Do atheists/christians really care about evidence?

Leaving Christianity was not a change of heart for me. It was the result of a process of delving deeper into things and reaching a conclusion based on the answers I came up w/.

I've looked into a decent number of religions since then, and while I find them fascinating, it's just not right for me, at least not at this point in my life. I couldn't join a religion and find myself in good conscience.

Did I answer the question?

Evidence is extremely important. To be considered as evidence it has to be testable i.e. be used in such a way that it can test a particular idea or theory to either confirm it or refute it.

By following evidence, theories can be built up, so predictions can be made. If future evidence confirms the predictions, confidence in the theory grows. If it contradicts, confidence plummets, and the theory has to be reworked or scrapped altogether.

We cannot accept there will ever be absolute proof. To do so would be to say "right, this is finalised", and hence disallow any future evidence that might be significant. It's closing down the use of evidence.

As for changing sides on something: if I encounter evidence that convinces me, then of course I would. Who wouldn't? Well, only the people that don't use evidence in the first place, but assumption and faith.

Every time a new argument is made, it doesn't mean it works. Arguments have to be treated on merit only, and analysed in the context of current understanding. Again, the key is evidence. No scientist is going to believe in any claimed mystery planet unless evidence of it is found. Then everyone will be jumping on the evidence to test its veracity, and also finding telescopes to carry out their own observations to collect new evidence.

While emotions can give you fire in your belly, it cannot decide issues for you. For that you need cool, reasoned intellect.

I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian or Catholic who had made me question my beliefs or more so disbelief in God. If Jesus, however, or God, were to appear themselves to me and prove that they were in fact the ultimate creator of the universe then I shall believe. However, it wouldn't change my morals or my thoughts. I would only solely know that I wasn't made of randomness. Although, such events of the divine appearing to the doubtful, the scientists, evolutionists, atheists, etc. haven't occurred. So I continue to believe that those "prophets" are advertisers for the richest market in the world (religion). I also continue to believe that people would like to know that they will always have a reason. Weather it is a reason to be right, a reason to be wrong, a reason to live, a reason to die, etc. I think those who do not want evidence are those who don't want to lose safety in what they are comfortable with. Where as I am most comfortable in knowing nothing is for sure, regardless of my beliefs of how things work.

I am open to anything. Isn't that what Atheism is? If the God came back down to earth I would be the first on my knees. But by studying the history of religion I believe that there would be no need for me to do that. If convincing FACT were to happen, that could change things though

Edit: "it's so clear now" you do realize that the new testament was not written while things were happening... it was written by people after all the events... you do know this right? Oh and you are being what you accuse us of :)

Both care about the truth!!

The christians to deny it and all the evidence for it and the athesits to embrace it!!

In simple terms academia states that in the absence of proof of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!

Pilot is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!!

At best he was an amalgam of those others!!

The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god!!! He also organized Christianity into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely Italian!!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until many years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books long after they were dead?

What a wonder full disinformation and deception campaign he waged against his Christian enemies - so good in fact that Christians are still following the deception to this day!!!

The first person to provide a shred of verifiable evidence for God will become world famous and mega rich!! Ain't happened yet and it never will!!

Acceptance of a supernatural claim tends to promote cooperative social relationships. This communication demonstrates a willingness to accept, without scepticism, the influence of the speaker in a way similar to a child's acceptance of the influence of a parent. By encouraging this kind of behavior where the most intense social relationships occur it facilitates the lack of skeptcism and deters more open minded thinking.

They are christian because they were indoctrinated by their parents as very young children. They will go on to indoctrinate their own children and those will go on to indoctrinate their grandchildren!!

Chrsitian indoctrination keeping them from the ethists grasp of education!!

There is a great dichotomy between belief structures and anomalies.

Our knowledge in terms of emerging discoveries advances daily.

Each new discovery that fails to support one belief structure, cannot fit into the pattern, strengthens it's opposing viewpoint, suggests no pattern.

Doubtless, the debates will rage on ad inifinitum.

Excellent question. I think that there is a strange duality about people. Have you ever heard the parable of the two dogs?

It has been said that there are two dogs living inside each and every one of us. One is good, the other is evil. They are always fighting. They are killing one another. Which one wins- is it the one we feed the most?

We sometimes rely on intellect when we need to listen to emotion, and we sometimes rely on emotion when we should be listening to intellect.

I think your observations ring true. We decide whether or not to believe in God predicated on our emotions, not our intellect.

Some people are close minded like this, but some people do change positions by logical arguments. I used to be a gun-rights believer...until I read about gun statistics and their psychological effect on users.

Yes, I really do care about the evidence. However, when the evidence is "just faith" or from an unreliable source, I can dismiss it.

@ It's so clear now!: How many ranches did you have to go to to scrape up that much BS? You say there are volumes and volumes of evidence, yet you don't cite any. You say we atheists have no morals. If that were true, we'd see many, MANY atheists in jail. So were are your tons of atheists in jail? I suggest you stop projecting.

I don't. Just don't expect me to believe in something without evidence, just because someone else says so. I don't assume that there is a God. Until someone shows me evidence to the contrary I will have no reason to believe that there is a God.