Evidence for Christianity [SPLIT TOPIC].

[Frenger]

How is this STILL going on.

Engelbert, please answer this.

Christianity is;

A - The belief in Jesus Christ being god incarnate who died for our sins
B - The belief in the Bible

 

[Engelbert]

How is this STILL going on.

Engelbert, please answer this.

Christianity is;

A - The belief in Jesus Christ being god incarnate who died for our sins
B - The belief in the Bible

Both. It depends how you'd like to define it. And I fear that no-body is going to agree. I did just amend an assumption about me being a Christian, but I don't think I will be going much farther. It is tiresome, as you seemingly suggest.

 

[Frenger]

You see, I would say only A, because B is only relevant if A is true, whereas A could still be true without B being true. And that is the point . B needs A, but A doesn't need B.

I know you're not a Christian if that helps?

 

[Engelbert]

You see, I would say only A, because B is only relevant if A is true, whereas A could still be true without B being true. And that is the point . B needs A, but A doesn't need B.

I know you're not a Christian if that helps?

Well that's one means of argument. In such an instance, you might reach the conclusion that there is no evidence. You might argue in such a case that there is still evidence for part of this claim, though not for the other part, in which case there is 'some' evidence. There is certainly no proof, but proof has never been a thing that I have asserted. Evidence is a different thing. But Christianity does not exist as one claim in isolation, therefore to define it in such a way is insufficient. It is a conglomerate of claims. How would Christians know that Jesus was Christ without prophecy and the OT? The OT is fundamental to the religion. It's one big spider's web of claims and ideas, some dependent on others, some in isolation, but so many are important for the overall construct to exist. So, evidence for any of these claims is evidence for Christianity. As I have said many times; this evidence may be vastly insufficient, but that it exists at all is the point.

 

[Inferno]

Assumption is never a great place to start. You wrongly assume that I am a Christian.

My apologies. The way you latch onto your falsehoods made me assume as much.

I'm sure that there are more overall, credible religions than Christianity, so I won't be disputing your points there, although they are irrelevant to the point that I have been making.

They may be irrelevant to the point you were making, but your point was irrelevant to the question posed. I merely tried to get it back on topic.
I'll remind you: "any evidence to show that your favorite fables are any more accurate than any other man-made mythology".

Notice how the two underlined statements are contradictory?
Surely you must admit that your point was unrelated to the question. You must further admit that I was on topic. Finally, you already admitted that you can't possibly disagree with the challenge, the part I underlined and made red.

As such: Thank you, I was right.

 

[Frenger]

But Christianity does not exist as one claim in isolation,

No, but the other claims are contingent on Jesus' divinity.

therefore to define it in such a way is insufficient.

Christianity makes additional claims, but these are reliant on the idea that Jesus is a divine little so and so. While snakes talking would be slightly odd, alone it does nothing to support Christianity, the same with a virgin birth, the same with an afterlife. These are additional claims but hold no relevance to the validity of Christianity.

It is a conglomerate of claims.

See above.

How would Christians know that Jesus was Christ without prophecy and the OT?

The New testament.

The OT is fundamental to the religion

I would say not so much, as the prophecy isn't even that well set out anyway.

It's one big spider's web of claims and ideas, some dependent on others, some in isolation, but so many are important for the overall construct to exist.

But the thing is, these additional parts don't do anything to support Christianity, only Jesus' divinity does. If you present me with a talking snake and a virgin birth, I still wouldn't be a Christian. I'd still be exactly where I am.

So, evidence for any of these claims is evidence for Christianity. As I have said many times; this evidence may be vastly insufficient, but that it exists at all is the point.

It's not insuffiecient, it's irrelevant. That's the point I'm making.

 

[Prolescum]

So...

AronRa is relatively popular.
AronRa uses the phrase there is no evidence for Christianity.
Engelbert believes that due to his popularity, AronRa should retract and reword the phrase.

This is because:
Engelbert believes that the phrase is not quite true.
Engelbert believes the phrase is a polemic.

Then:
Engelbert asserts that this is deliberate.
Engelbert further asserts that it is probably designed to enflame Christianity's proponents.

