first, what is faith? is faith not a belief in that which has little or no evidence? is it not? if something had sufficient evidence for it, would it still require faith to believe in it? can we say, therefore, that faith is a belief in something which has insufficient evidence to merit a belief? if the above is true then would an all-intelligent being- the supreme of all intellectuals and that which is true- find it applaudable, even holy, one who believes in something without enough reason for doing so? what would He gain from rewarding one who lowers his standards of evidence-needed-for-belief? why would this be a holy trait? what is to be gained of this by either party?


2 thoughts on “faith.

  1. Faith is not a “holy” trait. Who said that it was? Atheist practice faith as there is no evidence that God does not exist. They believe this by faith.

  2. if there is no evidence for either argument, the atheist/agnostic would then argue that it would be best to take a middle stance or at least suspend belief until evidence arrives. this is where most agnostics and atheists are coming from. not even richard dawkins says he “knows” there is not a god, but he does not profess a belief in him for lack of evidence. no faith is required to “lack a belief” in something, but faith is required to believe in that which lacks evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s