Faith is an irrational belief

The argument is not a philosophical debate on whether there are possibilities that exist as interactions between faith and intellectual/education and logical. The default position and burden of proof that you accepted and rebuke is against this" X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that it is not true) Faith: for the purposes of this debate is to put "trust" in a person's promises without previously assenting to, or believing in that person's claim to such confidence" (Catholic dictionary). In short, Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (You have suggested without support, quotes, or evidence that the bible meets and disables the argument and thus make this inference an omission of reason, it does not and you fail to cite why it even should) Beginner: (You state) P.S. "There is no evidence of Jesus Christ.." Really now? What about the bible, the scriptures, all the documents and testaments written in support of his physical existence as a historical figure? Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha The bible is NOT a fully accredited or academically acceptable source, having demonstrated absolutely no historical relevance as noted by every fully accredited discipline in every fully accredited institution of Higher Learning in this Country. Bible renderings are hearsay, non-contemporary and anonymous renditions, and nothing more. The Vatican (foundation for all Christianity) doesn"t even dispute this fact. This should be common knowledge to anyone having read the bible unless you wish to argue that the English names assigned to the anonymous apostles are somehow Arabic? They sound more like missing names for a Beatles rock group"why is that I wonder? It"s because you are confusing the Epistles who wrote about accounts they heard from others about the supposed encounters with the anonymous (and invisible) apostles who never wrote anything about Jesus themselves. There are no historical accounts of Jesus who was alleged to have been crucified in the year 33 CE: Here are your sources".Self Proclaimed historians that render NON first party accounts of Jesus who could NOT have directly known him because of the years that separate them from the mythical event as demonstrated by listing there birth and deaths. Yet these individuals offer the only accounts of Jesus and none of them are contemporary witnesses. Josephus (37 CE " c. 100 CE) Tacitus (56 CE " 117 CE) Pliny the Younger (61 CE " c. 112 CE) Lucian of Samosata (125 CE " after 180 CE) Here are some writers who "would have been contemporaries" of Jesus and interestingly enough they never mentioned him at all, and despite the Gospel folklore claims that he was known far and wide: " Philo Judaeus (20 BCE - 50 CE) Seneca (4? BCE - 65 CE) Pliny the Elder (23? CE - 79 CE) Beginner: ("Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha") Your round one PS response, the only issue I really need to address, because until you return to my OP (argument), it all comes down to what you skimmed across in your PS and missed completely in your opening Statement"..as all the terms are defined and already agreed upon. Your PS in part is little more than a fallacy argumentum ad populum. In other words an "Appeal to the people or gallery". This is where you attempted to win acceptance of an assertion (the bible is historical) by appealing to a large group of people believing in the unsupported dogma of popular doctrine about Jesus. This form of fallacy is "often" characterized by emotive language. Example: Hahahahahaha Nevertheless, to answer your question and in an attempt to get things rolling I offer this".. YES, Jews started worshipping Jesus generations AFTER the empty claim of his existence was made. I further this claim and state despite the existence of over 40 Active Historians and the scribes of the Emperor no account was ever given for the existence of Jesus Christ during his supposed lifetime. The bible is not a valid source, and you have yet to offer a validation for the bible or for wikipedia.org as neither are holding to such esteem as you believe them to be. This is your duty, you need to provide validation the bible (and not just refer to it) as the bible and its god"s are the default position and therefore your burden as Clarified from the beginning. Until then, I will add as an example of its invalidity".while the bible can be studied in any public school, the bible cannot be studied FROM in public school as it is NOT a valid historical reference*".again, common knowledge. * Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University and whose findings are listed at http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com... And she states". "It is undeniable in my opinion that Judaism and Christianity before Nicaea were not monotheistic religions (as we define it today). In fact, one can question whether Christianity ever really became monotheistic - all depends on how convinced you are that the doctrine of the Trinity actually resolves the polytheism of a Father and Son being worshiped. The first Christians were Jews. They had no problem worshiping Jesus alongside the father god almost from the start. I think that this worship was pre-Pauline, and centered in Antioch, although I do not rule out Jerusalem (see my paper in the book Israel's God and Rebecca's Children, "How we talk about Christology Matters"). They thought that Jesus was God's great angel who came to earth as a human being and was exalted to the angelic status of the NAME angel at his resurrection. I could go on and on. My point is this. Early Judaism and Christianity were not monotheistic religions, but were at best monalotrous (=worshiped one god but allowed for the existence of other gods). It was because of this that Christianity was able to be born out of Judaism as a Jewish expression of a new form of Yahwehism, and Gnosticism could become the fancy of Jewish intellectuals living in first-century Alexandria. This must mean that the program of some of the post-exilic priests to make Judaism a monotheistic religion DID NOT WORK, as in fact the wisdom literature and Sophia traditions prove in my opinion. This had to wait until the rabbis came along and created what many consider the basis for modern Judaism, and insisted that all forms of worship other than YAHWEH be banned. Whether or not the bishops and church theologians ever really made Christianity monotheistic depends on how well one thinks that the Nicaea decision and later the doctrine of the Trinity really worked." In short, if there is no one true God exists until the yokes of Jewish polytheism was subdued and IF only god"s plural are mentioned in the Jewish bible (&O/T), then no son of the one true god exists and thus any history or interaction with only one true God would be false as any one true God having a son, and there are many sources that deal with this issue in detail. Resolution annulled"..I don"t think so, because you failed to address the OP completely for one thing. If you wish to readdress the bible in the next round where we can both cite sources or lack thereof".then by all means let"s do so. Until then, faith remains the irrational belief that feeds the belief in Jesus Christ"..and it does so without intellectual, educated and logical reasons as there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. If this were not true, you would have already posted this evidence. Looking forward to your response".