Why believe without evidence?

my religious book made specific prophetic predictions that were fulfilled hundreds of years later

not particularly. There's not really evidence they were. Especially in the case of prophecies regarding Jesus' first coming. It's not like the Jewish scribes would let Christians add a bunch of stuff to the Jewish Scriptures.

If men in the 1200s predicted a man called the Lone Ranger would live in the western part of an undiscovered land and predicted he would fight evil men with handheld cannons and would wear a face covering, then a man was born in the location they spoke of, with weapons they spoke of, and fought people they spoke of, and lastly called himself the Lone Ranger, i would believe he was a real person. Yet that was the exact thing that happened to Jesus.

If I were to write a story that I wanted people to see as a factual account of historical events, including the doings and manifestations of a supernatural being and other miracles, and I wanted to epitomize the desirable behavior of a devotee of such a tale, I would include many verifiable accounts of real past events, but also descriptions of amazing predictions that came true, and I'd characterize my exemplary fellow as a selfless hero who, in the end, receives an eternal just dessert. 700 years later and who's to say it wasn't all true?

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. The Jews were extremely legalistic and wouldn’t let anyone near their sacred texts, which prophesy about Jesus’s coming hundreds of years later. The fact that the Jews followed the texts to the letter and didn’t change them is proof enough that the texts were indeed written when historians claim. The fact that everything about Jesus’s life on earth lines up with those prophesies proves he is the human form of the Abrahamic God.

well my friend, being told that these sacred texts were written thousands of years ago and that they couldn't have been altered by their keepers is neither a proof that they were written thousands of years ago nor that they remained unaltered. whatever else they may be, people are extremely human and subject to all kinds of less than honorable motivations.

the universe is full of miracles, observable on a daily basis, so I'm not saying they can't exist. but observability and testability are crucial aspects of credibility. I have claimed some outrageous things about the natural world, received with extreme skepticism (and occasional outrage) by my fellow scientists. but i'd never make such claims without observable, testable evidence of multiple sorts. You respect evidence, logic, and pattern since these are ingredients of a strong argument, and that is very, very good. but there's a lot of fraud in the world and those aspects are easily faked. observability and testability are our valuable tools of debunking.

Not to mention flawed reasoning. My favorite riposte to claims of prognostication is pointing out that even if a prediction turns out to be accurate, a correct guess does not a psychic make.

I understand your position but the fact that the Bible has stayed consistent through the period of the most rapid change is enough for me.

we're getting into hypotheticals and what-ifs. I find your lack of evidence disturbing.

usually, when we claim something is so, the burden of evidence rests with the claimer, not with the skeptics. i see that we're both satisfied, and that's good enough for me.

I am currently questioning my religion

that is very healthy

I think I'm Christian, but I am questioning that...

I think true Christian principles are very respectable. one can hold such principles without believing in unsubstantiated histories.

I think the no homosexuality is kinda bs

i think sexuality is a personal decision.

aye

though I find that part gets ignored even by many very religious people today, I think it's a poor indicator of character to leave a faith not because you don't believe in it but because you just don't like a singular, especially often invalidated by it's own believers, aspect.

I would recommend a technology break and some bible reading. It will help clear your mind

stop entering into every comment section I ever find myself in, I thought I cleared out my walls already!

>:)

I find that it's also difficult to conclusively prove that there *isn't* a true faith. Granted, the burden of proof may not necessarily fall on that viewpoint. Still, there's no actual conclusive evidence for or against a given religion. I would be equally left guessing as an atheist as I would any religion, and so I find it difficult to discount religion only.

On the other side, an argument I would make, at least for Abrahamic religions, is that a lot of other religions worldwide seem to include aspects that appear somewhat similar, such as Zoroastrianism's views on the afterlife, something that would suggest that there's some weight to at least one of the abrahamic faiths. I would argue that seeing multiple faiths having elements that triangulate onto one is cause enough to convince some into deciding that one faith is the closest to the truth. I could get into other clues, but it's ultimately besides the point. The only thing worth mentioning is that your lack of evidence doesn't necessarily equate to someone else not having evidence you ask for, even if that "evidence" is the compounding of small clues built up over a lifetime on such a personal level that they know they cannot actually explain them to you in a way that matters. I'll be honest, as a Christian that is indeed how I feel.

