Questions about noah ark

[Esquilax]

I had to come back to this one to see where it ended up since this afternoon.

Esq, your definition of faith (believing in spite of evidence) is apparently unique to you guys.
Drich gave you the correct definitions, yet you come up with one that doesn't exist.
Faith is having belief or confidence in something. PERIOD
That includes Atheists.
You have faith in your car.

That's why we always say that this line of theistic argument is a false equivocation, and not a faulty definition. If you guys want to define faith as just confidence or belief then fine, but you do not then get to equate that kind of faith with the faith of a believer in god, and pretend like they're both equivalent, which is what you and Drich are doing right now.

You can't use a definition of faith that broad when trying to apply it to atheists, and then immediately narrow that definition back down to what we consider religious faith to be, in the space of one sentence, when you want to denigrate atheists for having faith. You've got to stick to the same definition all the way through the argument, which means that at best you now have two kinds of faith at play; the atheist's reasonable confidence in the propositions they believe to be true, based on evidence and probability, and the theist's irrational confidence in propositions that do not have, and actively resist, evidence.

It's just playing a word game, not actually rebutting any of the arguments put against you. Like I said to Drich earlier, asking "if you'll have faith in your car, why not faith in god?" is a completely insane stance to take, because it operates under the pretense that I have as little reason to believe in my car, as I do to believe in god, and that's just not true. I have plenty of evidence to back up the reliability of my car, and no reason at all to believe god even exists.

If that faith was in spite of evidence- you would would be looking for a reliable one to replace it.
I got rid of the lying clunker that the System foisted on me a long time ago.
The purveyors of evolution make the proverbial used car salesmen look like Mother Teresa.
But then again, the only alternative to creation is this stupid theory of evolution.
So people have to live with it and it gets shoved down everybody's throat until some of us look around at reality and vomit it out like the puke that it is.

So... no actual evidence or argument against evolution at all, just more equivocation fallacies? If you have to lie and hedge this much in defense of your beliefs, your beliefs must not be worth very much, "prof".