God is defined, not described.

[river]

The purpose of this discussion does not call for a more in depth analysis of God, or theism.

We only need to comprehend the basics.

Jan.

And the basics are based on , what comprehension of god ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

↑




So the theism of god is equivalent to the abrahamic understanding of god ?

If you remove "abrahamic", you are left with "God". A theist believes in God, regardless of titles.

I don't mind talking about "God", but it makes no sense if you keep ascotiating Gof with religious prefixes. All that does is take the focus away from God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And the basics are based on , what comprehension of god ?

Human comprehension.

Jan.

 

[river]

If you remove "abrahamic", you are left with "God". A theist believes in God, regardless of titles.

I don't mind talking about "God", but it makes no sense if you keep ascotiating Gof with religious prefixes. All that does is take the focus away from God.

Jan.

Yes

And therefore god is a being which is in everything , from quantum and higgs boson , to every macro being and thing . From the center of galaxies , suns , planets , moons , comets , asteroids etc .

I understand .

 

[Write4U]

↑
So the theism of god is equivalent to the abrahamic understanding of god ?

And I might add that the OT is the book that explains the basics.
So we are asked to accept the OT account of who or what God is and acts.

Then why has the OT been replaced by the NT, which does not deal with God but with the son of God, who is himself a God.
Now we have two Gods, which God shall we acknowledge as the One true God The God of the OT or the God from NT.
Remeber, choosing the right answer is rewarded with eternal life. High stakes.

 

[Write4U]

Human comprehension.

Jan.

And you have the hubris to claim comprehension of God, which the most brilliant minds have thoroughly debunked the OT, and offer your comprehensive advice that ID is a source of scientific information that should be taught alongside science itself?
Get real, please.

Why not in philosophy and/or psychology? I would have no objection to that.

Just keep it away from science where it does not belong.

p.s. As to your post #475, I won't even bother to answer such utter rubbish, which is nothing more than an endless and boring repetition of your previous posts.

 

[Sarkus]

But people who don't accept God do try and pass laws to dictate what is taught in the science class.

It is not restricted to "people who don't accept God". Many of the complainants against ID being taught in science class are those who do accept God. They just don't accept that ID is a science, and thus the science class is not appropriate for teaching it as an idea.
Furthermore, ID is not synonymous with theism.

Theism, is not concerned with what is being taught.

Not in science class, no. Nor are atheists. But scientists are. Religious folk who don't believe in ID are.

IOW the idea that I'D be taught along side a competing theory, is not a theist one. It is a common sense one.

It is NOT a competing scientific theory. ID is unscientific. Some of its notions may be scientific but as a whole it is not.
Teach it in Religious Studies (or whatever it is called in schools these days) but not in Science class. That is all the argument has been on this front, and that is common sense. Science is for science. ID is not science. You do the maths.

 

[Sarkus]

I agree with you. You should tell that to James, Sarkus, and Baldeee.

Write4U is a "strong atheist". So when he refers to what atheism is, he is referring to what it is to him - i.e. the holding of the belief that God does not exist.
But this view, as you have been repeatedly told over and over again, does not describe the whole spectrum of atheism. The fact that you latch onto it as being correct shows that you only view atheists as those who hold that belief. Yet the atheists you mostly argue with are those who don't hold that belief. Yet you argue with them as though they do. Deliberately so, I might add, given how often people have corrected you.

 

[Write4U]

eep

Write4U is a "strong atheist". So when he refers to what atheism is, he is referring to what it is to him - i.e. the holding of the belief that God does not exist.

I agree that this is my personal position.

I did qualify it that I hold the belief that a sentient, emotional and motivated biblical god speaking in Aramaic language does not (cannot) exist.
I am a strong atheist only in that respect.

Previously, when asked, I explained that what theists call God is nothing more than Universal Potential, with the additional qualification that my use of the term Potential was in context of "That which may become reality".

IMO, at the current state of Cosmology this definition is entirely appropriate as it is scientifically neutral and allows for a host of possible causalities. Just not a sentient supernatural being as presented in the OT.

I believe everyone can agree that there was an original causality and that the potential for the BB must have existed prior to the event of the BB. I believe this is not a controversial position and I am open to any and all additional developments.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Write4U is a "strong atheist". So when he refers to what atheism is, he is referring to what it is to him - i.e. the holding of the belief that God does not exist.

