You ridicule your own incorrect definition. See straw man.

Biblical faith is action based on confidence gained through repeated successful trials.

Name one "successful trial" that provides the extraordinary evidence I would need to be convinced that there is any god(s)? And you claim that I am making a straw man argument but you aren't really explaining that. I am just asking for some polite identification of which part you find to be invalid.

If you like, I can give you a Bible study on the subject of faith, using scriptures from the Old and New Testaments, and correlating examples from my own experience and that of my fellow Christians. Is that what you want?

I doubt I would consider a correlation between a story book and your life to be what I would call sufficient evidence of a god or creator.

By slandering a subject on which you are willfully ignorant, you make yourself look just as silly as the religious idiots who ridicule Darwinism without bothering to study modern evolutionary theory. I suggest you pick a subject for discussion in which you have personal experience. You'll come out looking much smarter that way.

Your evolution example is good. However, I'm not quite sure if your conclusion is accurate because although I'm not terribly interested in studying your religion, I'm not completely ill-informed about the subject. The thing is studying any religious book doesn't change the fact that religion is asking you to make that leap of faith with no evidence. There is nothing that could be printed in that book that could convince me because there is no evidence. You do understand the circular logic in thinking that the bible is true because it is the word of god and that you know that because it's in the bible, right?

I was talking about the definition of Biblical faith. It is possible to be informed on the substance of Christian doctrine without actually claiming it as your own. For instance, I have read portions of the Koran even though I'm not a Muslim. I've also researched arguments made by so-called "tax protesters" before coming to a conclusion about their validity. So no, I'm not asking you to first believe in God in order to gain a better understanding of the definition of faith as used in the Bible. The Biblical definition is not so very different from the normal everyday (non-religious) definition, once you understand it correctly.

The whole "once you understand it correctly" thing is strange for me too. Take for example unicorns, now that means: oh it was a different animal, not the unicorns from fantasy books. You made a false claim that my resistance to wanting to read your story book is a valid counter argument to my objection of theism. Your religion is one of many, which can be interpreted in different ways. Of course you have your religious freedoms, but it should never represent truth in public as there is insufficient evidence.

Again, you are changing the subject. I made no arguments about the existence or nonexistence of God, and did not ask you to change your beliefs one whit in that regard. I am simply pointing out that the Biblical definition of faith does not equate to "blind belief without proof." I offered to support my argument using the Bible, and you declined the offer. If it is any consolation, there are many religious people who share your incorrect definition. Their claim to a belief that is not backed up by action and experience is just as laughable as Bill Maher's mockumentary on the subject. (I thoroughly enjoyed watching Religulous, by the way.)

Sorry, just jumping back to defending the minor "looking like a silly idiot" remark. I'm angry with all the other shit that goes along with religion. There's a too much intolerance and hatred out there. I don't think it's fair to call atheists who don't want to read the bible as any less of a person. Do we have to read every mainstream religious book? What about the non-mainstream religions? What about polytheism? How are you ever sure that the monotheistic interpretation is correct? I say dump those books and learn more from each other.

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. I am not proposing to judge your belief system. But when you make uneducated statements about my belief system, please be prepared to encounter opposition. I am not trying to defend the religion that has angered you so. If you have encountered hatred and intolerance, please know that this is nothing new. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul notes that many indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife.

You didn't really have a different definition of faith, it was mostly different words. There is no reason to believe that successful trials occur. There is no reality check. Truth and honesty have to represent reality, so the image is accurate.

So you started by defining faith as "belief that is not based on proof".

I countered that Biblical faith is "action based on confidence gained through repeated successful trials."

Now you're saying the above two statements are identical in meaning. I think we have reached the point at which we must simply agree to disagree. You are unwilling or incapable of recognizing that we are talking about different things, and I am both unwilling and unable to educate you on Biblical definitions without actually referring to the Bible.

Actually I meant the rest of the image was still true. I already said early on that the definition itself is better from google.

Since you are unwilling to hear evidence, are you at least willing to concede that the definition of faith that you so rightly ridicule may possibly be different from the faith that is described in the Bible?

Hmm, it might be possible if that can be true and theism is still nonsense. Like you said, you are suggesting you might be talking about something completely different than my google definition, so I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say you haven't disclosed the real meaning of what you are talking about.

From the Wikipedia article I referenced earlier:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I submit that the definition of "faith" as used in the Bible differs from concept that you are refuting. You are unwilling to hear evidence that supports my claim (i.e. quotes of the Bible from which the definition may be inferred by context). I am willing to concede that the straw man you have constructed is as utterly refutable as you claim. However, your construction is a misrepresentation and thus logically invalid.

It's a thought provoking image and I think that most people will get the point. I think it's nit-picking to say your way of interpreting faith (which apparently can't be understood without reading the bible) makes this image insignificant.

So you admit that your topic image has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, nor with the belief system described therein.

The image doesn't say bible anywhere on it. I'm not quite sure what your point is. (Granted we haven't gone into why this secret "belief system" I supposedly don't know about has a completely different definition of faith.)

First of all, the belief system is only "secret" because you are unwilling to hear it. I offered to teach, remember? You declined. Therefore your ignorance is by your choice, not by mine.

Secondly, let me illustrate by means of an analogy. If I were a great fan of Hans Christian Andersen, and you posted an image that (rightly) made fun of Disney's The Little Mermaid, I might be tempted to point out that the character from the original storybook significantly differs from the one portrayed in the movie. I might even offer to illustrate the differences by means of selected quotes from each. If you maintained that the Disney story were true to the original but refused to read the "secret storybook" version, I would (rightly) conclude that you were being deliberately obtuse. It doesn't matter that the Disney poster doesn't mention Hans Christian Andersen anywhere. It's still his story, and it's still being misrepresented.

Finally, I would like to further submit that the religion commonly accepted as "Christianity" is a complete misrepresentation of the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. As Mohandas Gandhi so eloquently stated, I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.