Hitch is dead

We know that your fantasy is that you know "the real God" better than anybody else does, better than atheists, better than the people who wrote the Book. That just reinforces the conclusion that your God is entirely made up.

As I said, that conclusion is based on what YOU say. But you have nothing to back up that claim. You might just as well say that people who don't believe in the Three Bears are delusional. Don't be arrogant. You've said yourself that there is no smell, no taste, no evidence at all that there is coffee I am missing out on. You have even scoffed at the idea that coffee could have a smell. There have always been dangers. Like Jesus? The evidence shows that it is. That the socialist form is best for the common man.

You have it backwards. There is no scientific evidence that the processes themseves
had a mind as an origin.

That's a silly thing to say. We know there ARE chemicals. Why on earth is it silly to think they were around in "the beginning"? It makes far MORE "intrinsic" sense to think in terms of what we DO know - e.g. chemicals - than what we DON'T know - e.g. some spooky "mind". Every mind that we DO know about is made of chemicals.You're welcome to believe whatever bullshit you like but don't try to pretend that it "makes more sense" than reality. That won't fly here.

That's all that is possible to know. Your claims of "communion" are arrogant and empty. Yes you do. The authors did not claim that their writing was part of one cohesive whole. You do. Why not? How is it inconsistent to point out that the ONLY information we have about Him includes information that He committed atrocities? The Book says that God created the heavens and the earth and it says He committed the Flood atrocity. There's no waffling about that. It's the apologists who try to waffle Him into a wholly good God despite the atrocities. The evidence shows that He is not. This is not about a fictional God committing fictional crimes. It's about where your beliefs come from. You don't accept the Bible accounts and you don't accept reality. Your beliefs are entirely man-made. You reject what Jesus told the rich man about what he must do to be saved. You reject the story about the Roman church doing it. I have never even suggested that you should trust what I say. I have told you repeatedly to read what it SAYS. Then do it. Or a liar. Why are you afraid to discuss the apologists' lies? If "God so loved the world", why did He destroy it with the Flood?

So were the Three Bears - but they were fictional physical beings. That's not a close connection to real physical beings.

The authors' supposed intentions are not a major factor in deciding whether an account IS fictional. We classify an account as fictional if it fails to meet the standards of reality.

Spirits are fictional. You can make up as many kinds ad you want.

Yes I can. Without evidence, the default is that it doesn't exist. You use the same standard for Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, etc. so don't try to claim special privilege for your pet beliefs.

Nobody's asking you to retract your claim. I'm just pointing out that your claim is invalid.

Wrong. If there's a lack of evidence for the claim, the claim is invalid by default. That isn't "me" determining validity. That's how all thinking people determine validity, including you. Remember the claims about fairies and leprechauns? Without evidence, they're considered invalid, by even you. Your INTERPRETATION of your experiences is dismissed as invalid - i.e. you have misinterpreted your experiences. Not only is it cricket, it's standard procedure. No. Evidence ALWAYS trumps belief.

I don't know who has agreed to that. Not me. We're talking about "eyewitnesses" to events - e.g. the resurrection - that many of us don't believe ever happened.You've already shot yourself in the foot by pointing out that fiction wasn't even invented until centuries later. The Gospel authors could not have "intended" to write non-fiction when there was not yet a clear distinction between fiction amd non-fiction.