All people live on faith

[JohnnyJersey]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

[Crazy Ivan]

Plus, evolutionary theory does not say that monkeys are ancestors to man, but that monkeys and apes share a common ancestor.

That's all hearsay, there is no observation of monkeys becoming men.

"Monkeys becoming men" is a straw man, as explained by goat. Why repeat that nonsense?

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

Our English language has many words derived from Latin, and "faith" and "confidence" are both words derived from "fides" and they have the same essential meaning.

"faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

"However, what we should have confidence in is sciences ability to determine what is objectively true about our world, including the empirical consequences of moral ideologies. Is this "worshipping" science? All throughout human history, people have attempted to find ways to empower themselves, such as seeing the future, healing the sick, flying, seeing remotely, and unfortunately, killing more efficiently. In this pursuit, we have employed a number of different methods such as: divination, curses, spells, rituals, communing with the dead, chanting, prayer, magic items, quack gadgets/medicine, sorcery, faith healing, organized religion, communing with aliens, telepathy, ESP, and science.

Despite whatever cultural fabric and good feelings some of these methods may have provided, none of them has come anywhere close in providing accurate information about our world as has science. For example, the claim that faith healing actually works (beyond placebo effect) has never been substantiated and has even been proven to be fraud in a number of instances. But even if we assume it works, its effectiveness comes nowhere close to that of medical science. What other of the above methods has ever more than doubled the average life expectancy of an entire population in less than a century, or allowed hundreds of people to traverse huge sections of the globe in a few hours, or allowed for the curing of so many diseases on a daily basis, or allowed for such accurate prediction of the paths of stars, or allowed us to see and talk with people on the other side of the world, not with a magic mirror, but with telecommunications? Everything we have always attempted to do through magic or religion, we are now doing through science. No "faith" is needed in order to have confidence in science. The efficacy of science has easily proven the accuracy of its claims.

The Scientific Confidence Principle, as I put it, says that we can have a great degree of confidence in the overall accuracy of science, not as a perfect source of knowledge, but as the best yet available, based upon its proven history of efficacy. If some other method were to demonstrate an equal or greater effectiveness, then it would have my confidence. This "conditional love" of the scientific method seems much weaker than what most people describe about their "worship". This is why Scientific Confidence is a more accurate description than Scientific Faith."

http://dtstrainphilosophy.blogspot.com/ ... ciple.html

What does Jonah's story have to do with "fish with accomidations [sic] for a three day tour"?

Jonah, swallowed by a Great Fish, disgorged 3 days later, ergo, the fish had accomidations for keeping Jonah alive for three days of whatever great fish do, going where great fish go.

Depends, just how many times has the sun appeared in the East?

Nobody knows.

Nobody knows of any instance where it did not and everyone has seen it do so for all their lives. I don't need faith to be confident that it will continue to do so.

No, I don't live in Texas - I don't know where you got that from, but you're way off.

They are trying to remove Thomas Jefferson from their textbooks.

So when engineers use math to determine the structural integrity of the arches that support a roof or a bridge they are really not doing anything useful since their "math" is just some fairy tale wizardry that has nothing to do with the real world of rooves and bridges? Really?

Math and logic are TOOLS science uses, they really have nothing to do with reality ON THEIR OWN and can come to proofs only because they are about original premises which may or may not be true. Properly used they both aid in gaining knowledge, used improperly and both are meaningless.

No rudeness or ad homs in that at all. I can understand the cognitive dissonance that is faced by people who have redefined a word against its actual, common meaning in order to further their cause and then when faced with supporting it they find themselves without a leg to stand on, so the next tactic is a combination of denial and avoidance (through word games, or semantical argument, despite having no support in that, either). That is exactly what's going on in this thread because we are, what, 23 pages into it? - and still people are denying the meaning of "faith" as found in actual lexicons and supplanting it with their own subjective notions of what it means. It's old and stale at this point, but it continues.

Let's see what the moderators say.

