Theists, what does faith mean to you?

[Pyrrho]

She may trust them both and mean by that "faith," but her belief that each of them exists is entirely different from each other.  For the one, there is evidence, but not for the other.  She is playing a game with the word "faith," pretending that a case with good evidence is the same as a case without evidence.

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

No one can just make up bullshit and say that it is evidence for themselves and expect anyone to take them seriously.

If I were to say that my dining room table is evidence for me that the world is a giant tortoise, everyone of sense would be able to say that that is total bullshit nonsense.

Calling some random thing "evidence" does not make it evidence.


Edited to add:

evidence

1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

Notice, it is not for one specific person.  The nature of evidence is the same for everyone.  That does not mean that everyone has all of the same evidence; it means that what evidence is, is the same for everyone.

[Catholic_Lady]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

No one can just make up bullshit and say that it is evidence for themselves and expect anyone to take them seriously.

If I were to say that my dining room table is evidence for me that the world is a giant tortoise, everyone of sense would be able to say that that is total bullshit nonsense.

Calling some random thing "evidence" does not make it evidence.


Edited to add:

evidence

1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

Notice, it is not for one specific person.  The nature of evidence is the same for everyone.  That does not mean that everyone has all of the same evidence; it means that what evidence is, is the same for everyone.

But my point is you don't know what I have experienced in my life to tell me that I'm just "making up BS."

You don't know what kind of "available body of facts or information" I have obtained in my life.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

She may trust them both and mean by that "faith," but her belief that each of them exists is entirely different from each other.  For the one, there is evidence, but not for the other.  She is playing a game with the word "faith," pretending that a case with good evidence is the same as a case without evidence.

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

Your evidence is time specific.  You are probably in good health, reasonably financially secure, and have a load of material possessions.  But if you follow the normal course of life you will get old and decrepit, sick and ugly.  You will lose the ability to do normal things for yourself.  You may lose your home and material possessions.  You will lose people that you love and care about.  Your world will become smaller.  When you reach that point you may have a different view about the evidence that you now value.

[Catholic_Lady]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

Your evidence is time specific.  You are probably in good health, reasonably financially secure, and have a load of material possessions.  But if you follow the normal course of life you will get old and decrepit, sick and ugly.  You will lose the ability to do normal things for yourself.  You may lose your home and material possessions.  You will lose people that you love and care about.  Your world will become smaller.  When you reach that point you may have a different view about the evidence that you now value.

How do you know I haven't battled through dark times in my life?

You're making the assumption that the "evidence" I have experienced in my life is just the fact that I have had a good, easy, perfect life.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Your evidence is time specific.  You are probably in good health, reasonably financially secure, and have a load of material possessions.  But if you follow the normal course of life you will get old and decrepit, sick and ugly.  You will lose the ability to do normal things for yourself.  You may lose your home and material possessions.  You will lose people that you love and care about.  Your world will become smaller.  When you reach that point you may have a different view about the evidence that you now value.

How do you know I haven't battled through dark times in my life?

You're making the assumption that the "evidence" I have experienced in my life is just the fact that I have had a good, easy, perfect life.

But have you reached the point I described?

[Catholic_Lady]

How do you know I haven't battled through dark times in my life?

You're making the assumption that the "evidence" I have experienced in my life is just the fact that I have had a good, easy, perfect life.

But have you reached the point I described?

No, I am not old. But I don't see how that would change anything, as there are plenty of old, dying people who are strong in their religious faith. Again, you're assuming the experiences I'm speaking of are surface things, and nice things. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're assuming that when I say that my life, in its entirety, has continued to lead me to have faith, what I'm actually saying is that God must be real because I have a good husband, or because I have a nice house, etc. Such is not the case.

[Whateverist]

Knowing your husband loves you may be different from knowing god exists in conspicuous ways.  But why should we expect criteria to be the same in all contexts?  It's silly.  

Empirical questions?  That's one for science.  

