People don't seem to understand faith

[1137]

Nope. LOL

You use the wrong definition in this context, personally I am smart enough to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts and so choose the appropriate one.

You on the other hand pick a specific definition and throw a silly paranoid tantrum about nasty militant athiests at anyone who knows better.
, you use one catered to scripture (and even provided the source material!)

LOL, no sparky - I use whatever definition fits the context.


Hey dude, no need to go all postal and freak out.

Hahaha, the context was set by me asking a question. I'm not christian, I don't use the Christian definition. I even provided the definition in question being used. While this was cute at first, I can't debate with a dogmatist who thinks he's a genius but can't even follow a simple line of though and is so weak he can't use a definition he can't tear down. Take a class or something, I certainly can't help you.

 

[1137]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd have a coherent reply, but instead would have to resort to childish ad homs.

My sympathy for your plight. Have a god life.
​

Ad hominems? Haha I'm sorry it's hilarious that you blame me for problems you have with grammar. It's literally the biggest reach I've ever seen. I'm finished quoting definitions for you guys, it's like telling the Phelps family homosexuality is natural. I just pray you all don't gain influence in our world, we've got enough blind, hate driven fanatics.

 

[Bunyip]

Hahaha, the context was set by me asking a question. I'm not christian, I don't use the Christian definition. I even provided the definition in question being used. While this was cute at first, I can't debate with a dogmatist who thinks he's a genius but can't even follow a simple line of though and is so weak he can't use a definition he can't tear down. Take a class or something, I certainly can't help you.

As I said, you are the poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect.

When atheists say that they do not have faith - they mean the 'belief without evidence' meaning of faith.

Using the definition of faith that is equivalent to trust, or belief of course atheists have faith and belief.


Get it? The 'faith' atheists tend to take issue with IS FAITH AS SCRIPTURE DEFINES IT, the belief without evidence faith.

Trust, belief and faith in the broader context are not things that atheists take issue with.

 

[1137]

As I said, you are the poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect.

When atheists say that they do not have faith - they mean the 'belief without evidence' meaning of faith.

Using the definition of faith that is equivalent to trust, or belief of course atheists have faith and belief.


Get it? The 'faith' atheists tend to take issue with IS FAITH AS SCRIPTURE DEFINES IT, the belief without evidence faith.

Trust, belief and faith in the broader context are not things that atheists take issue with.

Oh I get it, I have the entire time. You're just too "intelligent" to see the irony / problem with an atheist holding to scripture. Because of this superior "intelligence" I'm obviously wasting my time trying to get you to understand something so "complicated" they'd point it out in phi 101.

You have fun.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh I get it, I have the entire time. You're just too "intelligent" to see the irony / problem with an atheist holding to scripture. Because of this superior "intelligence" I'm obviously wasting my time trying to get you to understand something so "complicated" they'd point it out in phi 101.

You have fun.

Dude, you just have hold of the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is denying your definition, nobody has denied that atheists have faith, belief and trust as you define them.

I am not holding to scripture, I am just trying to explain to you that it is the scriptural meaning of faith that atheists take issue with., not the common meaning.

FYI! Look up 'irony' in your dictionary, you seem to be misusing it.

 

[Bunyip]

Most recently with some "new atheists" I realized that they deteriorate to the level of beasts when you tell them that everyone has faith and belief.

It is the scriptural definition of faith that atheists tend to object to, faith defined as trust or belief is something that most atheiists will freely agree that they have.

People seem to think that faith and blind acceptance / belief are one in the same,

Yes, and people think that because it is true. Faith (belief without evidence) equates to blind acceptance.

yet faith is simply about deep trust. Evidence is not a factor in the definition. You tell some people they have faith in science and they will*freak out.

That would be because faith (belief without evidence) is anathema to science.

My question is why this happens. What's so wrong about faith?

There is nothing wrong with faith (trust belief) at all, but there is plenty wrong with faith (belief without evidence) - which of course is the form of faith atheists have a problem with NOT the trust/belief kind of faith.