Grumpy

[sickles]

What I DO NOT accept are fairy tales about monkeys becoming men, or life coming out of non-organic matter, or natural effects that lack natural causes but happen anyway.

Fairy Tales have no evidence whatso ever.

monkeys becoming men evidence
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... ews=videos

Actually, a lemur is not a monkey, and that particular specimen was shown not to be a human ancestor , once scientists looked at it, and not the media. Plus, evolutionary theory does not say that monkeys are ancestors to man, but that monkeys and apes share a common ancestor.

got a link for that i assume?

[sickles]

What I DO NOT accept are fairy tales about monkeys becoming men, or life coming out of non-organic matter, or natural effects that lack natural causes but happen anyway.

Fairy Tales have no evidence whatso ever.

monkeys becoming men evidence
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... ews=videos

this is a good documentary with more evidence


life coming from non-organic matter evidence
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... cleotides/

natural effects that lack "natural causes" evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

That's all hearsay, there is no observation of monkeys becoming men. It is based on faith in one finding upon faith in another finding upon faith in another finding - entirely faith-based beliefs.

actually, its all based on observation, otherwise it wouldnt be science. as grumpy would say "please try again"

[Zzyzx]

.

Faith may lead to confidence, but without evidence that confidence is arived at by ignorance, not knowledge.

No, faith and confidence are essentially the same. They are both forms of the Latin "fides", which means "faith".

Following that logic, one can say that religious people have dont have faith but have confidence (just as religious people say that those who have confidence have faith instead.

I provided the dictionary definition for faith (cited again at the end of this post).

Here is the definition of confidence from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Confidence: 1 : the state of one that confides : TRUST, RELIANCE, BELIEF *a cheerful confidence in the mercy of God" T.B.Macaulay*
2 : feeling or consciousness of reliance on oneself or one's circumstances : SELF-CONFIDENCE *a doctor's increasing confidence and skill* *painters who had T lost their confidence" W.B.Yeats*
3 : the state of feeling sure : CERTITUDE " usually used with of *great confidence of success* *the level of confidence accepted for a given set of statistical data*
4 : BRASHNESS, PRESUMPTION, IMPUDENCE *he had that confidence which the first thinker of anything never has, for all thinkers T approach the truth full of hesitation and doubt. Confidence comes from repetition, from the breath of many mouths" W.B.Yeats*
5 obsolete : an object of faith or reliance *for the Lord shall be thy confidence" Prov 3:26 (Authorized Version)*
6 a : a relation or state of trust or intimacy between persons who confide in each other *take a friend into one's confidence concerning a private affair* b obsolete : TRUSTWORTHINESS c : a communication made in confidence *the confidences between lawyer and client* d : trust in or support of the policy or action of a prime minister and his cabinet expressed by a formal vote of the legislature in a parliamentary system of government
synonyms see TRUST

But you believe in fish with accomidations for a three day tour or that Mr. Ed is a historical figure? Good thing your beliefs aren't taught in school as facts.

I don't believe in "fish with accomidations [sic] for a three day tour", but I do believe Mr. Ed is a historical figure; it's very well documented and I have observed the evidence first-hand.

What, exactly, is the documentation for Mr. Ed? Was that the talking horse on television?

Mister Ed is an American television situation comedy produced by Filmways[1] that first aired in syndication from January 5 to July 2, 1961 and then on CBS from October 1, 1961 to February 6, 1966. Mister Ed was the first series ever to debut as a midseason replacement.
The stars of the show are Mister Ed, an intelligent palomino horse who could talk ("played" by gelding Bamboo Harvester and voiced by Allan Lane), and his owner, an eccentric and enormously klutzy architect named Wilbur Post (portrayed by Alan Young). Much of the program's humor stemmed from the fact Mister Ed would speak only to Wilbur, as well as Ed's notoriety as a troublemaker. According to the show's producer, Arthur Lubin, Young was chosen as the lead character because he "just seemed like the sort of guy a horse would talk to."[2] Lubin, a friend of Mae West, scored a coup by persuading the screen icon to guest star in one episode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Ed

I am not surprised that you believe that a talking horse is historically accurate because you saw that on television situation comedy.

