It wasn't an assertion. People do happen to believe in things without the support of evidence. It happens. There are countless examples of this, in religion, ideology, politics, etc. Something that is believed to be true without the support of evidence is called faith. That is not an unfounded assertion or claim, just an observation, basic logic and semantics.
Hello DBT - when mauserand9mm stated that you made an "assertion" I simply took the discussion from there - did not get wrapped into a characterization of what you were making. I have no disagreement with what you say above, other than a general observation that your definition of "faith" here is too strictly limited and simple to serve the discussions here. Not everyone defines faith in the same terms - and differing people see "evidence" differently - leaves a bunch of room for argument, and potential misunderstanding. I rather knew what would happen when someone pushed the "definition' aspect. Over these many years, i have seen countless efforts by arguers to strictly control the meaning of certain terms in order to insure support for their arguments - a reasonable human trait - but actuality is not shaped that way. The dynamics of faith (maybe see Paul Tillich so titled, as well as The Courage to Be) cause me to see it as beyond control by the individual human, no matter how fervent the quest for control. Good day - fare thee well.
