• 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!

Why faith is evil

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yeah, that's pretty much the major problem Dawkins has with belief in general, and the supposed evil that it perpetuates. Really, a lot of his arguments focus more on atheist and secular complacency towards religion and public refusal to challenge religious doctrines as being the real evil of religion.
I agree.

When your dog keeps crashing your car, the problem's not with the dog; it's with the fact you keep giving him the keys.

There will always be cranks in the world. There will always be people who want to implement bad public policies for self-serving reasons. We'll never be able to get rid of them, but we can decide how we as a society are going to respond to them.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Yeah, that's pretty much the major problem Dawkins has with belief in general, and the supposed evil that it perpetuates. Really, a lot of his arguments focus more on atheist and secular complacency towards religion and public refusal to challenge religious doctrines as being the real evil of religion.

Dawkins is only one side of the coin

theres plenty in the middle to justify OP's statement.

Your arguement is without merit, most christians havnt read the bible start to front. Many take the myth and believe every word written allthough they only know what a priest has read to them. Its pretty hard to get a group of people that actually interpet the same thing out of much of it

misused religion is a terrible thing guilty of MASS murders due to faith alone.

supposed evil that it perpetuates

ignornace my friend

christians always look at a different opinion as evil :facepalm: its what makes faith dangerous
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
If a belief can be morally justified, it has to be proven. But if it's proven, it ceases to be a belief! :rolleyes: Someone who hates religion badly enough will start spewing this garbage. Dawkins does it and now you're doing it.

I don't believe either I or Professor Dawkins said anything about proof.
Your argument is that if you believe something based on evidence, then you don't believe it? I'm not following you.
 

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Oh please. Scientists believe stuff that hasn't been proven all the time. And so do those who rely on those scientists for their worldview.

Ah? Would you care to give us an example? You must know dozens of examples since scientists believe in unproven stuff "all the time".
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
I personally don't agree with this all-encompassing statement, "faith is evil". I think things have to be taken on a more individual basis. Not all "faith" is evil, some of it is very harmless. I don't like these all-encompassing statements, they lead to things like prejudice. Also, it is naive to think that a persons beliefs is not in fact part of the sum of that person. Every human being deserves to be judged on the merit of who they are, on what they say and how they act, not simply because they have faith in something.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I personally don't agree with this all-encompassing statement, "faith is evil". I think things have to be taken on a more individual basis. Not all "faith" is evil, some of it is very harmless. I don't like these all-encompassing statements, they lead to things like prejudice. Also, it is naive to think that a persons beliefs is not in fact part of the sum of that persons. Every human being deserves to be judeged on the merit of who they are, on what they say and how they act, not simply because they have faith in something.

I agree, and I think Dawkins would also agree.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank

Legal terminology is different. In law, we use the two terms pretty much interchangeably.

In other useage, if a thing is proven, it's absolutely demonstrated, such as a formal proof in logic or math. Evidence, by contrast, is an empirical concept, the sort of stuff we all use in everyday life to make decisions, and the stuff science uses to learn about the world. Scientific theories are not proven, because, being empirical, they can never be absolutely shown to be true. There is always the logical possibility that an impish God created everything Last Tuesday to look exactly as it does. But once the evidence in support of a scientific idea reaches a certain level, it would be foolish or disingenuous to doubt it.

Basically, Dawkins, and I, (and Robert Ingersoll) are arguing that an ethical approach toward truth involves more than just believing something. It includes some responsibility for being careful about what you decide to believe.
it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism. That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence.
Robert Ingersoll
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Legal terminology is different. In law, we use the two terms pretty much interchangeably.

In other useage, if a thing is proven, it's absolutely demonstrated, such as a formal proof in logic or math. Evidence, by contrast, is an empirical concept, the sort of stuff we all use in everyday life to make decisions, and the stuff science uses to learn about the world. Scientific theories are not proven, because, being empirical, they can never be absolutely shown to be true. There is always the logical possibility that an impish God created everything Last Tuesday to look exactly as it does. But once the evidence in support of a scientific idea reaches a certain level, it would be foolish or disingenuous to doubt it.

Basically, Dawkins, and I, (and Robert Ingersoll) are arguing that an ethical approach toward truth involves more than just believing something. It includes some responsibility for being careful about what you decide to believe.
Robert Ingersoll


"Legal terminology is different. In law, we use the two terms pretty much interchangeably."


That is just the name of the website, the definition contained within was a standard dictionary definition.

Here..

proof

 
–noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

8. Mathematics, Logic . a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.

10. Distilling . a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.

b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.



11. Photography . a trial print from a negative.

12. Printing . a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.

b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.



13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.

14. Numismatics . one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.

15. the state of having been tested and approved.

16. proved strength, as of armor.

17. Scots Law . the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.


–adjective 18. able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation.

19. impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes.

20. used for testing or proving; serving as proof.

21. of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.

22. of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor.

23. noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.


–verb (used with object) 24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.

25. Printing . prove ( def. 7 ) .

26. to proofread.

27. to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.

28. Cookery . a. to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.

b. to cause (esp. bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.
Proof | Define Proof at Dictionary.com


"In other useage, if a thing is proven, it's absolutely demonstrated, such as a formal proof in logic or math. Evidence, by contrast, is an empirical concept, the sort of stuff we all use in everyday life to make decisions, and the stuff science uses to learn about the world. "

I never seen people make too grand of an effort to semantically separate the two. I would suggest though you consider the more colloquial use of words when reading someone's post. I would imagine that is what they are going with. But if you are unclear of which he meant maybe you should have just asked him for clarification.


"Basically, Dawkins, and I, (and Robert Ingersoll) are arguing "


I don't see Dawkins arguing here, all I see is you.
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Besides Tomato1236 is completely right, scientist or people who are partial to science are not immune to having unfounded and absurd beliefs.
 

142857

Member
I know I'm chiming in at the tail end of a really long conversation, but, as for myself:

I think faith has no basis in reality.....faith is not naturaly occouring in any other instance wherin god is not involved. Faith goes against our very human nature. People use it as a shield and a prop, and an excusse.

People are either evil or not, or most likely somewhere in between. not ideas.

faith may lead some to evil and some to rightousness.

I personaly think "Hope" is a better idea than "faith" any day
 

142857

Member
Scientist try to prove what they believe ....they don't rely on faith and just claim somthing to be fact just because they "believe" it is.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Scientist try to prove what they believe ....they don't rely on faith and just claim somthing to be fact just because they "believe" it is.

sorry, you're mistaken.
scientists try to prove a hypothesis/speculation...that is not belief.
scientists claim somthing to be fact when it is proven...not because they believe it is... otherwise, what's the point?

are you trying to justify why you have blind faith?
that's your problem, not the scientists...

"Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time

if you like here is an article about the largest astroid that hit earth and what scientist's speculate what happened...they don't believe anything other than the empirical evidence of an astroid hitting the earth...

so what does your bible say about that?
 

blackout

Violet.
People have faith in a government full of proven liars,
enough to vote anyway.

Is this evil? immoral? or just stupid.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
It can be and it often is. When unwisely placed, faith leads people into serious mistakes.

Although I really wonder what exactly you mean by faith. There is quite some variation around there on the meaning of that word.

For the purpose of this this thread, "faith" is meant to signify "faith in God."
 
Top