Many years ago, i was talking to someone and said jokingly that she always loses in an argument. To which she got peeved and retorted, "I never lose an argument.". Which many years later today, i correct her, "You meant to say you never concede an argument.". One can choose not to concede even when he/she has alredy lost the argument.

I shall digress.
"How are you feeling?" you ask.
"I'm feeling 6.4807." the guy says.
This coming from anyone short of a cyborg, would surely have prompted a reply that goes something like, "You're feeling 6.4807 units of what?"
"6.4807 is a legitimate feeling in and of itself."
You're begining to think that the guy is a cyborg.
Then you say, "But what is the meaning of 6.4807?"
"The square of 6.4807 approaches 42 which is the meaning of life."
This goes on for quite sometime, but eventually you realise that the guy really is a cyborg and not only are you asking the wrong question, you're asking the wrong person.

Back on track.
Here is where faith come in. The term "blind faith" contains redundancy, much like ATM Machine and PIN Number. Faith, of itself, is neccessarily blind. For one could hardly say, "I have faith in you, but i doubt you will succeed." all in the same sentence. It makes for contradictions. But refusing to concede even after losing, is not really faith, more like stubborness. Which in turn means i'm still digressing O_o

A friend who is a theist, recently told me that she does not read my blog anymore. And she quite pointedly repeated to me what she has done, as if it was a big deal. It was and is a big deal, for she is a rather fond friend. She often asked of me, why i read up on atheism articles. It was of her opinion that i did not read up on the articles on the other side of the argument. And between the two, is it so wrong of me to choose the logical side of the argument. One which relies not on faith?

I told her i read up on both sides of the argument, including creationists, and more recently quantum mystics. I said, "Shouldn't we read more variety so we could formulate a better understanding?"
"Yes, it is good to read more. But what you wrote is untrue.", she said. But she missed the fact that the outright dismissal of what i've written/said as untrue, is contradicting what she claims, that it is good to read more.

And she continued, "So i'm not reading your blog anymore. It's untrue, and it's a waste of time to read untrue stuff.". A waste of time, that's what my blog is. But untrue?

I said there was a particular bible verse which ranks women among cows and donkeys, that treat females as mere property of males, and suddenly all i've ever said is untrue? I could be mistaken, but would i knowingly say something untrue? Am i the lying tongue sent by God? (Um... God sent lying tongues to people, read the bible)

What am i to believe as true? That tapping a wooden stick on the ground could part seas? That a god flooded the whole world, with water that came from no where before and went no where after, out of anger is a loving god? What of the koalas, sloths, salamanders (Yes do read up on the movement rate of lungless salamanders) and freshwater and saltwater fishes? Are all humans really descendants through incest of children of Adam and Eve? People dying and coming back to life and such a miraculous event not recorded by any of the 500 witnesses (maybe they are all illiterate)? Creating food and wine out of nothing (No Mr Wang, despite his endurance feats, i think David Blaine is a trickster)? That there is a heaven and hell which no one has been to and return before and that we still can have descriptions of it? Are these all true?

My fond friend, i apologise for offending you. But I do not, for what i've said. It is not as untrue as your God is true. I can contend that i am mistaken and that all the above is true, but can you even allow the possiblity of it being untrue?