Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[KevinM1]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve would fail freshman philosophy.  And I'm not saying that to be snarky, or as a joke.  His entire framework of belief is simply a lattice of various fallacies.  And it's exasperating that he's unable or unwilling to see it.  I mean, from the above:

Jesus is compelling - that's a personal assessment and non sequitur.  Some people find the life of Kim Kardashian compelling.  So what?
The NT describes actual events - except, there's no proof of miracles or magic, and the claims of such things don't somehow make them true.
God works in people's lives today, changing people + miracles - again, no proof of miracles happening, and what does 'changing people' even mean?  And can it only happen through Christ? (hint: no, people can change - for good or bad - for a variety of reasons)

The rest of it is simply begging the question nonsense.  There's no reason to believe that morality is objective, or that the universe is fine tuned.  There's no way to claim that the Christian god is the best answer for any of it.

It's amateurish at best.  A lot of fluff and jazz hands to distract from the fact that none of what he writes is even remotely intellectually sound.  It's not a series of reinforcing arguments, but rather a scattershot collection of post hoc justifications to justify already existing belief.

Where did you get that any of this are my arguments? I said nothing of the kind. When I posted the list, I even said "These are NOT the arguments..." {emphasis in the original}. 

I have defended every one of these at various times here and am willing to do it again. I'm not hijacking this thread. Start a new one.

Steve, you said:

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

And then went down the line, which I rebutted above.  You then said:

Well, it is your (possibletarian's) 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).

Which is ridiculous.  Cumulative fallacies - which are the end points of bad arguments - and non sequiturs do not add up to rationality.

I am wholly unimpressed. And I certainly don't need you to go back down the "popularity = veracity" rabbit hole yet again.