My theory is these individuals cannot evolve past the original rebellion and just associate faith with religious beliefs, beliefs that must be rejected for them to develop a new sense of Self. They ironically become the same thing that they hate, in this and other ways.

Yes, as theories go it is not fully thought through.

 

[Sees]

I don't think people take the scriptural faith to mean belief without evidence - more so belief without solid, absolute proof.

For some the scriptures themselves and the way the messages touch their life and/or lives of others is evidence. No matter how weak others might regard it. Not many would believe something "just because"

Biblically it is both the trust and hope type, as well as a type of intuited, sensed, felt truth - again not with some explain it on a chalkboard type of proof or guarantee.

You could say for religious faith in general: the religious see it as having faith the few puzzle pieces they do have are a part of this or that certain image/puzzle, even though they don't have all the pieces to prove and verify. Whereas some irreligious would say they don't have any pieces and are simply talking, believing out of their ***

I tend to use faith only in the basic trust/hope sense in my religious tradition and not concerning supernatural, metaphysical, paranormal things.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think people take the scriptural faith to mean belief without evidence - more so belief without solid, absolute proof.

For some the scriptures themselves and the way the messages touch their life and/or lives of others is evidence. No matter how weak others might regard it. Not many would believe something "just because"

Biblically it is both the trust and hope type, as well as a type of intuited, sensed, felt truth - again not with some explain it on a chalkboard type of proof or guarantee.

You could say for religious faith in general: the religious see it as having faith the few puzzle pieces they do have are a part of this or that certain image/puzzle, even though they don't have all the pieces to prove and verify. Whereas some irreligious would say they don't have any pieces and are simply talking, believing out of their ***

I tend to use faith only in the basic trust/hope sense in my religious tradition and not concerning supernatural, metaphysical, paranormal things.

Belief without evidence is pretty close to what the bible defines faith as. It is an accurate paraphrasing of faith as defined in the bible.

 

[1137]

Belief without evidence is pretty close to what the bible defines faith as. It is an accurate paraphrasing of faith as defined in the bible.

And that's great. Yet even when someone blatantly tells you they're using a different definition, creating the context and throwing it in your face, you hold to the bible. You an atheist, or an evangelical christian?

 

[outhouse]

. I've simply provided the definitions for the words.

So yes that makes you the

biased one

 

[1137]

So yes that makes you the

Well being biased towards using actual definitions is no worse than being biased towards accepting scientific discovery. If you are against these stances then it would be safe to infer you not only adhere to no stable definitions but don't accept scientific knowledge, such as evolution or the earth not being flat. Strange for an atheist, though certainly fascinating.

Actually I take this as a compliment; it's hard work to get over your ego and be as objective as possible.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I have no problem with disagreement. To answer the question you fallaciously, ignorantly, and aggressively attempted to answer your self, I mean people kicking and screaming against evidence and or definitions because they don't fit with their beliefs, just like you and the concept of "faith". We can redefine anything any way you want to, but then what would be the point of talking?

You do provide a great example to the OP though, so thank you.

Actually, you proved his point. Because he was cool, calm and collected in his response to you and somehow you feel like he was aggressive. As was said earlier, toughen up. Not to mention, he was right.

Sadly I do understand faith.

No you don't.

For example, people say faith lacks evidence.

Yes, faith by definition lacks evidence. Please see definition 2b.

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheists aren't redefining the word however they choose as you had stated earlier. That is the definition of the word in the English language, we are just using it in the correct context whereas most Christians for some reason think "faith" carries more weight than it does.

 

[Nakosis]

Most recently with some "new atheists" I realized that they deteriorate to the level of beasts when you tell them that everyone has faith and belief. People seem to think that faith and blind acceptance / belief are one in the same, yet faith is simply about deep trust. Evidence is not a factor in the definition. You tell some people they have faith in science and they will freak out.

My question is why this happens. What's so wrong about faith? My theory is these individuals cannot evolve past the original rebellion and just associate faith with religious beliefs, beliefs that must be rejected for them to develop a new sense of Self. They ironically become the same thing that they hate, in this and other ways.

