they too would have displayed the body and burned it publically to prove that he was mortal. So if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then somebody stole his body, and they weren't Christian, and they weren't Jewish and they weren't Roman and that's very unlikely, and no one has shown a plausible motivation for this mystery person to steal the body from the grave.

You are conveniently assuming that of all the details in the gospel accounts ONLY the resurrection is in doubt. I see no good reason to believe the story about the guard on the tomb or for that matter the burial in the tomb itself by Joseph of Arimathea.