Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe: 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments: 
  a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
  b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
  d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
  e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

...

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

*Bold mine

The thing is it's your opinion that these claims are true, and are conclusions  of arguments that by your own admission none of which are  provable fact'

Surely you would agree that claims have to be proven to be true, I could claim there is an invisible yellow jelly baby who rules the moon, and if you only you had faith you too would believe, and as you cannot prove it not to be untrue then can I claim it rational ?  I find it amazing that Christianity is relying more and more on ''you can't prove it's not true'' type of defence. 

What exactly do you mean by "proven"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). Notice that my list would consist of different combinations of these. What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold or move the goalpost just enough so they can claim--"see, no proof".