When you say you have faith in God, what do you mean? Many religious folks claim to have evidence for their belief. Events happen which compel them towards trusting their belief.

So I do an experiment 100 times. I have have faith the 101st time the results will be the same. No evidence yet. After the 101st experiment then the documented result are evidence.

I have faith tomorrow will come. No evidence. Yet past experience provides some confidence before the evidence is in hand.

Heaven comes after you die. No evidence. It hasn't happen yet. Salvation through faith is Jesus. No evidence, it hasn't happen in your experience. Nothing to show yet.

So science, A test is done. Here's the documented evidence. Evidence that can be shown. If the experiment hadn't been done yet, no evidence.

Faith in past experiments may motivate a scientist to try a new experiment. They can predict the likely results. However their faith in that predicted outcome is not evidence. It is not admissible as proof. Only after the experiment is done and documented. Then science accepts it as admissible proof.

You may have numerous experiences which increase your faith but what test/experiment has been completed which actually happened and you can provide the documented results?

 

[outhouse]

Well being biased towards using actual definitions is no worse than being biased towards accepting scientific discovery.
.

You may be in a state of confusion here.

My statement has nothing to do with accepting science, but you want to try and put words in my mouth.

Are you that desperate?

If you are against these stances then it would be safe to infer you not only adhere to no stable definitions but don't accept scientific knowledge, such as evolution or the earth not being flat. Strange for an atheist, though certainly fascinating.

You are confused.

Actually I take this as a compliment;

Im sure you do

 

[1137]

You may be in a state of confusion here.

My statement has nothing to do with accepting science, but you want to try and put words in my mouth.

Are you that desperate?

All I'm saying is that you calling me biased for accepting definitions is no more insulting than calling me biased for accepting science. I said nothing about you.

Im sure you do

Indeed. It takes a long while to train yourself in objectivity, not letting your ego or biases or opinion getting in the way.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed. It takes a long while to train yourself in objectivity, not letting your ego or biases or opinion getting in the way.

Looking in a mirror?

Your the one who had to start a thread to learn about faith.

 

[outhouse]

Faith is belief in the light of no evidence

 

[1137]

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheists aren't redefining the word however they choose as you had stated earlier. That is the definition of the word in the English language, we are just using it in the correct context whereas most Christians for some reason think "faith" carries more weight than it does.

I can't even believe you're not trolling. We've covered this so. Many. Times. Yes, the secondary definition of "faith" based on the bible exists and applies in context to the religion with defined it. Yes, the loud religion of Christianity and the adorable rebellion of militant atheism have promoted this as the definition of faith and have brushed away the definition relevant to all contexts, the number one definition, the definition not dependent on scripture. What's pathetic is you can't see the hilarious / ridiculousness of you action in dogmatically holding to scripture. On top of this, you all do it in the exact same way as could be expected from a highly religious group. It's been the perfect example of why more advanced minds absolutely despise the narrow, hateful, religious like view of militant atheism.

I wouldn't even call it atheism, just a reaction to Christianity who apparently is so unable to stand on it's own that without the bible you have nothing to define your terms ;-)

 

[1137]

Faith is belief in the light of no evidence

Yes that's the secondary, scripture based definition. I've said maybe 100 times we aren't using scripture. You lot are horribly thick, I have as much a desire to keep wasting my time on you as any fundamentalist group that makes you bang your head against the wall. You're an insult to both atheism and philosophy.

 

[Bunyip]

And that's great. Yet even when someone blatantly tells you they're using a different definition, creating the context and throwing it in your face, you hold to the bible. You an atheist, or an evangelical christian?

LOL? Love to have some of whatever it is you are smoking.

I didn't throw out that definition, in fact I specifically told you that under that definition atheists tend to freely agree to having faith/trust/belief.

It is the biblical definition that I am rejecting, not embracing.

Faith - as in trust/belief, I have.
Faith - as in belief without evidence, I reject (which you seem to mistake for embracing).

Maybe just read more carefully.