Faith is an evil thing

[Wilson23]

Christian Nationalists have taken to calling themselves "people of faith" -- by analogy with "people of color," implying, "don't despise us for what we are." Not really fair -- you're born with your color and can't change it.

But what is far more disturbing is their wearing "faith" as a badge of pride.

The most odious, the most objectionable thing about Christianity is that it places VALUE on FAITH. You just can't get more wrong-headed than that -- faith is a vice, not a virtue. I am tempted to say a sin, since sloth is generally ranked as a sin and faith is a form of sloth -- it means giving up on any rigorous, skeptical inquiry into first things and just accepting what you're told.

Faith -- in the religious sense -- is NOT a good thing for human beings to have. It is not good for the state of your soul.

 

[Rightguide]

Christian Nationalists have taken to calling themselves "people of faith" -- by analogy with "people of color," implying, "don't despise us for what we are." Not really fair -- you're born with your color and can't change it.

But what is far more disturbing is their wearing "faith" as a badge of pride.

The most odious, the most objectionable thing about Christianity is that it places VALUE on FAITH. You just can't get more wrong-headed than that -- faith is a vice, not a virtue. I am tempted to say a sin, since sloth is generally ranked as a sin and faith is a form of sloth -- it means giving up on any rigorous, skeptical inquiry into first things and just accepting what you're told.

It's no different than you having faith in Marx.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Christian Nationalists have taken to calling themselves "people of faith" -- by analogy with "people of color," implying, "don't despise us for what we are." Not really fair -- you're born with your color and can't change it.

But what is far more disturbing is their wearing "faith" as a badge of pride.

The most odious, the most objectionable thing about Christianity is that it places VALUE on FAITH. You just can't get more wrong-headed than that -- faith is a vice, not a virtue. I am tempted to say a sin, since sloth is generally ranked as a sin and faith is a form of sloth -- it means giving up on any rigorous, skeptical inquiry into first things and just accepting what you're told.

Faith -- in the religious sense -- is NOT a good thing for human beings to have. It is not good for the state of your soul.

I'd take faith in something over faith in nothing every time.

 

[Wilson23]

It's no different than you having faith in Marx.

I never have. Too pseudoscientific -- all deterministic theories of history are fundamentally flawed.

But Communism has had definite similarities to a religious faith, especially in the mid-20th Century: The Historical Dialectic was God, Marx was Moses, the Revolution was the Apocalypse, Lenin was Christ, the Party was the Church, Stalin was the Pope, the secret police were the Inquisition, and Trotsky was Martin Luther.

 

[Wilson23]

I'd take faith in something over faith in nothing every time.

What good is faith in something?

 

[Saint_Ann]

What good is faith in something?

I have faith that the next thing you post will be totally unnecessary.

 

[Wilson23]

I have faith that the next thing you post will be totally unnecessary.

Hallelujah!

 

[OpenMindedMom_MCHL]

Christian Nationalists have taken to calling themselves "people of faith" -- by analogy with "people of color," implying, "don't despise us for what we are." Not really fair -- you're born with your color and can't change it.

But what is far more disturbing is their wearing "faith" as a badge of pride.

The most odious, the most objectionable thing about Christianity is that it places VALUE on FAITH. You just can't get more wrong-headed than that -- faith is a vice, not a virtue. I am tempted to say a sin, since sloth is generally ranked as a sin and faith is a form of sloth -- it means giving up on any rigorous, skeptical inquiry into first things and just accepting what you're told.

Faith -- in the religious sense -- is NOT a good thing for human beings to have. It is not good for the state of your soul.

There is no value on faith but there is great value in having faith no matter what religion it happens to be. Faith IS a good thing for human beings to have. I speak from personal experience. My soul is at peace because of my own personal faith. That has great value... to me.

 

[Wilson23]

There is no value on faith but there is great value in having faith no matter what religion it happens to be. Faith IS a good thing for human beings to have. I speak from personal experience. My soul is at peace because of my own personal faith. That has great value... to me.

How does that work?

 

[Saint_Ann]

Hallelujah!

See what having faith does?

 

[Wilson23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Christianity
The Case Against Christianity (ISBN 9781566390811) is a 1991 book by American philosopher Michael Martin (a professor at Boston University), in which he seeks to present philosophical arguments against Christianity. His book is original in that, although the existence of God has long been a frequent topic in the philosophy of religion, relatively little serious philosophical work has sought to address some of the other major doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Atonement, etc. Although Martin is a well-known philosophical defender of atheism, he elects not to assume or argue for atheism in his book (given that there is already plenty of philosophical literature addressing that topic, and he wrote a previous book himself defending that view), and thus tries to use only arguments which a theist might find convincing.

 

[OpenMindedMom_MCHL]

How does that work?

Wonderfully well in my case. Because I have faith. I cannot talk anyone into or out of believing. I just do. I know that is a simplistic answer but its all I have,

 

[Bray123]

Some crazy people support a mythical being who they say is good because they killed millions of babies.

Then they pretend to be pro-life.

 

[Wilson23]

Some crazy people support a mythical being who they say is good because they killed millions of babies.

Then they pretend to be pro-life.

Roughly half of human pregnancies end in miscarriage -- somebody has a LOT to answer for.

