[Taliesan]

When someone intentionally uses a word with one connotation, such as faith meaning "confidence in another," to justify or put over the another meaning of the word, such as faith meaning, "blind credulity," as in religion, it is essentially dishonest.

Strawman. You define "faith" as "blind credulity", and then refute it. When I use the word in he context of my faith in God, I mean precisely "confidence in another".

You have every right to doubt that the other is actually there. But your critique of the word "faith" simply reflects your a priori definition, which definition -- voila! -- contains the conclusion you like.

Perhaps not dishonest, but circular, lacking insight, and oh, so old.

[cornelis]

Perhaps not dishonest, but circular, lacking insight, and oh, so old.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is, well, culturally acceptable nowadays.

[Hank Kerchief]

Strawman. You define "faith" as "blind credulity"

Tell you what, please tell me what you mean by faith when describing the basis for your belief in God. If you "faith" is based on evidence, that is not what the theologians mean by faith when the quote Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The theologians make it very clear they mean by faith, believing in that for which there is no visible (or any other kind of material) evidence. If that is not your faith, I wasn't talking about yours. I was talking about what most religious people mean by faith, believing without evidence or without reasoning from evidence.

Hank