this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
265 points (82.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
686 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We believe in those things because they're practices we can observe and measure. The real question is why do theists not have the same standard of evidence for theistic claims.
Your trust (or "faith") in the chair existing and supporting your weight is because of your experience with chairs in the past. I don't think many people would say they have "absolute certainty" the chair exists and would hold them.
If you had a history of hallucinating you might have a higher standard of evidence, but it's still there to be tested. The problem with religion is it seems like you need a standard of "none at all" to accept theistic claims.
"They do it too" doesn't really get us to an answer, just another "why" question. She believes her claims with little to no evidence, theists believe their claims with little to no evidence, but like...why?