What I DO NOT accept are fairy tales about monkeys becoming men, or life coming out of non-organic matter, or natural effects that lack natural causes but happen anyway.

Do you believe tales of talking donkeys and snakes, people walking on water, the Earth ceasing rotation, seas parting and storms calming on command, virgins giving birth after being impregnated by a spirit, dead bodies coming back to life?

Well, I think you'd need to be a true skeptic in order to understand what we believe or don't believe. I'm more a pure atheist, actually, because I deny the existence of gods.

I am intrigued by the concept of an Atheistic Christian. How does one accept Christian dogma and literature without believing in gods? Christianity promotes the concept of three gods (combined into one to avoid polytheism or other conflicts with popular ideas of the era).

So it's rational to believe that when an event happens it will be repeated every time without fail?

Absolutely not. The study of the probability of an event occurring is the province of statistics (a mathematical study).

I think Thomas Jefferson was an equivocating imbecile when it came to religious beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men ever known. What you think has been shown as being false several times now, I'm even more confident(due to the evidence of your posts)that this faux pas will be as well.

Thomas Jefferson was intelligent, but far from one of the most intelligent.

Evidently you disagree with John F. Kennedy, a Rhodes Scholar and President of the US, who said, I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. "John F. Kennedy, Remarks at dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere, April 29, 1962

I trust that readers will consider Mr. Kennedys words as a bit more credible.

Many wicked men with immoral beliefs are highly intelligent in one way but fools in another way, and TJ fits that.

Have you studied Thomas Jefferson beyond public school level? Where do you gather information upon which to base your opinions?

One of his more intelligent accomplishments was to produce what is known as The Jefferson Bible " Jesus without the miracle tales. His philosophy seemed to be in accord with that of Gandhi, who said, I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

<snip personal opinions>

I said they are Christians and have no reason to lie.

Tell it to the pope and his bishops and the pedophile priests. They are Christians and they have lied and covered up illegal and immoral acts for decades.

Correct. You demonstrate very well what it means to know nothing with certainty.

I should hope so, I taught chemistry and physics for 30+ years. Faith has no business in science. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid statement in math, science and, I would argue, in philosophy.

Faith is what science is based on. My sister has a B.S. and M.S. in chemistry and she heads up quality control for a major corporation's food additives, plus she is an adjunct at a local college. She will attest to the fact that all her scientific knowledge is based on faith, ultimately.

My mother says so (or sister) isnt considered very firm evidence in debate.

A Master of Science and adjunct teaching position are not particularly high credentials " hardly worth trying to appeal to authority (which itself is a logical fallacy and has no place in debate).

Why would you argue philosophy doesn't acknowledge miracles? Your background is in science, not philosophy. Philosophy acknowledges the metaphysical and there are proofs for the supernatural and the existence of miracles.

Kindly bring forth the PROOF of the supernatural and of miracles that have been developed by recognized philosophers. PROOF, mind you, not opinions or theories.

I agree. This is a good foundation for why it is that everything we believe is ultimately by FAITH.

Not for any relivant definition of faith.

Absolutely for relevant definitions of faith. You yourself used words that are synonyms and definitions for "faith", such as "trust" and "confidence". That's "faith".

I provided a very extensive definition of faith (end of post). Do you disagree with that definition?

I'm sorry it doesn't compute for you. It is probably that you're attempting to redefine words (like "proof", "trust", "confidence", "evidence" and "faith") in such a way that you can avoid admitting that you have "faith" in anything, but it won't work.

It appears as though you are attempting to define faith so broadly that it includes enough to allow you to claim that everyone has faith. Is that not what you are doing? (Refer to the definition below vs. your simplistic definition).

