Dawkins Against Religion continued

 Just to touch on the ususual  he again says that faith is believing something without evidence when in the case of Christianity, no, it is believing on the basis of witness testimony which is evidence.  I believe what the witnesses have told me they wthen he goes on to how faith leads people to commit evil acts

itnessed and in believing that it beomce shemy own knowledge.  and the example he gives is als always from Islam, the suicide bombing and the flying of planes into the twin towers, but he never distinctguishes that from the fact that Christianity does not teach us to do such things, that is something only Islam teaches.  And that is because not all religions are the same although he always acts as if h thingsks they are.  Christians are taught to love others and do good to others, and to put up with persecutions and injustices, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile when compelled to go one and so on.  this is not what Islam teaches at all.  There could not be two more different religions but Dawkins seems not to notice or not to care.

What I was saing in the first paragraph about faith got cut off.  Yes, the things I know by faith are acquired through the testimony of witneesses.  IEither you trust the witnesses or you ton'.  I judge the many witnesses of the Bible to the many dsupernatural and other events to be reliable.  If you don't you dn't.  

Besides that I don't use faith in any context where I can use empirical knowledge or direct observation.  Why shuld I?  Faith is all we hve for the kinds of events given in the bible, but it isn't appropriate in our everyday lives in the same way.  Still of course there are many things we all know only because we've been taught them by others, but that isn't the same thing as believing in the resurrection of Christ for my salvation although in a sense it may be said to be knowing something by fiath nevertheless.  Again it is  a matter of whether you belive the witnesses or not.  Unfortunately there are many people who refuse to beleive the witnesses not because of anyything  they know about their trustworthiness as people but only because they have rejected their testimony in advance.  Say they claim to have witnesses a miracle.  Their testimony will be rejected bwcause it is a miracle they switnessesd, not because they themseles are at fault in any way.  Or the fault is imputed to them as a consequence of the distrust in the miracle.    So nobody woulwcould eevery find out if a miracle really occurred or not who can't consider the validity of the witneesses' testimony at all for prejudice against the thing witneessed. 

Oh well.