I define faith as believing in something that is obviously false. Belief in something that is clearly impossible, untrue, a lie.

"In spite of the fact that George drank every day for 17 years, Jan had faith that he would stop today."

"faith of a mustard seed you can command a mountain to move"

Faith is belief in the ridiculous, the stupid, the invisible, the unproven, the impossible. Faith is identical to delusion.

It does not take faith to belief in things like scientific theories, because they are obviously true. They come with evidence. Faith is belief that the world is 6000 years old in spite of overwhelming physical, falsifiable evidence to the contrary.

How do you define faith?

Views: 300

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not detect arseholeishness, and I think your definition technically is the same as mine. Agreed?
The Nerd wrote:

***”I have faith that the bus will come at the scheduled time,

Is it really “faith” that you are engaging here?
After all, having looked at a schedule, you have certain “expectations”, perhaps even a “hope” that the bus will be reasonably close to its scheduled time of arrival. That, and I am presuming that you are at a bus stop, which, at least causes you to think or assume that a bus stops there in the first place.
I think there are a lot of other words that can better explain why you are waiting at a bus stop, for a bus to arrive, at a scheduled time.
I don’t think you are exercising faith.
Rather, lets just say you are applying “the judgment of The Nerd”.
The Nerd:
***"How about let's have faith that the dictionary knows what it's defining. ;)"

How about we here on Atheist Nexus make some decisions for ourselves, rather than dictionary writers who make every attempt to define words in their broadest, and all inclusive meanings.

I'm going with ryan cameron:
***"Full disclosure this comes from a recurring theme I am encountering at A/N where people state that "it takes as much faith to hold a belief in science as it does in religion". I am of the opinion that is incorrect."

I don't believe Darwin to be right because I have "faith in Darwin".
I don't hold to my belief that the sun will come up tomorrow because I have "faith that the sun will come up".
I have 3 billion years of history and an understanding of how planets move around the sun.
Faith has nothing to do with it.
There are NO busses where I live.
It would be a total act of faith for me to go to a corner and wait for one.

***"Faith has nothing to do with it."

***"It does when the bus isn't always on time."

But you know, do you not, that the bus isn't always on time?
The Nerd observes:
***”It almost seems as if you have an all-or-nothing view of what "faith" is.

Well, duh, yes.
Faith is something you have, or you don’t have.
It IS an all or nothing proposition.
There is no middle ground.
No “beautiful shades of gray”.

You either have faith in the existence of god
or
You don’t.

That is the essence of “FAITH”.

Why is this simple concept so difficult for so many to understand?
Although I have no proof in the following, which is the very definition of faith, I believe the Atheist Dictionary Police will forever consume vast amounts of server space in their defense of defining any and all terms in their quest to bring purity to the "movement" and root out those who wish to define terms using any standard dictionary.
Full disclosure this comes from a recurring theme I am encountering at A/N where people state that "it takes as much faith to hold a belief in science as it does in religion". I am of the opinion that is incorrect.
ryan;
I believe you are of the correct opinion.
OK context clarification. We are in A/N, talking about theism from an atheist context.

I will clarify, Religious faith = delusion, not the generic term "faith" as used in popular culture and common idioms.
Excellent insight.
darn...no one got my jan brady reference... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwmSuaK_j5I
Hey, SOMETIMES science deals in things that are NOT "obviously true." I learned to my astonishment in my last job that if you REDUCED the current on the field (stator) coils of a running DC motor that the speed of the armature would INCREASE ... though the torque to the armature would NOT increase.

I had no problem with the second half of that proposal, but the first half made NO sense to me until I went through the physics of it with my supervisor ... and came away going, "DAMN ... it DOES work." And it did, but it was a long distance from what I would call "intuitively obvious."

And maybe that's at least part of the problem with a lot of people who distrust science and lean toward faith: if something isn't intuitively obvious on the surface, they're either not interested or not qualified to dig deeper into the details to understand WHY something works the way it does.

Once again, belief is easy; knowing is hard, and that is what we're up against.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service