Quote:Faith=Belief in lack of evidence. 1=1 is true by definition, so is therefore absolutely proved because it is defined as being as such. Absolute proof is as strong as evidence as you can get, and if I had any evidence at all that 1=1, then, I by definition couldn't "have faith in it" (because faith lacks evidence). So no, I absolutely do not need faith to believe 1=1. That's the very opposite of having faith.Well, to you and me the concept of A=A is absolute... but we still believe in it (even if it seems obvious... unless you are suggesting we are not confident and trusting in what seems obvious???)
It's as if you are arguing that everything requires faith. Which makes the whole concept of faith meaningless. It makes it no different from trust. Faith is irrational trust because it is without evidence. Trusting evidence isn't having faith in evidence because the trust is evidence-based. So it is therefore not faith-based...which is the opposite.

Adrian finds his way to say that my computer could = a pony (another thing from AA), even though I think it is as obvious as absolute as 1=1 (The Identity's Equality).


Faith is commonly used in instances where there is a lot of faith needed... but even when there is just a little bit of it (Identity's Equality is the most 'obvious' and 'absolute' as I think possible)... the same thing behind faith in gods (confidence, trust, belief) is present in that little blink


Justification is a prerequisite for faith... no matter how stupid or ridiculous it is

It all depends on how you are defining faith


Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day