Does anyone else think its completely bizarre, it not sooo convenient, that 100% of Christianity is FAITH?

Question

I mean, does it not seem odd to you Christians that you have 0% tangibility, 0% evidence, 0% proof of your beliefs? It seems odd to me that anyone would believe in something 100%, yet have 0% to base it on. Doesn't that seem a little scarry, if not a bit sick, to anyone else?

And why is it that Christians can't say HOW they believe in their faith, only that they can and do. Seems to me that all Christians only believe for the simple fact that they, when they were children, were TOLD to believe. And so they did. No tangibility, evidence, proof, yet 100% belief. Man, that is so scarry it blows my mind.

Come to the light of Atheism, where we at least have tangibility, evidence and proof.

Answer 1

You have apparently never seriously explored the truth behind the Christian faith. It is not a blind faith, as your question presumes. It is a reasonable and informed faith. Faith is surely involved, but not to the degree that you make it out to be.

Many brilliant minds have undertaken the cause to see if Christianity has merit, and have come away believers.

C.S. Lewis is a notable example of an Oxford professor who was atheistic from age 13 to 31. After becoming a Christian, he wrote several books defending the faith. The most popular is "Mere Christianity."

Another example is Josh McDowell, a college professor who set out to disprove Christianity. He devoted 700 hours to the project, and was left with one conclusion. He became a Christian, because the evidence demanded a verdict. He then wrote a book called "Evidence That Demands a Verdict."

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

There are numerous other people that I can point to, but these should suffice. They were scholars, some bent on disproving the faith they eventually embraced. They embraced it, because it was founded on fact, and was the Truth.

Answer 2

He Lived, So What?

With the evidence before us, we can expect most atheists to admit that Jesus lived. But the fact that he existed does not convince us he is God. Practicality leads us to ask if there is any real value to modern men in knowing this single fact?

It Admits to the Reliability of the New Testament

We have all made admissions to one thing or another, while we were unaware that we had admitted to other things at the same time. If, for example, we say that the Bible is the word of God, we are admitting that there is a God. By the same token, if we admit that Jesus was a great man of history, as most of us certainly do, though we may not be aware of it, we have also admitted that the New Testament is historically reliable. To determine this, consider three things: First, Jesus has received a place of preeminence among the great men of history. Second, men do not receive such recognition merely because they have existed; they must either say or do something that is considered to be truly great. Third, the only source of information from which we can reproduce the great life of Jesus Christ is the New Testament. Beyond the New Testament books, we can know only that he lived and that he was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem. To know of his works, his personality, his life and teachings, his death and resurrection, in short, what it was that made him great, we are totally dependent on the New Testament. It seems conclusive that a recognition of the greatness of Jesus is, at least to an appreciable degree, an admission of the historical reliability of the New Testament which tells us about him.

This conclusion is of great practical value to those who would know whether the New Testament expresses an outdated sentiment or whether it is actually a historical revelation from God for the redemption of ruined humanity.
.

Answer 3

Atheism requires faith also. There is no tangibility, no evidence & no proof that God does not exist. I will not argue with you since I know the futility of trying to explain sight to a blind man.

Answer 4

We have plenty of proof of God's exsistence. We have all the miricles that are in the Bible to tell us what happened. And don't say the Bible is all lies. Many of the things in the Bible have been backed up by other historical texts.

Think of it this way, for those of you who think of things logically: You feel hunger in your body, so that proves the exsistence of food. You feel the need to drink, and that proves that water exsists. Your lungs need oxygen to breathe, so it proves that there is oxygen in the air if you are indeed living. And if you have the need for a superior being, or a creator, that proves that God is real.

There are so many other ways you could look at it... I can't say it as well as C. S. Lewis did in his book Mere Christianity, so you might want to take a look at that book. It really opened my eyes a ton.

Answer 5

Time will tell in any case.There is Pascal's Wager to consider. My version: It would be a cold reality if the God you denied all your life smacked you in the face.

Answer 6

Where is this proof of which an Atheist speaks?

Proof of there being no God? None.

You have as much faith as I do.

Answer 7

Before I show you my many examples of concrete evidence for "Truth in the Bible" I need you to show me ONE thing in evolution that I can't refute.

I dare you!!!

Answer 8

They are going to quote something from the bible again.

Hey, Scuba Dude, why don't you use something from evolution now! Let's see how illogically would he respond!!!

Answer 9

It is unbelievably convenient.