Why Do Skeptics Keep Believing In Evolution When There Is 0 Evidence For It?

@Richard65 Ummm...very few priests would say that...if any.

@SomeMichGuy it was allegorical.

@Richard65 Yeah, it's a bad allegory.

@SomeMichGuy only in your subjective opinion. I think it's on the money. So, thanks for your input.....

@Richard65 Actually, many priests are better educated than that.

You're just sniping at believers (and some definitely deserve it, esp. those using Jesus, who taught that we should help those in need--not grind them under--as a shield for UN-Christian extreme nationalism).

@SomeMichGuy I'm sniping at the anti science movement, like Godspeed. Christianity relies on faith, defined as belief without evidence. People believe in God, despite there being zero actual evidence for his existence. Science uses peer reviewed evidence and experiments and builds on knowledge already discovered. Believers simply believe without evidence. The allegory illustrated that fact. It's a solid allegory and exactly sums up the two ideas. The scientist builds on knowledge to understand a horse rode by. The man of faith holds onto the possibility that it might have been a unicorn, something for which no evidence exists.

@Richard65
Science is about what is measurable and repeatable, and I actually am traines in it and am not a creationist, "Bible is science", etc., person.

But to say that there is no evidence is not true.

@SomeMichGuy it is true. Faith is the bedrock of religious movements, such as Christianity. Jesus said, "have faith." Faith is defined as belief WITHOUT evidence. If you say evidence exists then you have no need of faith and your entire theological house of cards collapses. I was brought up in the faith. I just saw through it eventually. If you say evidence exists then you don't understand your belief system properly. Faith doesn't need evidence. That's the entire point.

@Richard65
1) You don't need to condescend, but you are creating a false dichotomy.

2) "Doubting" Thomas wanted physical evidence of the claim that Jesus was again alive, and though the statement was that those who had not seen, yet believed anyway, were blessed, Thomas wanted proof acceptable to him in order to accept this pretty astounding event as fact.

Even the miracles of various persons sent by God are signs that they truly come in His Name, and can inspire belief.

That doesn't fall into your notion that the appropriate Venn diagram with a {} at the union of "faith" and "evidence".

That should actually square with scientific evidence; the appropriately-skeptical scientist attempts to verify, on his/her own, whether or not something reported is true (and multiple, consistent measurements at all sorts of places make that possible).

The fact that multiple, different observers report seeing and even intetracting with Jesus days after He was dead and buried lends credence to it being true, which ought to please a scientist.

And the facts that many people

• experienced healing from Him,

• corroborated either the actual event or the condition of the person healed before and after the event

should lend credence to His healings.

3) Believers often have experiences--personal, corporate, etc.‐‐which encourage them in their own faith; to insist that any evidence which they encounter in their own lives somehow cannot affect their faith, or that a Being who is more interested in relationship with us than judgment is somehow denied the ability to reveal Himself to ANYone are odd constraints for you to attempt to impose upon believers, and contra to a tradition of both that Being and believers.

4) And yes, quantum mechanics makes anything possible and even explains "miracles"...so one could argue that "miracles" are part of the basic fabric of the Universe.

Does that make God less plausible?

If "miracles" happen more consistently to/though believers, does it make God less plausible?

@SomeMichGuy why are you equating a scientist investigating proof of something with theological faith in God? They are completely opposite ideas. A scientist isn't skeptical in a theological sense, he merely seeks to prove or disprove a theory, often using other evidence from other experiments or the findings of other scientists. A scientist will often find some theory doesn't work, or an experiment is flawed. Science is peer reviewed and scientists often seek to disprove a theory, something religion doesn't do. I can't believe you'd even say that. Lots of people saying something without tangible proof would never satisfy a scientist, at all, ever. You're equating belief in God with an experiment on mice that can be verified and repeated with the same results.

We're not talking about a belief in Jesus, we're discussing the belief in God (the Father). Thomas wanted proof of Jesus's wounds. He could see and interact with Jesus, there was already a tangible basis for his belief, because the man was standing in the room before him. Thomas simply didn't believe a claim about Jesus's resurrection. But he knew Jesus existed. That's if we believe the Bible. YOU WEREN'T THERE! Faith in God is of a different magnitude, it's a belief in some all-powerful deity, which created everything, the heavens and the earth, and whose existence has no tangible proof to back it up whatsoever. Because belief in him relies on faith.

If someone has an experience, then, yes, that can influence their faith, but that just adds to a belief that is ALREADY THERE before they had the experience. They then CHOOSE to utilise that to strengthen their faith, that's just an individual choice that person makes, and which does nothing to disprove my statement about faith. Indeed, the opposite can be true. I might have an experience that you regard as miraculous, but which does nothing to engender my belief in God.

When God supposedly "reveals himself", he doesn't literally reveal himself, the individual simply HAS FAITH that's he's revealed himself. Belief isn't evidence. Subjective experience isn't evidence. Unlike a scientist, he cannot repeat the experience again and again so others can see the truth of it and even repeat the experience/experiment for themselves. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Christianity relies wholly on faith and faith, as you have to agree, is defined as belief WITHOUT evidence. It just is. I repeat, that's the entire point.

Someone having an experience ISN'T evidence. People "corroborating" testimony isn't evidence. You say - 'and the "facts" that many people experienced healing from him should lend credence to his healings.' These AREN'T FACTS! They're just personal, subjective testimonies, written second or third hand, thousands of years ago, by people who weren't there, writing down words supposedly said by people who had no proof of their claims and which were often written years after the events they were supposed to have witnessed. There's no way any of that can ever be considered as evidence. I can't believe you fail to understand all that.

You talk about miracles inspiring belief. Miracles aren't facts. Nobody can prove miracles occurred, no matter how much you insist they can. In fact, belief in someone's report of miracles relies on faith - belief without evidence. Most all of the points you used in your post still rely on faith. You're literally making my argument for me!