Atheism

[SteveII]

The NT is entirely filled with the reasons why they believe the way they do. Every one of the 1000+ events chronicled "have a bearing on the truth of that idea." There, you just supported that the NT is evidence as to the question: is there a God.

---

Are you saying that if a million people report a changed life, a new outlook, a feeling of the presence of God, and a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit is the same as absolutely no one reporting those things? It seems like you need that to be true to make your point. 

If that is your point, then let's change it a little. What if a million people saw an event (say an elephant walked into town and walked out the other side and disappeared never to be seen again). No video, just people and their eyeballs. Is the reporting of what those people saw "change the probability" that that event actually happened? 

One more change. Same scenario but they all saw a man appear out of thin air, say a blessing on everyone, and disappear the same way. Does that "change the probability" that that event actually happened?

No, there are NOT 1000+ chronicled events. There are *at most* a handful.

That's nonsense. Look at the table of contents for the NT. Acts alone has hundreds. 

Yes, I am saying that if a million people reported having a changed life, etc, that it would have NO bearing on the question of whether a deity exists. All that shows is that people have beliefs that change their lives. But that is well supported in other ways. That has no actual bearing on whether those beliefs are *true* since false beliefs can and do change people's lives also.

Let me get this straight. If people report an experience with God, that is not information of facts (evidence) that support the premise that God exists? Then the converse must be true: if God exists we cannot have any experience of him. This is obviously false. Your defense is some sort of shifting from 'experiences' to 'beliefs' and then to beliefs can be false and then an unjustified leap to these beliefs are false.  You don't have a logical leg to stand on here. 

In the cases of the elephant and the man appearing out of nowhere, it would be *slight* evidence, but would then be discounted by the known laws of physics. It is more likely in the second case especially that it was a mass hallucination. In the first case, it *could* be that a local zoo had an elephant escape. So the case of the elephant would be a slight increase in the probability of the occurrence and in the case of the nowhere man, of no value as evidence one way or the other.

All three examples were about experiences. You dismissed the two with a supernatural component. That is question begging: Supernatural experiences are not evidence of the supernatural because supernatural experiences are not evidence. 

---

I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is the best evidence. But (1) that it is evidence and (2) it carries weight in proportion to the amount available.

It is evidence, but slight evidence. And no, it does NOT carry weight in proportion to the amount available. A lot of poor evidence does not mean there is good evidence.

Back to the million people witnessing the same event. Is the million better evidence than if only 10 reported the event? Anecdotal evidence is certainly stronger the more you have of it.

---

Who said anything about "sufficient evidence"? Christianity is and has always been supported by a cumulative case with a wide variety of types of evidences. Your Mandela effect theory lacks any other evidence of any type. The theory is so ad hoc as to not even have a starting place for examination.

Personal experience = bad evidence
Ancient texts written by mostly unknown authors, who were not eyewitnesses = bad evidence
Weak stories of Jesus's historical existence, by people who were not alive during Jesus' life (Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) = bad evidence
An "empty tomb" = laughably bad evidence
"Apostles would not die for a lie" = bad evidence
Fallacious philosophical arguments (Kalam, teleological, ontological, presuppositional, TAG) = really bad evidence

How does a lot of bad evidence become an cumulative case for any claim?

What else you got?

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

---

I think you are right about the definition, but that is not my point. I am claiming that when an atheist says something akin to: "You are wrong but I don't have to say why because I make no claims..." they are completely wrong. They are making both implicit and explicit claims to knowledge the moment they say the evidence is insufficient (or worse, there is no evidence).  I have no problems with atheists who don't tell me I'm wrong -- they don't have a burden of proof. But I am not sure there are any here.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that you are wrong. My position is that I have no reason to believe you are right.

Although, my belief you are wrong is extremely strong, and based on good evidence. Much better evidence than you have to support your position.

And I don't have a problem with atheists that admit they they have strong opinions and put up a good fight. 

I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is the best evidence. But (1) that it is evidence and (2) it carries weight in proportion to the amount available.

So, 1.1 billion Hindus' anecdotal evidence, and 1.5 billion Muslims' anecdotal evidence carries weight with you? If Islam becomes the largest religion, will their anecdotal evidence become stronger than Christian anecdotal evidence?

Sorry, but your ad populum fallacy is laughable.

Sure it carries weight. It demands examination in a different way a religion of 10 people would. Regarding Hinduism, the next step would be to ask questions like:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

And then you go from there...