Webster defines faith

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction


belief in something for which there is no proof is but one definition, as is ..belief with STRONG CONVICTION

Do you think the second type of 'faith'(definition 3) is much more prevalent than the first type? (definition 2a)

I know we use the term in these threads quite a bit and it gets to be a touchy debate because the word itself has more than one contextual meaning,,,and most people ASSUME that the word only refers to belief without proof

,,,I dont think that type of faith is common at all because I believe we are a sum total of our experiences and what our mind and body and spirit endure and retain and learn along the way,,,,so that even when there is no physical or tangible 'proof' of something , there is a collection of data and experience we each have which make us have strong convictions about how 'likely' something is


I have faith that my father is my biological father. I never saw the biological test but I have collected data and had experiences which cause me to have a strong conviction that my mother would not be dishonest about it. So, I have faith my dad is my dad, I could present proof that he is but I feel no need to because I dont feel the need to prove his relationship to me to anyone and I am already convinced enough.


This explains the kind of 'faith' I have in the bible and in God and the lessons laid before me by both. I cant prove it , but it doesnt mean it cant or wont ever be proven. IF I am delusional for believing this book without being able to 'prove' it, I must likewise be delusional for believing my dad is my dad without having had 'proof'.


What things do you have 'faith' in? Not because you are too delusional to require 'proof' but because your personal experiences and 'conviviction' have proven them to you?

Faith is Sh'ma

Regardless of how faith is defined, it's obviously something that an individual person chooses to believe.

Therefore, no matter what a person has faith in, they have no business acting like other people should believe whatever it is they have faith in.

When it comes to religious faith this is where some religious people truly become obnoxious because they act like other people should also believe in their faith lest they are rejecting God or some other absurdity.

Of course, this come from the dogma of Constantine when demanded that Christianity be written up as dogma that everyone must follow lest they be considered to be in opposition to both the Roman state was well as with the creator of all mankind.

Unfortunately that kind of thing stuck.

But is it any wonder? People like Constantine tried to force their "faith-based" beliefs onto everyone else through dogma claimed (on faith) to be the word of God.

Christianity as a religion has perpetuated that arrogance ever since.

Although it is true that the Torah, and the Quran had also created similar dogma to push their "faith" onto other people as well.

So all those "jealous God" religions are equally guilty of not being able to differentiate between faith and knowledge.

They act like their faith has something to do with knowledge when in fact there is not truth to support that ideology.

In short, if a person has faith in superstitions it's unrealistic for them to demand that everyone else believe in their faith-based superstitions.

What do I have faith in?

Does it really matter?

I'm not asking anyone else to have faith in anything I might have faith in. But I will argue for reason. Reason has merit.

Science is based on reason. Religion is based on faith.

I have faith that some people will use any excuse to talk about Christianity. The epitome of proselytizing...


I have faith in my instincts.

I have faith in love.

I have faith in YOU.

There is a subtle quality of a life lived with faith that is not expressed in these definitions. This quality is evident in many religious people, and some non-religious people; for me, when it comes to the way the word 'faith' is often used in a religious context, this quality is the most important aspect of faith. It is completely different than whether or not a claim is believed to be true.

This quality is related to giving oneself over to something greater than oneself. Its related to feeling that you know your place in the world, being comfortable with yourself. Its being intimate with the repeated experience of things working out okay. It encourages and is sustained by an ever present sense that there is a larger picture than one's own tiny perspective, and that we needn't always concern ourselves with that larger picture - just know that we all have a role to play. This aspect of faith brings a feeling of lightness and joy. It can be felt, as a unique kind of experience or emotional state for which I don't think we have a specific separate word (though I think its worthy of such).

Many of these are facilitated by having 'faith in' something. Faith in yourself, faith in your god... but I hold that this is experience doesn't require 'faith in' anything - its simply a way of experiencing life, of being, or relating to yourself and to everything around you.

I certainly agree specifically with your last comment:



I fully understand the concept that you are getting at, but I'm not so sure that it requires 'faith' in anything, although I imagine that is one way a person can achieve that psychological goal.

I think that many humans have difficulty in "not knowing things". Especially in terms of the mystery of life and existence itself. Is there an "after-life", and so on and so forth.

For some people these questions, and not knowing the answers, can be a psychologically traumatic. They need to either know the answers, or believe that there exists an entity that does know all the answers.

