I'd imagine everyone experiences doubt, and those who care about the truth understand this is a good thing, a way to critically examine claims, and to strive for as objective an answer as possible. faith is the opposite of that, it celebrates belief without proper evidence.
In no other context would one celebrate a strong belief alongside doubts about its veracity, except in religious apologetics. The same apologetics that tries to justify this incongruous rationalisation, by lying that atheism requires faith, as if this makes their belief some sort of 50/50 premise. One might as well just toss a coin...
I never base beliefs on faith alone, even where the truth of them is so trivial as to not matter, and then I simply wouldn't care one way or another. And I have no religious beliefs, so religious faith - "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof", is utterly useless to me.
It's not clear why John has ignored these two different definitions, or why his arguments use the word trust, that is only found in the primary definition, and doesn't acknowledge the second religious definition of the word at all?
John also initially claimed his faith was "based on good reasons", and then when asked to present his best reason for believing a deity or deities exist, or is even possible, he ignored the request completely?
Surely if those reasons are at all compelling, they make these arguments for faith entirely redundant?
In no other context would one celebrate a strong belief alongside doubts about its veracity, except in religious apologetics. The same apologetics that tries to justify this incongruous rationalisation, by lying that atheism requires faith, as if this makes their belief some sort of 50/50 premise. One might as well just toss a coin...
I never base beliefs on faith alone, even where the truth of them is so trivial as to not matter, and then I simply wouldn't care one way or another. And I have no religious beliefs, so religious faith - "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof", is utterly useless to me.
It's not clear why John has ignored these two different definitions, or why his arguments use the word trust, that is only found in the primary definition, and doesn't acknowledge the second religious definition of the word at all?
John also initially claimed his faith was "based on good reasons", and then when asked to present his best reason for believing a deity or deities exist, or is even possible, he ignored the request completely?
Surely if those reasons are at all compelling, they make these arguments for faith entirely redundant?
