Jan Ardena:
That's as pointless a question as me asking you what makes you so sure that God doesn't exist.
Tut tut, Jan. There you go again.
Stop being so rude. I have
explicitly stated to you many times in this thread alone that I am not sure that God doesn't exist.
Why do you keep ignoring what I tell you about my own position, and insisting that my actual position is different to what I say it is? You're implicitly calling me a liar.
Let's be clear: only one of us is sure about this whole existence of God business, and that's you. And the problem with that is that you have no valid grounds on which to claim the certainty you claim.
Based on that logic, you're trying to define God OUT of existence.
No.
Your definition of "athiest", to paraphrase, is " a person who is 'without God' because he or she refuses to 'acknowledge' the God who Is."
That's trying to define God into existence. You're saying that a person can't be an atheist unless God exists. Therefore, since people do claim to be atheists, therefore God exists.
It's a bizarre way to try to define God into existence, yet this is what you're asking your readers to accept.
The atheist position has to be that God doesn't currently exist. He can reason that God probably does not exist, but that is not a practical position.
Why is it not a practical position? Because it is "obvious" that God exists? It isn't obvious, Jan. You're just stuck in a rut where you won't think outside the box.
If God exists, then for atheists God does not currently exist.
Obviously you're either not reading what I'm writing or you're simply ignoring it in order to repeat your errors.
I've addressed the matter of objective existence vs. "existence for you"
ad nauseam in this thread, but it goes in one ear for you and out the other. I'm not going to do it again.
I don't think you're really as incapable of understanding the point as you would have your readers believe. It's a pity you won't discuss things in good faith.
God not existing is an atheist idea.
Well, it's an
atheistic idea. Of course it is, by definition.
No. A theist is so because he believes in God.
I've said it on quite a few occasions, that existence or not, of God, is an atheist question.
And I've said, again
ad nauseam, that you can't "believe in" something that you believe does not exist. "Believe in" means trusting, placing one's confidence in, etc. You wouldn't do that if you did not first believe that the object of your trust, confidence etc. actually existed.
"Belief in X" logically comes after "belief that X exists".
I understand that for many theists, and perhaps for yourself, the whole dive into the God thing might have happened in a big rush, so that it could seem like you went from nothing to "believe in" without ever considering the "belief that God exists". But that belief that God exists had to be there before it was possible to "believe in", none the less.
Unless, that is, I have it all wrong, and (some) theists are so irrational that they are willing to "believe in" things that they do not actually believe exist. ("Homeopathy? I believe in it's curative powers wholeheartedly, but I don't think that water really has a 'memory'.")
What is your evaluation process of deciding whether or not God exists?
1. Consider all the evidence available to me, as carefully and as objectively as possible.
2. Make informed judgment based on 1.
3. If not completely sure that informed judgment is water-tight, be prepared to change mind in light of new evidence.
You say that because for you God does not exist.
Recurring problems:
1. "Existence for you" vs. objective existence.
2. Failure to take on board (again!) what I have told you about my views.
3. Failure to address the actual problem, that being that you claim to have knowledge you do not have.
If that gives comfort James, I'm okay with that as I know you suffer with control issues.
Heh. Nice one, Jan. This entire discussion is about you trying to control the definition of "atheist", and about your desperate attempt to import the assumption that God exists into that definition.
Do you need to be right that God does not exist?
Far from it!
I'd be most pleased to discover that God exists after all. I have some questions for him if he does.
And you just go along merely assuming there is no evidence for God.
It's not so much that there's no evidence. The problem is that the evidence advanced is so weak. I think the
best evidence there is for God is hopelessly subjective, and that's a big problem for somebody who knows something about how the mind works.
All I've said is that atheists are without God, and I am right.
Your "without God" imports the assumption that God exists. You have to establish that, not simply assert it or take it for granted. Not when you're talking to atheists.
Obviously it matters to you that you are "right", despite your protestation that you're not trying to convince anybody.