I think faith requires proof, because even though you don't have to see something happen to have faith in it happening, you still have to believe that it will happen, so you have to be shown that it will happen, and that's the proof. In other words, the scriptures are the proof. You have to be shown what the scriptures are saying, then some will believe and some won't. Some will have faith in what didn't happen yet, because they hear what will happen, and some won't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Faith requires no proof."
- Thread starter Agnostic75
- Start date
Which scriptures? The vedas? Or maybe you're talking about the qur'an? Anyways, thats not even close to proof or evidence. Because scripture simply asserts that it has the truth with out any extra evidence to back it up.
Amill
Apikoros
You can't believe in something without having a reason, so I feel that faith still has evidence behind it. It's just that the evidence that is needed for someone to believe in something varies from person to person. Someone may believe in an idea because of the feeling they have from that belief, others because they see the effect of that belief on the people around them, others because the people they love and trust believe in the same idea, and others because they view the evidence around them and feel that it suggests that idea to be true. I don't really think such a thing as "blind faith" exists. People who are accused of blindly believing in something still have reasons to believe that particular idea, it may just not be the same quality or kind of evidence that is required for other people to believe in those things.
Personally I wish that people would have a higher standard for evidence, and wish they'd analyze the evidence they see without letting their emotions get in the way. I think that beliefs developed through logic rather than emotions are better, but quite a lot of religions promote having emotional attachments in the ideas, that's why they can be so hard to shed. It's hard to convince people to think differently though, that's why I hope to teach my kids some day "how" to think, not "what" to think. Let them come to their own conclusions.
Personally I wish that people would have a higher standard for evidence, and wish they'd analyze the evidence they see without letting their emotions get in the way. I think that beliefs developed through logic rather than emotions are better, but quite a lot of religions promote having emotional attachments in the ideas, that's why they can be so hard to shed. It's hard to convince people to think differently though, that's why I hope to teach my kids some day "how" to think, not "what" to think. Let them come to their own conclusions.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Well said...but somehow you turned out to be an atheist?
Amill
Apikoros
I guess so. I was rarely ever pressured into any beliefs for most of my life. I slowly transitioned through theism to deism and finally atheism. Certain things about an intelligent creator present logical dilemmas to me, and I just don't see a reason why one must exist. I acknowledge it as a possibility because the Universe's existence is quite odd to me, I'm just not convinced it's true.