Is faith without proof the same as faith with "proof"?

Gerald Rivera3 said: if there were actual evidence for every religious claim, we wouldn't be talking about faith anymore—it would just be science or maybe history.
Every religion has that one foundational thing you can't prove—take the resurrection of Jesus, or the idea of the Message being whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, for instance. People just accept it because someone told them that's how it went down, and apparently, the alternative is eternal damnation

hollowpilot9: Why do you, Gerald Rivera3, and most others immediately jump straight to reductionism? The question was specifically about FAITH AND EVIDENCE. If we’re only talking about religious belief, then sure, the point is missed. But you have to realize that every scientific breakthrough starts with the FAITH that something actually exists to be discovered... so, you're basically flipping cause and effect. Look at Watson and Cirque—they simply HAD FAITH that they could figure out the structure and logic of the DNA molecule. Before they actually assembled the molecule by "playing around like kids," they had no clue what it looked like: THEY JUST BELIEVED! It's the same deal with religious FAITH in the existence of God. You just need to prove that faith, or disprove it. Right now, the situation is pretty thin regarding the configuration of patterns that suggest outlines of proof for God's existence in a creative sense. Once that's proven, religious FAITH will become scientific Truth!
So why all the emphasis and misunderstanding regarding FAITH AND EVIDENCE? FAITH PRECEDES PROOF, and proving God should be simple for humans—if we're talking about His attributes—considering those two gentlemen are only about 2,000 years away!

Black Hawk Down said:Maybe you could frame it like this: I have faith in Santa Claus, which is different from just "believing" it’s going to rain tomorrow. Is there actually a distinction between faith and belief?

Actually, they're both just forms of believing something exists.

One is believing in Santa Claus, and the other is believing in some meteorologist's ability to predict the weather.

Endless said:What’s the point of those "observations and experience" if a cold front gets stuck over the Rockies the next day, we miss the rain entirely, or it just rolls in twelve hours late?
Are these "observations" even worth anything when everything is this hit-or-miss?
And honestly, any faith placed in such "observations" is pretty pathetic—people will grab an umbrella for no reason, only to get soaked when they realize they didn't actually need it.

Why does it even matter whether it rains or not right now?😕

When it comes to religion, I don't really see it as a matter of faith—it's more like a pure expression of will to me.

geza said:Gerald Rivera3 says: if there were actual evidence for everything religion claims, it wouldn't even be called faith anymore; it would just be science or maybe history.
See, every single religion has this core foundation that just can't be proven—like the resurrection of Jesus, or how the Message was whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, and stuff like that, but people just swallow it whole because someone told them that's just how it is, and if they don't, they're headed straight for hell

geza: Why do you, Gerald Rivera3, and most other people immediately try to shrink the definition? The question here was about FAITH AND EVIDENCE; if we're only talking about religious belief, then sure, the topic is missed. But you really have to realize that every scientific breakthrough starts with the FAITH that something actually can be discovered or uncovered... so, you're basically flipping cause and effect here. A perfect example of what I'm getting at would be Watson and Circus, who simply BELIEVED they would eventually figure out the structure and the logic behind the DNA molecule, because before they actually pieced the molecule together by "playing around like kids," they had no clue what it actually looked like: THEY JUST BELIEVED! It's the exact same thing with religious FAITH in the existence of God. You just need to prove that faith, or disprove it. Right now, the situation is totally stuck regarding the configuration of patterns that show the outlines of proof for God's existence in a creative sense. Once that's proven, religious FAITH will transform into scientific Truth!
So why all the emphasis and the misunderstandings over FAITH AND EVIDENCE? FAITH COMES BEFORE PROOF, and proving God is actually pretty simple for humans if you're just looking at His attributes, considering those two gentlemen are only about 2,000 years away!

Sure, faith comes before proof, that's true, but depending on how things turn out (or the path you take to get to that proof), the whole structure of that faith can change. People might even walk away from it entirely if the proof turns out to be impossible. Take your example—what would have happened if W. and C. hadn't managed to piece that molecule together (maybe because they believed it looked slightly different)? They would have had to admit they were wrong and either drop their "belief" or tweak their "faith" so it could actually lead them to the final proof.
But in a religious context, faith doesn't precede proof, because trying to prove God (in the way W. and C. used "faith") is basically blasphemy. You aren't supposed to go hunting for proof of God, because when it comes to the dogmas that serve as the bedrock for every religion, there's no room for debate. That's why modifying a religious faith is just unthinkable.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard believers from any religion admit they were mistaken or say that their religion needs some kind of overhaul—and I'm talking about the fundamental pillars, the dogmas, not just the usual shifts between denominations like Catholic or Protestant....
That's why faith backed by proof and faith without proof are two completely different animals.