OpinionPeople that "believe" do so because they do not know.
      – Despicable, 2008-11-18 at 00:51:18   (6 comments)

On 2008-11-18 at 01:04:40, Despicable wrote...
If you had knowledge there would be no need to believe. Therefor all belief is ignorance. Religious belief is placing ignorance on a pedestal and worshiping that ignorance on the foundation of faith. To know is to have concrete verifiable evidence, based on scientific discovery.
On 2008-11-18 at 01:35:14, Baslisks wrote...
I know many people who "know" that believe. as someone who supposedly "knows" and doesn't believe I find my life free and happy while those that do are kind of repressed and crazy.
On 2008-11-18 at 02:01:07, Despicable wrote...
To know what you know and to also know what you do not know is to be honest with yourself and allows you to discover what you do not know and to make it known.
On 2008-11-18 at 07:08:30, BorgClown wrote...
I agree. I'm a hardcore atheist, none of that agnostic <adjective> variety. I can't know if some superior being exists, yet I choose to believe it doesn't, based on the available but inconclusive evidence. I do not know, so I have faith in it being non-existent. The same thing happens when I believe I can do something, the statistical evidence is strong but inconclusive, yet want to have faith in myself. I see faith as the degree of knowledge we don't have. In that sense, faith is ignorance.
On 2008-11-18 at 08:44:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You do have to remember, however, that religious individuals are extremely knowledgeable - about their religion. They know the details of what they have been taught by their religion, and maybe even a little of what a bible says. They know that certain things are self-evident, e.g. the presence of a god. They know that atheism is morally bankrupt. Most importantly, they are perfectly capable of holding their own in a debate and their conviction will not falter when faced with divisive arguments against their knowledge. http://buzzfeed.com/reddit/circular-reasoning-pic
On 2008-11-21 at 07:18:10, Despicable wrote...
You may read a book and be knowledgeable about the content in the book, but if the content in the book is fiction and cannot be verified by observable evidence, and you claim that it does not have to be proven to be true, as long as you have faith that it is true, you are stating a subjective truth not a objective scientific truth that is verified by the discovery of evidence.