Here's some of my music as well as some anti-religious poetry. I don't know if it's exactly a point of contention, but it's something that I like.
I how the link works.
I find out telling that theists Feel the need to redefine the word faith. They live the word, but not it's definition. They don't want it to mean belief without evidence. They want it to mean the same as trust or confidence. Then why not use the word trust our confidence? Conviction or belief?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Look up the etymology of the word faith, then look up the definition in Greek.
Is faith a good way to come to truth?
1)Etymology is not the same as definition. 2)Since it entered English, since the fourteenth century, it has been used pretty much as it is today.
Etymology is most definitely the same as definition, its literally the tracing of definitions throughout history lol.
That is like saying that cleaning the house is the same as Windex.
No, its like saying an album (etymology) is made up of music (definitions).
@John 61X Breezy: "Etymology is most definitely the same as definition"
Nice! Silly! Weird!
Look up the etymology of those words.
Etymology is interesting in its own right, but it's only a partial source of understanding about meaning, and it's definitely not the same as definition. Words mean what people mutually accept them to mean in particular contexts.
I've heard of the changes silly has undergone before. But notice that when we look up the etymology, we are basically looking up the words definition across time.
Silly used to mean blessed, then it changed to innocent, then simple, then ignorant.
@John 61X Breezy: "Silly used to mean blessed, then it changed to innocent, then simple, then ignorant."
That's because back in medieval times someone who looked a little odd and maybe walked around shouting or mumbling to himself was assumed to have been touched by god. We don't have that context any more, so that meaning is gone.
"Nice" started out meaning ignorant. "Weird" comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "fate".
Etymology can tell us about linguistic change and cultural change in the context of history, but it doesn't define or limit how we use words today.
The same is true of dictionaries, of course. I've seen people here quote entries out of the OED or Websters, etc., to prove a point, but a dictionary definition is only someone's opinion (albeit a learned one) and has no absolute authority other than what we grant it.
Well right, I'm not saying etymologies define how words are used today. But if I'm gonna read Shakespeare or some other old literature, I need to be aware of how the words were used back in those days.
The study of the origins of words is not the same as the definitions of those words. I don't care what it meant hundreds of years ago in another language. And even if I did... The Greek meaning of the word 'pistis' is still not what you want it to mean. And even if it was, the bible was written by people who spoke Hebrew. Then the word is different still. Emun. Which has to do with being firm. But neither has anything to do with what it means in English, what I'm talking about.
Even if pistis meant what you want faith to mean, which it doesn't, then use pistis instead.
You should care what it meant hundreds of years ago, because Christianity and the Jewish religion were not born in the 14th Century. The Hebrew doesn't matter, because only the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the word faith is properly found in the New Testament. Pistis is the word you need to learn about. I don't see why you want people to start using pístis. If I'm speaking Greek I'll use pístis. If I'm speaking English I'll use faith.
And just so there's no confusion.
Oxford English Dictionary: Faith - "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
The Modern English word faith derives from the Middle English word "fed." Which likewise stems from the Latin "fides" or "fidere."
Dictionary.com: Latin, Fides - "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere 'to trust'"
Likewise, the Latin word Fides comes from the Proto-Indo-European language group, which uses the root, bheidh.
American Heritage Dictionary: bheidh - "To trust, confide, persuade"
Do you know which other language stems from Indo-European? Greek. Do you what the Greek derivation of bheidh is? Pistis.
Strong's Concordance: Pistis - "persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust), i.e. credence."
NOUN
mass noun
1Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
‘this restores one's faith in politicians’
2Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’
--Oxford dictionary
Not only did you prove my initial point that theists don't want it to mean what it does, but you demonstrated a dishonest approach at arguing yours by only including part of what the dictionary says....
What else can I say?
Breezy not to harp on this but this is why I said you were being dishonest in our other post.
That's not how dictionaries work. Each number delineates a separate meaning, essentially making it a different word. The first definition is the way Christians use faith. The second definition isn't. Why would I include it?
Example: Seed
verb
1. to plant seeds in: sow, seed a lawn with grass
3. to extract the seeds from (fruit)
I'm telling you that when farmers seed their fields, they are putting seeds in it. You are telling me I'm being dishonest, because to seed something means to take seeds out.
Language is democratic, it means what the speaker says it means. Dishonesty in my opinion, is saying you know Christians equate faith with trust, and then insisting it doesn't. You're like a bad girlfriend, that when her boyfriend tells her he's not mad, she keeps insisting that he is. Or a beginner reading Shakespeare, that when Juliet says "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" Thinks she is asking "where" Romeo is, when she is really asking "why" he is Romeo.
If faith equals trust then confidence equals evidence
Theist I have trust(faith) in the Bible do you trust science?
Atheist nope I have confidence (evidence) in science!
All you are doing is preforming word soup. We can do the same. Faith is what you use when there is no good evidence to support your belief.
Also he used a dictionary definition not an example of usages.
"I have evidence in science" lol.
