If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

This seems like the same response I have gotten when asking similar questions of atheists claims that theists just need to be educated or lack critical thinking .   It's appears (to me) to be nothing more than sophism, and a way to disparage others, without any real solid backing or reason for the claim.   As usual, the result is just senseless attacks on Christianity, with nothing to support it.   I wonder if that fits under the prime directive rule?

What evidence exists for the Christian faith?  Please pick your "top 3" items.

Well, you have the witness testimony, as well as philosophical arguments such as the ontological argument, the moral argument (the argument from good), also, inductive arguments from the observation of nature, such as the fine tuning arguments.   There are also more which I'm sure you have heard of.    Which is why I think that atheists are some mix of dishonest and delusional, if they are saying that Christians don't give evidence and reason for their belief.  Sometimes they may be evident of different things or aspects (showing different things).  They become hyper skeptical and irrational when it comes to God, employing double standards and sophism.  Most don't deal with the subject with much intellectual honesty.

---

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Exactly - a story isn't EVIDENCE. It needs to be verified by facts.

Referring back to the story ( it' s in the Bible) as confirmational evidence - or simply by how convincing the teller sounds - isn't evidence.

---

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Cosby's case has nothing to do with anythIng we are talking about --- but I will play ---

Normally you might have something -- but the testimony that buried him was his own. In the 2005-2006 civil case against him - Mr Cosby admitted to buying the Quaaludes that he drugged women with.

That' s called cooberating evidence that's rather unimpeachable.

So you don't have any physical evidence of the drugs?  Just a story? Did you personally witness this, or are you just furthering hear say?