trancendent dice

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think you answered me Kyu. I make no assertions about the beliefs of non Christians. You can't use that as proof, it isn't a given.

You said, "How on earth does belief without evidence=questioning?" followed by the question "DOESN'T it? LOL *winks*" ...

Now that constitutes an implicit question, which I answered by saying, "You gotta be joking here. As Adrian has already said faith (belief in something without evidence) is the very opposite of doubt and questioning."

So yes, I do think I answered you. If you still think I didn't I'm afraid you're going to have to stop speaking in tongues.

Should I be?!? [afraid of Quetzalcoatl]

You said, "The opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's fear."

I said, "Um, no ... it's not." And noted that it implied that you thought atheists were afraid to embrace faith in a god, I further assured you that virtually none of us were afraid of your god or any other.

My answer therefore is a question, should I be afraid of Jehovah (or whatever you call your god)?

Confidence with faith is no where near absolute assurance of fact.

Confidence with faith is the equivalent of vapourware. Have you ever heard the tale of Hank?

The theory goes that God does actually do stuff in this world, but the signature of God is that it is never provable. You can reasonably assume that God doesn't exist, sure. I think I can reason that he does. If we're talking science than yeah, I agree with Dawkins.. on probability we can say he most likely doesn't exist. Theologically that's absolutely correct too. We can't know.

Excuse me for being picky but "theory"? Theories require evidence, they should explain things reasonably and predict things previously didn't so "theory" no, I think you mean idea.

IOW you have no evidence at all and can supply no rational reason whatsoever to believe outside of wishful thinking ... quite apart from that making you look rather foolish (and please don't try to claim I'm insulting you again) it means I can (apparently with great confidence) ignore your god and anyone who witters on about it yes?

It also begs the question, why don't you go somewhere else and talk about this stuff to people who will actually empathise with you or even treat what you say with some kind of respect?

OK, you say theology is correct (despite the lack of evidence) so let's run with that. I have a question ... which theology?

---

That God's signature is that he leaves no proof does not equate to him explaining gaps in knowledge. That doesn't follow.

Yes it does, logic dictates it.

God doesn't hide from reason, but he does from science.

That, if you'll excuse the pun is one hell of an assertion (another utterly baseless one as far as I can tell) so the question becomes why?

---

You're like a broken record

I don't know the history leading to that assertion but unfortunately, with people like you, that can be necessary ... I know I do it when the person I am discussing something with doesn't answer the point made.

---

I've decided you're a bot EvF. No one could ignore responses like you have and deny what has been said.

Yet curiously you didn't answer Ev's question.

Your remark's imply you have done so, outside of saying, "God don't need no steenkin' evidence" (which leads to all kinds of other questions none of which are likely to end well for your claims) can I ask where?

---

I have answered you EvF and you don't think I have - is the problem. Check your pm's - perhaps we can communicate better using instant chat.

Don't do it Ev ...going personal with theists seems to not only like a waste of time but an excuse to take the conversation out of public scrutiny.

TBH I can't see why anyone would even want to discuss these things privately with theists.

Kyu