If faith works how every religion says it works......

[tackattack]

I am in 100% agreement with Fr0d0 on all of his points thus far and see no contradictions in anything he has said and understand it perfectly. I am far too behind in this thread to quote all 9 posts I've quoted and respond So I'll just do the one's that seem to be obstinantly ignoring the point. We do disagree on somethings and both of us hate repping fellow Christians, so this isn't some Christian brotherly sympathy support.

OP=

Then how can anyone not in the same religion as others, deny an existance of any other God or Gods from other religions? I'm not saying that any of them are real, but religious people claim that faith (or a form of faith) is truly what tells them that there is a sort of a God or Gods regardless of evidence. It's probably the matter of simply choosing which one to follow, but then how would you know that you've got the right choice? I don't think it'll matter because they all probably have the same reasons.

It's not about saying, "will the real God please stand up" it is the choice between unknowable abstract definitions of the entity they all refer to and the choice in how to del with that if it's reality.

We already know that religions and the people that follow them are stupid.

Wow.. just wow

And Christianity is a lot of bullshit.

So are politics, philosophy and science .. when followed or utilized blindly

Faith is belief without verifiableevidence.

Evidence is informed belief.

Uninformed belief is ignorant belief.

blind Faith is ignorant belief.

bolds added by me

To have faith and have no knowledge is very likely because faith has no evidence to support it.

see above

It's not "based" on knowledge. It's not based on anything. It just means belief/trust without evidence.

again see above

But it's not based on practical knowledge i.e. meaningful knowledge, let alone verifiable evidence.
You could have faith in that Harry Potter is real, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

because you obviously see no meaning in anything other than the material, why bother with philosophy or abstract concepts at all.. who needs math

All it means is that he has disregarded or redefined a few things that we take for granted and viola!

Please list one thing (or however many yoou thing we have) you take for granted that we're disregarding or redefining.

[Edwardo Piet]

bolds added by me

I repeat..... if faith is nothing more than belief without evidence (whether that's evidence altogether or just verifiable evidence) - what use does faith actually have? And if it is useless, then how is not a tautology to call it blind?

[Ace Otana]

We already know that religions and the people that follow them are stupid.

Wow.. just wow

She has a point.

[tackattack]

@ Ace - And if I said all atheist, hard or otherwise, were unwarrented audaciously bigoted asses would I also have a point? No it's simple unfounded slander just like her statement. You choice of ideals and beliefs are not any correlation to yoour intellegence, just your perception on reality. If she had left it at deluded I probably wouldn't even have bothered a mention.

@EvF - And I repeat your definition of faith as nothing more than belief without evidence is incorrect. If that's all it was the dictionary would only have that definition, it doesn't. That's the only relevant definition if you're speaking solly scientifically, but theology and science are like oil and water, so why use that definition? Faith is trust and confidence in things not proven absolutely true. I have faith that God exists, which leads me to a belief in Christianity. I have faith that gravity keeps me on the earth, which leads me to believe I won't float away. I have faith in the potential of humanity and mankind, and I believe that mankind when tempered with reason can achieve wonderous things and has. If you want to say faith is belief without scientific proof then that'd be at least a little more accurate. It's a degree based thing- Proof, belief, faith, nonbelief, hypothesis. All different aspects have their uses and faith is very usefull. Calling it blind is an adjective for overly biased or unchecked and is tacked onto many words for the same affect. Blind ambition, blind rage and blind faith are all instances where unchecked and ignorant practices add connotative destructive power to a word.

[Ace Otana]

@ Ace - And if I said all atheist, hard or otherwise, were unwarrented audaciously bigoted asses would I also have a point? No it's simple unfounded slander just like her statement. You choice of ideals and beliefs are not any correlation to yoour intellegence, just your perception on reality. If she had left it at deluded I probably wouldn't even have bothered a mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbyo6NXmuM

Personaly I find religion to be the most vile thing on this planet to get involved with. Seeing as it has such a bloody past. So much wrong have come from religion but no one on this earth can mention one thing atheism is responsible for. I agree with Chasm. Religion is stupid and I truly think that only fools follow it.
Sorry but that is how I feel about it. It's not a personal thing you understand. Just because I think you have to be a fool to follow any religion doesn't mean I think you're dumb or anything. Just foolish.
Religion has an unforgivable past.

[tackattack]

I responded Ace but upon reread it seemed like very tired babble. I don't take it personal from you because we've discussed it before and I understand your strong feelings against it. I can also accept foolish even though it's still a sweeping generalization. However, I'm an educator in the church and you have to realize that I also have strong feeling towards people generalizing the stupidity in the world, focusing it to progress their agenda, then vomiting from their mouths like it's a fact. I don't teach stupidity or blindly following anything even to my 7 year old class, so I just left it at wow. I can respect your feelings about it though.

