[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think we do have to consider plausibility.

I think as this point we understand enough about the universe to know that the earth doesn't predate the sun, the women didn't spring from the ribs of men, that substantial portions of the flood myths were taken from tales of earlier cultures, that stories about future kings floating down the river in baskets is older than writing. We know that substantial portions of the Jesus myth was constructed and modified to draw comparisons to current events of grander figures at the time they were formulated. We know that sun isn't the wheel of a burning chariot, at this point we can be confident enough about mind/body monism to dismiss the idea of reincarnation or an after life.

I think there can be a great deal of confidence that no religion has proposed a plausible solution to that which they claim to explain, and the majority of claims religions have made can be directly disproven.

Atheism on the other would be incredibly easy to disprove if wrong, and nearly impossible to prove if right, but I have yet to see and argument against it that does not start with a big presupposition. I have seldom met an atheist who would be unhappy to modify their beliefs in the face of direct evidence.

Boom. Mic drop.