RE: Punished for Babel?
July 18, 2013 at 8:36 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2013 at 8:42 am by The Reality Salesman01.)
Faith has a few definitions, I just think its ambiguous to use it in the context that implies blind faith when a different definition is intended. Why not just say "believe"? That's what is meant, but for some reason, people choose faith. Never understood that. Either way, after whomever says "faith" clarifies their intended use of the word, that definition is what should be discussed. The word-user gets to dictate His or her meaning when using the word.
To accurately answer your question, having re-read it...I don't think so.
Saying that I don't think a God's existence can be proven is a statement supported by the countless failed attempts I've witnessed. Not to mention the fact that a God-thing of any kind is indistinguishable from non-existance. It's perfectly reasonable to doubt that such a thing can be proven. Just like big-foot, or the lochness monster. It falls along the same lines.
Would it be blind faith for me to say that I doubt a human can naturally fly?
Would it be blind faith to say that I doubt a male human can naturally concieve a baby?
To accurately answer your question, having re-read it...I don't think so.
Saying that I don't think a God's existence can be proven is a statement supported by the countless failed attempts I've witnessed. Not to mention the fact that a God-thing of any kind is indistinguishable from non-existance. It's perfectly reasonable to doubt that such a thing can be proven. Just like big-foot, or the lochness monster. It falls along the same lines.
Would it be blind faith for me to say that I doubt a human can naturally fly?
Would it be blind faith to say that I doubt a male human can naturally concieve a baby?
