Blind faith in general. Anything else in the world there is evidence to support it, and if I don’t believe it I can learn the process and test it myself, but with Christianity I’m told to blindly believe.
Really? I’m curious what independently verifiable test that you took and also how that compares across religions. Didn’t realize that was a standard process now that anyone can work on verifying the results of.
And that right there is the “blind faith” I’m referring to. See one of the other posts about the rainbow. We might not have the technology or capability now, but science is always growing and evolving as we know more and we can eventually determine. Religion will never have that. At some point we are just told “you have to believe it”
I don’t think “blind faith” is a very good phrase.
First of all, it certainly doesn’t happen to every Christian, but I’ve personally experienced and seen so much evidence of God’s activity, there’s no way you could convince me of it being untrue. I would have to find so many answers to questions that science and natural law just would not be able to explain.
Secondly, the natural evidence is abundant. Look at the world, the universe, the complexity of biology, cell division, etc, etc - it plainly points to a creator.
In what way do these things “plainly point to a creator”? Is it just that you believe that complex things must be created by something equally complex? Does that also mean that since God is complex that something created God as well?
I’d agree that biological processes are complex and fascinating, but they are also very prone to errors. The kind of errors that result in disease, disability, and death. I have a hard time seeing that as plain evidence of an omnipotent creator.
I agree. Back in the day we could look at a rainbow and exclaim “good must exist, look at this”. Now we know it’s light following the laws of physics.
There are many such examples, and as we continue our move from the dark ages to that of scientific enlightenment, more discoveries will unveil the wonders of science, and the natural world.
What about all the times non-religious answers are able to explain the things claimed as “only [answerable] by a Creator” in ways that can be demonstrated without having to trust the local kiddy-fiddler and his favorite book?
Blind faith in general. Anything else in the world there is evidence to support it, and if I don’t believe it I can learn the process and test it myself, but with Christianity I’m told to blindly believe.
Christians have tested their faith. That’s why we believe.
Really? I’m curious what independently verifiable test that you took and also how that compares across religions. Didn’t realize that was a standard process now that anyone can work on verifying the results of.
I’m talking about my own life experiences. Not everything can be scientifically measured.
And that right there is the “blind faith” I’m referring to. See one of the other posts about the rainbow. We might not have the technology or capability now, but science is always growing and evolving as we know more and we can eventually determine. Religion will never have that. At some point we are just told “you have to believe it”
I don’t think “blind faith” is a very good phrase.
First of all, it certainly doesn’t happen to every Christian, but I’ve personally experienced and seen so much evidence of God’s activity, there’s no way you could convince me of it being untrue. I would have to find so many answers to questions that science and natural law just would not be able to explain.
Secondly, the natural evidence is abundant. Look at the world, the universe, the complexity of biology, cell division, etc, etc - it plainly points to a creator.
In what way do these things “plainly point to a creator”? Is it just that you believe that complex things must be created by something equally complex? Does that also mean that since God is complex that something created God as well?
I’d agree that biological processes are complex and fascinating, but they are also very prone to errors. The kind of errors that result in disease, disability, and death. I have a hard time seeing that as plain evidence of an omnipotent creator.
I agree. Back in the day we could look at a rainbow and exclaim “good must exist, look at this”. Now we know it’s light following the laws of physics.
There are many such examples, and as we continue our move from the dark ages to that of scientific enlightenment, more discoveries will unveil the wonders of science, and the natural world.
Religious people from every single conflicting religion…
The world points to evolution. There’s a reason biologists aren’t usually religious.
There’s a reason non-religious people go into biology. They’re trying to answer questions that can really only be answered by a Creator
That’s a ridiculous way of avoiding the fact that almost no professionals in relevant fields believe in creationism.
What about all the times non-religious answers are able to explain the things claimed as “only [answerable] by a Creator” in ways that can be demonstrated without having to trust the local kiddy-fiddler and his favorite book?