fiction

@secondson said
I don't think it. I know it.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Your starting position is that you 'know' and that critics of your faith don't 'know.' They merely 'think' incorrectly. And if that were not enough, you accuse them of inferring omniscience while happily speaking yourself of 'knowing.'

@secondson said
What you think you know, about the origins and veracity of the Bible, is a fiction.

What else would you say, seeing as you are a Christian?

@secondson said
You're the one who is confused. You clear it up.

"I think God is a fictional character" is just another way of saying "there is no God".

For one to make such a claim infers . In contrast, knowing that an omniscient creator exists doesn't require omniscience.

So you actually believe that atheists "think they are God", is that is your belief?

@secondson said
I don't think it. I know it.

Do you think/know that Hindu Gods are fictional characters?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Your starting position is that you 'know' and that critics of your faith don't 'know.' They merely 'think' incorrectly. And if that were not enough, you accuse them of inferring omniscience while happily speaking yourself of 'knowing.'

You're taking me out of context.

What you think you know about the origins and the veracity of the Bible is a fiction.

To which FMF said:

As a believer, it's perfectly understandable that you think this.

To which I said:

I don't think it. I know it.

What you think you know, about the origins and veracity of the Bible, is a fiction.

"They merely 'think' incorrectly."

Correction: they know incorrectly.

-Removed-

Is that your confession that you don't know the Bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant?

Does it feel good being sandwiched in between two atheists?

@secondson said
You're taking me out of context.

What you think you know about the origins and the veracity of the Bible is a fiction.

To which FMF said:

As a believer, it's perfectly understandable that you think this.

To which I said:

I don't think it. I know it.

What you think you know, about the origins and veracity of the Bible, ...[text shortened]... fiction.

"They merely 'think' incorrectly."

Correction: they know incorrectly.

You use the word "know" to talk about what you believe regarding supernatural things in the same way as you refer to your subjective opinions as "objective" facts.

You use the word "know" as a kind of signal to indicate how very, very, very certain you are about the things you have faith in.

It's not a 'debating point' that has much traction, linguistically speaking.

Muslims and Jews will insist that they "know" you are wrong about Jesus, for example.

@secondson said
You're taking me out of context.

What you think you know about the origins and the veracity of the Bible is a fiction.

To which FMF said:

As a believer, it's perfectly understandable that you think this.

To which I said:

I don't think it. I know it.

What you think you know, about the origins and veracity of the Bible, ...[text shortened]... fiction.

"They merely 'think' incorrectly."

Correction: they know incorrectly.

But if humans do indeed lack omniscience (which they do) how can you speak of 'knowing' anything, especially when it comes to the divine?

Belief isn't knowledge. 'Evidence' is knowledge, and you, or any theist, don't have enough of that about God or the Bible.

@badradger said
I try not to have conversations with imaginary characters, although my daughter did have 2 imaginary friends called stonker and stoner but she has not mentioned either since she was 5.

Non sequitur.

@secondson said
Does it feel good being sandwiched in between two atheists?

Take it to the Meat Opponents forum, Spanky.

-Removed-

Totaly relaxed, almost horizontal.

@suzianne said
Non sequitur.

English please.