Christians: Does the atheist's request for more evidence remind you of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?

Yes, it does. You are absolutely correct. Romans 1:28 God Bless

Rick - civility is not the problem nor is there a lack of empathy. As I see it the problem is that we are not using the same meanings for things. Specifically you do not seem to understand the difference in meaning between "parable" (fiction) and "evidence" (fact).

Don't take my word for it -- I would much prefer you actually look them up in a dictionary some time. When you do, you will discover that a parable is typically defined as "a short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle".

The key word here being "fictitious" and therefore ***not*** a fact.

While evidence is defined as being "a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". The key word there being "facts".

When we ask for a evidence that means we actually want a fact; not more hearsay.

If I claim electricity can be used to make light and you say "prove it", I do not say "well I read in a book that was true..." Instead I actually get a battery and a bit of wire and a light bulb and show you that what I say is true. If you don't actually have any facts then why does it surprise you that we do not take your claim seriously.

To most atheists it isn't about preaching it's the lack of evidence, because any claim that is asserted without evidence to support it, is simply dismissed without any requirement for further debate.

Rick, why do you say that we request more evidence? At the moment, we have no evidence for the existence of God, apart from personal experiences of believers that cannot be accepted as objective evidence. For example, if I come to you and say i had a dream where Zeus told me that he is real, would you believe, or would you just say "It was just a dream?".

The other 'evidence' that you suggest are:

-The bible. But the bible can be a religious book just like any other. It has no verified sources, it was written many years ago and it has many contradictions in it (Let's be honest here).

-Miracles. Like people having cancer and being cured. I don't see why that would suggest that god played any part in it? If you have the flu and you get well do you believe god did it? No, because you know exactly how your immune system got rid of the virus. So why do you use your god to fill the gaps that science hasn't explained yet.

-Faith. Faith is totally subjective and cannot be proven to others. Also, faith is the idea to believe in something without evidence so that can be easily use to believe in anything (ghosts, fairies). Why do you use faith only to defend god? Just because it is a most popular subject?

I don't know if i have missed something but that is all we have seen from you as evidence. So tell me, from you point of view, do you think that is enough? For me it is not.

p.s.: Have you realized that the exact kind of 'evidence' are used by all other religions to prove their god?

Jesus' parables would have been in keeping with each-day happenings that folk would desire to narrate to, yet they have been memories, made as much as illustrate a reality, to coach people. The exciting ingredient approximately Luke sixteen:19 to the tip is this is the only time Jesus assigns a recognition to between the characters in his tale. Oh, and a pair of characters from historic previous additionally are pointed out - Abraham and Moses. Jesus' listeners knew finished properly that Abraham and Moses have been historic people. They prided themselves in being descendants of Abraham, and in preserving the Mosaic rules! they could even have ordinary a particular man or woman observed as Lazarus who equipped the define Jesus gave. Now, as quickly as Larazus and the wealthy guy die, an odd ingredient occurs with the story. It switches from activities on earth (literal activities) to activities previous death (which won't be able to be taken actually). Then we study of issues like a request for a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus's finger to relax the tongue of the wealthy guy. properly, if the flames have been that warm, the drop of water could have evaporated till now it have been given everywhere close to the guy's tongue! And there became a great chasm isolating them; no one would desire to bypass it. the wealthy guy persevered attempting to boss God and Lazarus around by ability of asking that Lazarus be sent to warn his brothers at homestead. No, became the respond; his brothers (like him) had Moses and the prophets (interior the Hebrew scriptures). in the event that they did no longer hear to them, neither could they hear if somebody back from the ineffective with warnings approximately hell. If we draw close that hell is yet another measurement, previous our adventure, then we could get the draw close of this. additionally, if all of us know that Jesus' listeners believed the departed souls of the ineffective went to an living house that became divided right into a place of torment and a place of bliss ('the bosom of Abraham') with a great chasm or chaos between them, then it's going to make experience. That concept became taught by ability of the Rabbinic faculties of Shamai and Hillel - modern-day till now, for the time of and after Jesus' lifetime. this means that it is not important in spite of if the account is literal or parabolic - or slightly the two. The truths Jesus is coaching are eternal truths. And he back effective from the ineffective, yet what number each physique is arranged to have confidence what he warned us of?

From 2 angles I can say yes to this because most atheist from my opinion are those that say must see to believe, and mock verses from the bible. But you can also consider this too some atheist take the time to read the bible before standing against christians because they read about Jesus strip the miracles from him and ask us why arent we like him. So its kind of like a how can you expect us to change if you won't change

Even if someone were to come back from the dead, I suspect that people (or at least a lot of people) would still insist on a natural explanation.

Peace be with you.

But we don't have plenty of evidence. We have once piece of evidence, the revelatory holy book, and then the whole of the universe arguing against it. That's the point: we're not ignoring the evidence, we're balancing it.

That's still not credible evidence of God's existence.

Not more evidence, just a teeny weeny bit please.

Really? What is your evidence? I proved no point. Give me something, I'll listen.