Shadowy Man
Contributor
But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?Maybe not demonstrated but there is evidence. You just said that the atheists’ belief that faith is belief without evidence has no evidence but it does. For example, a Bible quote that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” is evidence for the belief that faith is belief without evidence. You may not consider it to be good or convincing evidence but it is still evidence.But nobody's demonstrated that the religious say that their faith is without evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.
Perhaps. The logic could be flawed.
The "evidence of things not seen" is just another way of describing "things hoped for." So the passage can be abbreviated: "...faith is the substance of the evidence of things not seen."
It could also be parsed as “faith is the evidence of things unseen.”
Sure, but an atheist can read it, as they have, as implying that faith is without evidence. That mean they have evidence to believe that faith is belief without evidence.IIn other words the visible faith of Christians is a manifestation (or an evidence) of the invisible things God is doing in their lives.
In any case, the passage is confusing. That's why Christian faith is often explained differently.
Again, it may not be good or convincing evidence but it is evidence and an atheist is using logic to infer a conclusion from the evidence.
I was willing to admit that a religious person may have evidence for their faith. I may disagree that it is good evidence and that their logic is flawed. You can admit that an atheist may think that faith is belief without evidence and that may be wrong
But you can’t say they don’t have any evidence for that belief.