Less likely is all I am going for. It is called abductive reasoning, reasoning to the most likely explanation. And real individuality being true is the most likely explanation.
Not sure what you remotely mean by real individuality, because you;'d have to be able to demonstrate that rather than simply waffling by saying it seems more likely: abductive reasoning is hardly what we should use in terms of areas of concern that aren't on a grandiose scale like cosmology.
My perception, or anyone's, of their individuality is not an absolute fact, it's a phenomenological experience that, while potentially accurate in the sense that we can delineate between people, it doesn't mean individuality in the sense of us all being, say, independent of each other in relationality or such is true, but that we necessarily have a social impulse, that no one is an island
Unlike other religions, Christianity is falsifiable. Because it is based on historical events.
"Historical" is a relative term: and you really think other religions cannot reference historical places and claim their stories are based on historical events? That seems highly naive to say nothing of intentionally vague as to what you consider "historical". Jesus as a historical person does not mean that the events associated with him are falsifiable...mostly because historical falsifiabilty is far more vague in nature than falsifiability as applies to natural sciences.
And with a severe lacking of serious contemporary sources that aren't specious in their links to the Christian cult, the historicity seems to hinge on secondhand accounts, 4 of which we don't even know the authors of (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John little more than traditions, nothing concrete there)
No, most educated Christians dont claim it is a scientific text, but on the few areas it does touch on science, it has been shown to be basically correct when we realize God wants us to use His other book, Nature to understand it.
Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning too, but most scientists consider it true. I didnt say we should not consider other explanations, but analyze them with every thing we have including self evident truths and common sense. And other considerations such as how we live our every day lives. It is similar to the problem with atheists living as if there is real objective meaning to life, when if there was no God then there is no real objective meaning to life. They have to live believing that there is meaning to life or they would go insane
Again, not sure you remotely understand what survival of the fittest means outside of caricatures of evolution or social Darwinists (which aren't the same as people who merely believe in natural selection as a descriptive phenomenon that varies by population and context). Fitness is not based on superiority, because evolution is not the contest we humans can unfortunately frame it as mistakenly
There is no objective external meaning to life, meaning is not imposed upon us, it is determined by our assessment of things and seeking out answers in a manner that can be compatible with society as a whole, the closes to a purpose that might be imposed, but more by necessity, not by religious twaddle masquerading as helping humanity with dogmatic moralizing.
There can be meaning in life as individuals seek it out and a meaning for people functioning in society, but function and purpose are quite distinct, one being pragmatic, the other being personal.
My purpose is individually determined, any outside influences secondary to my choices about how to live my life, my function is aiding the human society I live in and benefit from, as well as aiding future generations, you're oversimplifying the whole discussion to suggest atheists have to be nihilists, when God is not, and has not been demonstrated to be, required for determining purpose or function in human existence.