Personal affections?  No need for science.

Personal values?  Nope, no science until you've decided what ends you want to pursue.

Do gods exist?  That depends entirely on what you think a god is.  

     If gods are supposed to be literal galactic creators then that claim can either be supported or it is spurious.

     If gods are products of the mind -not deliberate fabrications mind you- but aspects of consciousness all the same, then no.
     We don't wait to hear from science to answer basic existential questions about who and what we are, at least it isn't required.
     Can a sane person simultaneously embrace science and believe in god?  The burden of proof is on the person who says no.
     We suspend disbelief routinely to appreciate the truths revealed by a novel or movie.  Context is everything.

[Minimalist]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

You are far from the first to make that weak argument.

The problem is that while you may buy it you have no way of convincing us of its veracity.  Thus, if you claim the holy spirit pooped on your head you might really believe it but  I would find an errant pigeon a far more likely suspect.

Perhaps you believe that you can win the Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes if you don't buy a magazine?

Perhaps you believe that billionaire republicunt politicians are really "looking out for the little guy?"

Perhaps you believe that Saddam Hussein really was working on a nuclear bomb?

Your beliefs may convince you but they do not convince me.  For all I know, you might be nuts! 

Now, were you to suddenly pop in here and announce that allah had whispered in your ear that would be a bit out of your normal xtian comfort zone and so perhaps worth taking a deeper investigation.  I would suspect some sort of medical issue before ascribing anything to the supernatural.

But "evidence" is worthless if all you can do with it is convince yourself of what you already believe.

[Catholic_Lady]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

You are far from the first to make that weak argument.

The problem is that while you may buy it you have no way of convincing us of its veracity.  Thus, if you claim the holy spirit pooped on your head you might really believe it but  I would find an errant pigeon a far more likely suspect.

Perhaps you believe that you can win the Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes if you don't buy a magazine?

Perhaps you believe that billionaire republicunt politicians are really "looking out for the little guy?"

Perhaps you believe that Saddam Hussein really was working on a nuclear bomb?

Your beliefs may convince you but they do not convince me.  For all I know, you might be nuts! 

Now, were you to suddenly pop in here and announce that allah had whispered in your ear that would be a bit out of your normal xtian comfort zone and so perhaps worth taking a deeper investigation.  I would suspect some sort of medical issue before ascribing anything to the supernatural.

But "evidence" is worthless if all you can do with it is convince yourself of what you already believe.

I understand that, which is precisely why I am not trying to convince any of you. 

This thread was started to ask about what faith meant to us personally and why we believe as we do. It wasn't asking us how we can convince anyone else.

I wrote this on page 6:

I guess I just don't agree that personal evidence I can't necessarily show to anyone else, shouldn't count as evidence to me.

Nonetheless, there are things I could say to other people... things that have happened to me, etc, but people could easily not believe what I tell them, or not think they mean anything. They'd still walk away not believing in God. And I wouldn't blame them. There's no way I can show people my entire life and all my thoughts and all my experiences, which all contribute to why I believe what I believe.

Likewise, it's my entire experience with my husband that makes me believe he loves me. If someone asked me how I knew he did, I could say things like "well.... he respects me." or "He bought me flowers" or "he sacrificed something really big so that my life could be better."

... but those are still not a full account by any means, and describing a full account of an entire experience would be impossible. A skeptic of love and marriage can just as easily say those things don't mean anything, and that other people's husbands have done the same thing and then cheated on them and left them, etc. You'd have to literally be in my shoes.

I just now bolded the part that is relevant to your post, where I admit that this isn't something I can "prove" to anyone else.

[Whateverist]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

But "evidence" is worthless if all you can do with it is convince yourself of what you already believe.

I don't disagree, so long as we're talking about what reasonably you can expect to be convincing to another person.  But sometimes the only person you need to convince is yourself, something that comes in handy when clarifying ones own values and beliefs.