Amazon.com Widgets

Faith in god should not automatically be considered a virtue.

Asked by: Weeksie
  • A Little Faith Is Okay, Still Not A Virtue, Too Much Faith, It Becomes A Vice Or A Failing:

    Casual, general faith in a God, which doesn't get in the way of being open minded, is okay, though it is still not Virtuous in any way.

    Fundamentalist faith in God is definitely a Vise and in many cases a Severe Failing, because it deprives the person of an Open, Rational Mind and they are more likely to make Stupid decisions or Mistakes, due to Irrational Thinking.
    Thus I could never Employ a Fundamentalist, as they are dangerous to employ, because they are not Rational, and Open Minded, enough to avoid making Stupid decisions.

    So, Faith Is Never A Virtue!
    Too Much Faith And It Becomes A Failing!

  • Think I see how some are confused.

    Virtue: behavior showing high moral standards.
    You would have to agree that both sides, religious and non-religious, do things like give to charities. Seeing that both do virtuous acts you would think that faith would have nothing to do with acts of virtue but because instead of their faith being the reason it would be out of their own humanity.
    The problem with that is, seeing that many church goes donate every Sunday and may be ahead on how much they donate. The donations do go to help many people and doing that would be considered acts of virtue.
    Unfortunately for the religious, the reasons why they give negates it being considered a virtuous act.
    They give because it is required. Doing something good because you have to means you did not do it out of the goodness of your heart, but because it was mandatory so has nothing to do with morality.
    They give so that they can be allowed into heaven. Giving for the purpose of personal gain is also not a virtuous act.
    People like atheists, give because it is the right thing to do. Doing something just because it is the right thing is a virtuous act.
    Religions are well known to be the source of much violence towards mankind, to them though, they only did those acts because it was the will of god and believe, if anything, that doing those things is virtuous so be considered for the greater good. Unfortunately for them again, it was only for their religious self interests, so again fails to be acts of virtue and remain immoral acts instead.
    Sounds to me that the reasons people of faith give are only out of either requirement and self interest, but the non-religious give because it is the right thing to do.

  • Ouch my feelings, "atheists have no morals"

    Yes. We do.
    One could argue I have more morals than all of Spain in their first contact with the new world, in which Christian conquistadores slaughtered and tortured those that would not convert. One could argue I have more morals than the various priests accused of extortion and wrongdoing of the abusive nature. One could even go far enough to claim that I, as an atheist, have more morals the exodus in which 21:7 claims my father could sell me as a slave, and the passages before explain goat sacrifice in detail.
    One could make all those arguments with a fair amount of data. And so to say that having blind faith in all of religion, including all of the aforementioned aspects, makes one a better person on principle, is a simply forced attempt at reassuring ones self.
    Morals aren't about religion. And blind faith isn't a virtue.

  • Belief Without Evidence.

    Faith is defined as belief without proof or evidence. In the case of religious faith, the consequences of such un-thinking and un-reason have historically been catastrophic. From advocating bigotry against homosexuals to repressing women's rights of self determination and reproductive freedom; from holding back world saving scientific progress to eroding the wall of separation between church and state; from sympathizing with the most violent reactions to free speech (blasphemy) to openly wishing for armageddon and the end of days. It is time that people of reason and rationality step up, draw the line, and say enough is enough.

    Those who believe in bronze age superstitious nonsense have every right to do so, just like the rest of us have every right to criticize, ridicule, and reject it.

  • Its called inductive reasoning chumps

    Faith in religion is defined as:
    : strong belief or trust in someone or something

    : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

    : a system of religious beliefs

    You will notice in NONE of the definitions that apply to religion, does it imply that there is no case made or that the acceptance is done blindly. It is precisely these terms that make atheists eschew ANY possibility of being called a religion whatsoever.

    The definition of faith, NOT SPECIFIC TO RELIGION IS:

    firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    Well, guess what atheists? Guess what you use to be an atheist? Because not only can you not prove there is no God, but a bunch of you start silly polls like this based on semantics and silly misconceptions of religion, like we are blind, dithering dolts.

    And the danger of a faith based claim, DESPITE THE OBVIOUS inhuman and immoral basis of the claim? Well, you tell us what similar experiments with social darwinism did to our society?

    Faith is a God that is widely known to be a loving and caring God, and the public affirmation of those principles SHOULD INDEED automatically be considered a virtue. It is subsequent adherence to those standards that defines virtue to lack thereof, but the public declaration of adherence to system of ethics that is loft and virtuous is indeed a virtuous choice.

    Shockingly, if atheists were to do the sea thing, provided they could ever agree on a moral code that is, that TOO would be a virtuous thing, as in, please hold us to these standards.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.