I can understand why so many anti-Christians and anti-religion/supernatural folks here want to avoid admitting that they believe anything by faith; it would be an admission that they are not much different (if at all) than the believers in the supernatural whom they criticize.

Most here, regardless of theological position, will acknowledge that they have a certain level of confidence that their car will start or the sun will rise. However, some religionists attempt to equate that with religious faith.

Perhaps that is an apt description of religious faith " equal to belief that a car will start.

But it is of their own doing; they have berated "faith" as something irrational and unfounded for so long that, despite the actual, lexicographical meaning of the word being unchanged, they believe it means what they WANT and not what it actually DOES mean.

The only way for anyone to deny that they believe anything by "faith" is to attempt to play semantics and deny the definition means what it does mean.

Which definition of faith? The extensive one that I supplied or a simple one provided to try to broaden (pervert) the term enough to included faith in a car starting with faith in gods.

That's why this thread is still going in circles. One by one, people attack the dictionary meanings of "faith" and end up unable to get around it except by resorting to subjective opinion (i.e. their own false dichotomy between faith in the natural and supernatural).[/quote]
Here is the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of faith -- again:

1 a : the act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power, and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care, and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in : belief and trust in and loyalty to God *people earnestly prayed in the ages of faith T to be delivered from sudden death" J.A.Pike* *lost his faith at an early age* b (1) : an act or attitude of intellectual assent to the traditional doctrines of one's religion : orthodox religious belief (2) : a decision of an individual entrusting his life to God's transforming care in response to an experience of God's mercy c among Roman Catholic theologians : a supernatural virtue by which one believes on the authority of God himself all that God has revealed or proposes through the Church for belief 2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof *for the scientist faith can be no virtue, because it is inconsistent with the resolution to accept the fact as supreme" P.W.Bridgman* *clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return* (2) : uncritical grounds for belief " used chiefly in the phrase on faith *you will have to accept my statements on faith* b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something *have faith in prayer* *faith in his medical skill* *the faith on which science rests, the faith in the value of truth seeking" H.T.Muller*
3 a : an assurance, promise, or pledge of fidelity, loyalty, or performance *gave his faith that he would come on the appointed day* " often used in the phrases to keep faith or to break faith *to have hitchhiked would have been breaking faith, for all who use the country's youth hostels are honor bound to reach them under their own power" H.V.Morton* b : fidelity to one's promises : allegiance to a duty or a person : sincerity or honesty of intentions : LOYALTY " often used with the qualifiers good or bad to specify a state of mind of one trying to be honest and faithful *observed perfect good faith and strictly fulfilled their engagements" Marjory S. Douglas* or of one trying to deceive, mislead, or defraud *accused him of bad faith*
4 obsolete : AUTHORITY, CREDIT, CREDIBILITY
5 : something that is believed or adhered to especially with strong conviction: as a (1) : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION *an individual of the Jewish faith* (2) : the body of believers : an organized church or denomination *a movement supported by all the great faiths* b : the cherished values, ideals, or beliefs of an individual or people : WELTANSCHAUUNG, CREED, CREDO *a free world which is strong in its faith and in its material progress" Dean Acheson* c : the fundamental tenets, views, or beliefs of an individual or group on a particular subject or in a particular field *a profession of literary faith* *I state my own faith at once T organic union under the Crown is vital" R.G.Menzies* *she visits the prisoners of her own political faith" Katharine A. Porter*
6 often capitalized : the true religion from the point of view of the speaker " usually used with the *the king, temporal head of the faith*
synonyms see BELIEF, RELIGION, TRUST
"in faith : by my faith : VERILY

How shall we make it simplistic enough to support the everything is faith argument?

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

who knows what you believe(evidently almost everything).

Wait, you live in Texas, right? That would explain a lot.

You are already on probation for comments like these. The only step remaining is being banned from the site. Please watch out for negative personal remarks if you wish to remain.

[otseng]

You demonstrate very well what it means to know nothing with certainty.