Moving onwards, the presentation of this question somewhat feels like a strawman argument- It's a declaration that nobody who believes in religion has evidence to back up their claims beyond "faith". I guarantee you that you could find *someone* who has something legitimate to say. I get the sense it wasn't intentional, but it somewhat devalues the argument in that it paints the side you take as having an intellectual high ground (Sorry, Anakin) while painting all those who believe in religion as someone who clings onto their faiths without evidence explainable or not.

i agree with your first point. i know of no proof against all faiths. for that reason, i'm an agnostic and not an atheist. in my agnostic musings, i expect that how things really are, if ever known by us, will be very different from anything we'd currently call a faith or religion.

as to your second point, Richard Feynman felt that if he couldn't explain something to college freshmen, that meant he didn't really understand it. my feeling is that if evidence for a true faith exists, we'd have known of it by now and, if good, it would be convincing to most intelligent people.

i don't know about 'intellectual high ground', but convincing arguments on any topic tend to be those that present objective, testable evidence. if we can't explain the validity of numerous small clues reached on a personal level, again about any topic, then we can't distinguish them from any other reasonable possibilities. i admit that it may be convincing to the person who collected them. but in my daily work, i interact with many people who are highly convinced of things that are testably incorrect. maybe we'll all just have to go on making our own choices.

-as to your second point, Richard Feynman felt that if he couldn't explain something to college freshmen, that meant he didn't really understand it. my feeling is that if evidence for a true faith exists, we'd have known of it by now and, if good, it would be convincing to most intelligent people.

It's called faith for a reason. For someone asking for evidence it's a little annoying for any attempt at showing evidence getting shot down by you in favor of it remaining "faith"

-i don't know about 'intellectual high ground', but convincing arguments on any topic tend to be those that present objective, testable evidence. if we can't explain the validity of numerous small clues reached on a personal level, again about any topic, then we can't distinguish them from any other reasonable possibilities. i admit that it may be convincing to the person who collected them. but in my daily work, i interact with many people who are highly convinced of things that are testably incorrect. maybe we'll all just have to go on making our own choices.

Fair enough, but once again, do you want evidence or faith?

i love evidence if it's solid. i'd need a reason for faith and i don't have one.

It took a long time but I've come to respect religion. I regress to spewing bile only when I see religion leveraged against science. I likewise cringe when I see science invoked for the misguided purpose of "disproving" faith...although this was me for most my life, and until embarrassingly recently.

Science and theology would do well to each stay in their respective lane...though I respect the right of others to disagree. Science and religion each have the right to exist, unmolested by and without validation from the other. I really wish I'd grown to internalize this sooner.

okay, fair enough. Contrary to this I always liked to try and intertwine science and religion, as I found combining the two filled each other's gaps almost perfectly and built each other up rather then tearing each other down, but it feels like I need to discard one or the other to have an impactful argument on someone who doesn't have this same, rather specific worldview. That being said I have been taught to respect other beliefs. My problem if when I feel that my own beliefs are being put under attack, which unfortunately is rather common in today's world.

Lol, same, at least with regard to being attacked. It's always a welcome change of pace to engage more tolerant and open-minded people. (And I'm quick to admit my own hands aren't clean.)
I'm intrigued by the coexistence of conflicting theistic and scientific beliefs. It strikes me as unstable--like eventually the worldview would resolve one way or the other--but then again homo sapiens has proven its capacity for maintaining obscene levels of cognitive dissonance.

granted, for my idea to work, it does involve a degree of re-interpretation. Assumption the 1st is that biblical stories, while holding some element of truth, were designed to explain the world and it's processes in ways the people of that time would understand. Imagine for instance trying to explain evolution to some random dude in Rome when trying to convince them to join Christianity. It's too much explanation and too many concepts for this hypothetical random dude to immediately believe.

Assumption the second is of course that these types of re-interpretations are not specific to Christianity, in which many of the things taught are vague or metaphorical enough to allow for this type of reinterpretation regardless. This same idea may not work for each and every faith, which makes it a difficult idea to spread outside Abrahamic faiths.

That's very sensible. It may be too bold of me to say so, but your mentality seems to share more with secular thinking that dogmatic thinking. That is to say, I anticipate your views would be rather poorly received by the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists. Neither here nor there, I'm just picturing you being cast out of many congregations for not being faithful enough to the good book. I salute you. It's easy to go along with what's expected. It's a grand ordeal to go your own way against the grain. Indeed, that willingness to struggle is a greater demonstration of faith. Or at the very least a greater commitment to doing what makes the most sense to you, rather than blindly following where you're led.

I have actually found that many other Christians have some similar ideas, though not necessarily to the same degree. Still, it surprised me too when I found such support.

If faith could be proven, it wouldn't be faith. Attempting to "prove" the factual correctness of religion is attempting to destroy faith in it.

The pyramids are all similar and scattered throughout the world. That's evidence of extraterrestrial influence in human history. Perhaps the thing people call God was really some juvenile aliens having a laugh. Makes as much sense as the Bible as written.