So by having 'faith' that such an all-knowing entity exists, this solved the problem and removes the burden of "not knowing". They no longer feel a need to know, since they have convinced themselves that some higher power exists that does know all the answers, and that power will fill them in in the details when the time is right.

However, some people have simply accepting things as they are. Whatever will be will be, Que Sara Sara.

And the burden is lifted because they have simply removed the burden from their own shoulders by ceasing to be concerned about it.

I think a lot of people who "find" religion or "God" and feel that they have been "saved" have done precisely this. They have simply resigned everything over to the "higher power" and thus they are no longer burdened with having to worry about things.

The only difference between a religious person and an atheist is that a religious person continues to carry the delusion that they will have the answers they so desperately seek in the end.

Whilst the atheists no longer cares whether they get any answers or not. Que Sara Sara. Whatever will be will be. The future's not ours to see. Que Sara Sara.

That is what religions refer to as being "born again". It's not a spiritual phenomena. It's a psychological phenomena.

And some people were never worried about getting answers to anything in the first place. So those people only needed to be born once.

Yes, I agree. I have Faith, and the Faith that I have colors every aspect of my life experience. This Faith is mostly independent of my belief system, or at least my opinions about what is true. Its a feeling, a way of living. It can be cultivated, and having certain beliefs or engaging in certain practices might help to cultivate it, but they aren't necessary.

I accept that people would consider this idea/experience to be separate from 'faith', especially the dictionary definition of faith. But most of the time when religious people speak of faith, I get the feeling that this experience is at the very center of what they mean by 'faith', even if they wouldn't agree with my word use. For them, 'belief in a God' is a prerequisite for their faith-experience, so they can't imagine this faith-experience occurring without 'faith in' something.



Some atheists have found deep sources of peace, love, contentment within themselves; but not all.

Well, that's certainly true.

Atheists are individuals just like everyone else.

I guess what I actually meant to say is that it's certainly possible for an atheist to experience the same peace, love, and contentment within themselves as it is for any religious person.

I do understand the feeling that religious people have when they "find God", especially when they have a story to go with it about how they were at the end of their rope and had nowhere else to turn. Those are the kinds of people who need to find nirvana in a really bad way, and when they find it through a belief in God they are totally convinced that it was indeed the "God" who lifted their burdens, but in truth it was just a change of perspective in their very own psyche.

So in that sense faith is important to them. But all that faith amounts to is a change in perspective truly. However, from there perspective only a belief in a God can do this, because that's how they convinced themselves to let go. So they figure that everyone is in the same boat that their in. But that's not the reality of the situation.

People who are in other boats can actually see that there is more than one boat that actually floats.

won't get into definitios here but if faith is required to believe then i've none. i believe nothing, question everything.

I don't know that I believe anything with a strong conviction.

And of course the term "strong" is a relative term.

I also don't think faith and belief are the same thing.

I am closer to what Jrbogie said.

Believe nothing, question everything.

Everything I "believe" I consider to be my personal opinion.

I only "know" two things.

I know I exist.

I know this body will wear out and I will die or leave my body to find existence elsewhere.

Hi Gang

Just got back in town. Hope everyone is doing great!

I personally love having faith. I try to have faith in all things positive.

ur awesome,,

Im growing , hopefully to have the 'attitude' of faith you display,,


your posts and their tone are an inspiration for me,, ty

Yes, there are “more than one contextual meanings” for example:

Definition 1 (a & b) – is typically used when discussing philosophy of ethics pertaining to a personally held value that includes a sense of duty to act in a certain way in accordance with one’s perceived or claimed allegiance (or loyalty) to another.

Def. 2: - sincerity of intentions: Refers to the level or amount of sincerity that are behind the intentions of one’s Actions (or behaviors). When someone suggests that another has not communicated “in good faith”, what is being questions is the sincerity of intention.

None of these definitions, thus far, is likely to be ‘contextually confused’ in a discussion about religion and the beliefs that stem from them.

But I admit I could be wrong – any specific examples?



I would assume the reference is to definition 3: - “something that is believed especially with strong conviction”



I have to admit, I don’t understand why “the sum total of our experiences…” could not be considered “something that is believed especially with strong conviction”?

Nor do I understand why there is a comparison being made between Def. 3: “something that is believed especially with strong conviction”

and Def. 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

when they seem to be defining things from two distinct contexts.





