Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Violet]

1. Crammed full of evidence? There's loose historical evidence that some things in the Bible aren't completely made up. But it's hard to argue that's "crammed." What evidence is there for God's existence? And for his attention and interference? I'd like to point out that a lack of understanding about our world and the consequential amazement of it doesn't count as evidence.

Absolutely chock full of it, according to the claims of many a Christian. Everything is evidence for God's existence, attention, and interference... because he made them. That's why I noted *scientific* evidence as a *very specific* type of it... because any reason that adds to your certainty in the truth of something is by definition: evidential. Doesn't matter if it's a 'good' reason, or if it even makes sense... if it's a part (or entire reason) of why someone believes X: it's evidence.

Humans have an endless amount of understanding about their world... unfortunately they are wrong about (just about?) everything, and just come off as arrogant pricks. Arguments from incredulity are considered flawed... but arguments they remain nonetheless.

2. No. The parental factor can be decidedly known. Unambiguously, unequivocally. In contrast, there are thousands of translational differences among a variety of Biblical transcriptions. There are a multitude of contradictions. There's an obvious dearth of physical evidence for the body of Christ. The evidence to support these two ideas are nothing alike.

Everything can be decidedly known... the more concretely known, the more likely one is blind. That which leaves you doubtless makes for a simplistic life... and often a 'righteous' life.

Have you considered that its original form is the only one which was inspired directly by god (as many of them claim)? All of the ones based upon the first are inspired by a book inspired by God... then inspired by a book inspired by a book inspired by God. People make mistakes, and back in the day there wasn't exactly a printing press to assist with the tedious process of inscribing every single letter into a Bible

There would be no physical evidence for the body of Christ... you'll remember: he ascended into 'heaven'. Why would there be a physical body left on this planet to look for?

The evidence to support each of these things remains identical: presumptive, emotional, appearantial. None of it is scientific. Get a DNA positive, and maybe you're in the clear.

3. "He" could easily perform any number of interfering miracles like he was claimed to have done through Jesus. Because you hesitate to suppose of ways an "all powerful creator" could produce evidence doesn't mean it can't be done.

I don't hesitate to suppose of ways he might write in the sky 'oh hai, I exist!'... because that isn't the point. Have you read the bible? All about how you're supposed to come to finding him... *on your own*, through your own experience. If God actively desired you to know him: you would... but he seems to enjoy 'letting us figure it out' (behaving like the good machines we are and processing accordingly)