1) In my opinion, faith is an emotional desire for something to be true. I prefer hope, which is realistic and stimulating into action on behalf of the object of hope.
2) No, I don't have faith, I have things like experience, knowledge, hope, presupposition, and so on, that eliminates the need of faith. As one wise man once wrote, the greatest freedom is a perfect lawfulness, without shadows of uncertainity. This is why I seek real, practical answers, where others prefer faith. And I have to say, this approach really pays off.

WTF? wheres the video?

There are at least two usages of the word.

One is just a stronger form of 'trust', especially in a friend or loved one.

We pretty much all experience some form of this. It is based on at least some reasons, such as one's past experience with the person, but the word is normally used when there is not really enough justification rationally for such trust, but there is a strong emotional commitment.

Then there is the usage in religion, which seems to be making a virtue of holding to a belief without evidence, or even despite conflicting evidence. It is derived from the normal usage, as a way of demonstrating one's commitment to an imagined deity. This one is not a virtue to someone outside the fantasy world of Theism.

What have you taken on faith, despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary?

But determining what qualifies as  "really enough justfication" is subjective.

You're using the term "religion" as if it were monolithic, when it clearly is not. Also, I have already brought it to your attention that you adhere to the metaphysical belief in materialism, DESPITE evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

Oh my. I didn't expect to see you again. Take a vacation?

Faith to me is confidence in something you cannot actually prove, or something that you haven't proven. An example: I have faith that my best friends won't betray me under almost any circumstances. But I can't prove it is true. I think the word faith is effectively the same as belief, though in common usage tends to make more of an implication of religion than belief does.

What if your lack of faith in any deity provides that change in perception and better feeling?

O ye of little faith.

Okay. So, do you have faith?

I fail to see how you can feel optimistic when your worldview is clearly devoid of all faith and hope.

Then faith is not based on personal experience. Thank you.

Nope someone else is involved, there could be evidence left behind of some sort that something transpired, the person could be identified by you and there can be physical evidence left behind there can be other ways to verify your story as well, with that said if there is ZERO evidence at all, I cannot say that it actually happened either, and if you cannot identify the person then its a tale, then of course there your history of being either honest or a liar, and that can come into play. However it is far more plausible what you brought forward than god existing. However having faith in something that has no evidence to back it up, e.g. god or religious concepts of any deity, is no different really than someone taking drugs and hallucinating that goblins are after them, sure they see it, but no one else does and there is no other way to verify it, there is ZERO evidence that they are real.

Of course it relevant, its completely relevant to the definition of faith, personal experience without any back up means squat, faith in a doctors abilities because of experience and knowledge about doctors and the evidence that doctors do cure the sick many times, can lead one to have faith in the abilities of a doctor or doctors. Same goes faith in one own capabilities, that's has evidence to back up. Other than that, really means squat if you can't back it up, it means you have the second faith, no evidence what so ever.

ummm no those are not reasons to believe in a god but those are reasons people but forth why they believe in a god. But in reality those are not really any good reason to believe a god exists, those are not exactly evidence that god exists. those are arugments for it, but not evidence, but there is much evidence to the contrary, which is where faith now comes in to play, they still believe even though the evidence says otherwise.

However believing that a being exists or that a being can do things without any evidence to back it up is faith, which is completely different then what you are talking about, which is not faith, your scenario you gave does not require me to believe you on faith, it requires me to believe you based on how probable you story is. Completely different, however the evidence of the evolution of man, now contradicts the biblical story of creation, as well the evidence of how the universe came to be also contradicts the biblical story. Evidence or the lack of evidence for a god also contradict the claims that god exists, therefore you need to take it on faith, eg, believe even though it contradicts reality, the evidence and there is no evidence that it is true.

If you believe the proof of the pudding comes down to personal experiences - and you really believe you've had these experiences - well...

Maybe reality is just personal interpretation of good and bad luck after all. But it hardly makes room for universal truth, does it.

What personal experience did you have that lead to your faith in god ?

Paisley! Good to see you around again. Seriously.

You'll have to take it on faith that I'm sincere, but I really am.

What is the magic stuff that I am clearly alluding to in the OP?

On that basis, then you should not employ any faith whatsoever (which is functionally impossible). That your car will start the next time you turn the ignition key is certainly open to question (all beliefs are open to question).

Do you believe anyone can believe in something and have faith in it without evidence? If so, how is this accomplished?

That's not really faith, but merely fear masquerading as faith. Flinging ad hominem attacks is an activity individuals engaged in because  they are suffering from a negative self-image and doubting their own self-worth.

Faith is based on a non-sensory (i.e. non-physical) perception of a spiritual or divine reality. It is an experience that I have always had. And it is an experience that is apparently universal (or nearly universal) because a belief in a spiritual or divine reality is ubiquitous.

Actually arguing with Paisley can be fun. He's not irrational at all, he has a specific agenda that he always promotes which is already surfacing in this new thread.

More like a shadow that gives us a break from reason to laugh at you but hey, whatever works.

No, I used your definition of the term and now you are backpedalling and attempting to redefine the term because you can bring yourself to admit that your faith is based on personal experiences and interpretations.

But I don't believe that "God created the universe and the world in 7 days." So the implication that I obstinately cling to a theistic belief even when there is evidence to the contrary does not apply. The bottom line here is that  you cannot disprove the existence of God.

What constitutes evidence and what does not is clearly open to personal interpretation.

I've missed your self-deprecating, ironic humor most of all.

"Beacon of light." Heh. I'll be chuckling all night.

My world-view is best described as Scientific Naturalism, a more accurate description the Atheistic Materialism, since 'Atheism' is a natural consequence of the rational, evidence-based, outlook rather than a presupposition.

Atheism follows from the rational consideration of the available evidence, which does not point to a God, which no longer works as an explanation for existence as it may once have when there was far less knowledge of the nature and origins of the Universe and Life.

Reductionist 'Materialism' doesn't work either, since we now recognize the extreme importance of structure, complexity, and process, which make the difference between mere matter and structured, complex objects, like galaxies and living creatures. And such concepts are not material objects in themselves.

There is a lot of reason for despair in looking at modern society, and it is understandable why people might cling to comforting illusions like the self-deception we refer to as religious faith, that there is some super entity ultimately in charge, who offers us the prospect of some form of resolution, and the promise of a life after worldly death.

If everyone closes their eyes to the truth that there is no reason, other than a forlorn and desperate hope, to believe in such things, then it will almost guarantee that modern society will end in disaster as we run out of resources and over-crowd our planet. Our only hope is for at least some people to remain clear-eyed and work at possible ways forward rather than sink into the fantasy worlds of religion, and other forms of reality-denial.

As to free-will, it is obviously an 'illusion' that our choices have some independent element, apart from of all the memories and moods and desires and reactions to events that make up our flow of consciousness, but the existence of such an illusion is an intrinsic aspect of consciousness.

I see from your responses so far in this thread, Paisley, that you are still stuck in your blinkered straw-man characterization of 'Atheistic Materialism' as the only alternative to some sort of Supernatural Dualism, so I don't expect any serious response to this.

Your apparent refusal to even acknowledge the distinction between the ordinary use of 'faith' as a stronger form of trust, and the other usage as total acceptance of some dogma or doctrine in spite of lack of evidence, or even in the face of counter-evidence shows the same tired old pattern of your earlier threads.