Yes, I got to where you finally stated why you hold it importance, and what's more I had a good laugh along the way. Yet nothing could stop your answer from being one of the more ridiculous I think I have ever seen from someone trying so hard to be serious.Already stated.
Yet again you fail to comprehend the implications of what you do discuss. I should no longer be surprised, yet I am always hoping.If I was discussing God's existence, I would talk about God's existence.
[qupte]So you believe.[/quote]As should you, Jan, unless you are under the delusion that a belief in something means that what is believed necessarily exists in reality, outside of being a mere though.
Sure, you have an a priori assumption that God exists.As a theist, I accept that God Is, and believe in God.
Sure, and they start from the a priori assumption that God exists. But if they start their thoughts without that assumption, if they are capable of just looking at theism as meaning "belief in God" and atheism as "No belief in God" then, absent any a priori assumption that God exists, those terms alone do not imply, nor necessitate, the existence of God.Says you, an atheist, for whom there is no God. A theist doesn't see it like that.
A theist believes in. God.
You can't see that, not because you're a theist but because you are unable to think without invoking your a priori assumption that God exists.
The one above, to start with. And each and every time I have let you know that you are starting from the a priori assumption of God's existence.Point these arguments out and we'll take it from there.
Oh, good grief. So now if one doesn't believe in something they are actually suggesting that it exists? You're a riot, Jan.Both theist and atheist suggest there is a God. One party accepts God. The other party doesn't.
How does that support your accusation of the atheist's choice being arbitrary?No. It is a process which involves rejection, and denial.
All considered opinions involve one's cooperation, Jan. But that doesn't mean it is a choice.They have to. It is not as simple as making a decision, like "should go I to Alicante, or Benidorm for my summer hols. But it involves their cooperation.
Plus you have not the post previously to me said that it is not possible to choose, which is why you think atheists don't exist. So FFS get some consistency in your drivel at least. Consistent drivel is at least an indication of an ordered mind, but yours is so inconsistent it is like you have a tumble-drier of ideas and you have no control over which sock you pull from it.
In relation to belief in God.Theism merely describe ones position in relation to God.
Allow me to let you in on a little secret: it doesn't add any weight at all. No, seriously, it adds zero weight to any of your supposed arguments.Yes. It's very obvious.
Ironically what it does add weight to is is the notion that you have very little other than fluff and bluster, a few mantras you throw around whenever you think you need to support what you're saying, oblivious to their weightlessness.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter.Obviously false.
So now you are going back on your constructed argument, that someone who doesn't believe in God is really showing that God Is. I don't mind that you go back on what you previously said. It was ridiculous then and continues to be ridiculous, so the Sooners out retract it the better.2+2 needs to be 4, to understand that it is not 5.
Further, 2+2 doesn't need to be 4 to understand that it is not 5. It need some of be 4 precisely because it is 4 and can be nothing else. To show that 2+2 is not 5 you could just as easily conclude that 2+2 = 3. You have shown it is not 5, and thus shown that proving it is not 5 is not reason enough for it to be 4.
But you probably didn't follow any of that.
You have taken a discussion you have had with SiaSL and his comments as being those of all atheists, rather than listening to the person you're discussing with. You thus create a strawman and argue against that.Explain the strawman.
So if God Isn't then you think God still Is?That is your take on it.
Oh, FFS, Jan, this is getting tiresome and it is a real struggle to keep thinking you do this honestly: if you are accepting of something and it forms part of any claim you make, you are arguing it. Any time you say something that starts with, uses, or concludes that God Is you are arguing that God Is. Yes, it is something you accept. But that doesn't stop it being something you are arguing. You don't get to absolve yourself from what you say, and the implications thereof, just because you don't appreciate that it is something you are arguing.I don't argue that God Is. I accept that God Is. You don't That is why you struggle with it.
If you start with the assumption that God Is, as you do, then you are arguing it. It's as simple as that. The only time that wouldn't be the case is where both sides accept the same assumption/premise from the outset. That is not the case here.
Is this you trying to understand the agnostic position? If so, you're not doing very well. If not, I don't see the relevance.You don't even understand that you have accepted that there is no God.
You think you can be in a place where you can, or don't have to accept God, until such time you make your decision.
Not really, Jan, as you can't seem to discuss anything without asserting that God Is. You reject everything people say unless they are on the same "God Is" wavelength as you. You dismiss with "you would think that because you're an atheist and without God" without any actual discussion. No, it is not a silly suggestions, Jan. Not silly at all.What a silly suggestion.
No team. Just each individual non-believer.Who is we?
Team Atheist?
No, it's not pointless to bring up something you have no knowledge of, by way of example. Do you believe in Zarx or not? Can you believe in something (e.g. Zarx) you don't have knowledge of?Then it's pointless to bring it up.
But according to you, since some believe in Zarx, and others don't, Zarx must exist. The non-believers prove Zarx exist, because surely you can't reject something that doesn't exist, right? That is your argument, isn't it?
I think it means heaps as well, Jan. Heaps of stinking manure that seem to flow from your thought processes and onto the web page. Once again you only bold God, not "believes in God" and thus blinker yourself. And from that blinkered and biased position you spout forth this steaming pile of fertiliser. The ironic thing is I don't think what you spout is actually good for gardens.Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.
Everything is in relation to God.
Nothing suggests no God.
You may think that is nothing, which is understandable. But I think it means heaps.
Oh, what the hell, okay then. Zarx is mushroom-shaped fairy that lives at the bottom of Crowhampton Lane and apparently only speaks the truth. I don't believe in Zarx, if that helps you form your opinion. I am azarxist.I don't know.
Define Zarks, and I'll give my opinion.
What about you?
If you are accepting that the atheist does not start from the premise that God Is, then why do you not have the decency to not start your arguments from that premise when discussing with them, and reject any argument that does not? Every time you simply stamp all over a thread with your assertions, no help to anyone, never progressing discussion only hindering it. All seems rather disrespectful, does it not?For me, a theist, it is obvious. But I understand that for you, an atheist, it isn't.
By not being real, Jan. By only being an idea that aims to answer the mysteries of how we got here, but with no actual reality. I know that might be a struggle for you,However feel free to explain how God isn't, or could be isn't.
You don't see how dishonest this is of you? You ask me how I can consider God's existence to be unprovable, given the definition of God, and then have issue with raising matters of the definition?How is God's existence uprovable, given the defition of God? Of course if you're going bang on about definitions, then I am wasting my time.
Definitions do not bring something into reality. If God Is then God is provable because everything is evidence. If God Isn't then nothing is evidence of God. So how do you determine if God Is or Isn't? How do you determine if the definition you use refers to something in actuality or not? You certainly can't use evidence that relies on the definition being of something real to be evidence of it being something real.
Then what are you saying? Please spell it out nice and simply, as I'm clearly not grasping what you're trying to explain.