In the above example it stands to reason that Def. 3: would be invoked, as you stand with conviction behind your own interpretations of the many direct interactions between you and both parents. You must rely on your experience and your conviction to accept what you perceive as truth.

This does not make it truth and the fact that the truth can be made known, by means other than heresay, might be a reflection of your use of other contextual definitions.

But it doesn’t seem to accurately reflect how you explain the use of Def 3: in the following:



UNLESS - you are suggesting that your own agreement with Def. 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God comes by way of Def. 3: “something that is believed especially with strong conviction” and that this belief came to you in the same way in which your convictions about your father came about: Through your direct experiences with your parents as the authorities who taught you of their own beliefs which you have adopted.

Are you then demonstrating behavior equivalent to Definition 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises ?? (as these might pertain to bonds between you and your parents?)




Contextually, the only identification my own values have with the term “faith” extends to the following defintions:

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

I agree. Faith is a gift from God. I couldn't care less if others believe or not. I am to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. Luckily I don't have to work out anyone else's.

The Gospel and all it means to be a Christian is information easily available to anyone who wants it in this day and age. Excluding, perhaps, some distant and extremely poor lands. However, those are in the minority.

I see no need to convince anyone of the Truth. On the same note, it would be nice to stop seeing thread after thread trying to convince me that Christianity is not true. It almost reminds me of the quote, "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

Well, the very reason that people do this is because Christianity is a religion that historically inspires people to constantly convince others that Christianity is true. In fact, they actually demand that it's the ONLY way to God.

As a mere follower of the religion you may not personally feel inclined to proselytize the religion. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are many Christians who do.

You can be certain that the very reason that people speak out against this religion is because of the very fact that if they don't then all they see is thread after thread after thread of evangelists trying to convince them that the religion is true.

Just this week a carload of Christian came to my house in person with pamphlets trying to convince me that I'm in need of salvation.

They were easy enough to get rid off, but just the same, talk about shoving a religion in someone's face.

It's the very nature of the religion to go around proselytizing and evangelizing the religion to everyone as though it represents "Truth".

Well, if humans who believe in these stories can go around trying to convince everyone that they are true, then what's wrong with people who call the bluff and go around convincing others that they should call the bluff too?

Why is proselytizing a religion as truth to eveyone ok, but attempting to reveal the flaws in it not ok?

The religion itself (the DOCTRINE itself) is making blatant accusations against ALL HUMANS.

It claims that all humans are guilty of having "fallen from grace" from their creator and they are in dire need of salvation which can only be attained via Jesus "The Christ" - the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God.

Well, gee whiz. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.

I don't think anyone would question the fact that these are indeed extreme claims.

So it makes perfect sense to demand to see the extreme evidence.

Also, as Redykeulous and other often point out. This very religion is being held out on political arenas as "arguments" for what some God expects from mankind and form societies and governments.

Pat Robertson himself got on national TV an told the whole world that he believes that this God is going to destroy the USA if they continue to allow gay marriages, etc.

Hey, that's an EXTREME CLAIM. So where's the EXTREME EVIDENCE to back it up?

That's all we're asking for and questioning.

Where's the EXTREME EVIDENCE for these EXTREME CLAIMS?

You say:


Well, I don't know who has convinced you that you need to work out some sort of "salvation" with fear and trembling, but that sounds like a unhealthy and abusive mental anguish if you ask me.

What do you believe that you have done that is so BAD, that you need to "work out" your salvation with "fear and trembling"?

What kind of a God do you FEAR?

Any religion that claims that I should FEAR my creator is a sick demented religion if you ask me.

I see absolutely no sensible reason why I should fear any truly divine and righteous being.

What is there to fear from a divine loving righteous God?

I mean, if you've been going around doing all sorts of nasty things, then maybe I can see why you might feel that way.

But I have no reason to believe that any divine loving God would be pissed with me.

I didn't ask.

Well, in that case, I offer my opinion freely.

1 Timothy 4
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

I have this kind of faith in the Bible, in G-d and Yeshua. I have faith in myself because I have faced many hard times and I can honestly say I did what I could with what I had. I am convicted that there is someone out there for me, I just haven't found him. I have faith that no matter how bad things may look at any given time, it will work out for the best.

That's certainly a beautiful verse. I especially like #4

4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

Makes you wonder if the 'deceiving spirits' being prophecized here are actually referring to the religious fundamentalists.

Sure sounds like it.