Tercel

I have to wonder if we’re reading the same Bible here. You equate “faith” with blind belief. The writers of the Bible when the use the word “faith” clearly mean trust - and trust is a result of evidence. Jesus didn’t say to Thomas “You have to believe without evidence otherwise it doesn’t count”, but rather showed him the evidence he needed. Paul when he preached the gospel didn’t ask for blind faith, but rather pointed to the miracles he performed as evidence of the truth. Nowhere does the Bible say that if you examine the evidence then you are not a true Christian: That would fly in the face of everything the Bible teaches.

The trouble is that the word “faith” has several meanings - as a brief look at a dictionary will make clear. You seem to understand “faith” to mean belief without evidence. It seems a common interpretation, but it is difficult/impossible to reconcile the idea with the way the word is used in the Bible. Rather, as I said above: “Trust” is the more likely meaning. And the greater the evidence, the greater will be your trust.

I have yet to see anything which commands me to believe without evidence.

Tercel

Draygomb

brahma

You are correct. Study after study has shown a high correlation between Education and Athiesm as well as Ignorance and Theism.

People with high IQ's are also much more likely to be Atheists.

And the real kicker is that the more religious education one has the more likely one is to be an Atheist.

Amos

And all that proves is that the Bible should not be read or studied but its content must be prior to us by nature and second to this in the bible.

The real tragedy here is that the "educated blind" are encouraged to lead the "ignorant blind" in the Constitution you protect.

Draygomb

If a group of people are all blind shouldn't the one who knows the area the best be the leader?

BLoggins02

Amos, I REALLY want some of whatever it is you're smoking.

brahma

[Jesus didn’t say to Thomas “You have to believe without evidence otherwise it doesn’t count”, but rather showed him the evidence he needed]

Now that is just an unfortunate example for you to have picked. Did you read your bible through or did you stop right after Jesus showed Thomas the evidence? Because if you had read the next line it would have said, "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
- John, Chapter , Verse 29.

What do you suppose Jesus meant by that? I think he meant that you are not blessed if you cannot believe without evidence.

[I have yet to see anything which commands me to believe without evidence.]

Then I suggest you keep at your reading of the bible, you will eventually find your way to passages like the one above and those below...

Romans 14:22 - Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Phillipians 2:14 - Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent

Tercel

I would suppose that he meant that those who did not personally see him resurrected yet still believed in his resurrection are blessed.

That is a plausible interpretation I suppose, though I find it an unlikely one. Not Seen => Blessed, does not necessarily mean than Seen => not Blessed.
Even if that was really what Jesus meant, does it make a difference? My point would seem to still stand. -Unless you perhaps want to argue that Thomas went to Hell because he didn’t have the required blind faith?

I’m not sure I see how this verse is relevant, given its context. You’ll need to explain it for me. Please use a newer translation as well – I have difficultly following the obfuscated old English versions.

Most translations seem to prefer “arguing” to “questioning”. At any rate the meaning (given a little context) seems to be in reference to the idea that you should live in peace with one another without unnecessary complaining or questioning for the purpose of causing dissent. There seems little to warrant the interpretation that Paul is insisting on complete gullibility. Indeed he says “Do all things…” not “Believe all things…”. Certainly, others of Paul’s epistles make clear that Christians should not believe something just because someone says so. (re: his complaints about the Jewish-Christians who were trying to insist that circumcision and obeying the Law was necessary)

santa

They're not, its mass psychosis.

Works for me until they're about 7 or 8 (hope I didn't spoil anything).

hinduwoman

Brahma, the people you encounter are mostly not well-educated. Just take a look at how the devout argue --- most cannot argue logically or critically. Instead they give fascinating arguments like --- if I leave my car out in the open it doesnot turn into a better car; so how can evolution be true?

Same here in India. If you look back in Indian history you will see that the most educated have not believed; if they did believe in a god, they did not accept the rest of the supernatural paraphernelia or social conventions as god-given, from Basava to Vidyasagar to Bankimchandra.

Blu

Foxhole Atheist,

You wrote:

"From the day that we are born, especially here in the US, we are indoctrinated with the concept of life beyond death. IMHO, that is the primary reason for the belief in and adherence to religious dogma.

Everyone desires immortality. And, just about all religions promise this.

This very strong desire for immortality, along with life long conditioning, leads to Cognitive Dissonance and hence, the ability of those one would consider intelligent and educated to believe as they do."


My response:

I am wondering what your definition of immortality is. All religions do not teach that our bodies will never die. Religions teach that when our bodies die our souls go to Heaven or some other spiritual plane. I never heard one religion teach that following their ways will lead to immortality.