Evidence for Christianity

[dqualk]

hello, I take it you are from the WW2 era and live in Germany?


Anyway, that's one of the problems many atheists have with the "evidence" is that it isn't conclusive. The passage in the bible about "Doubting Thomas" (John 20:24-29) describes my attitude as well as that of many other non believers; we don't want to believe we want to know. The parable of doubting Thomas serves to promote faith, but me and many others do not find the concept of religious faith motivating or valid. The arguments can be broken into a priori/ rationalist arguments that depend more on pure deduction, and then more empirical based arguments like the ones from design, etc. I actually studied several books by Christian authors before I EVER touched a book by an atheist. When I was exploring different faiths, I read many Christian books including CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, and I think I read part of The Case for Creation, also by Lee Strobel. I've read What's the Difference? by Fritz Ridenour. That was a few years ago, more recently I have studied the more sophistiated arguments from people like Søren Kierkegaard, Aquinas, etc. Even as a kid I had a skeptical side to me, and when I matured and could think for myself, and read those books I listed above, I ultimately did not find the arguments satisfying. Granted, then I didn't have the sophisticated philosophical knowledge to say why, but now that i'm older, studied philosophy heavily, and read more material from a theist perspective, as well as reading many books on atheism, I have to say I find the arguments from the non-believer's side more convincing.


And from what i've heard, while there were some very admirable priests -- catholic and protestant alike -- the Church either supported or at least didn't outright oppose Hitler. Though, considering Hitler's ally Mussolini surrounded the Vatican on all sides, can you really blame them? Even so, you'd expect more outright opposition to Hitler's vile campaign from what is supposed to be the top moral authority in the world.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Brandon "The Skeptic"

Those are all good points. It is difficult thing to know what to believe and what not to. We all believe in something, like our own existance or something. I can't blame someone for coming up on the other side of a difficult problem.

In the same way perhaps the Church could have done more, but I would certainly argue that it is not evil in relation to other institutions. It may not be so holy, under a practical definition, but that is a different thing all together.

However, I have to tell you that, from what I understand, there is really no fully conclusive evidence. Now of course taking certain assumptions based on certain axioms one can conclude that one thing is more likely than another and occasionally with certainity. However, I would say that something like evolution and other scientific theories are not based on conclusive evidence, just very strong evidence. Perhaps stronger than the evidence of "healers," or the subjective faith experiences of people. But there is certainly evidence. NT Wright has a really good book about why he believes that the resurrection is the best explanation for why Christianity took off so well, and why people were willing to undergo the worse kinds of death and torture on the belief that they had seen the living Jesus die and rise again.

---

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

Stopped reading after that to be honest.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. Christians breed Christians. Religion breeds religion. Millions and millions of Muslims have got pretty strong convictions their religion is correct too, do you accept that as evidence Islam is correct?

Skipper my friend, there is evidence in a consensus of opinions. Why do I believe in evolution, its not because I have observed it or have scientific training to figure it out for myself, its because a vast majority of scientist believe it. Does a vast majority of scientist believing in evolution make it real? No. But it certainly makes you think twice before disagreeing with it. I am not saying evolution and religion are on equal footing in this case, I am only demonstrating that a consensus of opinion is evidence, at some point this anaolgy fails.

[Jaysyn]

Why do I believe in evolution, its not because I have observed it or have scientific training to figure it out for myself, its because a vast majority of scientist believe it.

And they "believe" it because it is a testable theory, not because it makes them feel good about themselves to do so.

[Welsh cake]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false.

Man, you are dense. Now you've demonstrated you don't understand what "empirical" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

Read the article above and you too may start off on your very own quest for knowledge. *hint* *hint* *wink* *wink*

[Minimalist]

Skipper my friend, there is evidence in a consensus of opinions.

All the consensus of all the millions who thought the sun revolved around the earth did not make it so.

[Skipper]

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

Stopped reading after that to be honest.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. Christians breed Christians. Religion breeds religion. Millions and millions of Muslims have got pretty strong convictions their religion is correct too, do you accept that as evidence Islam is correct?

