u/Thetree3435

In my experience, religious apologetics often don't try to actively prove that their faith is true. Instead, they try to prove that your logical framework for rejecting it has a flaw—and if they find a flaw there, they consider it a win.

A common argument I’ve heard goes like this: People who believe in science actually believe in it blindly. For instance, most of us have never personally verified through our own five senses that a place like Japan actually exists. We haven't checked every satellite feed, and we rely entirely on scientists and media to tell us the truth. A skeptic could theoretically spin a massive conspiracy theory claiming Japan is fake.

The Christian apologist's argument then connects the two: just as you trust scientists and geographers blindly to tell you the truth about places you’ve never seen, they trust the prophets and creators of the Bible.

The Core Flaw in that Comparison

While that sounds clever at first glance, it falls apart when you look at track records and verifiable verification.

Let's look at two hypothetical books:

A book by geologists claiming that Japan is a real place with specific cities, a language, and a history.

A book by religious prophets claiming that God, Jesus Christ, and the spiritual realm such as heaven and hell are real

Why do we rationally trust the geologists over the religious prophets?

It comes down to testability on a micro-scale. If a geologist tells you, "There is a city just south of here," you can get in a car, drive there yourself, and verify it with your own five senses. Because geologists and scientists have a consistent, repeatable track record of making verifiable predictions on a small scale, their macro-claims (like the existence of countries we haven't visited) carry immense credibility.

Religious prophets and ancient texts, on the other hand, don't offer that same mechanism for verifiable, falsifiable testing on a day-to-day basis.

-Main question- What do you guys think? Does this accurately describe the apologetic tactic, and how do you usually respond to the "you trust science blindly too" argument?

Honestly. I'm just tired or just too weak to believe in anything and i really do just want to quit, just focus on the right now rather than if there's a god or not, metaphysics, etc. I just want to live, and i guess just using my intuition and logic, to figure out what's the right or wrong thing to do, whats the foolish or smart thing to do during that exact moment or context im in and just live based on what works and makes sense.

I guess my main question is:

Is it bad that i want to decide just to give up, and just live based on things that make sense, using my intuition and logic as my main compass in life?

So i used to be Christian, took a step back and became Agnostic. I used to have a strange theory, that sin was never supposed to be that strict, as there's a weird thing in the bible that allows sinning to be loving. Like lying to save someones life, breaking sabbath to aid someone. And i was like why is that?. So i started thinking, and the best way I can explain it, is maybe people drive looking at the GPS rather than their goal. And the goal was to be loving, and idk again interpeting what love is, is and can be very difficult.

Anyways this was just a stupid weird theory I had, just wanted to put it out there.

1. • "The person who wagers their entire life on a single absolute truth, only to find it a lie, is a fool. But the person who refuses to gamble their life away on unprovable certainties cannot be ruined by the house."
2. • "It is foolish to anchor your entire existence to a dogma that might sink. It is wise to keep your sails unfurled, free to catch whatever wind of reality actually blows."
3. • "Commit your life blindly to a single truth, and you risk losing everything when it shatters. Refuse to bind yourself to absolute answers, and you remain free to follow the truth wherever it actually leads."

Note - These statements I've thought of are based on the fact on how a hardcore Atheist or certain Religious people, commit to one truth(either god dosent exists or god does exist), that may or may not be wrong. While an agnostic sits somewhere he cannot win nor lose, now of course there will be people who will say "whats the point of life if you dont commit" and that can be debatable on why do something when you know you could be wrong, while in movies this can be very cool, like against all odds your right and win, but in reality, its very risky.

I found this intresting Kung fu rooftop fight, could this be the key to Kung fu? Pressure testing does make it work for real combat?

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about religions, philosophies, and everything in between. But recently, I hit a point where I realized: I just want to stop caring about what comes after life, what the afterlife is, who created the universe, or what the grand "meaning of life" is. I kinda just want to live.

Ive also learned, living in a country dominated by major Christian denominations, I’ve noticed something among people who aren't Christian or non religious —they often just say, "I just want to live a simple life." To me, that kind of means trying to live the way you think is best for yourself and the people around you, without all the heavy metaphysical baggage.

I don't know, that's just where my head's at lately. I guess I just wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks for reading.

Okay, so a major amount of Religions do have different groups who interpret their holy scripture or divine word. So when i look at that, i think about the "Blind Men and the Elephant." where each man is blind, and feels a different part of the elephant, thinking that the trunk is a giant snake, the legs are a tree trunk. But in reality they all feel the truth...but one problem, what if 2 blind people say they feel something and that something Contradicts each other, like the elephant has fur, or the elephant has scales, they contradict each other, and when I think of, for example, Christianity and their interpretations on pacifism vs protecting others, they can back up each statement with scripture, and still have a contradicting truth. How can you have a truth thats contradicts each other, both cannot be true at the same time.

So what I'm saying is that, as a Agnostic, I think this is one of the main reasons and theories why I'm agnostic, because its hard to choose which interpretation of a certain religion is the truth, especially if scripture backs up two statements that contradict each other.