I anticipated you’d suggest No True Scotsman but that concerns actions. I’m talking about reasoning and facts. That’s what I was getting at with my “Mathematician” argument earlier. I’m saying that there are people going around calling themselves Christian and don’t have an objective basis for doing so.
Going back to the point though, my main argument is that you threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m saying you didn’t leave Christianity because you didn’t really have it to begin with. You left a dressed-up ape of Christianity which seemed like a silly ape and rightly so. But you went too far.
“actual evidence” and “reasonable evidence” you say. What evidence would be convincing to you? I can provide documentation of miracles which are irrefutable, and provide extremely high confidence in the existence of a supernatural God. I can provide logical argumentation that provides sufficient objective grounds for claim knowledge (not just belief) of God (in the same way you know that gravity won’t suddenly stop and that the sun will come up tomorrow) which is the best quality of proof you’re going to get this side of the veil, I’m afraid.
I ask this because in my experience with many atheists, they move the goalpost a lot such that there is nothing sufficient to convince them and they create an impossible standard of evidence that they don’t apply to anything else, even science itself. So I want to make sure we’re in the same universe of discourse here.