And:
AronRa agrees that it is deliberate.
AronRa disputes that it is designed to enflame by saying it is designed to focus in on several related issues (which he lists), but namely the fulcrum of Christianity, Jesus Christ and his divinity.

The audience generally agrees with AronRa's position.

So:
Engelbert goes on to show why he believes the phrase is not-quite-true.
Engelbert neglects the reason for bringing up the phrase issue in the first place.

That's pretty much it, right?

I would be interested in reading the argument behind the rest of Engelbert's reasoning.

 

[Nemesiah]

@Engelbert

Ok, so, you admit that christianity's supernatural claims are false (or most likely false)

Also you admit that many of christianity's historical claims are incorrect.

So, which of christianity's claims do you believe are true?

I ask this so that we can have a list of plausble claims (those that you find plausible) and see if those claims describe christianity in any way.

For the record I think that christianity needs a magical jew walking on watter and rising the dead for it to be a religion (along with a talking snake, an old man living inside a whale, and a boat containing 2 or 7 of each animal) this is not because I want to be rigid about it but because one of the foundational claims of christianity s that the bible is god inspired and thus perfect (or at least accurate).

If the religion said "hey, this might not be true but is the best we've got" then it would become prety much bullet proof since by their own admision they would enfazise other aspects within their religion (like the so called 'moral' teachings of a raving lunatic that advocated leaving your family to go follow him, hitting your slaves withot hitting them too strongly and allow others to trample you since giving the other cheeck works so well for the disenfranchised) however, their religion has always been claimed to be true because they have this magical book (Obama swore his seccond term on a bunch of these to make it extra holy) that was inspired by god and is thus truthfull (a must I believe when you start making claims that no one can verify in any way) so the enfasis on the magical and semi historical claims is put there by the people pushing the religion like one would push crack coccaine on a school.

 

[Vivre]

I have responded to so many of your posts that it has become tiresome. I did not cherry pick until the last one or two posts, because it is a never ending story. And I didn't really cherry pick the last one. I got halfway through and then left the rest.

You have no idea what a hell it is to follow through your postings.

You don't have to read them. I mean it's nice of you if you'd like to, but I don't mean to annoy you and you don't have to read them.

How generous.
I wished you had taken consideration for me and many others in the previous thread not to force all your extended and re-reviving side-topic postings onto us while at the same time refusing 3 offers to move to a new separat thread and also pointing out you wouldn't have much to contribute anyway.

May I laugh? (No, don't answer - I'm free to allow it myself.)
I want to know why you have not been cut off and how the story ends.

To me this topic is not worthless, though pretty annoying for various effects, as I do get quite some insights into specific terms and subject areas, but even more onto technics of resistance and bigoted ignorance.

 

[Engelbert]

I wished you had taken consideration for me and many others in the previous thread not to force all your extended and re-reviving side-topic postings onto us while at the same time refusing 3 offers to move to a new separat thread and also pointing out you wouldn't have much to contribute anyway.

I didn't refuse. I accepted to move instantly. I had no problem if someone wanted me to move. Gnug asked and I accepted when he asked.

 

[Engelbert]

But Christianity does not exist as one claim in isolation,

No, but the other claims are contingent on Jesus' divinity.

therefore to define it in such a way is insufficient.

Christianity makes additional claims, but these are reliant on the idea that Jesus is a divine little so and so. While snakes talking would be slightly odd, alone it does nothing to support Christianity, the same with a virgin birth, the same with an afterlife. These are additional claims but hold no relevance to the validity of Christianity.

It is a conglomerate of claims.

See above.

How would Christians know that Jesus was Christ without prophecy and the OT?

The New testament.

The OT is fundamental to the religion

I would say not so much, as the prophecy isn't even that well set out anyway.

It's one big spider's web of claims and ideas, some dependent on others, some in isolation, but so many are important for the overall construct to exist.

But the thing is, these additional parts don't do anything to support Christianity, only Jesus' divinity does. If you present me with a talking snake and a virgin birth, I still wouldn't be a Christian. I'd still be exactly where I am.

So, evidence for any of these claims is evidence for Christianity. As I have said many times; this evidence may be vastly insufficient, but that it exists at all is the point.

It's not insuffiecient, it's irrelevant. That's the point I'm making.

