What is "FAITH"

[Simsim]

Faith is unquestionable emotional state. And even when someone is giving evidences for their faith they are only rationalizing it not proving it since they had embraced their faith then searched for arguments to justify it.

Faith is to set in a position from which the universe seems suiting your dogma. I am not talking only about religious faith but about all kinds of faith.

[Tartarus Sauce]

"A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence" -David Hume

"A man of faith proportions the evidence to his beliefs." -Tartarus Sauce

[Godscreated]

Faith is unquestionable emotional state. And even when someone is giving evidences for their faith they are only rationalizing it not proving it since they had embraced their faith then searched for arguments to justify it.

Faith is to set in a position from which the universe seems suiting your dogma. I am not talking only about religious faith but about all kinds of faith.

Does that include when you sit in a chair.

[Strongbad]

Nice little women's meeting we're having here chaps. I can almost picture the hair rollers and the cigarettes hung from your bottom lips.

Still no points made to rebuke I see.

"it's bullshit isn't it Mable"
"bullshit yes Edna"

LOL this is fun

Mable: "Do you think Frodo is unable to see the points being made due to his christian Kalnieck vision?"
Edna: "Why, yes, I think you are spot on, Mable. Gie us another fag."

[fr0d0]

Edna: "have you actually got anything to say Mable?"
Mable: "no Edna"
Edna: (drags on her cigarette)
Mable: (adjusts her bosom)

[Rahul]

Mable: (adjusts her bosom)

Starting to get racy in here.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Edna: "have you actually got anything to say Mable?"
Mable: "no Edna"
Edna: (drags on her cigarette)
Mable: (adjusts her bosom)

That's what forums were invented for.

[Esquilax]

Edna: "have you actually got anything to say Mable?"
Mable: "no Edna"
Edna: (drags on her cigarette)
Mable: (adjusts her bosom)

You are, of course, welcome to furnish your own answer to the question posed by the OP. Instead, you have- arguably improved- the thread by turning it into a kind of play, but let's not forget that in doing so, you've also made yourself a character in it.

Let's call her Candace.

[deceptive_illusion]

'Faith' is trust. I argue that it is formed logically, and applied in cases when the outcome is not certain.
Trust is formed based upon past experiences in a relationship. Religion is a relationship with God, which is formed through experiences with him. These experiences are not miracles or revelations, simply subjective encounters of what is good in the world.
So you use faith when you are not sure what will happen, but faith has to build up from memories. It can not be pulled out of thin air.
Also, like you can never KNOW whether or not your friend is going to lend you money, you can never KNOW whether or not God is real. I don't get how people claim to know that there is a God in a religion that preaches faith and doubt, which by definition mean "I'm not sure."

Thanks a lot for your reply, and I have a lot of respect for you for being in this forum!
Anyway, don't you think that these 'relationships' that you mentioned are a bit too subjective in nature. And it's true that we can't know if he exists or not but his dormancy, and the fact that his sentient presence is not needed anymore to govern the world is plainly obvious, so using this argument why can't we conclude that his existence is no more beyond the lore of religion. Also, sorry I digress, I think your interpretation of faith is a fairly sensible one but as i said, it's purely subjective and not something that we can absolutely rely on.
Thanks again for having the tolerance to logically argue, i really wish there were more religious people like you, tolerant and sensible

---

Faith is the excuse you give that lets you retain belief in a claim without having evidence for it

really well said!! You have totally spoken my mind This is exactly what I tried to convey in the OP, also what do you think is the best way to work around this, when having an argument with a theist. When the concept of Faith kicks in, no further argument can take place, because faith essentially denies absence of proof for god's existence as a valid argument against religion.

---

Edna: "have you actually got anything to say Mable?"
Mable: "no Edna"
Edna: (drags on her cigarette)
Mable: (adjusts her bosom)

Lol, what on god's earth is that

[Esquilax]

really well said!! You have totally spoken my mind This is exactly what I tried to convey in the OP, also what do you think is the best way to work around this, when having an argument with a theist. When the concept of Faith kicks in, no further argument can take place, because faith essentially denies absence of proof for god's existence as a valid argument against religion.

It depends on who you're talking to. For some, faith really will be the end of the issue for them; it's good enough for them, it's not good enough for you, and they don't really care. In those cases they've essentially admitted defeat in the argument, and it's best to probably end things as nicely as you can, because that isn't going to end well.

For those who actually care about the truth, just point out that faith can be used to justify essentially any position, if you give it credence as a justification in and of itself. If it can be used as a reason for anything, then it's probably not a reason to believe something at all; ask them what makes their faith more true than the faith of someone in another religion. All religions have faith and most of them prize faith as a virtue, so the question that needs to be asked is, whose faith is misplaced, and why?

Faith alone can't answer that, you need something more. This leads to a set of other questions; what should we use to verify who is putting their faith in the right place? If faith can be used simultaneously as a justification for christian beliefs and muslim beliefs, two mutually exclusive propositions, then how can it be a justification at all? Stuff like that.

It's actually fairly easy to lead a theist back to the requirement for evidence for their claims, so long as they're willing to be reasonable about it.