Comment Re:You not understand does not equal faith (Score 1) 105
Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning.
I don't get it. You're in fact taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning, but that's "hugely different" than taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning? Because you could do something you didn't? I'm not finding that argument coherent.
I'm skeptical by nature. Sure, there are many things I take on faith because they're just not interesting or important enough to question. I think that's true for everyone. But anything I have a strong opinion on, I've done some research myself, not just trusted the word of others. It seems from this thread that you don't work that way. You're arguing that you're not taking stuff on faith because it's possible for you to do the research, but you haven't? If that's your argument you're just wrong - you're still taking those things on faith.
You seem to have a very cynical view of religion, so extreme that you have your own personal definition of "on faith" that makes that phrase an insult? That's odd.
Sure, some religions are coupled with fables and creation stories and gods. Some aren't. Some have those things, but few think they're the important bit. Most world religions have lots of advice on how one should live - as an individual, as a member of a community, that their believers live by. You can look at whether those believers are happy and successful (did you know the average family income for Hindus in America is well into 6 figures?), or living in barbarous middle-age conditions. Some have an explicit focus on engineering the mind to make yourself happy - that seems neat, does it work, are they happy? These are very much testable philosophies of life.
Are you seriously arguing that it's rational to have strong opinions about X when you haven't done even the most basic diligence about X?