Whenever I watch a religious person debate a non-religious person, I end up frustrated at both of them. The reason is because while they both think they are right and the other person is wrong, they act like they know they are right and the other person is wrong. The non-religious person will often put too much faith in their supposed ‘facts’, and the religious person describes their faith as if it is ‘fact’.
The problem is that whether you are religious, non-religious or agnostic, there is no concrete evidence anywhere to support your position.
Christians point to historical evidence supporting the death and resurrection of Jesus. Muslims point to the historical evidence supporting Muhammad’s miraculous oration of the Koran. Jews point to the historical evidence supporting Old Testament events. Atheists point to scientific evidence, historical evidence and moral reasoning to support a disbelief in God. Agnostics point to a lack of evidence to support a belief that you should live your life as an undecided.
But none of it is concrete. Historical evidence cannot prove if someone came back from the grave, or that someone overcame muteness to convey a message from God, or that particular communities were chosen by God to be His ‘special people’.
Scientific evidence cannot prove or disprove the existence of something immeasurable, unobservable and spiritual. It can only teach us about things that are measurable, observable and physical. And just because there is no concrete evidence to prove any historical or religious viewpoint, it doesn’t mean you should live your life as an undecided. Such a lifestyle assumes that it is better to live without faith in a God or in the absence of a God. And it’s a big assumption.
The reality is that whether you are religious, non-religious or agnostic, you rely on faith – a conviction in things unseen – to support your position.
Pip's Quips 