PC, you made this rather blustery comment:
"7. If faith is valuable as a means to knowledge, then I challenge Eaton or anyone to rely on it for now on to cross a street. Just cover your ears and eyes and let faith tell you when to cross."
It was in response to Doug Eaton's having said:
"7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence."
It seems that Doug's call to avoid self-refutation is a message you don't like, PC.
You see, the statement, "We should only believe things proven by empirical evidence," can't be proven by empirical evidence. Therefore, you shouldn't believe it.
Get it?
Your response was inappropriate, then, on that level and at least one more.
Here is a great definition of "faith":
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith…"
So let's see if I can pass your test using a correct understanding of "faith" as used by Christians.
Can I cross the street based on the knowledge that there are no cars coming? Yes. In fact, every time you cross the street it is an act of faith according to the Christian definition of the word, which is the definition that counts since it's our worldview that you are attacking.
The problem is that you have a really abysmal definition of "faith". Maybe that works for some other kind of discussion, but the historic and Biblical Christian definition of the term "faith" is undaunted by the silly challenge of crossing the street.
Really, I wish Doug would have added using really bad definitions of terms that deny what their use within Christianity has been for 2000 years as something thoughtful atheists should never do.
OK, I'm really done. None of your objections are very useful, and most of them fall prey to the very thing Doug was trying to help you avoid. It seems Doug Eaton's advice is sorely needed.
