(July 27, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.
To the OP: There are two definitions of faith. One is belief in the absence of evidence. The other is trusting a promise. Sometimes they are both in play. For example, suppose my friend has never before asked to borrow money from me. I have no evidence that he will repay the loan. However, I do trust him because of evidence of his good intentions in the past. And yes, there is sufficient evidence despite your delusional incredulity.
If 'trust' is part of the alternative definition of faith, then what the fuck good is the alternative definition of faith? Trust, in and of itself, by definition is sufficient as that exact alternative definition of faith.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
