Question about "faith"

[Fake Messiah]

Rationality Rules just recently had an interesting video on faith
See it if you're interested

[John 6IX Breezy]

Faith is assenting to any proposition, based upon the credit of the proposer. How reasonable faith is depends on how trustworthy the proposer is.

Faith depends on personal tastes and/ or community in which you were raised.

Faith is not an objective thing.

Christians say with faith "Jesus walked on water" while Hindus say “The Dalai Lama reincarnates” Muslims say "Mohammed was the last prophet." These statements are faith claims masquerading as a knowledge claim, a statement of fact.

And, of course, different faith traditions make different truth claims.

The issue I think you're having is attempting to view a religious topic from an atheist perspective. No Christian ever says "I have faith that Jesus walked on water" unless they are talking to an atheist. Christians by definition already believe God exists and that Jesus walked on water. Rather, faith within a Christian perspective only takes place after you are sure of God's existence. It doesn't make sense before that, and faith is not the means by which to arrive at that. Faith is not for believing God exists, but for trusting God after you believe he exists.

[Gwaithmir]

Faith depends on personal tastes and/ or community in which you were raised.

Faith is not an objective thing.

Christians say with faith "Jesus walked on water" while Hindus say “The Dalai Lama reincarnates” Muslims say "Mohammed was the last prophet." These statements are faith claims masquerading as a knowledge claim, a statement of fact.

And, of course, different faith traditions make different truth claims.

The issue I think you're having is attempting to view a religious topic from an atheist perspective. No Christian ever says "I have faith that Jesus walked on water" unless they are talking to an atheist. Christians by definition already believe God exists and that Jesus walked on water. Rather, faith within a Christian perspective only takes place after you are sure of God's existence. It doesn't make sense before that, and faith is not the means by which to arrive at that. Faith is not for believing God exists, but for trusting God after you believe he exists.

You can trust in God with all your might, but that doesn't confirm his existence or make him real.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You can trust in God with all your might, but that doesn't confirm his existence or make him real.

Exactly; that's why it's a strawman when atheists act like it does. That's not how we use faith in Christianity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which is why the christian conflation of faith and knowledge, or faith and other beliefs, is absurd, even on christian grounds. Christians know that their faith isn't the same thing as expecting a ball to roll down a hill. It's more and other, and that suits it, since we don't tend to think of faith as belonging to some mundane fact of which direction the sun rises in, or our middle names.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Christians don't conflate faith with knowledge. That is largely an atheist thing, as can be observed in this thread alone. When you attend church, and hear the conversations Christians have amongst each other, faith is used to signify trust.

Quotes such as "Faith is belief without evidence and reason" come from atheists.

Whereas quotes such as "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" come from Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so. Somehow, though, I doubt that between a christian and an atheist, it's the atheist engaging in distinctly christian performative language.

[Ranjr]

Hebrews 11:16: "Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Here is a clear statement from the holy book saying faith is required to both believe in god and believe he will reward those who use faith to believe in him.  It is not atheists who define faith as belief without evidence.  Why shame Thomas for doubting if Christians aren't compelled to believe without evidence?

[John 6IX Breezy]

The verse does not say faith is required to believe in God. If anything it shows you need to believe that God is, and that he rewards people, so that you can please him through faith. You can't trust someone you don't think exists or that you don't think fulfills their promises.

The verse is admittedly ambiguous, but that ambiguity is partially resolved when you note that it is sandwiched between examples of men of faith, such as Enoch, Abraham, Moses, people that literally saw and spoke with God. Their virtue comes from trusting God, not from believing he exists.

Likewise, Thomas was shamed for his doubts precisely because he did have evidence. He was a disciple who objectively saw all the miracles we now question. He saw Jesus walking on water. He saw loaves and fishes multiply. If faith is believing without evidence, then Thomas would be disqualified from ever having it. And Jesus would have put the nail on Thomas' coffin by showing him the wounds on his hands as proof.

The issue with Thomas was a lack of trust and doubt in the resurrection.

[Simon Moon]

Christians don't conflate faith with knowledge. That is largely an atheist thing, as can be observed in this thread alone. When you attend church, and hear the conversations Christians have amongst each other, faith is used to signify trust.

Quotes such as "Faith is belief without evidence and reason" come from atheists.

Whereas quotes such as "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" come from Christians.

You seem to be acting as a spokesperson for all of Christianity and Christians, but I am not sure you are qualified. Either that, or maybe you are guilty of a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, and you are claiming that only 'true Christians' adhere to your definition of faith.

I have plenty of Christian family and friends, at all levels of education and professional attainment, and almost all of them, at one time or another, have espoused a definition of faith closer to, "belief without sufficient evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary". Do they say it in those words? No. But there meaning is still pretty obvious.

I can't count how many times I have backed a Christian in a logical (or evidential) corner, and after a long pause, they come back with something like, "well, that is where faith comes in". If that is not an admission that they have lost the debate based on flawed reasoning, and have fallen back on believing n the face of evidence or reasoning to the contrary, what is it?

And just what does, "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" mean, anyway?

It sure sounds like, "well, I once accepted this theistic claim because I thought it was reasonable, but now that, what I once thought were reasonable justifications for my beliefs, have been challenged*, I will continue to believe them anyway".

And please explain how the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith does not seem to be describing "belief without evidence".

*these challenges could be anything from, having it pointed out that the philosophical arguments for the existence of god (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG) are all fallacious. Or, that the Bible is not as reliable as once thought (Gospels not written by eye witnesses, for example).