People don't seem to understand faith

[outhouse]

Yes that's the secondary, scripture based definition. .

We are at a religious site. And many different words already apply in context to what your trying to say.


Your the one holding everybody at ransom to your narrow definition.

 

[outhouse]

You make it narrow.

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.


I repeat

a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]



This is not burger king, you do not get it your way.


It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,

 

[1137]

L

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

Jesus, see how easy that was?

 

[1137]

You make it narrow.

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.


I repeat

a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]



This is not burger king, you do not get it your way.


It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,

I said all this and stated I was using definition 1 and definition 1 was in question. Take some reading comp, I'm done with you.

 

[Bunyip]

Jesus, see how easy that was?

Yes, and of course it is you who is resricting yourself to a narrow definition. Others here can freely conside both,

 

[serp777]

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.

The new a-leprechaunists, a-santa clausists, a-celestialteapotists.

What so great about faith though anyways? Why would we want to trust something implicitly without any skepticism?

 

[1137]

Yes, and of course it is you who is resricting yourself to a narrow definition. Others here can freely conside both,

Wow. Just wow. I never said to ignore the other definition, I defined faith as the first definition within the context of this thread and you took 10+ pages to wrap your head around it.

Yeah, it's sad.

 

[Bunyip]

Wow. Just wow. I never said to ignore the other definition, I defined faith as the first definition within the context of this thread and you took 10+ pages to wrap your head around it.

Yeah, it's sad.

No buddy, we all understood and accepted the first definition from the start. Ten pages later you have yet to get your head around that.

 

[s2a]

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.

Then you seek to deliberately or ignorantly "define" all "understandings" of "Faith".

I agree that "(religious) faith" has NOTHING to do with any demonstrable evidences or proofs. None. "Faith" is a persuasion of the mind that a claim is true (or "truth").

I, again, are recalled to cite the bumper sticker that says:

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it",

OK. For "believers" that should settle "it".

Just know that there are more than a few skeptics that do not accept that singular claim as "true",=.

If you "win", then you can laugh yourself in eternity in having told us all, "I told you so".

If you are wrong, you will never know.

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.

In short reply, nothing.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, unlike many others that see you either accept (their faith) or die instead.

Atheists don't care what you believe. AT ALL.

Just don't seek to IMPOSE your beliefs upon others as a matter of law. That is what, um, crazy people wish to insert upon anyone that disagrees.

Understand?

 

[1137]

No buddy, we all understood and accepted the first definition from the start. Ten pages later you have yet to get your head around that.

You've spent the thread debating the definition when I specified which definition we were using numerous times over numerous pages, yet claim you understand?

Hahaha :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I think we're finished. People play games because they can't debate. If you really understand then you've just been playing games. I don't do games.

 

[Bunyip]

You've spent the thread debating the definition when I specified which definition we were using numerous times over numerous pages, yet claim you understand?

Hahaha :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I think we're finished. People play games because they can't debate. If you really understand then you've just been playing games. I don't do games.

LOL No buddy, I have spent none of this thread debating the definition - the definition you apply nobody here takes issue with, it is just a different definition than the religious meaning.

 

[s2a]

You've spent the thread debating the definition when I specified which definition we were using numerous times over numerous pages, yet claim you understand?

Hahaha :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I think we're finished. People play games because they can't debate. If you really understand then you've just been playing games. I don't do games.

Cool. Come get some.

 

[1137]

LOL No buddy, I have spent none of this thread debating the definition - the definition you apply nobody here takes issue with, it is just a different definition than the religious meaning.

Here's some examples of you "not debating" the definition and "understanding" that we were using the "trust" definition in the context of the thread. I only did a couple pages because there are waaaay to many examples.

So if I (like I'm sure many others have done) politely point out that you are simply mistaken because 'faith' does not mean trustin this context

Which is of course very different from the biblical definition of faith which is;

*Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). Hebrews.

Words have different meanings in different contexts - 'faith' in the religious context means belief without evidence. Look it up in any dictionary and you will see these two distinct definitions.

