Oh, wait. Never mind… As another red herring bites the dust.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-evidence-so-far-to-suggest-orlando-shooter-targeted-club-because-it-was-gay/2016/07/14/a7528674-4907-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

And I have to say I endorse Ken’s comment. You are not the only Christian who comments on this site – there are at least two others (I know them personally), and no one else is even aware which commenters they are because they engage on the issues and know better than to tell an atheist that that they’ll pray for them.

You must have no self-awareness at all. I’m afraid you are no friend, but rather have been the least friendly of any of the regular commenters here and have engaged the most insincerely across a number of topics to the point of being called out on several occasions. You have little credibility with earthly matters, let alone heavenly. Those who want to be friends just don’t engage in such bad faith. Perhaps you should pray for yourself.

@Ken: Why so grumpy, friend? I keep telling you, it’s not about believing, it’s about becoming. Daring to leave behind the prison cell and set out joyfully for the unknown. Daring to leave behind a callow and perplexed 15-year-old. Daring to encounter the divine in your truest self. Daring to embrace true happiness and peace. This is my hope and prayer for you, friend.

“Our intelligence comes from God” unless it comes from somewhere else, “and leads us to God” unless there’s no god to lead to, “and is the glory of God”, unless this is a meaningless statement. And you give us absolutely zero reason to believe any of it.

Further, you seem to realise mere baseless assertions aren’t enough to avoid ridicule, because you’ve spent so much effort trying to convince us, but unfortunately via obfuscation, avoidance of difficult questions and by employing completely shoddy logic.

You talk of precise definitions, professing not to have enough information to know even what a common teapot is, demanding from us a ridiculous level of detail, yet in return provide a totally fuzzy definition of your god without at all seeing the irony, and one that sounds no different than all the others too boot.

I doubt that a god worth believing in would insult our intelligence the way you continue to, nor purposely hide itself so thoroughly that it was so difficult for an increasing number of us to do other than disbelieve.

@Ken: Our intelligence comes from God, and leads us to God, and is the glory of God. Accordingly, it should not be insulted, and I hope I would not be guilty of that. That being said, the fact is you and I are smarter than a tenth grader — so let’s not settle for a 15-year-old’s understanding of God.

The kind of false faith that disdains doubting Thomases sounds suspiciously close to fideism (which by the way Catholic teaching rejects). In the Gospel story it is Thomas’s questioning, of course, that leads him to a deeper encounter with God.

The point about the flying teapot is that failure to show that an assertion is false is not the same thing as showing that it is true. I would not suggest otherwise. My point, again, is simply that an assertion that no teapots exist is meaningless unless you propose, or can propose, a definite description of a teapot. To be coherent you have to able to explain what you mean. I’ve already conceded that I actually agree with most atheists, in that any description of God that an atheist may have in mind is almost certainly unreal.

But in the end, philosophical speculation matters less than seeking a deeper encounter, like Thomas.

You’re right to call me out on the neutral thing Ken. I shouldn’t have agreed to it, but I thought that if j.a.m. at least did that it was progress.

But it’s false that there should always be two equal sides. It’s like having to give the anti-vaxxers equal time when talking about vaccinations, or the creationists equal time in a debate about human evolution.

This is completely bonkers and I think Heather should reconsider what she’s agreed to, because “neutral” is exactly not the appropriate stance, as it implies an equal probability that we know is not the case. Russell’s teapot analogy applies here and everywhere else this ruse is used. Mayhem would ensue if we took this approach to everything and the it’s because the existence or not of a god is too important an issue that we must not abandon our intellect and be so sloppy. Further more, I think you are simply lying to say you are neutral about Zeus and the hundreds of other gods that you know you waste no time even thinking about. It is completely bullshit to pretend that you give any of them the same status as the one you happen to like.

You can believe all you want, but at least be adult enough to admit it is in spite of the lack of evidence, not because you’ve managed to twist logic to suit your ends and lie to us that it is ok to do so because it’s about god. When I hear such crap from a believer, I have to ask why their faith is so weak that they have to lie to make it seem more palatable? Creationists are a case in point. Their faith is so thin that they must pretend an entirely false reality just so they can maintain it. The church I was brought up in taught us faith was a virtue above all others, cheapened by asking for evidence, and made stronger by believing the more unlikely it seemed. They said don’t be a doubting Thomas! Now I knew by the age of 15 that I could not accept this, but that is the choice we all must make. I have always respected that my church at least didn’t try to delude me with ridiculous lies, nor insult my intelligence as you seek to do.

If something influences the thoughts and actions of millions of people over centuries, then that something is a real phenomenon. And if everyone gives that phenomenon the same name, then that’s its name.