No. He is being honest. He's simply admitting what you are afraid to admit.
That is the reality of what an atheist is.

But this view, as you have been repeatedly told over and over again, does not describe the whole spectrum of atheism

The reason why I don't accept your view, is because it makes no sense. Can you demonstrate the difference? Or is it only in your mind?

The fact that you latch onto it as being correct shows that you only view atheists as those who hold that belief.

I'm not really I interested in what atheists believe (for the purpose of this discussion), but what they don't believe. Plus the reasons why.

Every atheist in this discussion has to admit, if they're being honest, that there is (currently) no God. Unless God Is. Then they wouldn't be atheist.

Thanks for being honest Write4U, it is a game changer. Because now Sarkus has to demonstrate that he is a different type of atheist to you. Please continue the bean-spilling.

Yet the atheists you mostly argue with are those who don't hold that

Atheism is about what you don't believe.

Deliberately so, I might add, given how often people have corrected you.

I'm not interested in your little personal designs on atheist to make you appear more rational, and to be able to relinquish responsibility for claims you make. Either God Is, or there is no God.
Either you believe in God, or you don't.

That's what's on the table.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did qualify it that I hold the belief that a sentient, emotional and motivated biblical god speaking in Aramaic language does not (cannot) exist.
I am a strong atheist only in that respect.

And the back-peddaling begins.
This ought to be funny.

I believe everyone can agree that there was an original causality and that the potential for the BB must have existed prior to the event of the BB. I believe this is not a controversial position and I am open to any and all additional developments.

Is that true Sarkus?
Can every one agree that?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

And the back-peddaling begins.

Apparently you do not read my posts, which implies you are unwilling or unable to see things from different perspectives. You may read the words, but your mirror neaural network is unable to process the information.

You needto study brain functions, before you are able to understand how the flexible network can be reprogrammed. Aparently you have lost this ability by years of indoctrination, which hardens the mirror neural network and loses its ability to see things from different perspectives. Then endless repetition of the same argument is proof of that very fact, which you would understand if you actually studied how the mirror neural system actually functions. I pity you, you are stuck in aa fantasy from which you are unable to escape.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You may read the words, but your mirror neaural network is unable to process the information.

Oh really?

You needto study brain functions, before you are able to understand how the flexible network can be reprogrammed.

Looking for local neural network colleges as we speak.

Aparently you have lost this ability by years of indoctrination, which hardens the mirror neural network and loses its ability to see things from different perspectives.

OK.

Then endless repetition of the same argument is proof of that very fact, which you would understand if you actually studied how the mirror neural system actually functions.

Like I said; I'm looking for a local neural network colleges as we speak.

I pity you, you are stuck in aa fantasy from which you are unable to escape.

Your pity has been duly noted.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Oh really?
Looking for local neural network colleges as we speak.
OK.
Like I said; I'm looking for a local neural network colleges as we speak.

Mirror neuron system is a group of specialized neurons that “mirrors” the actions and behaviour of others. The involvement of mirror neuron system (MNS) is implicated in neurocognitive functions (social cognition, language, empathy, theory of mind) and neuropsychiatric disorders. MNS discovery is considered to be the most important landmark in neuroscience research during the last decade.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900004/

Your pity has been duly noted. Jan.[/QUOTE] Question is, what are you going to do about it?

 

[Sarkus]

No. He is being honest. He's simply admitting what you are afraid to admit.
That is the reality of what an atheist is.

He is being honest about his view - but that is not what all atheists are. Most are actually "weak atheists" - as you have been told repeatedly. Write4U is a "strong atheist" - at least, as he suggests, with regard the God he describes in his subsequent post. That you jump on that as being the view that all atheists hold, despite every effort to educate you in this regard, is simply you being blatantly dishonest. And your continuance is nothing short of you trolling.

The reason why I don't accept your view, is because it makes no sense.

It might make no sense to you, Jan, but then you fail to comprehend even the simplest of logical constructions.

Can you demonstrate the difference? Or is it only in your mind?