The meaning of faith is clearly understood in the context of religion and is defined eloquently in scripture.

I can't see what it is that is confusing you here - as I said, look in any dictionary and you will see that 'faith' in the context of religion means belief without evidence.

What a joke :biglaugh:. Ignore list time.

 

[Bunyip]

Here's some examples of you "not debating" the definition and "understanding" that we were using the "trust" definition in the context of the thread. I only did a couple pages because there are waaaay to many examples.











What a joke :biglaugh:. Ignore list time.

Erm... exactly, they are all examples of me not debating defintions, but trying to explain a simple point to you.
Reading this thread, that is all anyone here has done - sadly nobody can get past explaining to you such a simple point.

 

[nash8]

Still not sure how you get to the level of beasts in a theological discussion. Dawkins is often described as rabid and yetis abput as calm, kind and grandfatherly as one could be.

Dawkins can be both. I've watched plenty of Dawkins videos, and he can definitely be rude (albeit in the sarcastic, mocking, funny type of way, it's rude nonetheless). In the example displayed earlier in this thread. When talking about someone who has just died, calling them "Macho stupid" in response to a person making a claim regarding deities' role in the loss of a loved one is rude. You know it, and I know it.

The term 'New Atheism' was coined for a magazine article, none of the people it described are in any way beastlike, nor do they behave badly.

I think the point of the OP was to demonstrate that many atheists are so scared of the word "faith" that they don't realize that they have it everyday, albeit of certain kind that is not necessarily related to religion.

I have seen countless TV evangelists literally frothing at the mouth and speaking in tongues - but when an atheist politely challenges any ofthese ancient fallacies he is acting like an animal apparently.

That was not the intent of the OP at all in my opinion. He was talking specifically about a specific type of atheists akin to THIS GUY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4jpIRz9CY8

I think we can all logically conclude that their are whacko's within all walks of life, both religious and non religious. Hell, I had one of my good friends start yelling at me, and try to put me in a headlock in the middle of a party because I was talking to some girl about my particular conception of God. He's definitely a "new atheist", and he definitely went crazy for no reason. Unless I was mackin on the girl he was trying to get and he got mad.

Regardless, he went crazy over me talking about my conception of God to a girl who asked me about it, and I wasn't even talking to him.

 

[nash8]

'Faith' in terms of religion is, and always will be, the process of being satisifed with the absence of evidence and satisfied with non-answers to questions.

I totally disagree. My own personal brand of religion is based on both faith and scientific inquiry. I do have faith that the universe is benevolent, or at the least I have the ability to make it benevolent towards me - You could call it "placebo effect" if you'd like, which is the ability of the human mind to affect experimental outcomes, which must be accounted for in scientific experiments.

Secondly, while not yet "confirmed" by science, the evidence is mounting for my particular conception of the processes by which the universe around me affects my life, and I have "faith" that it will be confirmed and/or become more well supported as the rigid academic structure that we call "science" gets back to it's roots, and starts exploring the unknown rather than following the status quo.

 

[nash8]

You make it narrow.

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.

I repeat

a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

This is not burger king, you do not get it your way.

It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,

So we have 10 definition's of faith, if you include the five different things listed in the first definition of faith you posted. 2 of which deal with religion or God, and 1 of which deals with belief without proof.

On the other hand, we have 6 definitions that aren't in relation to God or religion, and one definition that states: "Confidence based on some degree of warrant.

So if we're going strictly by the numbers you provided, it would be MORE LIKELY that someone would be talking about a "confidence based on some degree of warrant" with regard to something that does not concern God or religion.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't worry I'll wait... :beach:

They way I took the OP, was that many atheists that he has come into contact with have altogether avoided any definition of faith except for the definition in regard to religious context. The other definitions of faith do not necessarily have anything to do with religious thought, and I think we both can agree that everyone has faith in something or another. If you have kids, you have "faith" that if you raise your kids "correctly" they will be kind, caring, successful adults... Is this not correct?

