Is differing opinions on what constitutes proof the main reason for arguements in this forum?

Question

I personally think that the main reason atheists and theists argue on here is their differing opinions on just what can be classed as proof.

For atheists; everything needs to be subject to the scientific method and to be tested, experimented upon and confirmed to the highest degree of accuracy possible. If it still holds up, it can be regarded as true.

For theists, to 100% believe in something, the strictness of the scientific method is not required.

For example, there is no scientific evidence that could ever suggest a person could be crucified, lie dead for 3 days and then come back to life.
Theists require faith to jump the gap left where to theists, it would be filled with the scientific method.

I don't want to suggest faith is any less valid, (I wouldn't want to offend anyone), but is this an accurate observation as to why people argue on here till they're blue in the face?

They both feel they have 100% proof and as a result won't compromise for anyone?

Answer 1

everyone thinks his opinion is the true gospel and everyone else are from the devil. that is why

Answer 2

Yes, but I don't think you have hit upon the whole answer. It's not just reference to faith, but to the Bible specifically. Conservative Christians argue that it is God's own words, and cannot be in error or untrue. However, if one is an atheist or some non-Christian theist, a polytheist or pantheist, that argument has no evidence to support it. So references to Bible passages do not constitute evidence for a person who does not believe the Bible is all that special.

To me, it has decided historical significance, since so many people have read it (indeed, quite a few read little else in their lifetime) and taken it seriously. But it is literature to me, not a guide book for living my life.