What religion are you?

I really wouldn't call Atheism a guess. An atheist looks at religion and says " There is no evidence to conclude this deity exists, therefore I will not believe in it, or any other. It's like anything else. I do not see a red ball on the floor, so I can conclude there is no red ball on the floor.

Theism is a guess based on faith.

That works both ways. A theist can say "There is no evidence to conclude this deity doesn't exist, therefore I believe in it".
 
There is evidence, but not enough to make it a fact (only a high probability), which still allows the questioning of his existence. Adding to that, one's faith in Jesus does not add extra evidence to his existence.
Yeah, it's the ol' sailor story.

You have a crew go out to sea and come back saying they saw a 100 foot octopus. The whole crew who was there says they saw it, but no one else was around. Is it really a fact there was a 100 foot octopus just because the only people who could of been around said there was?
 
I'm pretty sure there was a Jesus, even though I don't believe all the records about the things he supposedly did, because someone had to start the religion.
 
^Yeah.

There probably was an octopus, but not a 100 foot one.

Charles Manson probably was the guy to start the religion(s), and used this to make himself sound greater than he really was. Oh, did I say Charles Manson? I meant Jesus!
 
There is evidence, but not enough to make it a fact (only a high probability), which still allows the questioning of his existence. Adding to that, one's faith in Jesus does not add extra evidence to his existence.

The same rule applies for most historical figures. There's no evidence except historical records that claims that Caesar conquered an empire, so why should doubt be cast over Jesus' existence and foundation of a religion without any disbelief regarding Caesar's achievements? I'm talking about irregardless of whether or not Jesus comitted miracles, he certainly created a massive impact on the world at that time.
 
That works both ways. A theist can say "There is no evidence to conclude this deity doesn't exist, therefore I believe in it".

It really shouldn't work both ways. Religion is based on making a claim of something's existence with no evidence whatsoever. It rewards irrational thought.
 
It really shouldn't work both ways. Religion is based on making a claim of something's existence with no evidence whatsoever. It rewards irrational thought.

Most religious people would say that they do have evidence for their belief. Sure, you can't run some lab experiment to prove God or any particular religion, but evidence can take many forms.
 
Most religious people would say that they do have evidence for their belief. Sure, you can't run some lab experiment to prove God or any particular religion, but evidence can take many forms.

They're confusing knowledge with faith.
 
Well, if a religious person prays for a sick person and the person gets healed, they might say that they have evidence. They had faith that the person would be healed, but after the healing, they could say they have evidence. That's all I'm saying.
 
The same rule applies for most historical figures. There's no evidence except historical records that claims that Caesar conquered an empire, so why should doubt be cast over Jesus' existence and foundation of a religion without any disbelief regarding Caesar's achievements? I'm talking about irregardless of whether or not Jesus comitted miracles, he certainly created a massive impact on the world at that time.

I'm not saying Jesus never existed, since I wouldn't be surprised if a man named Jesus did exist at that time while fitting the description, believing he was the son of God (similar to the Holy messengers you see floating around these days, claiming to have seen God and performing impossible miracles), when he probably wasn't.

Twilight Hero said:
Well, if a religious person prays for a sick person and the person gets healed, they might say that they have evidence. They had faith that the person would be healed, but after the healing, they could say they have evidence. That's all I'm saying.

Not much of evidence when someone is able to provide a much more logical explanation for her healing. A lady gets a zit on her face, and she then begins to pray for it to go away... eventually it does (naturally), causing her to now claim evidence that there is a God because her zit eventually disappeared after she prayed. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the explanation for Jesus' healing miracles..

Point being... Faith is not Knowledge. Faith is what one wishes to be true, feelings that distort a reality, while knowledge shows what is actually real.

One will have faith in God that their sick mother will heal if they perform good deeds, and obey their parents.. When in reality, the sick mother will just get better after taking her medication and getting much needed rest.
 
Last edited:
Point being... Faith is not Knowledge. Faith is what one wishes to be true, feelings that distort a reality, while knowledge shows what is actually real.
no, faith is believing in what cannot be proven. theism and atheism are both believed upon faith. even faith can be brought toward knowledge. every time you sit down on a chair, you have faith that it will support you. if you open a fresh bottle of milk, you have faith that it will not be sour. faith does not only represent supernatural belief or knowledge.
 
Back
Top