BurnTheShips,
I also believe that "faith is the principal vice of any religion". I would love to see how you would try to prove that it was not.
An explanation would be welcome.
Faith is not a vice. It is not morally depraved, corrupt, morally failed, faulted nor immoral. It is not a blemish. It is not a defect, habitual or otherwise. It is in no way abnormal, and does not make a believer unfit in any way.
I would like to see you prove that faith is any of the above.
Now, I wonder why you took a literalist approach and focused on one dimension of the word "vice" ignoring its numerous other meanings.
For example, apart from its moral concepts the meaning is variously shown as:
1) A defect; a fault; an error; a blemish; an imperfection; as, the vices of a political constitution; the vices of a horse.
2) A mild failing or flaw in a persons character or personality.
3) A flaw, defect, or bad habit.
As to your next statement:
Unfaith often is morally depraved, corrupt, morally failed, faulted and immoral. It is a blemish. It is a defect. It is abnormal as evidenced by the enervated minority that believe it. It makes them unfit, as evidenced by the weakened tribe of humans it creates. The founding fathers of modern unbelief, such as Marx and Nietzsche, are wonderful examples of this. They are long dead, but their poisoned seed still bears fruit.
I would love to see you prove otherwise.
An absurd statement, undone by your own use of the word "often" and the use of personal moral judgments as opposed to providing evidence for your statement. If you have read Dawkin's book, you will note that his use of the word "vice" accompanied reams of information and evidence to back up his concept.
Apart from the ease which one can view religion historically and conclude that faith is as immoral in its actions, a more accurate reading of Dawkins statement would suggesting that "faith" is a vice in the sense, not of moral corruption, but in the sense of a flawed viewpoint that a person hangs then hangs all their flawed philosophies upon.
As you have previously admitted on another thread that faith is "the belief in something that cannot be proved", how can Dawkins be wrong in describing it as a "vice"? Self deceit is a flaw, and one might even argue in another setting it is a moral flaw, though I stress that unlike yourself, Dawkins use of the word "flaw" should not be taken as literally as you have..
Unbelief, or "unfaith" as you call it, is not a religion, a way of thought, or even a philosophy. It is a position reached on evidence thus far gained. If science found proof of the supernatural, then this position would change. My feeling is that you do not understand what atheism really is. I also see that your understanding of evolution as a process is also quite innacurate.
HS
