fogghorn wrote:Is that not in the end what religion boils down to, a belief in those things that are unseen?
Historically it's more of a convenient explaination for what we do not yet understand, but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. And even if we take your definition of religion at face value, it's still faulty, as religion is quite obviously only a belief in those things unseen - that are endorsed and approved by your given religion or faith. Believe in something unseen that's not on the approved guest list and you're a heretic.
A far larger amount of faith, I would say, than is required for a belief in God.
Ergo, you're religious, and your opinion on this subject is hardly earth shattering. Sorry, but the "I think my unconfirmable claim is slightly more probable than your unconfirmable claim, based solely on my gut instinct" argument amounts to exactly nothing. Don't feel bad, this applies to Atheists almost as much.
Look at it this way - two people are put in a locked room with a small metal box that's completely sealed and welded to the floor. Person X says it's empty, and Person Y says there's an apple in it. Person X's primary argument is that Person Y can't prove there actually is an apple, and Person Y's primary argument is that his/her family has been believing in the apple for thousands of years, and X can't prove the apple isn't there.
It's simplified, but do you honestly think that either person is going to actually be able to persuade the other that they're wrong? This is why trying to "prove" the existence of God is so utterly futile, be it with funky probabilities, supposed miracles, or loosely translated documents a few millenia old. The other guy can't prove you wrong, and he thinks your "evidence" is as solid as wet noodle. Nobody's got proof, nobody can even agree who's job it is to
have proof. All either side has to offer is opinion and conjecture.
