No god would require the use of faith

Okay, so, you claim that "The entire bible is about god and his frail fragile ego." You then say this screams proof that the number one thing preached in the Bible is faith. That is a self-justifying statement and thus a logical fallacy. You throw around the word proof without actually proving anything. I MIGHT be persuaded by you if you actually offered up a solid argument and not just an crazy tirade. Here's more reasons why LOVE is the number one thing in the Bible... 1. Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." 2. Mark 12: 31 "The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. [the primary one was love God]" And the big one... 3. 1 Corinthians 13:13 13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." There may be a few verses about faith, but the verses I have provided, especially the 3rd one, shut your claim down. "Richard Dawkins does happen to know a lot more about religion, god and the bible than you." How would you know that? First of all, he starts off that quote with arguably, so it's not set in stone. And secondly, I have not at all delved deep into my knowledge of religion and the Bible because there is no need for that in this debate... it would be off topic. I have offered the verses which explain my argument, while you have offered only your opinion (and usually on an off topic issue, such as God being an "unpleasant character.") So yes, perhaps Dawkins knows more than me, but judging your "proof" and explanation of the Bible, I know more than you. You say "Now JC is a false prophet to begin with because he broke many of god"s laws." Wrong, Jesus Christ IS God, and he can break his own laws if he wants. I wouldn't say he broke them either... reform is a better word. Just another example of how you don't even know what you are attacking. Later you say "But try reading the bible just to see how bloated these characters ego"s truly are..." You arguing on assumption. The fact is I do read the Bible, and I never said I agree with it all the way. There are some things in it I question, and I try to find an answer to it. Yes, God sometimes is merciless in his ways, I get it and I'm trying to understand why. (To voters: yes this is a concession, but on a completely unrelated matter to the topic. I did not bring it up.) You go on with "You are right I did not explain how its faith that is preached more in the bible than any other thing because I wanted you to set yourself up for utter failure. That"s what a good debate is. You did that marvelously by guessing and thus inventing an excuse because I knew that you didn"t know. But now you know because I proved it." Please point out in the comments where I set my self up for failure. My "excuses" are actual Bible verses, which you have offered none of so far. And once again, that somehow proves it. If anything, you have set yourself up for utter failure. "So it takes faith to believe in god as YOU previously proved." This shows how loosely you use the word prove, I mean you even use it in relation with MY arguments. Well, if that's the case, than thank you for that concession. You go on by saying "Ab-so-lu-te-ly the number one thing preached in the bible is faith." Again, 1 Corinthians 13:13. Continuing, you say "No supreme deity would ---ever--- have the want the need, the desire for faith. After all what supreme deity would use faith instead of evidence? What supreme deity would use faith when they can simply talk to us? So all of your reasonings go flying out the window. " I have already stated why in my opening round why God desires our faith. To refute my claim, you simply restate your position without any examples or evidence (and what makes it annoying is your confidence that you won the argument.) No. I will now debunk your next paragraph. The authors of the Bible were not anonymous, with the exception of the 1st five books I believe. There were anecdotes and people who actually witnesses that saw Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. God doesn't just rely on the Bible, he reveals himself in other ways like miracles/visions, and I will admit some of these supernatural happenings are questionable. Again, I have explained why we need faith, not just pure evidence alone. You have just restated your position over and over again and proved nothing. Your next two quotes are not related to the topic, much like your whole argument. I am getting tired of you really quick. maybe in another debate we can talk about the legitimacy of the Bible. So not think I am surrendering on these topics, I just see them as irrelevant for now. Your quote from Matt Dillahunty says more then your entire rambling through these debate rounds. Arguably faith can be a pathway to truth. It can be a pathway to falsity as well, but you can't rule out truth. I have faith that I won't die tomorrow... if I don't, then my faith turned out to be true. We Christians use reasoning throughout our other endeavors, and we also try to prove with reason that God exists. We have not succeeded in proving this in my opinion, so we use a mixture of faith and reason, not just faith as your quote claims, that God exists. Atheists have not and cannot prove the non-existence of God, and so they must also rely on reason/faith that he doesn't exist. Faith might be gullible as your next quote claims, and it also might be risky. However, I'd say the gambling odds are in our favor (Pascal's Wager). You have a lot of quotes... I see you are incapable of explaining yourself and thus require someone else to do it for you. Christians have a way of regarding their claims as fact and other religious claims as falsity. For example, miracles that involve Jesus/saints that have no scientific explanation. You say you are still here even though you hate God. Well good for you, and I know you won't believe my answer, but according to my religion you will go to Hell for hating God. Again, I know you don't have to believe this because I am offering no proof of this. It is off topic and can be done in another debate. "And this god could simply talk to us. If he talked to his prophets and freely admitted to deceiving them, then he can talk to us." God din't reveal himself to EVERYBODY back in the Old Testament, he chose prophets. The same way that not everyone has a vision or experiences a miracle today. If you acknowledge that the prophets talked with God, you must also acknowledge miracles. You go on to say "But your point is taken," in regard to being off topic. Obviously my point was not taken, because you do it even more prominently in Round 4. Everyone is not born an atheist. You have no knowledge at birth, therefore you are neither theist nor atheist. Your beliefs are instilled when you grow up. In conclusion, I answered your points that deserve to be ignored because I just couldn't let you get away with that. It was off topic yes, but your attitude suggests that you would feel like I have no answer on those issues and that you won. I will not allow that. Most of what my opponent has said has not relation to the debate, he has ignored my round 2 arguments and just restated his claims in response. sorry for the ad hominem, but you use your enemies' weapons against them. Thanks for reading the debate and thanks to my opponent for hosting it.