I won't be going much further with this, as it will probably be endless. You say that many of its claims are contingent on Jesus' divinity. This is true, but not all of its claims. But it is also true to say that Jesus' divinity is contingent on many other claims dating further back. So evidence for any of these claims, would be evidence for Christianity. Of course, for the preceding sentence to be agreeable, we would have to agree on the definition of Christianity. It would also be true that, even without Jesus' divinity there are essential claims made in Christianity. Evidence for such claims is evidence for a claim in Christianity. Evidence for such claims do nothing for Christianity, if you define Christianity as 'just' the supernatural, or 'just' the divinity of Jesus, but since additional definitions of Christianity certainly exist, then in any such case, evidence for peripheral claims would be evidence for Christianity. I have argued that Christianity is a broad construct and it appears to be that the Bible is inclusive in one of Aronra's original definitions too (point 5). An extremely broad definition including things such as churches, people and buildings would certainly have evidence, but this is not quite as broad as I have argued for. So part of the key problem is how you define Christianity. I have defined it as a broad construct, (but not even in its broadest sense including buildings and people, just its array of claims, theology and texts) as that is how I think most people would hear the word if it was uttered in the street or in many other places (or perhaps in an even broader sense).

 

[Engelbert]

So...

AronRa is relatively popular.
AronRa uses the phrase there is no evidence for Christianity.
Engelbert believes that due to his popularity, AronRa should retract and reword the phrase.

This is because:
Engelbert believes that the phrase is not quite true.
Engelbert believes the phrase is a polemic.

Then:
Engelbert asserts that this is deliberate.
Engelbert further asserts that it is probably designed to enflame Christianity's proponents.

And:
AronRa agrees that it is deliberate.
AronRa disputes that it is designed to enflame by saying it is designed to focus in on several related issues (which he lists), but namely the fulcrum of Christianity, Jesus Christ and his divinity.

The audience generally agrees with AronRa's position.

So:
Engelbert goes on to show why he believes the phrase is not-quite-true.
Engelbert neglects the reason for bringing up the phrase issue in the first place.

That's pretty much it, right?

I would be interested in reading the argument behind the rest of Engelbert's reasoning.

This is essentially correct. Engelbert may be in error on some fronts, but engelbert, does believe he had made 'some' points of validity. Engelbert was dismissed and reviled by Aronra in every sense on this issue. No acknowledgement was made that Christianity could be defined in different ways and when given such a different interpretation, evidence could be found or something of such nature (well, an acknowledgement was made that there would obviously be evidence for Christianity in its broadest definition I think, but I don't think either of us disputed this). He did explain what he meant by Christianity, but even that has changed at times, as can be illustrated by point (5) "any evidence to show that your favorite fables are any more accurate than any other man-made mythology." of one of Inferno's recent posts. This would seemingly reference any fable, yes? So any fable/narrative in scripture (OT or NT), would be a fair interpretation, though a different interpretation could be argued for. I did assert that it was a phrase of controversy. It is used in this thread as a weapon, but perhaps has been explained, but on a wider basis when it is used it lacks the explanation and could be the source of confusion. I would generally use the term Christianity in a broader sense than simply, 'the divinity of Christ'.

 

[Dustnite]

I would generally use the term Christianity in a broader sense than simply, 'the divinity of Christ'.

Sorry, you're wrong. Factually, biblically, philosophically, (maybe not fractally although I'm starting to wonder).

I get where you are trying to go with your argument, it just doesn't work when addressing the main point of AronRa's statement. Your entire argument screams of semantics nitpicking and statements like above are only reinforcing that view of said argument.

 

[Engelbert]

I would generally use the term Christianity in a broader sense than simply, 'the divinity of Christ'.

Sorry, you're wrong. Factually, biblically, philosophically, (maybe not fractally although I'm starting to wonder).

I get where you are trying to go with your argument, it just doesn't work when addressing the main point of AronRa's statement. Your entire argument screams of semantics nitpicking and statements like above are only reinforcing that view of said argument.

