The overlap is easy to spot. They are both faith based groups. Faith is believing something in lieu of evidence.
Which is part of the reason why the Q crowd doesn't always mesh well here. Evidence is usually requisite at this .win. "Trust" in a plan is hard to come by.
This is not how Christians define faith. Faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a conviction about things unseen. Things unseen and hoped for can have evidentiary support for their existence and manifestation.
But Q is an oddity that borders on idolatry for some, which is why the dovetail, per your OP, seems odd. The two faith concepts are mutually exclusive.
Curious... If faith based groups don't fit here well, then you must not get along with the scientists and atheists either, right?
The dictionary is usually the authority on defining words:
And even your definition fits his simple definition if you boil it down to what it is. Your certainty of a thing unseen (cannot be proven) is saying the same thing basically as he was. We cannot see god (prove existence) or else no faith would be required if he was here in front of us. Faith spirituality belief none of those can be seen, roven or quantified in any way but doesn't stop them from existing.
I see what you are trying to do here and it doesn't work with scientists at all and you lose credibility with this argument IMO. Here's why:
Atheists: YES! This comparison works for your point. Atheists absolute BELIEF there is no god is a faith of its own and cannot be proven.
Scientists: Nope. Comparison does not work. Science uses the scientific method and it by definition ever changing and evolving as new things are discovered and old thinking disproven.
Yes Atheists BELIEVE there is not a god or deity or supernatural force outside of our understanding despite the fact that no actual proof could ever prove something DOES not exist 100%. Only that there is no proof for its existence that is 100%.
I am an agnostic and the only thing I know is that I DO NOT know anything for sure and either side could potentially be correct, however I personally BELIEVE that the truth is something than man cannot even remotely comprehend if it were laid out for us in power point presentation right before our eyes as it is so far removed from the only reality we know.
Let's say you are right about the hidden messages in the bible or whatever books and somehow you have *objectively *interpreted (not possible btw) words in a book that has gone thru translations after translation and interpretation after interpretation over the thousands of years.
It was written in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew and even between those languages there are words that cannot be "literally" interpreted just as certain things in modern languages do not literally translate into English even today.
From this point until your final sentence I do not know what I am looking at or why. I don't get why you are formatting some statements with a - and some not, and it seems you go from quoting the bible to speaking as yourself with no quotation marks distinguishing between the two making it difficult to understand what you are trying to convey.
Who are you referring to here?? I have made no assumptions nor claimed any wisdom here. And you are correct that I cannot explain the claim you are making about God's days just as I cannot name even 1 of the 7 mountains and was unaware of this requirement. I would Mt. Zion and/or Mt. Sanai could be included but fail to see the relevance to our discussion.