Moderator comment:

This could be interpreted as an indirect attack. Please be careful to phrase responses to address only the issues, rather than the person.

[Flail]

.

Faith may lead to confidence, but without evidence that confidence is arived at by ignorance, not knowledge.

No, faith and confidence are essentially the same. They are both forms of the Latin "fides", which means "faith".

Following that logic, one can say that religious people have dont have faith but have confidence (just as religious people say that those who have confidence have faith instead.

I provided the dictionary definition for faith (cited again at the end of this post).

Here is the definition of confidence from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Confidence: 1 : the state of one that confides : TRUST, RELIANCE, BELIEF *a cheerful confidence in the mercy of God" T.B.Macaulay*
2 : feeling or consciousness of reliance on oneself or one's circumstances : SELF-CONFIDENCE *a doctor's increasing confidence and skill* *painters who had T lost their confidence" W.B.Yeats*
3 : the state of feeling sure : CERTITUDE " usually used with of *great confidence of success* *the level of confidence accepted for a given set of statistical data*
4 : BRASHNESS, PRESUMPTION, IMPUDENCE *he had that confidence which the first thinker of anything never has, for all thinkers T approach the truth full of hesitation and doubt. Confidence comes from repetition, from the breath of many mouths" W.B.Yeats*
5 obsolete : an object of faith or reliance *for the Lord shall be thy confidence" Prov 3:26 (Authorized Version)*
6 a : a relation or state of trust or intimacy between persons who confide in each other *take a friend into one's confidence concerning a private affair* b obsolete : TRUSTWORTHINESS c : a communication made in confidence *the confidences between lawyer and client* d : trust in or support of the policy or action of a prime minister and his cabinet expressed by a formal vote of the legislature in a parliamentary system of government
synonyms see TRUST

But you believe in fish with accomidations for a three day tour or that Mr. Ed is a historical figure? Good thing your beliefs aren't taught in school as facts.

I don't believe in "fish with accomidations [sic] for a three day tour", but I do believe Mr. Ed is a historical figure; it's very well documented and I have observed the evidence first-hand.

What, exactly, is the documentation for Mr. Ed? Was that the talking horse on television?

Mister Ed is an American television situation comedy produced by Filmways[1] that first aired in syndication from January 5 to July 2, 1961 and then on CBS from October 1, 1961 to February 6, 1966. Mister Ed was the first series ever to debut as a midseason replacement.
The stars of the show are Mister Ed, an intelligent palomino horse who could talk ("played" by gelding Bamboo Harvester and voiced by Allan Lane), and his owner, an eccentric and enormously klutzy architect named Wilbur Post (portrayed by Alan Young). Much of the program's humor stemmed from the fact Mister Ed would speak only to Wilbur, as well as Ed's notoriety as a troublemaker. According to the show's producer, Arthur Lubin, Young was chosen as the lead character because he "just seemed like the sort of guy a horse would talk to."[2] Lubin, a friend of Mae West, scored a coup by persuading the screen icon to guest star in one episode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Ed

I am not surprised that you believe that a talking horse is historically accurate because you saw that on television situation comedy.

What I DO NOT accept are fairy tales about monkeys becoming men, or life coming out of non-organic matter, or natural effects that lack natural causes but happen anyway.

Do you believe tales of talking donkeys and snakes, people walking on water, the Earth ceasing rotation, seas parting and storms calming on command, virgins giving birth after being impregnated by a spirit, dead bodies coming back to life?

Well, I think you'd need to be a true skeptic in order to understand what we believe or don't believe. I'm more a pure atheist, actually, because I deny the existence of gods.

I am intrigued by the concept of an Atheistic Christian. How does one accept Christian dogma and literature without believing in gods? Christianity promotes the concept of three gods (combined into one to avoid polytheism or other conflicts with popular ideas of the era).

So it's rational to believe that when an event happens it will be repeated every time without fail?

Absolutely not. The study of the probability of an event occurring is the province of statistics (a mathematical study).

