Re: The belief of the various flavors of atheism and/or agnosticism
Looking to understand your point of view from a reasoned perspective. This is about Christ specifically, based on what we know if Him via the bible.
Here we go
As I understand reason, there is no objective data that shows God does not exist.
There is no empirical evidence of the supernatural at all. That's not subjective.
But do go on....
If one lives as though God does not exist based on any of the various subjective interpretations of the evidences, is that not a de facto subjective belief that God does not exist?
Why do you assume that YOUR deity is the only option here?
There is no evidence that Brahma does not exist. There is no evidence that Allah does not exist. There is no evidence that Zoroaster does not exist.
Which one of these deities lacking all evidence of their existence is the one we're supposed to assume exists?
What I can't fathom is: "Based on science we know God does not exist."
OK then. Try this.
There is no evidence that unicorns actually exist. We have never found the tiniest scrap of evidence that they exist. No living unicorns, no photos, no skeletons, no fossils. And yet, we have no problem asserting that unicorns are not real.
There is no evidence that leprechauns actually exist. We have never found the tiniest scrap of evidence that they exist. No living leprechauns, no photos, no skeletons, no fossils. And yet, we have no problem asserting that leprechauns are not real.
There is no evidence that Santa Claus actually exists. We have never found the tiniest scrap of evidence that he exists. No photos, no radar, no satellite images of a workshop at the North Pole. And yet, we have no problem asserting that Santa Clause is not real.
No one classifies these as "subjective" interpretations of the evidence.
Keep in mind that people absolutely did believe quite seriously in unicorns, leprechauns, djinns, centaurs, fauns, ghosts, demon possession and all sorts of supernatural beasts. Some still do. And yet, we have few qualms about regarding such things as mythical.
Problem #1 is that to people who were not indoctrinated to believe, stories about Jesus (or some other religion) sound as outlandish as unicorns or Santa or djinns.
Next issue? We know that the universe was not created in 7 days. We know that dogs and giraffes and roaches evolved from common ancestors over millions of years, a truth not expressed by religious documents. We know that it is impossible to put two of every species onto a single ship, wait 40 days or 365 days or whatever it was, and have them repopulate the Earth. We know that the idea of an immaterial soul interacting with physical objects is a violation of the laws of physics. We know that humanity did not descend from one man and one woman less than 10,000 years ago. We know that claims about humans and gods interbreeding are centuries old, that claims of miracle workers were dime-a-dozen in the ancient world, the list goes on.
Problem #2 is that the claims made by the religions do, in fact, conflict with many facts we know about the world.
Related to these, but a distinct position, is typified by the Cosmic Teapot argument. To wit: I hereby claim there is a teapot, floating in space, somewhere between Mars and Earth. Whose responsibility is it to prove that it is, in fact, there? If you claim it is not there, do you have to prove it is not there? Or is it up to me to find empirical evidence that it is not there?
Problem #3 is the burden of proof. It lies not with the person who sees no evidence, and concludes X does not exist; it is with the person who sees no evidence, and claims that X exists.
Getting the picture yet?
