Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. A phone call or text or email will do.
No faith required.
Sure it take real faith that the person you are trying to reach will pick up the phone or check their e or snail mail.
You would Not try to contact that person unless you have real faith (confidence) they can be reached.
Sure it take real faith that the person you are trying to reach will pick up the phone or check their e or snail mail.
You would Not try to contact that person unless you have real faith (confidence) they can be reached.
Why do theists insist on trying to argue for a position by changing the definitions of words in the middle of the discussion?
Faith that is backed by evidence, that can be assigned a degree of probability or confidence, is entirely different from the faith that is commonly cited by the religious as a reason to believe. In fact, they are so different that people do not typically use the word faith when describing mundane activities.
I would never tell a friend that I am going to phone my mother tonight, I have faith that she will answer. Similarly, I would never tell me wife that I am going to use a ladder to climb onto my roof to do repairs, telling her that I have faith the ladder will hold. I don't consider it a matter of faith when I sit on my couch.
Theists often use the term faith in god when trying to describe why they believe. I can have a discussion with a theist, point out that we have no objective evidence for the existence of god, or more specifically Jesus Christ. We have no verifiable reasons to believe in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. Almost inevitably, the theist will say something along the lines of "well, I have faith". This is essentially an admission that there is no good reason to believe in god, but they do so anyway.
Theists will also say that they have faith in prayer, but then admit readily that prayers are often not answered, attributing the lack of response to god's higher plan or something.
Do you honestly not see the difference in quality between these different usages of faith? Don't you think it dishonest, or at least misleading, to conflate the two?
Sure it take real faith that the person you are trying to reach will pick up the phone or check their e or snail mail.
You would Not try to contact that person unless you have real faith (confidence) they can be reached.
Sure it take real faith that the person you are trying to reach will pick up the phone or check their e or snail mail.
You would Not try to contact that person unless you have real faith (confidence) they can be reached.
If your faith is as strong as you try to suggest that it is, you wouldn't be grasping so desperately to such inane posts as this.
You are denigrating the very concept and value of faith in god.
When traveling to see a friend living far away does it Not require faith because that friend in Not with you ________
You have put forth faith that you will see that friend upon arrival and Not before.
Spoiler
tldr: Too much "or" in the definitions.
Perhaps you are saying that faith is interchangeable with "trust," "hope," "desire," or "expectation."
And some words are purposefully vague, while others are accidentally so.
In general, as found by Oxford online,
"having faith" is currently used to mean having a:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford University
"complete trust or complete confidence in something, as such a strong belief based on an apprehension [sense or expectation] believed to be spiritual [supernatural or purely mental (as proposed, somehow disembodied)] in origin."
"apprehension" is currently used to mean an:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford University
"anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen."
Or (even as historically confused, paralleled, or juxtaposed with "comprehension") apprehension can also mean an:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford University
"awareness, primal understanding, sense/perception, or rightful (well enough or proper) grasp."
"The goal of science is the effective human apprehension and comprehension of nature."
"the criminal was apprehended"
"‘Because interpretation is as much grounded in emotional apprehension as it is in cognitive reflection [leading to semantic comprehension], we interpret by default [influenced/shaped instinct/subconscious] as well as by design [conscious and self-aware effort].’"
"I felt apprehension, and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up as if I could sense that someone was watching from behind me."
I dislike trying to discuss things based upon dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are general reference texts, designed to provide as broad a series of definitions as possible. In addition to that, there are numerous dictionaries out there, which allows people to shop a variety of definitions until they find the one that suits their specific purpose. GoldenRule and Tzap both do this, with some absurd results. The conversation usually devolves to bickering about semantic differences, and never seems to address the real topic.
As I see it, the word faith as used by theists is basically a belief without supporting evidence. They then try to confuse the issue by speaking of faith, but using analogies where we do have supporting evidence. They hope nobody will notice the shift, and use that sophistry to declare victory.
It is a hollow victory though, because they must know they are referring to different things with one word.
I dislike trying to discuss things based upon dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are general reference texts, designed to provide as broad a series of definitions as possible. In addition to that, there are numerous dictionaries out there, which allows people to shop a variety of definitions until they find the one that suits their specific purpose. GoldenRule and Tzap both do this, with some absurd results. The conversation usually devolves to bickering about semantic differences, and never seems to address the real topic.
As I see it, the word faith as used by theists is basically a belief without supporting evidence. They then try to confuse the issue by speaking of faith, but using analogies where we do have supporting evidence. They hope nobody will notice the shift, and use that sophistry to declare victory.
It is a hollow victory though, because they must know they are referring to different things with one word.
They "must know" is not usually how bias works, however. But I do find it rather odd that they would compare their supposed faith in the untestable/unfalsifiable supernatural to faith in mundane worldly things. Although I suppose that people do have Oxford-definition levels of faith in mundane natural things as well. To be human, I guess.
I dislike trying to discuss things based upon dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are general reference texts, designed to provide as broad a series of definitions as possible. In addition to that, there are numerous dictionaries out there, which allows people to shop a variety of definitions until they find the one that suits their specific purpose. GoldenRule and Tzap both do this, with some absurd results. The conversation usually devolves to bickering about semantic differences, and never seems to address the real topic.
As I see it, the word faith as used by theists is basically a belief without supporting evidence. They then try to confuse the issue by speaking of faith, but using analogies where we do have supporting evidence. They hope nobody will notice the shift, and use that sophistry to declare victory.
It is a hollow victory though, because they must know they are referring to different things with one word.
Or, as was done earlier in this thread, they try to compare faith in god (which -- though I disagree with it -- would be something momentous, with something like having faith that the mail will be delivered six days a week. And that really cheapens the concept of faith. They're their own worst enemies...and I mean that literally. Christianity will not fall because of atheists. It will crumble from within due to lazy, sloppy christians.
I dislike trying to discuss things based upon dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are general reference texts, designed to provide as broad a series of definitions as possible. In addition to that, there are numerous dictionaries out there, which allows people to shop a variety of definitions until they find the one that suits their specific purpose. GoldenRule and Tzap both do this, with some absurd results. The conversation usually devolves to bickering about semantic differences, and never seems to address the real topic.
As I see it, the word faith as used by theists is basically a belief without supporting evidence. They then try to confuse the issue by speaking of faith, but using analogies where we do have supporting evidence. They hope nobody will notice the shift, and use that sophistry to declare victory.
It is a hollow victory though, because they must know they are referring to different things with one word.
And what superior way do you suggest to determine the meaning and definition of words & terms than dictionaries?
Are they not typically the expert source to provide such information?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