So when AN atheist, not all atheists, becomes disgruntled when you suggest that he/she has "faith", is it not his/her own narrow sense of the definition of the word faith that is limiting his/her ability to see clearly what all the word faith entails, and to realize that he/she does indeed have faith in some aspects of life?

And would you not also agree that it would be more likely that an atheist would be more likely to get upset when told he/she has "faith" rather than a religious person? Granted, I would argue that many religious people would be just as narrow in their definition of faith, but from exactly the opposite perspective.

I will say that before coming to this cite, my general interactions with "strong" atheists were on about the same level as my interactions with fundamental Christians, for vastly different reasons, but the same general concept - Difficulty to openly discuss views that oppose their own.

 

[nash8]

Yes, and of course it is you who is resricting yourself to a narrow definition. Others here can freely conside both,

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read page 3-10, but from the OP, it seems as though the original poster was speaking about the lack of certain atheist's ability to see faith as more than in just a religious context, and to become "unruly" when told that they too, might have faith, although not necessarily in a religious context. From the little I read, the OP was demonstrating exactly the opposite of what you state.

No buddy, we all understood and accepted the first definition from the start. Ten pages later you have yet to get your head around that.

Then you misunderstood the point the OP was trying to make in my opinion. He was stating his belief (faith? ) that many atheists disregard other definitions of faith due to their passionate disregard for one specific definition of faith (the religious one). Personally, in my general everyday actions with people who identify as atheist, I would agree with him. Being a member of this cite has changed my opinion drastically, but there are definitely certain people here who don't do a good job of convincing me otherwise as well.

 

[nash8]

Erm... exactly, they are all examples of me not debating defintions, but trying to explain a simple point to you.
Reading this thread, that is all anyone here has done - sadly nobody can get past explaining to you such a simple point.

So only Christian Scripture counts as "religious context"? You referred numerous times to Judeo-Christian concepts, but there is faith outside of that religion that is not based belief in deity, and would fall under the definition of faith that does not involve the type of "religious faith" that you speak of.

One good example would be in Buddhism. There is a faith that if you adhere to certain guidelines you will have be "happy". And as far as scientific definition of being "happy" - production of neurochemicals and stimulation in certain area's of the brain, it seems as though Buddhist monk's "faith" is justified.

Understanding LOVE
Read the section on brain scans of Buddhist monks.

 

[Bunyip]

Dawkins can be both. I've watched plenty of Dawkins videos, and he can definitely be rude (albeit in the sarcastic, mocking, funny type of way, it's rude nonetheless). In the example displayed earlier in this thread. When talking about someone who has just died, calling them "Macho stupid" in response to a person making a claim regarding deities' role in the loss of a loved one is rude. You know it, and I know it.

Compared to the thousands of slavering televangelists telling us we are going to burn in hell and so on, he still seems pretty grandfatherly to me. More importantly, people pay togo and listen to him talk, as opposed to standing on a street corner screaming abkut damnation.

I think the point of the OP was to demonstrate that many atheists are so scared of the word "faith" that they don't realize that they have it everyday, albeit of certain kind that is not necessarily related to religion.

No atheists are not at all scared of the word faith, in the form they have everyday - like trust/belief etc. It is the form of faith as defined by scripture that we tend to object to. We do realise that we have trust and be.ieve things every day and have no porblem with that - what we tend to reject is believing in things without evidence.

That was not the intent of the OP at all in my opinion. He was talking specifically about a specific type of atheists akin to THIS GUY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4jpIRz9CY8

I think we can all logically conclude that their are whacko's within all walks of life, both religious and non religious. Hell, I had one of my good friends start yelling at me, and try to put me in a headlock in the middle of a party because I was talking to some girl about my particular conception of God. He's definitely a "new atheist", and he definitely went crazy for no reason. Unless I was mackin on the girl he was trying to get and he got mad.

Regardless, he went crazy over me talking about my conception of God to a girl who asked me about it, and I wasn't even talking to him.

Think of it this way: Imagine a friend of yours has curly hair and got mad at you - that does not link curly hair to aggression any more than whatever some other person has said links to atheism.