Then you went and said that. Dammit! (Yes, I spelled it wrong because I pronounce it that way sometimes, to seem more southern, like I'm missing a tooth or something.)

People who limit themselves to logic, reason & "facts" can never understand that a person with faith doesn't care what their proof is. Proof isn't necessary when you have faith. That's what faith is: believing without proof.
And do you not realize how ridiculous and unreasonable a thing to do this is? Not just with proof, without *evidence*. Having faith in God is no different than having faith in Santa.
Why in the world would you believe something unevidenced? If there's no evidenced, there's *no reason to believe it*.

Something people often forget, though, is that fact is a very problematic word. Nothing is fact, save perhaps for things previously recorded (but recorded how? And interpreted how?). Anything else, things that haven't yet occurred, are merely highly-probable events. It's not a fact that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. It's just a likely thing to expect, given our understanding of the solar system. We won't know for sure that the sun will rise until it does. Similarly, it's possible (though the chance is so small as to be non-existant) that I'll fall through my chair, as the molecules in my chair and myself, in constant flux, could somehow line up in such a way as to no longer support me. Again, it'll never happen, but we won't know that for sure until the chair is destroyed or I am. Until one of those two things happens, I'll just have to get by on my faith that what we hold as facts will continue to occur.
You're playing semantics with the word "fact", and not the useful let's-figure-out-exactly-what-the-other-person-is-saying kind of semantics either. That we don't know something "for sure" because hypothetically, we could be wrong is a generally recognized assumption that, well, has no bearing on anything.

Anyone who places all their faith in facts should always remember that facts are subjective, and across time, the way of judging facts has changed. What once was sufficient proof is often not, now, and 100 years from now, the claims of someone like The Logic Ninja may be laughed at as infantile.
Maybe. And if I live that long and am presented with that evidence, hopefully, I'll be rational enough to change my viewpoint.

Sorry TIP, but you always feel it's necessary to spout logic at anyone who purports their faith round here, so I just thought I'd put things in perspective.
Believing in something based on evidence is sensible. It could turn out that you're wrong, in which case you ought to change your mind, but it's sensible. Believing in something that *nothing* evidences is NOT sensible. Faith is of *no* value as a way of figuring out what's true. Your argument is "there's a margin of error in what we percieve as facts, so blind evidenceless guesses are just as good as such facts", basically. It's erroneous.

*awaits snide response*
Well, there you go. You're not giving any sort of an argument as to why faith is good. All you're saying is, "well, you could be wrong."
Yeah, I could. But modern facts and scientific theories are WAY less likely to be wrong than plain old faith.



I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.