It is interesting to note that atheists have attempted to talk the “faithful”—and here I will only speak for Christians—into believing that faith, our faith, Biblical faith, is “belief without evidence.” To substantiate this, they oft point to Hebrews 11:1 which states that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Apparently, they are not keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of everything that we are all prepared to say we believe is believed by us upon evidence of things not seen. Think of wind for example, we do not see wind but see wind’s affects, etc. Think of your place and date of birth; you do not know that these are facts but believe them on your parent’s authority or some old piece of paper, etc.
They have only succeeded in convincing themselves and one another that this definition is accurate.
As with much of their waxing inelegant about Judeo-Christian theology; they are quite pleased with their well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-points while Judeo-Christians wonder whence the got such misinformation (and why they are so very pleased with it).
At this juncture, I will merely point out that, perhaps much to the atheist’s chagrin, the hoi polloi understand the concept of faith in a much more reasonable, and Biblical way, than do they and it is an understanding that is employed into our common parlance.
Biblical faith is, in essence, “trust” and the way we use the term is to, for example, say, “I expect you to be there at 9:00 and have faith that you will be.”
Or, “You excelled in you 101 classes and so I have faith that you will continue to do so in the more advanced classes.”
These are instances in which “faith” is based previously witnessed evidence which leads to the trust.
Or, “My husband is faithful to me and I have faith that he will remain faithful.”
In this case, faithful means trustworthy or committed..
Since I cannot predict the future and since absolute continuity is merely assumed, when I add 2+2 I do not know that it will =4 (continuity is one of very many things that atheism only “explains” by stating that it just is). I have faith that it will since this has been the case as far back as I know and it has been variously verified. Yet, I assume that it will =4 until such time as I can verify it, this time. And so, I follow the evidence as far as I can, that 2+2=4, then take the leap of faith in trusting that the result will be that it =4 and then seek to verify that it does =4.
Some supernatural claims, such as that of life after death, may take longer to verify (for the individual to verify) but that does not mean that it is unverifiable (at least individually).
It is very sad that so very many atheists are so very pleased to argue against straw-men and a straw-God. If they were not so pleased they would actually have to deal with substance rather than rhetoric and would then find themselves in uncharted waters; the waters of truth vs. self-servingly emotive propaganda.
This is why the common man (or is it common non-gender specific personages?) understands faith in a richer, more meaningful, more accurate way than do attention begging celebrity atheists and their amen chorus cult of personality adherents.