Skipper my friend, there is evidence in a consensus of opinions. Why do I believe in evolution, its not because I have observed it or have scientific training to figure it out for myself, its because a vast majority of scientist believe it. Does a vast majority of scientist believing in evolution make it real? No. But it certainly makes you think twice before disagreeing with it. I am not saying evolution and religion are on equal footing in this case, I am only demonstrating that a consensus of opinion is evidence, at some point this anaolgy fails.

Really? So again, I ask do the millions and millions of followers of Islam prove Islam to be correct just for sheer numbers? Of course, both your religion and theirs can't be right.

And are you really comparing Evolution...the theory that has observable evidence in the form of fossils, DNA etc to the idea of the invisible sky daddy that to this day, despite the idea being around A LOT longer than evolution there is ZERO....ZERO physical, observable evidence for?

[Captain Scarlet]

There is no evidence for Christianity presented here that isn't just as terrible as the evidence for Zeus, Osiris, Lord Vishnu and a host of other gods both inventions of past and present with significant followers. Most had some mixture of there own revelations, miracles, human impreganations, significance of stellar occurances, heroic deeds, scarifices, resurrections, the list goes on. Whats different about Christianity other than you beleive it to be true and the others false?

To argue as you have done about the Catholic church flies in the face of all the evidence. Is it evil? I don't know but it covers up child rape of small boys and girls by its own preists, surpresses the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids and actively discriminates against people it doesn't like (homosexuals for instance). I would say that it is a twisted and hypocritical institution at best. As for it standing in the face of Hitler, that really is laughable. It managed to celebrate Hitlers birthday from every catholic pulpit, turned a blind eye to the jewish question, and cannodled with Hitler regularly. All Nazi catholics remained catholics until the end except one. Its one act of contrition was to ex-communicate Goebbels, because he married a protestant (Magda). Yes the catholic church does have standards, just not the ones I recognize.

[downbeatplumb]

Skipper my friend, there is evidence in a consensus of opinions.

All the consensus of all the millions who thought the sun revolved around the earth did not make it so.

Who was it said "the truth is not a popularity contest"

[Rev. Rye]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false. There is a load of evidence for Theism. However, none of the evidence is conclusive. But things like reports of an empty tomb, down to the person on the side of the street who claimed to have a vision of God, to the "healer" going around healing people. Yes I know these could be illusions or we don't say God gave cancer etc. But just becuase there are rational explanations for what appears, at least in some sense, to be supernatural, that does not mean its not supernatural.

And those reports are limited to just one book, one which claims that bats are birds, and rabbits chew their own cud.

The convictions of billions is a good deal of evidence too. Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right. But its evidence.

So, what do you say of the convictions of the billion plus people who believe in Islam?

There is also the crisis of life that leads many to the belief in God. That is all men are born broken into a broken world. We do that which we do not want to do and we don't do that which we would like to do, e.g. we wish we would read more or eat less. Further there is a lot of sad things going on in the world. The world is broken. We are born into this broken world broken, but there is something that does not make sense within us, life, and a desire for meaning. We all desire for there to be intrinsic value.

So, the fact that there's a large mass of people living purposeless lives and charismatic people who intend to give them purpose through ideology means Christianity is true? Eric Hoffer went into much better detail in his True Believer than I ever could.

Further we beleive there is intrinsic value a priori. Everyone grows up saying such IS right and such IS wrong in and of itself. Now we can learn that what we thought was nature was actually convention, and often this is the case, and of course for the atheist this is always the case. However, this is the crisis: brokeness and a desire for reason/meaning. This leads men to reationally conclude that there must be a God who gives meaning to those things which have no meaning within the rational realm, like intrinsic value, and an answer to the brokeness.

And people can't find their own reasons for existence why? That's what I see happening every day throughout the world. Either that or their parents are giving their own reasons for existence to their children.

[Strappado]

However, none of the evidence is conclusive. [....] Once again not conclusive, as numbers do not mean that one is right.

I agree with this. But I think the thread should be called "Hearsay for Christianity".