I think Thomas Jefferson was an equivocating imbecile when it came to religious beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men ever known. What you think has been shown as being false several times now, I'm even more confident(due to the evidence of your posts)that this faux pas will be as well.

Thomas Jefferson was intelligent, but far from one of the most intelligent.

Evidently you disagree with John F. Kennedy, a Rhodes Scholar and President of the US, who said, I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. "John F. Kennedy, Remarks at dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere, April 29, 1962

I trust that readers will consider Mr. Kennedys words as a bit more credible.

Many wicked men with immoral beliefs are highly intelligent in one way but fools in another way, and TJ fits that.

Have you studied Thomas Jefferson beyond public school level? Where do you gather information upon which to base your opinions?

One of his more intelligent accomplishments was to produce what is known as The Jefferson Bible " Jesus without the miracle tales. His philosophy seemed to be in accord with that of Gandhi, who said, I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

<snip personal opinions>

I said they are Christians and have no reason to lie.

Tell it to the pope and his bishops and the pedophile priests. They are Christians and they have lied and covered up illegal and immoral acts for decades.

Correct. You demonstrate very well what it means to know nothing with certainty.

I should hope so, I taught chemistry and physics for 30+ years. Faith has no business in science. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid statement in math, science and, I would argue, in philosophy.

Faith is what science is based on. My sister has a B.S. and M.S. in chemistry and she heads up quality control for a major corporation's food additives, plus she is an adjunct at a local college. She will attest to the fact that all her scientific knowledge is based on faith, ultimately.

My mother says so (or sister) isnt considered very firm evidence in debate.

A Master of Science and adjunct teaching position are not particularly high credentials " hardly worth trying to appeal to authority (which itself is a logical fallacy and has no place in debate).

Why would you argue philosophy doesn't acknowledge miracles? Your background is in science, not philosophy. Philosophy acknowledges the metaphysical and there are proofs for the supernatural and the existence of miracles.

Kindly bring forth the PROOF of the supernatural and of miracles that have been developed by recognized philosophers. PROOF, mind you, not opinions or theories.

I agree. This is a good foundation for why it is that everything we believe is ultimately by FAITH.

Not for any relivant definition of faith.

Absolutely for relevant definitions of faith. You yourself used words that are synonyms and definitions for "faith", such as "trust" and "confidence". That's "faith".

I provided a very extensive definition of faith (end of post). Do you disagree with that definition?

I'm sorry it doesn't compute for you. It is probably that you're attempting to redefine words (like "proof", "trust", "confidence", "evidence" and "faith") in such a way that you can avoid admitting that you have "faith" in anything, but it won't work.

It appears as though you are attempting to define faith so broadly that it includes enough to allow you to claim that everyone has faith. Is that not what you are doing? (Refer to the definition below vs. your simplistic definition).

I can understand why so many anti-Christians and anti-religion/supernatural folks here want to avoid admitting that they believe anything by faith; it would be an admission that they are not much different (if at all) than the believers in the supernatural whom they criticize.

Most here, regardless of theological position, will acknowledge that they have a certain level of confidence that their car will start or the sun will rise. However, some religionists attempt to equate that with religious faith.

Perhaps that is an apt description of religious faith " equal to belief that a car will start.

But it is of their own doing; they have berated "faith" as something irrational and unfounded for so long that, despite the actual, lexicographical meaning of the word being unchanged, they believe it means what they WANT and not what it actually DOES mean.

The only way for anyone to deny that they believe anything by "faith" is to attempt to play semantics and deny the definition means what it does mean.

Which definition of faith? The extensive one that I supplied or a simple one provided to try to broaden (pervert) the term enough to included faith in a car starting with faith in gods.

That's why this thread is still going in circles. One by one, people attack the dictionary meanings of "faith" and end up unable to get around it except by resorting to subjective opinion (i.e. their own false dichotomy between faith in the natural and supernatural).