[Ace Otana]

I responded Ace but upon reread it seemed like very tired babble. I don't take it personal from you because we've discussed it before and I understand your strong feelings against it. I can also accept foolish even though it's still a sweeping generalization. However, I'm an educator in the church and you have to realize that I also have strong feeling towards people generalizing the stupidity in the world, focusing it to progress their agenda, then vomiting from their mouths like it's a fact. I don't teach stupidity or blindly following anything even to my 7 year old class, so I just left it at wow. I can respect your feelings about it though.

When I say foolish I mean it in a way....like say "It was foolish of me to think me and jess could have a relationship" or "It was foolish of me to think I could jump that far". It's not that I'm saying foolish as in dumb/thick or plain stupid, but as in not a clever thing/belief sort of thing. I will admit it is a bit of a generalisation thing. But not at all is it personal. It is a view point I hold and strongly too. I know there are some very bright theists out there, I just don't think they are very rational over the beliefs they hold (which is why I say 'foolish'). I've always seen religion as this fairtale thing for adults to believe in. Santa for kids and god for adults, and none for those who wish to see and live in reality.
If I was to come out very bluntly about my view on religion, some theists on here may very well feel somewhat insulted which is why I say nothing about it. I can respect people's beliefs and have no problem with it at all (as long as it doesn't interfear with my life of course )

I think we understand each other pretty well i think. Respect on both sides while having friendly honest opinions.

[tackattack]

@Ace agreed

[RAD]

We already know that religions and the people that follow them are stupid.

Take Bacon, Newton and Locke for example, whom Jefferson called "the three greatest men in the world."

Not to mention many modern scientists, etc who I would guess you know nothing about.

Perhaps they contemplated questions most atheist haven't even thought about yet, e.g, how did fishermen write similies like Shakespeare?

But this I will agree with, religion is generally an evil force, often promulgated by stupid, ignorant self serving people. I guess we can both agree with Jesus about that? (Assuming he said what was attributed to him as always)

Can we also agree that stupid, narcissitic evil atheists knocked off way more innocent people than all the ignorant, stupid medieval Christians put together?

---

Personaly I find religion to be the most vile thing on this planet to get involved with. Seeing as it has such a bloody past. So much wrong have come from religion but no one on this earth can mention one thing atheism is responsible for. I agree with Chasm. Religion is stupid and I truly think that only fools follow it.
Sorry but that is how I feel about it. It's not a personal thing you understand. Just because I think you have to be a fool to follow any religion doesn't mean I think you're dumb or anything. Just foolish.
Religion has an unforgivable past.

"Feel" is the operatve word there I think, and it is quite personal I suspect, or at least reactionary.

Religion, per se, is vile. Jesus said it was vile too, using bitter sarcasm actually. Its one of the main reasons I love him so much, as any rational person who hates opression would IMHO

Has it occurred to you that the "Enlightenment" was led entirely by Bible-savvy Protestant Christians?

Has it ever occured to you that medieval Chrsistians knew virtually nothing of what Jesus said, e.g. what to do with heretics? (Nothing)

Was it Paine who stopped the Salem witch trials? Was it Robispierre who ended bloodletting in France, or was it he who murdered more skeptics than the king did?

Were the abolitionists Christians or "rational thinkers"? Who did they most quote in their writings? Who came out against slavery first? Voltaire or the Quakers and Methodists (Bible worms)?

What does Jesus mission statement in Luke 4 say about what he came to do?

Lets do talk about Christian history, making the intelligent, fair and rational distinction between those who knew what Jesus said and those who did not, or who obviously did the opposite of what he said. Is that a reasonable request?

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='RAD' pid='85409' dateline='1281285163']
[quote]Take Bacon, Newton and Locke for example, whom Jefferson called "the three greatest men in the world."

Not to mention many modern scientists, etc who I would guess you know nothing about.

Perhaps they contemplated questions most atheist haven't even thought about yet, e.g, how did fishermen write similies like Shakespeare?[/quote]

Whilst I don't agree that theists are stupid, I think that citing people who were theists is irrelevant, as most people were theists for most of human history. Skepticism about religion has always been most prominent among the most educated and intelligent, though.

[quote]Can we also agree that stupid, narcissitic evil atheists knocked off way more innocent people than all the ignorant, stupid medieval Christians put together?[/quote]

Perhaps, but I have some objections to this hackneyed argument. 1) This was only because they had modern methods of government, which meant that they were better able to slaughter people than, say, the crusaders. 2) Assuming that you're talking about the Communist regimes, there's no evidence that they did what they did becaue they were atheists, rather than because they were fanatical Communists. 3) If you're also referring to the Nazis, there's little evidence that Hitler was an atheist (and some evidence diectly to the contrary), and most of his followers certainly weren't. In fact, the Nazis capitalised on Christian anti-semitism that had existed for centuries (i.e. the 'fact' that the Jews were 'Christ killers').