[dqualk]

A lot of people say there is no evidence for Christinaity or theism in general. This is empircally false.

Man, you are dense. Now you've demonstrated you don't understand what "empirical" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

Read the article above and you too may start off on your very own quest for knowledge. *hint* *hint* *wink* *wink*

You've demonstrated your inability to think critically. Empirical means information gained by observation or something similar. The fact is one need only open his eyes and he will see people swearing up in down about there supernatual experiences. Then there is evidence based on arguments for God, that accep certain axioms, that you atheist disagree with. I think my boy Plantinga at Notre Dame is actually in the process of coming out with a new approach to Theism by claiming that belief in God can be treated as an a priori belief.

---

There is no evidence for Christianity presented here that isn't just as terrible as the evidence for Zeus, Osiris, Lord Vishnu and a host of other gods both inventions of past and present with significant followers. Most had some mixture of there own revelations, miracles, human impreganations, significance of stellar occurances, heroic deeds, scarifices, resurrections, the list goes on. Whats different about Christianity other than you beleive it to be true and the others false?

To argue as you have done about the Catholic church flies in the face of all the evidence. Is it evil? I don't know but it covers up child rape of small boys and girls by its own preists, surpresses the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids and actively discriminates against people it doesn't like (homosexuals for instance). I would say that it is a twisted and hypocritical institution at best. As for it standing in the face of Hitler, that really is laughable. It managed to celebrate Hitlers birthday from every catholic pulpit, turned a blind eye to the jewish question, and cannodled with Hitler regularly. All Nazi catholics remained catholics until the end except one. Its one act of contrition was to ex-communicate Goebbels, because he married a protestant (Magda). Yes the catholic church does have standards, just not the ones I recognize.

Well between your opinion and Einstein's (who actually lived through the horror) I'm going to go with Einstein. Concerning condoms. The Pope recently stated, what the Church has always recognized, and that is that although ultimately condom use is evil, outside of extraordinary curcumstances, it can be a first step of morality. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that willful prostituion should not be forced to end by the State because it would create more evil than good, becuase bad people would do it anyway, and more violently, against women who had not chosen that kind of life. Likewise, one can use condoms if they plan to disobey teh Church anyway. The Church recognizes that it is less evil to use a condom than to not use a condom in the case of AIDs being transmitted through intercourse or something similar.

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks….
.
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
.
- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38

---

There is no evidence for Christianity presented here that isn't just as terrible as the evidence for Zeus, Osiris, Lord Vishnu and a host of other gods both inventions of past and present with significant followers. Most had some mixture of there own revelations, miracles, human impreganations, significance of stellar occurances, heroic deeds, scarifices, resurrections, the list goes on. Whats different about Christianity other than you beleive it to be true and the others false?

To argue as you have done about the Catholic church flies in the face of all the evidence. Is it evil? I don't know but it covers up child rape of small boys and girls by its own preists, surpresses the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids and actively discriminates against people it doesn't like (homosexuals for instance). I would say that it is a twisted and hypocritical institution at best. As for it standing in the face of Hitler, that really is laughable. It managed to celebrate Hitlers birthday from every catholic pulpit, turned a blind eye to the jewish question, and cannodled with Hitler regularly. All Nazi catholics remained catholics until the end except one. Its one act of contrition was to ex-communicate Goebbels, because he married a protestant (Magda). Yes the catholic church does have standards, just not the ones I recognize.

Well between your opinion and Einstein's (who actually lived through the horror) I'm going to go with Einstein. Concerning condoms. The Pope recently stated, what the Church has always recognized, and that is that although ultimately condom use is evil, outside of extraordinary curcumstances, it can be a first step of morality. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that willful prostituion should not be forced to end by the State because it would create more evil than good, becuase bad people would do it anyway, and more violently, against women who had not chosen that kind of life. Likewise, one can use condoms if they plan to disobey teh Church anyway. The Church recognizes that it is less evil to use a condom than to not use a condom in the case of AIDs being transmitted through intercourse or something similar.

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks….
.
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
.
- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38