To be clear, - and I have already stated some of the following to australopithecus twice on the previous page - since that might be desirable to bring this to a close: If you define Christianity as ‘just’ the ‘supernatural’ or as ‘just’ the divinity of Christ, then it is ‘probably’ true to say there is no evidence that would satisfy a medium or higher standard. If you define the phrase differently, in most broader senses, perhaps bringing in the wider scriptures (natural & supernatural) and any definition wider of this, then I would say that it is false. I did evade the definition given somewhat (though it has been amended to suit at times), largely for the reasons you suspect. I would have made some greater concession a while ago, had there been any indication, that perhaps I may have had a point with regards to wider definitions, its use as an attack and its potential to be misinterpreted when used on a wider basis rather than full blown rejection and derision from Aronra. Any concession of any of this, might have brought a change from me far sooner. Part of my problem was the hostility. Why will Christians be encouraged to surrender their beliefs amid such derision and abuse? To recoil, defend, deny and retreat might be a far more likely response. Hostility causes reactionary hostility, of which I am guilty and I will apologise. Perhaps there was no acceptance of my position because the latter parts are still disputed. If that is the case, then since I actually think there is merit to them, that might always be a sticking point.

 

[Dustnite]

[ To be clear, - and I have already stated some of the following to australopithecus twice on the previous page - since that might be desirable to bring this to a close: If you define Christianity as ‘just’ the ‘supernatural’ or as ‘just’ the divinity of Christ, then it is ‘probably’ true to say there is no evidence. If you define the phrase differently, in most broader senses, perhaps bringing in the wider scriptures (natural & supernatural) and any definition wider of this, then I would say that it is false. I did evade the definition given somewhat (though it has been amended to suit at times), largely for the reasons you suspect. I would have made some greater concession a while ago, had there been any indication, that perhaps I may have had a point with regards to wider definitions, its use as an attack and its potential to be misinterpreted when used on a wider basis rather than full blown rejection and derision from Aronra. Any concession of any of this, might have brought a change from me far sooner. Part of my problem was the hostility. Why will Christians be encouraged to surrender their beliefs amid such derision and abuse? To recoil, defend, deny and retreat might be a far more likely response. Hostility causes reactionary hostility, of which I am guilty and I will apologise. Perhaps there was no acceptance of my position because the latter parts are still disputed. If that is the case, then since I actually think there is merit to them, that might always be a sticking point.

Hostile reactions to such deliberate statements may happen, but that doesn't give you the right to redefine Christianity to the point that it could apply to any religion in existence. The point should be to get people thinking about all this stuff instead of trying to appease their sensibilities.

 

[Engelbert]

I do not water down Christianity to such a degree. A broad definition, that includes all Christian scripture, text, teaching and theology, would only apply to Christianity. It could not include other religions unless they were subsets of Christianity.

 

[Dustnite]

I do not water down Christianity to such a degree. A broad definition, that includes all Christian scripture, text, teaching and theology, would only apply to Christianity. It could not include other religions unless they were subsets of Christianity.

I still think you're deliberately refusing to see how bad your argument is. You still haven't effectively explained why the statement, "If New York exists and Spiderman lives in New York, Spiderman exists," [doesn't apply to your argument] because you keep circling back onto this.

By your logic Christianity encompasses the Torah because the Bible is a subset of that and the Quran is a subset of the Bible and Torah because it references claims from both books. It's insane.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

After all we have discussed, you still don't get it.
Even if your were not asked to present evidence for miraculous events (which you do require).
You still have nothing that qualifies under the standard of evidence that it is required of you. I.e. Something that would unlikely be true if the Christianity was based on a myth.
Yet knowing of this obstacles, you still insist in running head on against this brick wall.

 

[AronRa]

Engelbert may be in error on some fronts, but engelbert, does believe he had made 'some' points of validity. Engelbert was dismissed and reviled by Aronra in every sense on this issue.

You were neither dismissed nor reviled. I explained why you were wrong, and you refused to acknowledge or accept that. You provided no evidence supporting Christianity in any sense by any definition.

No acknowledgement was made that Christianity could be defined in different ways

I did acknowledge that you could define Christianity incorrectly, but I also clarified that it wouldn't make any difference; you didn't produce any evidence even for a re-interpreted misdefinition.