Here is the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of faith -- again:

1 a : the act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power, and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care, and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in : belief and trust in and loyalty to God *people earnestly prayed in the ages of faith T to be delivered from sudden death" J.A.Pike* *lost his faith at an early age* b (1) : an act or attitude of intellectual assent to the traditional doctrines of one's religion : orthodox religious belief (2) : a decision of an individual entrusting his life to God's transforming care in response to an experience of God's mercy c among Roman Catholic theologians : a supernatural virtue by which one believes on the authority of God himself all that God has revealed or proposes through the Church for belief 2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof *for the scientist faith can be no virtue, because it is inconsistent with the resolution to accept the fact as supreme" P.W.Bridgman* *clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return* (2) : uncritical grounds for belief " used chiefly in the phrase on faith *you will have to accept my statements on faith* b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something *have faith in prayer* *faith in his medical skill* *the faith on which science rests, the faith in the value of truth seeking" H.T.Muller*
3 a : an assurance, promise, or pledge of fidelity, loyalty, or performance *gave his faith that he would come on the appointed day* " often used in the phrases to keep faith or to break faith *to have hitchhiked would have been breaking faith, for all who use the country's youth hostels are honor bound to reach them under their own power" H.V.Morton* b : fidelity to one's promises : allegiance to a duty or a person : sincerity or honesty of intentions : LOYALTY " often used with the qualifiers good or bad to specify a state of mind of one trying to be honest and faithful *observed perfect good faith and strictly fulfilled their engagements" Marjory S. Douglas* or of one trying to deceive, mislead, or defraud *accused him of bad faith*
4 obsolete : AUTHORITY, CREDIT, CREDIBILITY
5 : something that is believed or adhered to especially with strong conviction: as a (1) : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION *an individual of the Jewish faith* (2) : the body of believers : an organized church or denomination *a movement supported by all the great faiths* b : the cherished values, ideals, or beliefs of an individual or people : WELTANSCHAUUNG, CREED, CREDO *a free world which is strong in its faith and in its material progress" Dean Acheson* c : the fundamental tenets, views, or beliefs of an individual or group on a particular subject or in a particular field *a profession of literary faith* *I state my own faith at once T organic union under the Crown is vital" R.G.Menzies* *she visits the prisoners of her own political faith" Katharine A. Porter*
6 often capitalized : the true religion from the point of view of the speaker " usually used with the *the king, temporal head of the faith*
synonyms see BELIEF, RELIGION, TRUST
"in faith : by my faith : VERILY

How shall we make it simplistic enough to support the everything is faith argument?[/quote]

IMO,the key component of an 'honest' faith in things both supernatural and otherwise is the necessity of doubt. Someone who claims faith in an invisible,supernatural God wth little or no evidence must admit the possibility of error to claim a true 'faith'. There must be at least a modicum of doubt in such beliefs. Otherwise, the person is really claiming 'knowledge' without evidence not faith.

Christians who claim Jesus as God who admit that he may not be a God and admit a modicum of doubt about their faith in the bible would be expressing an honest faith...but then they wouldn't be Christians.

[BwhoUR]

How shall we make it simplistic enough to support the everything is faith argument?

He is actually making it more complicated so it can work for him. What JJ believes, I think, and please JJ, correct me if I am wrong, is this:

He says, "faith" has "no proof", since the definition does not specifically exclude "evidence", that means some evidence is an element of faith.

Where he is making it complicated is that he assumes that everything not specifically excluded in the definition can be included. By his way of thinking, if "stinky farts" are not specifically excluded, they can be an element of faith. Yes, it's a ridiculous idea.

But if he is talking about what is not specifically excluded in the definition, what he should realize is that he is right, 'evidence' must be specificially excluded, however it must be specifically excluded from "PROOF", not "Faith" in order for him to be able to include 'evidence' as an element of faith.

Am I right, or am I right?

[Crazy Ivan]

He is actually making it more complicated so it can work for him.

I wonder how many different ways we can all reiterate that, until it becomes understood...