I've always found it interesting whenever someone would bring up the "If there's no evidence it doesn't exist" argument. It's totally valid to have that view, but that kinda defeats the purpose of it being a 'faith.'
The point of religion is to put your suspicions and questions away and just put trust in something that may not even exist, which already sounds 100% stupid from my point of view. It's totally valid either way, but both arguments are very volatile. So I just say to everyone,
Whatever helps you see clearly.
I never said "There's currently no evidence therefore it's impossible." That would be an argument from ignorance. I clearly said it's still a possibility, but I think you probably noticed that. Not only is it possible but I have a completely open mind to it if someone can give evidence of it.
The way in which I think is very much that of the scientific process. I would very much rather call myself a skeptic over an atheist as it's much more descriptive. You gather empirical data, make a theory to explain what you see. Then you make predictions based on your theory (For example, general/special relativity predicted light would be affected by gravity) and then test those predictions. If they turn out to be right, then the better the chance your theory is correct. If it turns out to not be the case, then your theory is wrong and you either need to modify it or make a new one. In science there is no "belief." Only evidence. Once the evidence gets to a certain point, you can conclude that it is with great probability, true.
Religion in general has no testable predictions. Certain religions do, for example ones that say that the earth is on the back of a turtle or some other crazy stuff, are objectively wrong. It's simply not supported by empirical data.
Unfortunately the scientific method is the only way we can
really know anything about our universe, and since religions like Christianity fall well outside that purview (Unless you insist that Christianity MUST be paired with young earth creationism, in which case it's again objectively wrong) there is no logical reason to say that Christianity is fact, that there is a god and jesus who performed miracles and parted the red sea and all that.
If you want to believe that's fine, as long as you recognize that it's not a purely logical thing to do (Not everyone is purely logical, that's not a bad thing) and you don't let that get in the way of what we actually know as fact, such as biology, geology, zoology, archaeology, history, medicinal practices and so on.
Hey, man. You wanna learn the legit evidences against macro evolution? I got a few but you all better be ready to read.
Im not gonna do this if no one is gonna listen but this is interesting stuff whether agree with me or believe me or not.
I'll bite.
