It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian

In this debate we are considering whether it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. The terms “atheist” and “Christian” specifically refer to people, as distinct from atheism itself or Christianity itself. While atheism itself does not demand belief in evolution, both atheists and Christians, as people, do place trust and confidence in their respective belief about the origin of mankind and our surroundings. In this debate about trust and confidence, it is therefore relevant to compare these respective beliefs, and I thank Con for participating in discussion of evolution so far.Here I offer some final rebuttal and my case.REBUTTALThe talkorigins.org source states, “Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting.”Rebuttal: “Creationists actually have a very robust definition of information (see "In the Beginning was Information") and it is the evolutionists who want to make information more vague... Gitt defines information beyond this statistical level, dealing with syntax (structure), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (intended action) and apobetics (intended result). DNA encompasses all five levels, and mutation while it can add 'static' does not add information.”[ref-4]Con alleged, “Pro has obviously lied when he claimed that his citation says nothing about an increase in information by simply ignoring 80% of the text and scrolling down to a paragraph that speaks of a different aspect”Rebuttal: I trust any careful examination of this allegation will find it to be baseless. It is NOT a lie, nor is it quote-mining. I did NOT claim that my citation says nothing about an increase in information. Rather, I pointed to the specific part of the http://www.talkorigins.org... webpage which demonstrates that Con has clearly misrepresented the four academic papers cited in round-1. MY CASEEyewitness evidence is being reported to us every day in the news media across the world. When we ‘Google it’, the information we find is based upon the observations and findings of people. In recent history we also have the benefit of eyewitness evidence recorded in the form of images or video, and such images usually rely on the witnesses to provide the date, context and location. Recorded eyewitness evidence forms the best information we have about what happened in events like September 11 or World War 2. Con asked if we would believe a self-professed recipient of 10 headshots whom we can see is alive. With this scenario Con is appealing to extremes (a fallacy), so of course I would not accept this friend’s testimony on face-value alone. If there were 500 other people who separately testify to seeing the incident as described by this friend, then it would certainly warrant much closer consideration. It would also help if this friend could show 20 scars from the bullet holes where each of the 10 bullets entered and exited his head. In the case of Jesus, his death was by public execution, over 500 later saw him alive at the same time and his scars were clearly tangible.[ref-5]Mere analysis of inanimate material found at or near the location of past event/s can provide some indication about what happened, but it often provides only piecemeal information and it must be considered along with any purported eyewitness evidence. In court a judge or jury errs to simply ignore or disregard corroborating testimony from the people who were there and saw what happened. It must be considered. Christians have considered the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and resurrection, and place trust and confidence in them. Atheists who haven’t considered the gospels demonstrate trust and confidence that they’re false. Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but we must realise that faith is being exercised.Reliability of the independently-written gospels has been scrutinised by numerous legal and historical experts, including in this article http://creation.com... as well as the book written by former atheist (now Christian) and legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel, called The Case for Christ. (http://www.amazon.com... ). Jesus’ followers abandoned and denied him to be executed. Yet they then had such a radical transformation that they started his Church and endured torture and execution for refusing to renounce their testimony. The Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of Treatise on the Law of Evidence, Dr Simon Greenleaf, came to this conclusion:"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead." (emphasis added) [ref-6]Meanwhile the purported eyewitness evidence for evolution is based upon genetic mutations akin to deleting a letter from a sentence represent more information.[ref-7] To believe that such mutations represent eyewitness evidence of evolution, requires a stretch of confidence and trust, and therefore a stretch of faith.“SPECTACULAR CLAIMS REQUIRE SPECTACULAR EVIDENCE”When Darwin introduced the theory of evolution it was a spectacular claim for the culture at the time. The idea of something being spectacular is subjective. If there is a higher threshold of evidence required for the "spectacular" claims of Christianity, that same threshold would mutually apply to evolutionary claims. For any atheists to whom it doesn’t, they surely commit a fallacy of inconsistent comparison.I thank Con for identifying missing link candidate Australopithecus sediba and including its picture. The author of the study into this specimen is paleoanthropologist Lee Berger. Leading paleoanthropologist (and Evolutionist) Tim White has blasted Berger’s subsequent book, The Official Field Guide to the Cradle of Humankind, labelling it as “in many ways worse than useless, given the astonishing density of errors and misleading statements”. White added that it showed a disturbing “pattern of fabrication”.[ref-8] (emphasis added)I have argued in this debate that the best evidence on which atheists rely, is made up. We know that the best "missing link" specimens are plastic with some incomplete bone fragments. The pro-evolution Smithsonian Institute itself admits that the fossil record only offers a fragmented look at the past. Take note that the “fragmented look”, is an observation made in the present.So should we base our core beliefs about life and death on what some mere pieces of bone look like according to some people who are not eyewitnesses, who disagree with other experts, and do not know for certain?Sir Isaac Newton observed:“Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.”For the spectacular claims of atheism, would the plastic skeletons be among its idols? To trust and have confidence in unquestionably fabricated evidence, amounts to extreme faith. For the atheists who go one step further and actually fabricate the evidence to support their belief, this demonstrates the most extreme level of faith. CITATIONS[ref-4] http://www.creationconversations.com...[ref-5] John 20:27 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8[ref-6] Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29 [ref-7] http://creationwiki.org...(Talk.Origins)[ref-8] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...