NooYawk Atheist replied that "Faith is not a commitment, and it's not based on evidence. You're thinking of trust or hope." Others, such as the so-called New Atheists would probably think that this is the end of the argument. However, while this is a popular idea, it is absolutely false. It is a straw man. Faith, at least in the orthodox Christian tradition, must be thought of as trust for several reasons.
First, there are several passages of Scripture, from both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that command us to think about what we believe. Consider the words of Solomon,
"Even zeal is not good without knowledge, and the one who acts hastily sins."
Solomon here is expressing the value of knowledge by pointing out that even zeal, such as religious zeal, is no good without knowledge. Here Solomon expresses the emphasis that believers are to place on what we know rather than what we do not know. Solomon would think poorly of the person who blindfolded himself before leaving for another city. He would have praised the man who examined the various routes and chose the one that lead him safely to his destination.
An illustration from the book of Exodus suffices. In Exodus 14:31, we read,
"When the people of Israel saw the mighty power that the LORD had unleashed against the Egyptians, they were filled with awe before him. They put their faith in the LORD and in his servant Moses."
Notice that the people had faith in God and in Moses AFTER they saw "the mighty power that the LORD had unleashed against the Egyptians." They were not expected to have a blind faith, nor did they. Their faith followed the evidence, and this is how we are to understand it, as well.
Finally, let's take a look at an example from the New Testament. One verse commonly cited by atheists to support the "the Bible teaches blind faith" position is John 20:29. This passage is often taken out of context and used to support a position that it does not truly support. In fact, this passage, when used in context, helps make a case FOR faith based on evidence. John 20:26-29 says,
"After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, 'Peace to you!' Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don't be an unbeliever, but a believer.' Thomas responded to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said, 'Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Those who believe without seeing are blessed.'"
Notice that Jesus did not reply to Thomas by simply saying, "Just have faith, Thomas. It doesn't matter how things look, just believe, even without evidence!" Instead, Jesus offers Thomas evidence of His resurrection. "Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side," was Jesus's reply to Thomas. There are literally dozens of other examples that could be cited here, but I think the point has been amply illustrated.
Second, faith in the orthodox Christian sense is not to be understood as a blind faith because it goes against the grammatical usage of the word "faith" in the New Testament. The Greek word the New Testament authors used for "faith" is the Greek word, "pistis", which literally means "trust" (1). More accurately, it can be understood as an active trust. So a blind faith is unbiblical. That is, the Christian ought not have blind faith.
In summation, whatever NooYawk Atheist and others may say, the idea that all faith is blind is just a straw man argument. I hope he and others can come to see just how much "blind faith" they have had in the idea that all faith is blind.