Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

Nonsense, Of course they are not similar they were different events, but just as unbelievable in the claims of supernatural intervention.  Without that supernatural intervention (which you admit is not falsifiable)  your stories really amount to nothing

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith). 

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head.

 
That's just the point of the NT, we really don't know where the stories originated, we are even unclear as to who wrote the gospels for instance, and were written long after, they may very well have originally come from one persons head and spread from there.  Given the rather fickle unknown nature of these witnesses they can hardly be counted as evidence for supernatural claims at all.  And again without evidence of the supernatural claims that many religions make why should we believe them ?

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude. You are latching on to fringe theories to support your point. 

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers.

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did. 

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

Well that's just the point, you have reasons but no evidence you have already stated that the supernatural cannot be falsified, so basically unless you can provide strong evidence for the supernatural elements of what you believe, then you reasons come to nothing.

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT. 

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Yes a fantastic claim, of a fantastic god, which seem to be lacking any evidence.
If there was indeed evidence then this debate between religions would long be over.

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen. 

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavour of science--their beliefs are not a problem.

I don't really estimate the value of either position, I simply ask you for evidence, you cannot overestimate a lack of belief, that's just silly

And? if they do good science, why would their faith be a problem.?

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale. The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history. In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims. 

You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.

The Muslim apologetic and The Jew, would say exactly the same as you.
You talk as though you present a good argument, all you have to do is convince someone who lacks belief you don't even have to unconvinced them of anything to start with.  The god describe below should have heaps of compelling evidence.. yet as always  the world carries on as if none of those attributes are true.

Lord of Hosts/Powers (Jehovah Sabaoth)
Lord our Maker
faithful God who does no wrong
A forgiving God
A fortress of salvation
A glorious crown
A jealous and avenging God
A Master in heaven A refuge for his people
A refuge for the needy in his distress
A refuge for the oppressed
A refuge for the poor
A sanctuary
A shade from the heat
A shelter from the storm
A source of strength
A stronghold in times of trouble
An ever present help in trouble
Architect and builder
Builder of everything
Commander of the Lord’s army
Creator of heaven and earth
Defender of widows
Eternal King
Father Father of compassion
Father of our spirits
Father of the heavenly lights
My helper
My hiding place
My hope
My light
My mighty rock
God who relents from sending calamity
God who sees (El-Roi)
Great and awesome God
Great and powerful God
Great, mighty, and awesome God
King of glory
King of heaven
Living and true God

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.