Pull up a chair

[Mudhammam]

Some of you keep making same mistaken assertions: (a) the faith is by definition irrational and/or (b) the reason site opposite faith.

Using the dictionary is fine for most purposes, but with regard to Christian faith you must account for the particular meaning faith has in the Christian religion.

Incorrect. My definition applies to all claims that lack evidence or rational justification... anal-probing UFOs, underwear-snatching gnomes, sacrificial zombie-man-gods, unicorns, etc.

Faith has two parts: a set of beliefs and the willingness to act on those beliefs. The veracity of the many beliefs that constitute someone’s faith will vary according to his or her knowledge, intellect, and time spent considering particular issues. For example, I spend very little time evaluating the safety of bridges and generally believe that builders make them sturdy. As such I cross bridges with faith in their safety.

What a croc of shit and you know it. You don't place "faith" in the bridge in any way that is comparable to "faith" in Calligraphy Ferret Insects or Jesus Christ zombie-man-god. You map out the route in your brain that you must go to travel from point A to your desired location; the bridge crossing is likely an unconscious act because you already presume it safe, unless perhaps if it's your first time crossing it. Why is this not like trust in God? Let's think about it for a whole 10 seconds, shall we? Perhaps the thought enters your brain that the bridge holds the weight of cars every day and therefore your fears, if any even existed, were largely unfounded because the likelihood of it collapsing while you were crossing over were insignificant. Therefore, any risk you may have considered is deemed as small as the effort required in trusting in the bridge's stability. This is a reasonable belief then. You're basing it on prior experiences with bridges or observing other people cross bridges. Is belief in your God worth taking the risk over denying Allah? Of course not. They're both equally fictitious because the evidence for either is non-existent... the concepts that make up Christianity itself fall apart under scrutiny. It would be like betting on Calligraphy Ferret Insects. What are those, you ask? I don't know anymore than you know what the hell it is you're talking about when you say God, or Jesus man-god, or eternal souls or any of that nonsense. What about the risks involved in rejecting superstitious beliefs? Are there any? How about in taking Christianity too seriously? We'll I'm pretty sure society went down that road--it was called the Dark Ages.

To suggest that you use the same reasoning principles in your faith in Jesus Christ is laughable and you know it. It's a misnomer.

Christians are said to have faith when they not only hold religious beliefs, but also willing to act upon them (I James). When someone makes Christian doctrine part of his or her belief system without first using their intellect to evaluate said doctrine, it is fair to call that an irrational choice. If a person spends time thinking about whether a doctrine is true, then their acceptance is a rational choice.

Wrong. Go to a mental institution and then tell me if those people, who have "spent time thinking about their beliefs," are rational. Your beliefs are on par with the worst conspiracy theories.

His reasoning may be faulty, but he still made a reasoned choice.

Ah, so his reasoned choice was irrational. But since he at least attempted to make a reasoned choice it's in good standing.

The types of belief that inform faith are no different from others that people form based on their personal experiences, the opinions of experts, and acquired knowledge.

LOL. What is a Jesus expert? Are they like Big Foot experts?

I believe that Socrates was a real man, even though textual evidence for his existence is slim and comes from secondary sources. For the same reason I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, a fact independent of whether He was divine or not.

Irrelevant. It would make no difference if Socrates was fictitious, it's his ideas that people care about. Oddly, when it comes to Jesus, Christians make an exception that they don't make for any other historical person. Now it's not simply the ideas that matter, but the man's life itself! And sadly, the original Christians weren't bright enough to foresee why such details might matter, if Jesus mattered.

As it applies to religion, people need to take account of the difference between general and special revelation.

For general revelation, the evidence under consideration is nothing in particular; but rather everything in general. By applying reason to everyday observations, anyone can draw limited theological conclusions: that God exists, that He is the Creator, and the like. This so-called “God of Philosophers” satisfies the basic requirements of all three Abrahamic religions. And general revelation is empirical because the evidence to be interpreted is readily available to all (Romans 1:19, Psalm 19).

Oh yeah, nothing idiotic about that mindset. I'm going to first begin with the assumption that my belief is true, and then look for evidence to confirm it. Maybe I'll find forest spirits? Ooo that would be fun! Maybe I'll confirm to myself that we really are in a Matrix, just like the movie! Hmm, any idea why there are some 4,000 different religions in the world?

A special revelation points to some very particular instance when or where the divine intersects with and/or manifests itself in physical reality. Special revelation claims include things like the Lord speaking to the Hebrews from Mount Sinai (Hebrews 1:1-2), the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:18-19), angelic dictation of the Koran to Mohammed and (in my tradition) Swedenborg’s witness of spiritual events. Personal experiences with the divine like inspiration, visions, divine visitations, answered prayers and the like also fall with special revelation. By their nature the claims of special revelation are less certain than those of general revelation since the supporting evidence comes from specific and limited sources like ancient manuscripts, historical records, archaeological artifacts and personal accounts.

In other words, your evidence for one instance of "Special Revelation": None.

The only difference between religious faith and all other forms of faith is the type of evidence under consideration prior to belief formation.

And what type of evidence does faith require?

The means used before coming to Christian faith (beliefs + the willingness to act on them) are the same for knowledge in other areas like history, personal relations, everyday living and religion are the same, i.e. reason applied to experience.

Please, tell us your "evidence" i.e. personal experiences with Jesus and heaven and hell and spirits and ghosts and all the other childish role-playing you've acquired such a fervent taste for.