Faith is gullibility based on the definition of faith, and that is; believing in something without evidence.
1. You cannot prove god is real, therefore the default position must be that a god doesn't exist, until such time as sufficient evidence is provided to prove that a god does exist. Your personal experiences do not count as sufficient evidence as they're subjective experience, and not objective and rational claims that are testable and repeatable.
Not just about my personal experience. For me, it makes the best sense of a number of philosophical questions. You can disagree, but there a number of men and women way more intelligent than either of us who see faith in God as a perfectly reasonable outcome.
2. You would again need to provide proof of these claims. There is no proof outside of the bible that any of the miracles contained within the bible, are infact true. And even if there was, you would still need to provide evidence that such claims are objectively real by testing them. Additionally, Yeshua (yes, that was Jesus' real name), wasn't an exemplary human and infact broke many of gods commandments in the New Testament and also supported slavery.
Not entirely true. Historians such as Josephus (a Jew but not a follower of Jesus) writes of Jesus and His "surprising deeds". Sure, not a categorical list, but word got around about what Jesus was doing. Jesus challenged the presiding understanding of some Old Testament commandments, but there's a difference between that and breaking them. As for Jesus supporting slavery, two things to note. First, slavery then and what we know as slavery are two different things. Second, what do you point to for this support? Paul writes of how slaves should work hard, as if they were directly serving God, but I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say Jesus supported slavery.
3. Again, there is no supporting evidence that the resurrection ever happened. You have eye witness testimony from the bible, but the bible isn't a reliable source of evidence. Without being able to prove a resurrection is possible, the default stance has to be that it didn't happen, and was likely made up and given that the gospels were written decades after the actual events, in some cases 100 years after, it's fair to assume this to be true, as it's the most likely answer given the reality in which we live.
If it didn't happen, there would be a body. There is no way that they could have stolen a body and hidden it for so long that it was never found.
As for the supposed lateness of the writing of the Gospels, they are actually incredibly close to the events, compared to any other historical text from the surrounding times. Mark's Gospel dates to around 60-70AD IIRC, approx. 30-40 years after the main event, Matthew and Luke are in the same ballpark. John is the latest at around 90AD. Closer written evidence than we have for Julius Caesar.
And a bunch of unskilled fishermen don't look for the attention they got from Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers by claiming a man who everyone saw die actually came back from the dead. These men were so sure of Jesus' resurrection that all of them died because of it. Most of them were crucified themselves, some upside down (an even more torturous death). If it didn't happen, they could have said so and been the latest in a list of people who had followed false hopes in the centuries preceding.
What would change your mind about your faith? Is there anything that would convince you that there is no God or that your faith isn't the correct one?
Is there any evidence, other than divine intervention that would change your stance?
Good question. I would be lying if I said I never had doubts. The question will come from time to time, 'What if it's all a lie?' What would change my mind? I don't know, but it would need to be massive.
If you don't mine me asking, what would change your mind about your non-faith? Happy to have that conversation elsewhere if you'd like.