People have been at pains to demonstrate the difference to you, Jan. That you need to ask again might suggest that you are suffering from amnesia. Perhaps you should mention it to your doctor?
But to explain again:
If I give you a sandwich or a pastry to eat and ask you to eat one while I have no way of knowing which one you have chosen... will I choose to believe you are eating the sandwich or the pastry? Or perhaps I will choose to simply say "I don't know". Now, if I don't hold the belief that you are eating a sandwich, does that necessarily mean that I believe you are eating the pastry? No. I simply hold no belief with regard which you are eating.
Now let us assume that there is a word for people who believe you are eating a sandwich: sandwichists.
And let us assume that there is a word for people who do not hold that belief (that you are eating a sandwich): asandwichists.
Given that I do not hold the belief that you are eating a sandwich, I would be an asandwichist.
But I also do not hold the belief that you are eating a pastry. But that doesn't stop me being an asandwichist.

Got it yet?

I'm not really I interested in what atheists believe (for the purpose of this discussion), but what they don't believe. Plus the reasons why.

What they don't believe, Jan, is that God exists. This has been explained to you repeatedly, as are most things, it seems. But that is not the same as them believing that God does not exist. You only see atheists as believing that God does not exist. And while you hold that inaccurate view you are very much incorrectly assuming what atheists believe.

Every atheist in this discussion has to admit, if they're being honest, that there is (currently) no God. Unless God Is. Then they wouldn't be atheist.

No, Jan, all the atheist has to do to be honest is admit that they do not hold the belief that God does exist. Whether or not they think there is not a God is a secondary consideration. Many... wait for it... simply do not know.

Thanks for being honest Write4U, it is a game changer. Because now Sarkus has to demonstrate that he is a different type of atheist to you. Please continue the bean-spilling.

Again, Jan, the difference in types of atheism (notably between strong and weak) has been explained to you many, many times. You are simply being dishonest in thinking it is a new revelation. Shame on you.

Atheism is about what you don't believe.

Indeed: atheism is about not believing that God exists, which is not the same as believing that God does not exist.
Maybe you're starting to grasp it, Jan. But somehow I don't think what you wrote is quite what you intended to write.

I'm not interested in your little personal designs on atheist to make you appear more rational, and to be able to relinquish responsibility for claims you make. Either God Is, or there is no God.
Either you believe in God, or you don't.

To answer the first: I don't know. To answer the second: I don't believe in God. I don't have the belief that God exists, but nor do I have the belief that God does not exist. I am agnostic on the matter.
But if you don't like the answer an atheist gives you with regard their position, Jan, you'd honestly be better off looking at your own shortcomings in understanding than demand they adopt one of your rather loaded options.

That's what's on the table.

Only if your mind is closed to the other possibilities, Jan. JamesR has been through that detail with you before.
Do you not have anything new to offer?

 

[Sarkus]

Is that true Sarkus?
Can every one agree that?

No, I don't think everyone does agree on that. Cosmology is not fully agreed upon, even if there are some mainstream sceintific models. And you also need to bear in mind that what might be "agreed upon" does not necessarily equate to the truth of it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you demonstrate the difference? Or is it only in your mind?

Sarkus, can you or can you not demonstrate the difference, not simply explain it away.

Aside from being told that there is a difference, can you show me the difference, so that I can see it (not only read it) for myself.

I don't see the point of discussing anything further, until such time.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

I don't see the point of discussing anything further, until such time.

And there was dancing in the streets.

 

[Sarkus]

While part of me is tempted not to reply, so that we finally have a chance to be rid of your inane twaddle, Jan, somehow I just know you'll keep spouting regardless.

As for demonstrating the difference, Jan, alas I am not physically next to you to provide such that does not require you to read. But if you still feel you must troll for an actual demonstration, then the simplest thing would be for you to ask people to respond to a simple question: "do you (a) believe that God exists/Is, (b) believe that God does not exist/Isn't, or (c) neither?"
Theists will respond with A, strong atheists with B, weak atheists with C.
Voila. A demonstration of the difference that you can conduct at your leisure.
Or is that still too much of a written explanation for you?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I agree with you. You should tell that to James, Sarkus, and Baldeee.

From your perspective what I said could be construed as being illogical. But there is another perspective, God Is. Within the combined perspectives, it is not illogical.

Jan

^^^
God is is not a perspective.

<>

Someone else said that 1st. When will I learn not to reply when I am that far behind.