Quote:
Originally Posted by Twosugars
Absence of proof is not proof of absence
|
It's not proof of absence but it does suggest a very high likelihood of absence. There are very few things that can be "proven" in any absolute sense so there's no point going down that road; we can only deal in probability and likelihood. The likelihood that Christianity or any other mainstream religion represents anything resembling "truth", when there is zero evidence of it despite multiple-billions of people presumably having a direct interest in providing that evidence, means that the likelihood of it being accurate is not just small but miniscule.
I am well aware that people often have a strong emotional attachment to religion and would be lost, probably even depressed, without it. I think it serves a definite purpose. I would never go up to little old Betty who has just lost her husband and say "lol no Betty, it's statistically HIGHLY improbable that you'll meet again in heaven"... But, on a debates forum, in a religious debate, I think it should be safe enough to stick with what's actually rational. Religion is not rational. Faith is not rational. There are NO rational arguments for blind faith, and no reason to assume that anyone's "personal spiritual experience of God" is anything more than placebo. It's as simple as that.
And yes I know that "that's the point of faith" etc etc when it comes to day to day scenarios like poor Betty above, but it doesn't have much place in a logical, reasoned discussion.