People need faith because there's no evidence. When evidence is around, no faith is needed. Kinda like in buybull times...

I presume you have faith in anyone you cherish?
Why? Because you cherish them? John Lennox literally used the is type of argument against your respected Richard Dawkins.

Nope. What does it mean to have faith "in" someone/something? I assume you mean trust or confidence but it's common for religious zealots to obfuscate faith and confidence. Your BuyBull claims in Hebrews 11:1 that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So the claim is that faith is "substance" and "evidence" at the same time. Can you hold it in your hand? If not, it's neither.

I get apologists screaming YOU HAVE FAITH IN AIRLINES, CHAIRS, FAITH THAT PEOPLE WON'T RUN OVER YOU WITH THEIR VEHICLES!!! But that's not faith. That's simply relying on experiential evidence of the past.

People generally believe things based on evidence. I believe my roof won’t collapse on me in the middle of the night because, based on years of evidence and experience … it hasn’t. I believe my arms are attached to my body. Why? Evidence. I believe flying is safer than car travel based on the commonly available statistics anyone can look up. I believe those reporting those statistics did so honestly. I believe information ABOUT objects, events, people, and situations but what exactly does it mean to believe IN something, to have faith IN something? Something/someone you cannot see, that/who doesn’t speak audibly to you (only within the confines of your own skull), that/who supposedly dictated a set of books/letters/rules to ancient Middle Eastern dudes who despite being illiterate shepherds/fishermen wrote in highly educated Greek …
I find it astounding that there are so many people who are uber skeptical of so many things in the world (government, medicine, science), yet they firmly hold onto a belief in a god that hides himself, doesn’t speak to them except within the confines of their own minds, and supposedly helps them find their car keys but won’t intervene on a child being molested, won’t stop earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes, can’t do anything in his own hometown “because of their unbelief”, can’t do anything against an opposing army “because their chariots were made of iron”, and just overall is nowhere to be found. This entity, as described in their holy book and by their priests and proponents, should be everywhere, readily visible, answering prayers constantly. He should be so glaringly obvious that disbelief is impossible.

In essence, they “believe in belief” — not necessarily in their god (credit to Daniel Dennett). There’s a big difference.

I prefer reality.

Also of note: their first debate was in 2007 at the University of Alabama in "the Bible Belt" -- an area obviously friendly to religious indoctrination and unscientific beliefs. They later met to debate at Oxford Museum of Natural History (October 21, 2008), and again for more of a panel discussion at the Edinburgh International Science Festival (April 2009) where it's widely recognized that Dawkins was relaxed and more confident with a scientifically literate audience.

At the end of each encounter, no one changed sides. Dawkins is, quite understandably, extremely fatigued at the amount of scientific ignorance demonstrated by believers in Jewish myths. It's hard to convince a scientist that cellular necrosis (a known and well understood irreversible process) is indeed reversible, that snakes and donkeys can talk, that blindness can be healed with mud made from human saliva, that genetics can be altered depending on what a sheep sees while breeding, that a woman can get pregnant by a being without physical form without having sex, ... I mean, I can go on for days and days at the impossibilities in the BuyBull.