amillionyears
I wasn't expecting you back that quickly
, welcome back, I love a good debate.
Well, I suppose that what I would like is for and answer to be given that can be supported by some evidence.
Fundamentally, it comes down to this: There have been many religious people on this thread, of which many have a different view on many subjects. Taking just the question of "Does prayer work?" the various answers have been along the following lines:
- No, but the process of prayer gives comfort
- Yes, but it is random and sometimes it doesn't happen how you expect
- Yes, all the time it gives me parking spaces and does lots of small stuff
- Yes, it saves the lives of children and those who aren't saved die because their parents need spiritual development (this one shocked me somewhat if I am honest)
- Yes, but it is impossible to work out how, you just have to trust god to do the right thing
- Yes, it said so in an old book so it must be true
However, when an atheist gives a counter argument, we pretty much ALL state the same answer to any question, because we base our answers upon proven knowledge (science, maths, accurate documentation, etc).
So not only are there multiple religions (who disagree with each other), but within one religion you can't even agree how things work and say things that are shocking and disturbing to each other.
With this in mind, I want to know how a theist can justify their belief without using the word "trust", "belief", "love", or any other non-evidence description.
The litmus test for me, would be - If we were to go in a court of law to argue our respective cases, which case would win?