Does a bartender rely on faith when he rejects the teenage kid's ID as fake? That ID may have been 'convincing evidence or proof' of age to a less experienced bartender.
But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist
Like I said, I've never understood that. One simply has to define a deity as being able to set up everything to look like evolution happened. The religious have the advantage in that they get to define whatever they want.
or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world. It's not a problem with the existence of God, but of the definition.
While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
Their logic is just faulty for the argument. The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith. Those with faith get to move the goalposts and redefine the situation to get around any logic. So those atheists are really fighting a battle that can't be won on that playing field.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith. I'd probably be fooled by the fake ID above, accepting it as proof. But that's just my ignorance.
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications. Those of us who don't accept man-made global warming are often falsely accused of this, and in some cases probably rightly accused. Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening? I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.
Yes, the bartender makes a choice what he/she will believe about the ID. (The exception, of course, would be if the bartender knew this kid all his life, in which case, the kid is just stupid.)
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world.
So it seems logical to you to argue that since people do bad things, God couldn't be all good? That doesn't seem logical to me, but it seems logical to others.
The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith.
As has already been shown in this post (and others), logic is in the eye of the beholder.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith.
What one chooses to accept or reject as evidence is generally based upon what one has decided to place their faith in (God or natural processes or whatever).
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications.
We have all closed our minds around certain ideas. That is not to say we can't chose to later open our minds to something else, but it is a choice to do so. If there is no God, then there is nothing good or bad about opening or closing one's mind. It just is what it is.
Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening?
Yes, just as those who claim it is happening have chosen to have faith that it is.
I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.
A person's ulterior motives, if and when discovered, would reveal something about that person's true faith.