Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[Edwardo Piet]

And as I have explained, I do not believe that fire breathing dragons are out roaming around (I lack belief).  I have said this a number of times.

But you have also contradicted yourself by saying you don't think they're improbable, which means you think they are probable.

As I said, the alternative is that you think they're 50% probable or of an unknown probability. Both of which are ridiculous and we both know you don't really think that.

But I set aside all that because none of this matters since you are going to refuse to accept the analogy, because you're clearly going to pretend otherwise anyway.

What matters is that you define your God, because you are reacting as if I am denying your God.

  I have also explained, why I don't like the word improbable,

And I have explained that it doesn't matter if you don't like a word. You can't escape a true dichotomy just because you "don't like" a word.

As I already explained, my family are atheists just like I am but they don't call themselves atheists because they don't like the word. It matters not. They're still atheists. Can you not understand this basic point? I don't care if you don't like the word. I am asking you a simple direction yes/no question, that isn't remotely loaded, and you are refusing to answer it.

and why you asking; is a loaded question, because it is not something that I would say.  

That's not what a loaded question is.

If I didn't like the label "atheist" it wouldn't be a loaded question to ask me if I was an atheist just because I didn't like the word and wouldn't wish to say it.

I think that it's reasonable to conclude, that because you are not accepting my statements about non-belief, that you are trying to get me to claim more than that  about my own belief and knowledge.

Are you just going to keep pretending that I am addressing your God at the same time as ignoring my questions about what your God is? How many times do I have to say that I don't think all gods are equally improbable and I consider them improbable for different reasons? When I make a blanket statement, you read your own meaning into it and respond to it as if I'm saying you're wrong unless you can prove that your God exists when I never said any such thing and I never even mentioned a God.

If when I blanket statement that "God is highly improbable" I'm talking about a God that can create square circles then surely you can see that it's you that is in error here by falsely assuming I'm talking about a God that isn't improbable for very good reasons. You haven't even asked me what God I'm talking about. You're just asking me to prove something when you don't even know what I'm saying yet. It's ridiculous.

It's not my job to describe things that I don't believe even make any sense. Give me your conception of God, and we'll see if it makes any sense. The onus is on you. When I say "God is highly improbable" I'm talking about a conception of God that is highly improbable. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't attack my statement as if I'm talking about your God all while hiding what your God is. It's dishonest and it's not how two sensible people have a rational discussion.

 Actually, I think that your use of the word improbable is a category error in this context.

It can't be. Either you believe something is probable or you don't. I'm talking of a true dichotomy here, no category error is possible here.

This discussion is all over the place; you are bouncing around from one thing to another, and adding more things out of context.

Nope. You are putting things out of context. I am responding to you in great detail and you are pretending like I am making a blanket statement about all gods and saying that they don't exist until proven otherwise. I am not doing that. I am literally telling you that I am not doing that. I am literally telling you that when I say "God is highly improbable" I am talking about Gods that are highly improbable. I am not interested in defining something I don't believe in, I've given you one simple example: a god that can make square circles. That is highly improbable, so much so that its probability is 0%. If you want more examples, how about providing your own God? I'm not a theologian.

Instead of making things clearer, I fear we are heading in the opposite direction.

It would be very simple if you actually answered my questions.

Let's forget about the fire-breathing dragons analogy here as you are clearly going to dodge that forever and forever miss the point. Tell me what your God is, I've already said that when I say that God is highly improbable I am talking about specific conceptions of God that ARE highly improbable and I gave one example already. You are attacking my statement as if you know what I am referring to, when you can't. Why are you doing that? You're projecting your own God belief on to me, when you haven't even explained that belief to me. I'm not denying your God because I don't even know what your God is. All I can say is that it's probably incoherent nonsense if you're anything like all the other Christians that have ever described their God to me.

But when you start being intellectually dishonest, and we cannot even discuss without you calling me a liar, then it's time to end it.

I'm as honest and open as it GETS. I literally think aloud constantly all the fucking time my exactly authentic thoughts. If you are to call me dishonest, you're going on block. Get fucked Mr. Questions Ignorer. There's absolutely no evidence of me being 'dishonest' unlike yourself... I don't dodge questions repeatedly and pretend not to believe that dragons are improbable. Unlike yourself. Bye. You're blocked. Enough of your lying for Jesus.

---

God may not be confined to Earth, but 99% of what happens in the Bible is, and is not verifiable using techniques we use to verify other historical occurrences. It is then reasonable to conclude that the Bible is as accurate as any other early holy book from any other religion, which is to say it's inaccurate.

I like what Hitchens says about how God is literally man made, not man as in mankind as in humankind. But like literally men. It was clearly men who wrote it, considering all the inequalities against women that are in it.