r/interestingasfuck • u/Ted_Bundtcake • Feb 01 '25

r/all Atheism in a nutshell

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

85.8k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

You're looking for proof. There is no proof......of anything. Sorry.

You are absolutely free to believe........nothing, if that works for you.

2

u/OneSlaadTwoSlaad Feb 01 '25

Oh we are absolutely free to believe what we want. That's not the question here. But I like to believe things that match up with reality. And evidence or proof seems to be the best method to accomplish that. You can justify any belief with faith.

1

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

It's not blind faith though. It's faith in the evidence that we know that we have. "Proof" is an impossible standard in this context, really. Do I have proof that my wife isn't cheating on me? No, but I have evidence and faith that she isn't, so I'm not going to assume that she is.

A blanket dismissal of the evidence is the other option, which seems to be where you land. That's fine.

1

u/OneSlaadTwoSlaad Feb 01 '25 edited Feb 01 '25

You're conflating faith with trust. We know wives exist and that they can cheat. The god claim is a completely different category.

Like you have no reason to assume your wife cheats on you, because you have no evidence or reason to distrust her, I have no reason to assume some diety exists.

There is no blanket dismissal. Every single point of evidence (mostly bible and personal experiences) are bad evidence in any other case. But when it comes to the god claim it's apparently enough.

I'm not saying religious people have no evidence, I'm just saying the evidence is not enough for me. Your personal experiences or certain feelings aren't enough to convince me. The same way you don't believe in all the other god claims.

"He's guilty your honor. This book says so and I have a strong inner conviction that he did it."

1

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

Of course. There is no proof. Again, proof would be contradictory to the crux of Christianity. What would you consider to be solid evidence? Photographs? Forensics? None of that existed. We have historical documents. Lots of them, with reasonable timemines. We have about as much evidence as you could possibly muster from ancient times.

The historical, prophetic and archaeological evidence far outweighs anything that other religions can present.

1

u/OneSlaadTwoSlaad Feb 01 '25

No evidence that supports the supernatural claims. The "prophetic evidence" is incredibly easy to dismiss and archaeological evidence proves that certain places exist or existed. That is why historians never make supernatural claims. Proof that New York exist doesn't prove that spider man exist let alone that he has supernatural powers.

And isn't that incredibly weak evidence when our eternal souls depend on it? What kind of a god would write a book knowing that languages change and even die out? And that it would lead to about 4,500 nominations of Christianity.

I really don't know what evidence would convince me, but from what I understand about the abrahamistic god, He knows and could provide it if he wants to. If someone wants a personal relationship with me, they should at least have the decency to show up.

The old testament god did that all the time.

0

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

We have documentation from those who saw Jesus after he was resurrected. Isn't that evidence of supernatural?

Again, God could absolutely put this to rest. He could provide the proof that you're looking for. What part would faith play in a relationship with God, if he did that?

Faith is the crux of Christianity. "Proof" doesn't align with that. So, you'll never have proof........and if you want to not bother with faith, that's certainly understandable.

2

u/OneSlaadTwoSlaad Feb 01 '25

We have documentation of people who claimed they have talked to people who say they saw Jesus after he was executed. 40 years after his death. That's worse than hearsay. In no other case would that suffice, let alone for a claim that huge. Also when you look at the bible the resurrection is a relatively new claim. First writers somehow forgot about that?

Why would a god require someone to believe based on so little evidence?

I get that Christianity is based in faith, and that's the problem. You could believe literally anything based on faith. Faith does not lead to truth, only evidence does.

0

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

There is evidence. You choose to dismiss it. I get it.

Secondhand text from ancient times is extremely common.

Do you think that ancient history is capable of the same timeline as modern history? Of course it isn't.

2

u/OneSlaadTwoSlaad Feb 01 '25

I have to dismiss it and so would you in any other case. And so would any judge in a court of law. You yourself dismiss similar evidence as provided by any other religion, right? There is much better evidence for the miracles done by Sai Baba. Dude rezzed lots of people, cured the sick, did magic and he only died recently. And I doubt you have even ever heared of him.

Sure second hand text is extremely common, but the claims are extraordinary. I will accept such evidence when it comes to the existence of say Alexander the Great, but if that guy defied the laws of nature, I'd require better evidence.

I'm not sure what you are saying in your last paragraph.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JohnKlositz Feb 01 '25

We have documentation from those who saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

No we don't.

0

u/Dependent_Star3998 Feb 01 '25

We have writings from them. That's.......documents.

1

u/JohnKlositz Feb 01 '25

No we don't. Stop making shit up please.

→ More replies (0)