No evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". It's not after, evidence happens before. Evidence is before you've connected the dots.
Exactly, evidence supports whether a hypothesis is valid or not, thus it comes after the hypothesis has been done, and thus proves it. There is a hypothesis that life exists outside earth, but no direct evidence has been linked for it still. There is evidence that life can exist under certain conditions, but using it to prove the hypothesis at hand is not direct evidence related to the subject. What you have at this point is a logical conclusion that if there is evidence that supports the latter, then
there must be evidence to support the former. The evidence that would prove the existance of life outside the conditions of earth, would thus come after (like fining evidence of life outside earth).
Yes, that is the process of thinking and learning. We are not omniscient. Logic is the process of identifying what is and what isn't.
You are asserting that it is logical to assume something to be true, because (in your persepective) it can lead you to a valid theory, despite having no evidence of that being a possibility aside from your conjecture, and while encountering wrong or invalid variables along the way, because it can eventually lead you to supporting evidence that may validate your theory.
You just described how belief in religion works, and how religious thinkers have evolved their thought along the centuries.
So Religion is correct and good to follow because you think we haven't disproved religious belief?
Religion is correct to follow, if the individual so chooses to. Whether it is good or not, is a matter of individual perspective. A lot of people that follow atheism have done much more harm than good for society, an example being socialism.
If two rational people are debating each other, they will be able to come to a conclusion because they can provide logical reasons to each other for the validity of their idea. The idea that is most logical and makes most sense will be the idea that both people will go along with.
If you have two mystics, who claim ideas without any logical reasons, they will have no way of showing each other how they are correct. Therefore, if they are to reach a decision about what to do, they'll resort to violence to force one to obey the other.
Faith goes hand and hand with force.
Nazism and communism were both prevailing similar atheist theories that went to war with each other, and tried to subjugate each other based on logical assumptions, and what they found to be reasonable.
Now days, you can see antifa, or late-term abortionist harming others. They are not very religious are they? but they are pretty violent, specially when it comes to their ideology.
And religion has nothing to do with it. More harm has been done to humanity by atheists within a century, than by all religious quarrels over human history. Blaming religion for the evils of the world, is a very hitchens/dawkins perspective used to sell books.
So you think that we should just have faith in whatever we want.
I have faith I'll fly to the moon without a jet pack. Look at me go
You don't have the ability to fly naturally without the aid of machines. Thus your assertion is easily disproven. On the other hand, if someone tells you they have faith there is an afterlife, you can't disprove their assertion. That is the diference.
Oh I see, a smart person is religious therefore religion must be good. That's a logical fallacy you know. Just because an authority figure believes something to be true doesn't make it true.
Not to mention, these thinkers were a product of their times. They were religious because that was the norm. And if they ever expressed non-religious ideas, I don't think that would be good for them.
Besides, there are plenty of smart people who aren't religious too. I could name plenty, but I don't because that's not a valid argument. You decide the validity of religion by looking at the fact. And the fact is that religion is a bunch of ********.
The most renowned atheist has committed the greatest atrocities, so what you're saying is that atheism is bad because a bad person is an atheist. Another logical fallacy.
What I'm saying is that individuals who have made their mark on the history of earth, and contributed to humanity, have recognisible achievements, etc., are being called "
stupid" by a young person with no type of achievements who is simply repeating the ideals of others. I just find it a bit unsettling, if not amusing.
Actually most of them went against religious dogma, or advocated for reforms (such as Thomas Jefferson). They still were facinated by religion. Einstein called "God" the biggest mistery in human life. He considered himself an agnostic, a term which you seem to disregard also.
What I'm saying is that, atheism can lead you through the same dark path that disregards human life, just like religion or any political ideology. And if we go by the numbers, it seems to have had a much harsher impact within a much smaller time frame than religion has.
I've never heard of a religious person being for late-term abortions (meaning, the murder of a fully formed viable baby).
A random universe without any laws or a universe that contradicted itself could not exist. Existence is non-contradictory and I know that from observing existence. Things are what they are and cannot be other things. Besides, the idea of a perfectly designed universe implies that a creator created the universe. What makes you think a creator created the universe?
Well it says in the bible that it's wrong. So maybe we should just dispense with the bible if it's not actually God's words and it's just a product of the times. Seems pretty ridiculous to me that an all-powerful being can't even get his rules and expectations under control. How irresponsible. Or maybe, he just doesn't exist and people are writing ********. The latter makes more sense.
You are asserting it can't exist, thus you are implying that any universe that comes into existance must then, be perfect and subject to the same laws as our existent universe. You are not providing any evidence for the matter. Also supporting evidence of quantum particles shows that not everything inside our universe behaves according to the laws of science.
So you pretty much have faith in what you say its true?
As for the bible, you can disregard it if you want. We can talk about religious dogma if you choose, but there is a diference in discussing the validity of the belief in the exisance of God, or Gods or something of the life, with the rules of individual religions.