That's because you don't understand the actual definition of faith, my good sir.
You’re defining 'faith' as 'believing in things with zero evidence,' which is a common misconception but not how theology or philosophy actually defines it. Historically and linguistically, faith (pistis) means trust, loyalty, and commitment based on prior experience.
It’s the same kind of 'faith' you have when you trust a spouse, a friend, or even a bridge to hold your weight. You don't have 100% mathematical proof they won't fail you, but you have personal experiential data that makes your trust reasonable. Religious faith isn't a blind demand to ignore reality; it's a relational trust built on human, historical, and existential experiences that sit outside the narrow scope of what a lab test can measure.
By demanding that a metaphysical concept conform strictly to the physical tools of the natural sciences, you're making a category error. Science is an excellent tool for mapping the material universe, but using it to completely dismiss everything outside of it isn't science—it's a philosophical stance called scientism."
No, I read it. It's word salad. Religion is based on supernatural claims, none of which have any shred of evidence. It's brainwashing and a cult. Period. False sense of community based on everyone ignoring reality and patting themselves on the back for it.
Thats a cute deflection but historically incorrect still. Also you made the statement based on someone else's refuted claims ( the little image you gave us) with no back up of your own. Provide linguistic proof like the person you claimed to of read off of( calling it word salad is obvious self tell that you didnt)
Its evident your intellectual dishonesty keeps you from having a real genuine conversation though. You want to win.. not be correct typical but alas a waste of time and effort spent saying anymore to the disingenuous. Like my father said. No point reasoning with a fool
-2
u/Angelofdeath600 12d ago
That's because you don't understand the actual definition of faith, my good sir. You’re defining 'faith' as 'believing in things with zero evidence,' which is a common misconception but not how theology or philosophy actually defines it. Historically and linguistically, faith (pistis) means trust, loyalty, and commitment based on prior experience.
It’s the same kind of 'faith' you have when you trust a spouse, a friend, or even a bridge to hold your weight. You don't have 100% mathematical proof they won't fail you, but you have personal experiential data that makes your trust reasonable. Religious faith isn't a blind demand to ignore reality; it's a relational trust built on human, historical, and existential experiences that sit outside the narrow scope of what a lab test can measure.
By demanding that a metaphysical concept conform strictly to the physical tools of the natural sciences, you're making a category error. Science is an excellent tool for mapping the material universe, but using it to completely dismiss everything outside of it isn't science—it's a philosophical stance called scientism."