“There is no evidence for Christianity”

I have made no arguments about the supernatural; no arguments about souls; no arguments about immortality; no arguments about magic and no arguments about deities or divinity of any sort. These matters were the main subject you were discussing with another individual on the original thread. My sole criticism has been about a mantra you have used repeatedly in this discussion to attack the individual and that you use on a much wider basis too.

It is not a 'mantra'; it is a verifiable fact, which you have helped me demonstrate -even when -by your own admission- you avoided everything relevant.

So, pertaining to the issue at hand.

Christianity is a large and complex structure. It has many aspects, makes many claims and holds many beliefs. Some contradict, some concur, some are senseless, some are sensible, some are evidential, some are baseless.

Christianity makes all sorts of claims. It makes some supernatural claims. It makes some natural claims. It makes some historical claims. It makes some moral claims. It also makes claims of various other descriptions, perhaps including legal or more abstract philosophical issues. All or at least most are investigable to some degree.

Yes, and you provided no evidence to support any of the above. Others have explained this to you too. Even when you twist the definition trying to uproot the goalposts, there still isn't any evidence indicating Christianity, or you would have provided some by now. So let's hear you admit that the 'mantra' is simply the fact of the matter.

I have not claimed that Christianity is proven at any stage of this discussion. I have not declared that Christianity is complete truth or that it is largely true. I have maintained one simple stance and that has been, that there is “some” evidence for Christianity. Not that there is a deluge, or a cascade, or a “preponderance” of evidence in its favour, simply that there is “some”.

I didn't ask for an overwhelming preponderance of evidence; I said there was none at all -and that's how much you showed.

"Proof is a preponderance of evidence.” These were your exact words many posts ago. I would agree. There might be other definitions of proof, but this one seems perfectly fine. I have never asserted proof of Christianity. If your mantra read, “There is no ‘proof’ of Christianity.” I might be far more inclined to agree, though it is still a ‘slightly’ clumsy sentence, but far less contentious. If I had been arguing a proof that Christianity is true this whole time I would have been wrong, but I have been arguing a very different case.

I didn't ask for proof; I only asked for evidence. You produced zip.

I have presented several cases where there is indeed ‘evidence’ for the claims of Christianity.

Wrong. You produced not one single fact which was only concordant with Christian claims over any other option. You couldn't even produce evidence for an historical Jesus as a mere mortal. If you had, that wouldn't have mattered, for the reasons everyone here has already repeatedly explained. The point is you couldn't do even that much. There are no uncontested documents, nor anything whatsoever contemporaneous, which is what you would need to substantiate your assertion regarding the crucifixion. You produced nothing at all. Your failure is complete.

So is there any evidence at least to make a case for the existence of Jesus? The answer is yes of course.

No, the answer is irrelevant, but still no.

I have put this case before and I would forward it again as it is one of the key aspects of Christianity. Without Jesus you have nothing in the New Testament. Not the moral teachings, not the Crucifixion, not the resurrection.

And the point you keep ignoring is that WITH Jesus you STILL wouldn't have evidence of Christianity -for the same reason that Joseph Smith is not evidence of Mormonism.

And what is my religion ….pray?

At this moment, you were advocating Christianity.

You’ve provided no evidence to show that your compilation of fables is any more accurate than the scriptures of all other religions.

And what compilation of fables would that be? My copy of Plato’s Republic? Perhaps my copy of the Selfish Gene?

The one specified in the context of the question, Christian scriptures -as opposed to the scriptures of all other [non-Christian] religions.

Tell me, has being this obtuse every brought you benefit? Ever?

 

[Engelbert]

Aronra, I have essentially relinquished my position when considering the terms as you have defined them. I will apologise for any hostility from myself, although I don't think I have been the only guilty party. I did make some genuine and honest posts. I have been shown to be wrong on some of the points I made and have admitted as much. If I have not admitted as much previously, then I do so now, although I still retain a tiny measure of uncertainty, since there are anomalies and exceptions to the overall premise. I'm afraid that I still disagree with regards to different or broader definitions of Christianity and part of what I originally said. However, if you would like me to admit, that given the definitions outlined by yourself, that there is no evidence, then I do to a large degree. I think that there are some exceptions, but disregarding these then I accept your premise.