Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Jew" is a religion, not a race, not a nation.

While I agree that race is a social construct, you must admit that for some totalitarians, from National Socialists to Islamists, Jews are definitely a race.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1526459' dateline='1489791303']

---

I will lump all the theists, deists and pantheists into one and explain why there are all wrong.

They appeal to the supernatural and there is no evidence that supernatural is a thing.

The end.

Along with other things, the NT contains all kind of evidence. So, there seems to be evidence. You may not know enough about it to find it compelling evidence, but you can't make the claim there is none.
[/quote]

No it doesn't, the new testament contains claims unsupported by evidence.

By your standard any claim ever made anywhere by anyone must be seen as evidence. So all those people who say the world is flat is evidence that the world is flat or people who believe in trolls or fairies or angels because they believe it is evidence for those things.

It is the claim and not evidence.

[SteveII]

Along with other things, the NT contains all kind of evidence. So, there seems to be evidence. You may not know enough about it to find it compelling evidence, but you can't make the claim there is none.

No it doesn't, the new testament contains claims unsupported by evidence.

By your standard any claim ever made anywhere by anyone must be seen as evidence. So all those people who say the world is flat is evidence that the world is flat or people who believe in trolls or fairies or angels because they believe it is evidence for those things.

It is the claim and not evidence.

Two issues (both of which I posted recently in another thread).

The first is Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

---

The second issue is the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
2. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as "NT claims" as if it were one thing.

No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or, in the case of Luke, by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it.

In addition, the NT points out several pieces of additional evidence:

- There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters.
- Paul quotes several creeds in his letters that appear to have been used among the early church prior to his letters.
- Many historians think that there existed another document Q that predates the gospels and we can reconstruct parts of it from the gospels.

[Mister Agenda]

So how does the NT help us establish the truth of the claims in the NT? Besides ad populum, I mean.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So how does the NT help us establish the truth of the claims in the NT? Besides ad populum, I mean.

That is the wrong question. How do the independent testimony of the Synoptics, the Johanite communities, letters of Paul, records from Secular sources, documents of the early Church, and Archeology support and reinforce a historical picture of the 1st century, one that includes a a specific man, Jesus of Nazareth?

[Mister Agenda]

So how does the NT help us establish the truth of the claims in the NT? Besides ad populum, I mean.

That is the wrong question. How do the independent testimony of the Synoptics, the Johanite communities, letters of Paul, records from Secular sources, documents of the early Church, and Archeology support and reinforce a historical picture of the 1st century, one that includes a a specific man, Jesus of Nazareth?

I'm indifferent to the historicity of a non-miracle-working Jesus, I don't have a bet placed.

But what's called 'evidence' for the miracle-working man seems to not add up to more than 'lots of people believed he was real and really worked miracles, so he was real and really worked miracles'.

[SteveII]

So how does the NT help us establish the truth of the claims in the NT? Besides ad populum, I mean.

First, I would not say this is a case of ad populum. If my argument was solely based on "people believed", you would have a point. However, I am arguing that "people who were eyewitnesses and influenced by eyewitnesses believed". Now, of course not everyone was an eyewitness of the resurrection that belonged to those first churches, but they were alive during a time that rebuttal witnesses would have abounded. While you might say that any rebuttal witnesses might have been 'edited out' of history, we do have the evidence of the tremendous growth of the church from day 1. 

Regarding size of the church, we get a clue from Tacitus, who descibing Nero in 64AD and those arrested as "an immense multitude" in Rome. 64AD is still very much within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and rebuttal witnesses. 

Regarding the general interpreting of evidence as to who Jesus might really be? There is all kinds of evidence to weigh. 

- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known). 
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. 
- Paul and his writings on application--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible. 
- This one can't be stressed enough: the likelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard a alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have. 

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do). The point is, it is not as simple as saying "there is no evidence" There are layers upon layers of evidence that one person or another will find somewhere between uninteresting to compelling.

[Whateverist]

[Neo-Scholastic]

That is the wrong question. How do the independent testimony of the Synoptics, the Johanite communities, letters of Paul, records from Secular sources, documents of the early Church, and Archeology support and reinforce a historical picture of the 1st century, one that includes a a specific man, Jesus of Nazareth?

I'm indifferent to the historicity of a non-miracle-working Jesus, I don't have a bet placed.

But what's called 'evidence' for the miracle-working man seems to not add up to more than 'lots of people believed he was real and really worked miracles, so he was real and really worked miracles'.

Sounds like you've already decided that miracles cannot happen so you edit out those parts. Isn't that kind of like the file-drawer effect?

[Whateverist]

*Ninja kudos to Mr Agenda.  Hadn't read beyond the post I quoted in my last post before I echoed your take.

---

I'm indifferent to the historicity of a non-miracle-working Jesus, I don't have a bet placed.

But what's called 'evidence' for the miracle-working man seems to not add up to more than 'lots of people believed he was real and really worked miracles, so he was real and really worked miracles'.

Sounds like you've already decided that miracles cannot happen so you edit out those parts. Isn't that kind of like the file-drawer effect?

I assume we'd both expect a high degree of vetting to accept such claims.  We're not just talking about whether or not somebody did something we all understand how to do ourselves.  It is hard to imagine how one would begin to show conclusively that so-and-so accomplished a 'miracle' by completely non-natural means.