Small pieces of evidence cobbled together is not proof--at best it's grounds for a theory. A failure to recognize that implies scientific illiteracy. If science is the intellectual high ground, being beneath scientific understanding is being beneath the intellectual high ground. I'll stop harping on this point when people stop thinking they're smarter than people who are smarter than them, and religious people stop claiming to have the moral high ground.

did you mean this comment for me or AfunnyUsername?

Lol, I figured you'd have a greater appreciation for my response to his/her comment. Maybe not, it is rather dickish. But you don't get notifs for replies to other people's comments even when they're on your own meme, and I'm not all that interested in a fencing match with another theist. I could have just kept my gob shut, but alas that level of maturity eludes me.

Theists can't prove anything, but they don't need to. My grievance is when they presume that their beliefs are in any way valid to anyone but themselves. 😔

re-read this meme's comments. I have a really difficult time figuring out what side you're arguing for, if any, but I really like the line "Theists can't prove anything, but they don't need to. My grievance is when they presume that their beliefs are in any way valid to anyone but themselves"

I think my problem with Atheist arguments, especially the one within this meme, is that they're fighting faith with science despite both being very clearly separate fields of study. and so, despite claiming to be so much wiser then Thiests, their arguments often fall flat for the same reason religious arguments don't work on them, which then makes them look pretentious for claiming to be wiser yet falling into the same argumentative traps they claim to have the wisdom to avoid.

Beautifully said. I believe this meme is meant to pit religion against variations of itself, but your point about science and religion being very clearly separate fields of study is well taken. They seek to answer many of the same questions, but not only are their answers incompatible--their natures are so different that neither is equipped to effectively address the other. It's like they're trying to solve the same riddle, one using literature and the other mathematics. Each field only makes sense when evaluated on its own terms. They may each come to satisfying conclusions, but both lack the capacity to meaningfully critique the other.

Reason, compassion, morality, myopia, wickedness, hypocrisy--these are found in abundance across any worldview, secular and theistic alike. My sincerest goal is to focus not on what beliefs are held, but what is done with those beliefs. 🫶

"I believe this meme is meant to pit religion against variations of itself"
I suppose so, but something about it felt strangely hostile towards the concept of religion in general. It dismisses the general idea of faith over lack of evidence rather then targeting the mere act of declaring supremacy to another belief. Perhaps it was attacking the infighting of two religions, but in that case it did the equivalent of removing a single dilapidated shack with a nuclear missile decimating every home in the area

I took it as a throwdown calling out all the disparate faiths claiming supremacy to defend their claim. Even painting in such broad strokes as "catholic" and "protestant", which one is the true faith and which the false faith? Add Islam and Judaism to the mix to round out the Abrahamic religions--as monotheistic religions based on the same foundation they all worship the same deity, albeit differently, but their followers hardly get along. Which of those 4 is the one true faith and which are the 3 lying peddlers of false religion? Then add in the myriad Christian denominations (including mormons and jehova's witnesses) and you've really got a mess, and that's just WESTERN religion.

The point of this is to illustrate how untenable any claim of being the only "true" religion is, and how absurd it is to make such a claim in the first place. Indeed, the absurdity of feeling it necessary to make such a claim. That's the crux of this meme. It does come across as hostile, as it should. Any religion claiming to be the one and only true faith, all the rest be damned, deserves a swift kick to the crotch.

-"If faith could be proven, it wouldn't be faith. Attempting to "prove" the factual correctness of religion is attempting to destroy faith in it."

and yet, here we are, asking for evidence.

-"The pyramids are all similar and scattered throughout the world. That's evidence of extraterrestrial influence in human history. Perhaps the thing people call God was really some juvenile aliens having a laugh. Makes as much sense as the Bible as written."

turns out that triangles last a long time and are also relatively convenient to build to massive scales. also the pyramids are decently culturally distinct from one another where I have a hard time buying the alien theory. but even then, I'm still struggling to figure out whenever you or OP is asking for faith or for concrete evidence.

-"Small pieces of evidence cobbled together is not proof--at best it's grounds for a theory. A failure to recognize that implies scientific illiteracy. If science is the intellectual high ground, being beneath scientific understanding is being beneath the intellectual high ground. I'll stop harping on this point when people stop thinking they're smarter than people who are smarter than them, and religious people stop claiming to have the moral high ground."

Right then, so I don't think science alone constitutes an intellectual high ground. that's all I have to say here.

"and yet, here we are, asking for evidence."
My point was not to take the bait, but you've already acknowledged in another comment that attempting to prove or disprove religion a trap.

I went off half-cocked in the last part of that comment...even if it had been relevant to anything you said, it didn't add to the convo. I will say that I take a dim view of anyone who claims to believe in the scientific method while stubbornly refusing to adjust their beliefs in the face of new and credible evidence. High ground or no, those folks would do the scientific community more good below ground. 😤