 

[Rightguide]

I never have. Too pseudoscientific -- all deterministic theories of history are fundamentally flawed.

But Communism has had definite similarities to a religious faith, especially in the mid-20th Century: The Historical Dialectic was God, Marx was Moses, the Revolution was the Apocalypse, Lenin was Christ, the Party was the Church, Stalin was the Pope, the secret police were the Inquisition, and Trotsky was Martin Luther.

Faith is evil isn't always true. Faith can be abused, like anything powerful. But abuse does not define essence. Faith has inspired compassion, courage, restraint, sacrifice, and hope across every civilization. Calling faith “evil” usually says more about the speaker’s ideology than about faith itself. People of faith the United States of America and it implies that actions matter, life has value, and people are accountable. Evil thrives far more easily in systems that insist nothing ultimately means anything. In fact, it holds individuals accountable.

Marx was not Moses, he was a theorist, not a lawgiver claiming divine authority. Moses did not argue; he proclaimed. Marx argued incessantly and invited revision, critique, and reinterpretation. The fact that later regimes turned Marx into scripture is an indictment of those regimes, not proof that communism is a religion.

 

[Wilson23]

Faith is evil isn't always true. Faith can be abused, like anything powerful. But abuse does not define essence. Faith has inspired compassion, courage, restraint, sacrifice, and hope across every civilization. Calling faith “evil” usually says more about the speaker’s ideology than about faith itself.

Faith AS SUCH is evil in this sense:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Christianity
Having defined what he seeks to refute, he then proceeds in chapter 1[2] to respond to a number of Christian claims concerning the logical foundations of Christian belief:

He addresses arguments of the form that we ought to believe in Christianity because it is good for us to do so. These can be seen as pragmatic or ethical arguments - or, as he puts the distinction, believing for beneficial rather than epistemic reasons. Examples of such arguments include Pascal's wager and William James' attempts to justify religious belief in pragmatic terms.
He argues that there is a strong presumption that we ought to believe for epistemic rather than beneficial reasons. At this juncture he invokes W. K. Clifford's arguments in his famous essay The Ethics of Belief that believing without sufficient evidence is morally wrong. Clifford advances a number of reasons for its alleged immorality. Martin adopts these reasons, but adds an additional element: in addition to its violation of our moral duties, Martin believes belief without evidence contradicts epistemological duties which exist independently from ethics.
Martin accepts that, hypothetically, there are situations in which belief without evidence may be justifiable. He gives the example of the nuclear terrorist who threatens to destroy New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, unless you convert to Christianity.[3] He argues that, under such an unlikely circumstance, the rational and moral approach is to at least try to believe in Christianity. However, given that these are very rare circumstances, his implication is that in more ordinary circumstances belief in Christianity without evidence is morally and epistemologically impermissible.

 

[Wilson23]

Evil thrives far more easily in systems that insist nothing ultimately means anything.

No such systems have ever existed. Not even Fascism fits that description.

 

[Wilson23]

Marx was not Moses

Marx was unclear on the difference.

 

[JohnEngelman]

During my life the Christians and Jews I have known have been better people than the nones.

I suspect that those who attend church or synagogue services regularly have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than those without religious affiliation, but I cannot document it.

It would be fairly easy to do a survey of that. I wish a credible source of data would make a survey.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Some crazy people support a mythical being who they say is good because they killed millions of babies.

Then they pretend to be pro-life.

That probably made sense to you. Lol.

 

[Wilson23]

During my life the Christians and Jews I have known have been better people than the nones.

I suspect that those who attend church or synagogue services regularly have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than those without religious affiliation, but I cannot document it.

It would be fairly easy to do a survey of that. I wish a credible source of data would make a survey.

It is the kind of thing that CAN be studied.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4345965/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X15001876
https://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2024...eeds-religious-belief-uc-merced-research-says
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...-not-necessary-to-believe-in-god-to-be-moral/

And, generally, no -- religious belief does NOT correlate with moral behavior.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is the kind of thing that CAN be studied.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4345965/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X15001876
https://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2024...eeds-religious-belief-uc-merced-research-says
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...-not-necessary-to-believe-in-god-to-be-moral/

And, generally, no -- religious belief does NOT correlate with moral behavior.

The essays did not define moral behavior in ways everyone would agree is moral behavior.

Everyone will agree that it is immoral to commit crimes. Everyone will or should agree that it is immoral to have illegitimate children because children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life than other children.

It is easy to determine who has felony convictions and who does not, and who has illegitimate children and who does not.

 

[Wilson23]

The essays did not define moral behavior in ways everyone would agree is moral behavior.

Everyone will agree that it is immoral to commit crimes. Everyone will or should agree that it is immoral to have illegitimate children because children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life than other children.

It is easy to determine who has felony convictions and who does not, and who has illegitimate children and who does not.

St. Augustine had an illegitimate child.

 

[JohnEngelman]

St. Augustine had an illegitimate child.

That does not mean that having illegitimate children is morally justified.

 

[Wilson23]

In "It's a Wonderful Life" the angels discuss Clarence:

ANGEL: Clarence? He has the mind of a rabbit!

JOSEPH: Perhaps, but he has the faith of a child! Simple!


He means that as a COMPLIMENT.

It is deeply disturbing how that kind of thinking runs through all the popular culture of Christian civilization.