I'm going to paraphrase what my wife always tells me. The whole idea of having faith is that you do so in the very absence of evidence. If there was evidence, faith would be unnecessary. I admit that does make sense, otherwise it wouldn't be faith, would it?
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 2, 2025, 12:33 pm
Thread Rating:
|
One simple question
|
That's the definition of blind faith, IMO facejacker.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari  (July 28, 2010 at 1:27 am)tackattack Wrote: That's the definition of blind faith, IMO facejacker. Having faith in god and that there is no evidence for such a being = blind faith. I agree with you there. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity. Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist. You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them. 
The way I see it "blind faith" is a tautology because you don't need to have faith if you have evidence, and if you don't have evidence and yet you "have faith" in it, then that's blind faith.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
