Atheism

[Simon Moon]

No theists care to address this?  Interesting.

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?

[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...

[Ravenshire]

I think the only way to rescue the idea that atheism make no assertions is there can be zero evidence. But there is some presented, so you are stuck passing judgement on that evidence.

What evidence do you have outside a musty old tome of iron age magic and personal testimonials?

[Amarok]

See bold. Then by that standard nearly all of human knowledge is not "information or fact". Certainly nothing historical. No court case ever. Nothing ever written in a book. Nothing ever told to you in a classroom. What do we have left: video evidence? You are so off base it's sad.

This is simply not the case your stretching the term evidence . It does not matter how many people claimed to have personally experienced something that alone cannot stand on it's own .How many threads have tried to defend this insanity .

---

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.

Wrong that's not the statement 

The statement is i'm not saying they are wrong i'm saying their belief lacks a case .

---

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. 

---

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.

---

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 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. 

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...

Apologist rubbish

1. All this biblical rot has been refuted to death none of it serves as evidence
2. And you collection of fables is no better then any other

---

I think the only way to rescue the idea that atheism make no assertions is there can be zero evidence. But there is some presented, so you are stuck passing judgement on that evidence.

What evidence do you have outside a musty old tome of iron age magic and personal testimonials?

Oh no gent 

The bible is credible because .....Apologist nonsense
Personnel experience counts because ......Argument Ad populum. and no Anecdotal evidence is not stronger by numbers if it's 10 or a million .

[SteveII]

See bold. Then by that standard nearly all of human knowledge is not "information or fact". Certainly nothing historical. No court case ever. Nothing ever written in a book. Nothing ever told to you in a classroom. What do we have left: video evidence? You are so off base it's sad.

This is simply not the case your stretching the term evidence . It does not matter how many people claimed to have personally experienced something that alone cannot stand on it's own .How many threads have tried to defend this insanity .

Stretching? What? 

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   

Someone's testimony certainly qualifies as at least information. Are you going to claim all testimony is not evidence? Or is it only testimony you don't believe that isn't evidence? 

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.

Wrong that's not the statement 

The statement is i'm not saying they are wrong i'm saying their belief lacks a case .

And a Christian thinks their belief has a case. You are saying they are wrong!

[Amarok]

1. I'm saying your stretching the case and strength for personnel experience as evidence 

2. And again i'm not saying their wrong . Theists say they have case .Me not accepting there claim that it's a case is not me saying their wrong .

[sdelsolray]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence. He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence. And that's before his several cognitive biases are employed.

[Amarok]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.  He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence.  And that's before his several cognitive biases are employed.

That is the least of his issues on this thread

[Simon Moon]

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...

1. No, it is not internally consistent. But NO religion is. Even yours.

2. No religion does. Even yours. The Vedas get much closer to the age of the universe than Christianity does.

3. By 'natural theology' do you mean the philosophical arguments for god? Like the cosmological, teleological, ontological arguments? If so, they are all flawed, so they don't support the existence of any god.

4. I don't care. But neither are the 'facts' of Jesus' life believable. Virgin birth, walking on water, demon entering a herd of pigs, etc. None of this is believable. And if you believe that ancient texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, written by anonymous authors, is good evidence to support such claims, then you just don't understand what constitutes good standards of evidence.

Christianity does not pass the same level of scrutiny you are describing for Hinduism.

Imagine you have to convince an alien race that has no religion, and has no knowledge of humanity's many god beliefs, that your's is the correct one. Do you really believe you can convince them with your flawed 'cumulative case'?

[sdelsolray]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.  He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence.  And that's before his several cognitive biases are employed.

That is the least of his issues on this thread

Perhaps.  Still, it is an easy and compact issue, worthy to present and see his response, as that will be a gauge of his intellectual honesty and awareness and an indication of whether he has yet had lessons in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.