Morton Kelsey, in his book, Set Your Heart on the Greatest Gift, tells a story of a man who came to the edge of a cliff. As he stood there, wondering what to do next, he was amazed to discover a tightrope stretched across the abyss. Slowly, surely, across the rope came an acrobat pushing before him a wheelbarrow with another performer in it. When they finally reached the safety of solid ground, the acrobat smiled at the man’s amazement. “Do you think I can do it again?” he asked. The man replied, “Why yes, I certainly believe you can.” The acrobat put his question to the man again, and when the answer was the same, he pointed to the wheelbarrow and said, “Good, then get in.”
Andrew, my friend, this is a great analogy to the definition of faith. I do not know why you are adamant about holding on to the definition that you are using. Both faith sources and secular sources define faith differently than you, yet you refuse to accept either. For the last time, it is completely unfair to say that faith means believing without evidence. The above analogy is a perfect example. The man had every reason to believe the acrobat could do it again. He had just witnessed the acrobat achieving it. Yet, the question is whether the man will trust the acrobat. Faith is more about trust than anything else. We do not trust things for which we have no evidence.
In your last post, you said that Christians do have reasons for their faith, it is just that they are irrational reasons. That very statement, however, is contradictory. By definition irrationality means, “without reason.” Yet, you admit that Christians have reasons for their beliefs. You are unfairly attempting to have your cake and eat it too.
The issue is not rationality. Rather it is a test of will whether you will believe. Belief is not irrational; there are plenty of good reasons for accepting the belief in a God; the only real issue is why you continually reject good evidence for the existence of God.
You attempt to analogize the belief in God with the presence of a dragon in your pants. You like to talk about red herrings, yet that analogy is prime example of a red herring. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that there is a dragon in your pants. There is plenty of evidence that God exists.
Why do you refuse to believe? Instead of taking pot shots at a belief in God, will you provide positive reasons for why you are an atheist? I have asked repeatedly for you to do so. I do not think there are any positive reasons for atheism. In other words, your belief in atheism is defined by what you think we cannot prove, rather than by what you can prove. Accordingly, once again, theism is more rational. At least we can provide reasons for what we believe.