Lets look up an example then. "By faith the people of Israel passed through the Red Sea as on dry land" Hebrews 11:29. Now, according to the Bible, what happened before they crossed the Red Sea? They saw plagues fall on Egypt. The Nile turn to blood. A pillar of fire go up by night.
Does it sound like they had no idea God exists, no proof of HIs existence, and they just crossed the Red Sea blindly? No, they had all the evidence we wish we had about God's existence. Then they crossed the Red Sea by faith (trusting) God to lead them through it.
If faith doesn't mean trust, why is almost everyone from Abraham to David, called men of faith, when they all either heard God's voice, or experienced Him in some way?
"By FAITH Abraham, when CALLED to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going." Hebrews 11:8.
"Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you" Genesis 12:1.
Gee, Abraham was a man of faith, even though he heard God's own voice directly. Could it be that faith is the act of trusting God, by going to a foreign country? I think so.
How do you know that scientists give evidence?
When I say: "how do you know god exists?
And a theist replies:"you gotta have faith" or "I have faith. " how is that definition number one?
Are they trusting god before they believe god exists?
The first definition rarely makes sense in the context of any conversations about religion. Even when they say they're using it that way they rarely are. In order to have trust in something or someone, you need a something or someone first. But as definition two states you can have a belief in something without proof. That is faith.
Theist"I have faith(trust) in god."
Atheist"how do you know he exists? "
Theist"I have faith. "
Atheist"so you know he exists because you trust him? "
It would be circular and make no sense.
When a Christian responds "I have faith" to the question of how they know God exists. Its no longer definition number one. But its also no longer Biblical.
Ok so you have no miss understanding of what faith means to Christians today.. so I would agree fully if you have spoken to god and he commanded you, you have every right to use faith as trust. You have evidence for you. But as you said when most christians get questioned about faith they are using the second definition.
So I do not see your issue with how atheists dismiss Christians call to faith?
No, I learned the meaning of faith from other Christians. Whenever I hear other Christians talk about faith, they're saying to have faith in forgiveness, in salvation, to basically trust God and those promises. I've never heard a Christian use faith as the method of knowing God exists. I have however seen Christians tell atheists that they have faith in science, meaning they have trust in it.
The Christian that says faith is the way they know God exists is probably confused. You can't have faith unless you already believe God exists. My issue here is the OP is flipping it, its taking the people that use faith like a feeling, and saying they are the correct ones; and those of us who use faith as trust, are incorrect.
"I have never heard a Christian use faith as a method of knowing god exists"
Really? That's amazing you must not know many Christians
Now to address the bulk of what you said.... you shouldn't have trust in something that you have never witnessed. I do not have trust in science blindly, science has earned my trust from providing evidence to back up its claims. Christians have trust in gods forgiveness... what evidence have they seen? Name one person you know that god has forgiven. How many people do you know have spoken to god and came back? Those people can use trust as a guideline because they have evidence for themselves but you cannot use them as your reference because they have no way of proving they actually talked to god.
also can someone from another religion also use faith as their reasoning for their god? If both you and someone that believes in a god completely different, both use faith then how do you figure out who is right?
In my head trust is not givin it is earned... faith is what you use when you have no good evidence to back up your belief. If you had actual evidence for god you would not claim that you have faith you would present that evidence.
I think you're taking it a bit far. I agree that you can't trust in something you have never witnessed more or less. That's why I said you can't have faith in a God you don't believe exists. Faith isn't the method by which you come to know God is real, its the act of trusting Him once you know He is real.
The question of evidence doesn't matter here, because people believe in God for a thousand reasons. It doesn't matter how you come to think God exists, because faith always comes after, not before. Even if you think Christians have absolutely no evidence, it doesn't change the fact that in their minds they think they do, and that their beliefs are justified.
Correct: God Exists --> Faith in Him
Incorrect: Faith --> God Exists
Ok but without evidence to back up your claim how could you know he exists? You said people believe in gods for 1000 reasons, but are they good reasons?
So I pose this question to you;
Do you care if what you believe in is real?
Everyone cares if what they believe is real and true. My point is don't confuse faith as one of those 1,000 reasons. It doesn't matter if they are good or bad reasons in your eyes. Those are debates for other threads.
No no no I asked you do you care if what you know is true?
If you don't want to answer that here start a new thread and I will be the first one to comment!
Also I'm not saying good or bad in my eyes I am saying are they good reasons objectively? Meaning do they have evidence to back up their beliefs?
You claim that faith is used once someone knows god exists!!! So how do they know? Is their knowledge based on facts? Evidence? Or faith?
@Breezy, ethimology is fascinating, but the truth is that nuances, and even complete meanings, of the words change over time. I know you're aware of that. But... Let's agree that the origin of faith is "persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust), i.e. credence."
So, you mean that "faith" involves being persuaded. I wonder how old you were when you were first persuaded, and what critical processs you went through those religious ideas to become persuaded...
Can't you see that we can't speak of "persuasion" (*), when we're talking about people with no abstraction capacity, and no knowledge of how the world works?
(*) If this was really your point, in case it's not, I'm completely lost.
Pages