Tip to winning an argument - define your opponent's views to suit yourself, then tear them apart. That seems to be the tactic Richard Dawkins takes.
I recently heard a radio interview with Dawkins and he spoke about the evil of faith, because, as he said, faith is believing something without evidence. Why does he get away with defining faith that way? What is faith? Faith is not believing something without evidence; faith is believing something! It may be someone believes something without evidence - that would be blind faith, a leap of faith etc. but someone else may have faith based on evidence, e.g. the faith someone has in their spouse or friend, their doctor or mechanic etc. - that is reasonable faith, and that is Biblical faith!
Libraries of books have been written on the evidences of the reality of Christianity, yet time and time again I hear atheists say there's not a shred of evidence for Christianity's truth. When this is said you can be sure the person is playing to the gallery. The fact is there are many lines of evidence (e.g.), now the atheist may not think it's compelling or convincing evidence, but he can't say there is no evidence. And it is a bit strange that Richard Dawkins would spend so much time in The God Delusion attacking peripheral matters relating to religion and yet give so little space to dealing with the arguments, specifically the foundation of Christianity - the resurrection. If he had convincing refutations to the evidence would a book such as his not be the ideal place to state them? The silence is eloquent. Yes, Richard Dawkins has battered the strawman, but the Scriptures stand unscathed.
The Bible doesn't encourage mindless faith, God takes your brain seriously (Isaiah 1 v 18). If you're honestly seeking the truth and prepared to go where the evidence leads, I believe it will lead you to the Saviour - the Lord Jesus Christ.
