Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

I came here to the forums to hear some real discussion on religion related issues which I cared about. However, I have been disappointed so far.

I don't hear any Christian defend their stance, all they do is attack others.

WHY?

Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

Don't listen to Baddog--he considers it an attack when he or any of the rest of the god superstition crowd post their silly stories, and get laughed at for having an imaginary friend. Don't do the deal unless you can get an impartial, outside judge.

If you do agree to it, though, you can start with threads such as "Atheists, your life is meaningless."

"...he considers it an attack when he or any of the rest of the god superstition crowd post their silly stories, and get laughed at for having an imaginary friend..."

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

So what impartial, outside judge - determined your description here:

Quote:

"...he considers it an attack when he or any of the rest of the god superstition crowd post their silly stories, and get laughed at for having an imaginary friend..."

Funny how that river doesn't flow both ways isn't it? (childish emoticon removed in the interest of good taste.)

My offer stands.

baddog1 wrote:

So what impartial, outside judge - determined your description here:

Quote:

"...he considers it an attack when he or any of the rest of the god superstition crowd post their silly stories, and get laughed at for having an imaginary friend..."

Funny how that river doesn't flow both ways isn't it? (childish emoticon removed in the interest of good taste.)

My offer stands.

I didn't assert that i am the impartial outside judge. The river certainly does flow both ways, if there is an impartial outside judge.

Your offer is meaningless, it's just the sort of whining we are used to from religionists here. When your thesis is fantastical, and you whine that you have been attacked when people laugh at your fantasies, you simply make yourself look a fool.

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

syn·es·the·sia also syn·aes·the·sia n.

1. A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color.
2. A sensation felt in one part of the body as a result of stimulus applied to another, as in referred pain.
3. The description of one kind of sense impression by using words that normally describe another.

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

No dodging there. That knife cuts both ways. I don't whine about meally-mouthed religionists who take pot shots at me for not believing their drivel. It is, however, common for religionists to whine that they have been attacked because someone has ridiculed their fairy stories.

Note the example you chose: he considers it an attack when he or any of the rest of the god superstition crowd post their silly stories, and get laughed at for having an imaginary friend. That remark does not characterize you in an insulting manner, and makes no comment on your worth, or lack thereof, as a person, for holding such silly beliefs.

You equate the criticism of what you believe with a personal attack. It is an unwarranted assumption, and evidence of precisely what i was saying. That you whine that you have been attacked whenever anyone criticizes your imaginary friend superstition.