thorazinekizzez wrote:
Lady Jella wrote:
thorazinekizzez wrote:
No true religion can be based on faith.
That is a HUGE problem with religion. Massive problem with religion.
All faith based religions have the serious flaw that they have no true connection with god. If god ever showed up all religions would collapse. Wouldn't you rather not take a stance on something until you knew the facts rather than jump in head first and look like a fool in the end?
Common sense says faith is the absolute flaw with religion.
I'm intrigued by what you're trying to say in this thread, but I'm not sure I am quite getting it.
I'm not entirely sure why it should matter that no religion can prove without a doubt the existence of a god. The essence of faith as I understand it is belief without the need for verification through scientific or other means. I don't think you acquire faith through proof. You either have it or you don't. Once proof is presented one way or another (on the question of the existence of God, for example,) there is no more need for faith if the proof is accepted as fact/truth. The blindness is essential to faith.
Let me put it this way. I'm not religious, but I am spiritual. I try to live my life following certain Taoist teachings and values. It is not easy by any means and I am only beginning that path. I do not know if there is a god. There may be. There may not be. I have never seen any evidence to either way. And, it does not matter. The question of the existence of god is irrelevant to me. For me, there is no need for a divine being. All living things are connected. If I want to pray, which I rarely do, it would be to that natural order/chaos of life. All things are of me, and I am of all things. And yet, in a sense, in a larger sense, there is no me.
That may be flawed to you. You may disintegrate it into something you want to call "religion" or "faith" because there is no scientific evidence behind it. But I do not see it as being either. I do not go to any church. There are no priests or reverends for me. And as far as faith goes, well... I don't need evidence to support the existence of God, because that is irrelevant to me. I don't believe any certain set of conditions, as much as I simply agree with them. I agree with the lack of supposition.
The only thing I have noticed you say that I disagree with, or at least find a dubious thing to say, is that all religions are fundamentally flawed because they do not have a real connection with God.
I find this sentence difficult to understand, because as far as I know, no one has proven without a doubt the existence of God, and that to my knowledge every religion is based on the concept of taking the existence of God as face value, as a core component of the religion.
If there would not be a religion without blind faith, then how can you say that blind faith is precisely the one flaw with any such religion?
I'm not arguing you, because so far I am having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say, unless it's just about semantics.