"Faith" and "Faith"

[Czernobog]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Your use is mistaken, poetic at best. Something that can be proven by conventional means does not result in faith, but trust based upon proven fact.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven by conventional means.

 

[Anathema]

Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

No, they're not identical. True Faith is the acceptance of an idea or belief WITHOUT PROOF. Almost everyone accepts the idea that when a ball is released in open space it will fall to the ground. We can verify it by experience. There is no faith there. Faith comes into play when one cannot provide verification through the senses but must instead use the Heart and Soul to accept the idea.

 

[Czernobog]

Your use is mistaken, poetic at best. Something that can be proven by conventional means does not result in faith, but trust based upon proven fact.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven by conventional means.

Okay. Lemme try another example. I have faith that science will, eventually, discover how he universe came into being without resorting to "God did it". This faith is based on historical evidence demonstrating that throughout history, the religious explanation for every phenomenon has, ultimately been replaced with a scientific one that does not require a supernatural cause.

So. Is this "faith" the same as that of EXAMPLE 2?

 

[ding]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

 

[Czernobog]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

 

[ding]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

 

[The Irish Ram]

SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Derek saw and had faith.
Jesse saw not and had faith. It will garner a blessing.

 

[Czernobog]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

 

[ding]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

 

[Czernobog]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

 

[ding]

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

 

[ding]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

 

[Czernobog]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter. You have faith that God doesn't exist because you have no proof that he doesn't exist. You take it on faith. I recognize your faith. I don't criticize your faith. I criticize your criticism of my faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

 

[ding]

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

The OP first and foremost was to criticize theist's hypocrisy. It was your opening sentence. That was your trojan army.

Your trojan horse was a discussion on faith. I explained to you that I agree 100% that you have faith in things. Number one being your faith that God does not exist. How do I know it is faith? Because you have no proof that he doesn't. You take it on faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

No, they're not identical. True Faith is the acceptance of an idea or belief WITHOUT PROOF. Almost everyone accepts the idea that when a ball is released in open space it will fall to the ground. We can verify it by experience. There is no faith there. Faith comes into play when one cannot provide verification through the senses but must instead use the Heart and Soul to accept the idea.

So, when one says "I have faith that science will, one day, solve the riddle of the formation of our universe,", as that faith is based on on historical precedent, it would not be fair to suggest that it is no different than "I have faith in God," correct?