[When asked to prove the existence of a soul, in order to validate his claim that life begins at conception]
I don't have to "prove" anything.
You see, I have this wonderful thing called "faith" and with that I have no need of proof.
105 comments
This is the core of all Xian (and other religious beliefs) "scientific research" - if there is "faith", no proofs are needed!
Well, he is right that faith precludes the necessity of proof. That's why it's called "faith" and not "fact."
So, while the rest of us must prove our points, you are to be given special dispensation because your position can't be supported by proof?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.. as it has been said. Faith is not supposed to be used as an intellectual 'cop out', especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
@NotMe
But "faith" does not make something true. Evidence does. I agree with you, but I think it needs to be slightly rethought. A better way of saying it would be 'But "faith" does not make something true, the truth is what is true, and evidence is the best measurement for what the truth seems to be, unless other evidence contradicts the original evidence.' (like in science)
This is definitely a candidate for the coveted Fundamentalism in a Nutshell Award, but I think judgment should be reserved until much later in the month; the last couple of months had multiple worthy entries!yourself . You still need to prove it to other people, however.
~David D.G.
I don't have to "prove" anything. You see, I have this wonderful thing called "faith" and with that I have no need of proof. You may have no need of proof for yourself ; but if you want to call for laws that apply to the rest of us, then you need to give the rest of us proof. Otherwise, just apply your faith to your own behavior and leave the rest of us alone.
The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith." What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.
Redhunter said: The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation There is no evidence that faith is ever rewarded over reason.
There is no evidence that faith is ever rewarded over reason.
Crosis: "Regeneration" is a parody.
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. Losing Faith in Faith ]
I've always had trouble with people on both sides trying to prove/disprove a CONCEPT such as souls. Faith and science are two complete parallels. While he's right in that he really doesn't have to prove to anyone his own religious beliefs, if he was the one to engage in a fundamentally scientific discussion he should never have pulled the "I don't have to prove anything because faith trumps science" card. Maybe it was taken out of context, i dunno.
Then you are going down the road of Mohammed abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Muslim theologian who 800 years ago damned logic and reason as incompatible opposites of FAITH! and how FAITH! must prevail. From then on, pietistic "Don't think, just BE-LEEEVE!" has been a major influence in Islamic history, from al-Ghazali to al-Qaeda.
al-Ghazali was so influential that Islam's been going down that road for the past eight centuries. Look where it got them. Why do you insist on making the same error and letting it run its course?
So, like, if you have faith that cutting the red wire instead of the blue one will not cause the bomb to detonate, it's somehow better and more knowledge-based than a proven manual on how to disarm explosives?
I would not want to be on a bomb squad with this person.
If you have lower standards than I, that's all fine and dandy. However, I'll still abide by mine, which means that, to convince me, you'll have to meet them. Good luck.
"I don't have to "prove" anything.
You see, I have this wonderful thing called "faith" and with that I have no need of proof."
Well, then, I guess it's a good thing that I have faith that you're wrong.
Faith is good, proof is better.
So, yes, you DO need proof when you are arguing. :)
This person is not a Fundie.
The point of religion is that it is based on faith. As long as people don't force their beliefs on others, they can have faith in any darn thing they like.
Proof is science, proof is awesome. But if there was proof for religion--believing in it would be nothing special.
As long as religions don't claim to have concrete evidence that they are true, they rock! They know their place-faith. Not science.
Smartybobarty, IAWTC so much. It's like Steven Jay Gould's book "Rocks of the Ages"; Science is science, and religion is religion, and the two shouldn't mess with each other. i think that the reason this seems like a fundie is because of the political position (pro-life), and the somewhat awkward and rude turn of phrase. The sarcasm was unnecessary, and "I have no need of proof" didn't really help their case.
If you're gonna be stupid, please do it somewhere else.
Yes, this is true. You don't *have* to prove a thing.
But if you want people to think of you as anything but a silly, dimwitted lunatic, it might be a good idea to have some evidence.
(God gave you those brain-cells for a reason! Use 'em!)
WOW how convient for you
If you have faith, then yes, you don't have to prove anything, so long as you adhere to two things:
OK, then I have faith that all fundie christians are secretly fundie muslims.
I don't need to "prove" anything. I have faith.
Methodology of SCIENCE:
Tbf this isn't that stupid; in the work of Kierkegaard, faith is partially defined by the lack of proof, still, about 90 of these are f-ing fantastic!
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don't have to "prove" anything.
You see, I have this wonderful thing called "faith" and with that I need no proof.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
