Neither a theist nor an atheist

A valid statement. I completely agree that the Bible says God is required.It's a good thing that the Bible is just wrong, since it just doesn't describe what we can see right in front of ourselves... lots of different people who require lots of different methods.You can ignore reality and stick with the Bible.
Or you can ignore the Bible and stick with reality.You're lucky. The reality (community/city/state...) you live in conforms close-enough to the Bible you hold so dearly. This is a wonderful place to be, you should be very thankful.Others are not so lucky.
Some people cannot find any solace in the Bible because it simply doesn't speak to them. No matter how much you say it does... you cannot force the Bible to connect with some people. With some it is simply impossible.
Some people just don't care about the Bible because Christianity isn't a big deal for whatever reason.
Those people need to find an alternate route.
Some of those people have found an alternate route.
Those people are just as spiritually fulfilled as you claim to be (and some of them don't even have to try to convince others about it).
Those people are just as happy and secure in their current state and afterlife as you are.The Bible is not required to be completely spiritually fulfilled... including salvation, this is a fact.The Bible certainly is required for Biblical salvation. But, well... that only matters if you think the Bible is true.

Those are also beliefs, not evidence. All you have offered in their support is "I believe". If you had mountains of evidence demonstrating that the message was accurate, would you need faith? No. Why would you need faith if you claim to have evidence that it is true? That is the biggest ball of nonsense in the Bible. If it is unseen, then it isn't evidenced. It's not that hard to figure out.

I DID NOT say those things are evidence. I said the evidence is OF the reality of God, the evidence POINTS TO the reality of God etc. But you aren't interested in following the logic, you'd rather talk to your own straw man.

Precisimo!

Faith,
Not everyone has your version of faith.Some people see basing ones faith on the confirmed evidence of something is akin to saying I am going to take a gamble on a 100% sure thing. It is a contradiction. There is no risk in being wrong therefore there is no gamble.Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

So it's okay to destroy the World Trade Center as long as there are 8 survivors? Come on. Exactly. You are assuming that He has the right to do whatever He wants. Might makes right. I am mad at that idea. Yes. The idea that God gave us "free will" but doesn't want us to use it doesn't make any sense.

Well, I'm basing it on the Bible and on the best teachers of the Bible, mostly in the Protestant Reformed camp. People make up all kinds of things about faith, about God etc., which is a very risky thing to do, especially since God gave us the Bible to spare us such mistakes. The idea that faith is a gamble is one of those things people make up, there is nothing in the Bible that treats faith that way. As I already noted, John said that he gave the information about Jesus in his gospel for the purpose of convincing people to believe in Him. In other words he gave it as evidence that Jesus is God and has the power and will to save those who put their trust in Him.There are people who won't accept it anyway of course, who just refuse to believe in miracles no matter how many Jesus is said to have done, but the evidence is there for those who trust John's descriptions.God doesn't want knowing of Him or of our salvation to be something we risk, He wants us to know. ("that you might believe." The same idea is given in other places but I'm not coming up with the right words for the search.) But again, there are plenty who will simply refuse the evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between something taken on faith and an evidence based conclusion?Are you saying that they are one and the same thing?

All I'm saying is that nobody puts their faith, or trust, in someone or in a message, that is not supported by some kind of evidence. John told of Jesus' many miracles so we could believe that He is the Messiah sent by God, and in fact IS God Himself, and if we believe that then we'll put our trust in Him for salvation.The idea that anybody takes anything "on faith" without any supporting evidence at all is humanly impossible. You have to trust someone or some argument given or some message given, SOMETHING, before you'll put your faith in the person or the message. Sure, people may make bad judgments about who and what is trustworthy, but the point is they do make such judgments before they invest their faith. There is no such thing as a truly "blind" faith, or a "leap of faith."

Hi Faith, I meant it as a analogy or to illustrate. (Probably a poor example.)
Faith in the presence of confirmed facts is like gambling is in the presence of no risk.Is someone practicing faith if they have confirmed evidence?
Is someone gambling if they are 100% certain of sucess?In other words, how can you be gambling if you certain of winning?
How can you be basing your beliefs on faith if you know the article in questions is based on confirmed facts.Let me try another analogy.
The word predict. Means to correctly say or know what will happen before it happens.Now how can one predict something if it already has happened?
It is no longer prediction. Something that is 'after the fact' can not by definition be predicted.
Just as having faith in something that is already confirmed is superfulous.You say your faith is based on evidence of the thing that requires faith to believe. If something is completely evidenced then it no longer requires faith to believe it to be true.
At least as far as I understand the word faith to be used.So yes, depending on the source of the "evidence" the requirement how much faith imo is inversely proportionate to the quality of the evidence. Edited by 1.61803, : removed the word 'directley'

Like you said, you have to believe it is true. That is not evidence. That is belief. Evidence is something you can demonstrate independently of the person making the claim. You are putting your faith in John with no evidence that he is telling the truth. Then what evidence do you have that the gospels are true?

What is that evidence?All you have offered so far is that you believe God has certain characteristics. That is not evidence.

Faith has not provided any evidence, so I see no evidence that she is built on evidence.