///Don't you know the difference between 'God', and 'gods'
Jan.
Do you know which god you believe in?
<>
///Don't you know the difference between 'God', and 'gods'
Jan.
There's no practical difference, according to you. All gods are God, according to you.Don't you know the difference between 'God', and 'gods'
Its pretty obvious he is talking about monotheism. It's pretty clear I am talking about monotheism. It is pretty clear everyone here is talking about monotheism (until at least some start to dredge up the cliche atheist argiments abouy "many gods")Musika, whether or not SiaSL does or does not know what he's talking about - in your opinion - he has asked for clarification of the subject (which God exactly), indicating that may be in contention. He gets to do that.
In good faith, you really should provide an answer, or it ends up being you who is interfering with the flow of the discussion.
Clearly, since he uses the singular form.Its pretty obvious he is talking about monotheism.
Yes, well, post count ftw...Even the jokes he pulls from the google search engine on the joke thread ...
///Its pretty obvious he is talking about monotheism. It's pretty clear I am talking about monotheism. It is pretty clear everyone here is talking about monotheism (until at least some start to dredge up the cliche atheist argiments abouy "many gods")
Even the jokes he pulls from the google search engine on the joke thread cannot work as jokes unless he understands monotheism.
Granted, discussion can move to particular understandings of monotheism, but I haven't really seen any discussion points that would warrant such a direction.
There's no practical difference, according to you. All gods are God, according to you.
You claim there is a god & indicate we do not understand so it is up to you to explain.
Why should God be explained to you?
You`re the one who as denied, and rejected God.
It seems to me, you want people to explain God to you, so you can deny, and reject God, over, and over again.
I would sooner leave you in your ignorance, until such time you shed this veil of delusion. In fact, I think that is in your best interest.
You make the claim. You back it up. Otherwise, the claim is dismissed. End of discussion.
Projection. Do you deny or reject unicorns?
Consider that an atheist might feel the same way about whatever god or gods you think are real
What claim have I made, that you have not made the opposite claim.
I believe in God, you don't. Isn't that simply, equal opposites?
Because you are the one making the claim. Simples, really.Why do I have to explain, and you don't?
What are you talking about? All I did there was to repeat what you keep telling everybody here about your view on God vs gods - namely that, for you, all gods are references to, or aspects of, the one God.If it makes you feel better, like sticking one to God, then do it.
If Bob displays the exact same behaviours one would expect from a person who advocates not-x is true, one has to wonder whether he is merely layering his actual position behind a cover of deception to secure some sort of advantage.If Anne claims that X is true, and Bob doesn't make that claim, Bob is not claiming the opposite of Anne. If he stood up and said that not-X is true, only then would he be claiming the opposite.
You know this. Or at least you have been told this time and time again.
Similarly, the absence of belief that God exists is not the opposite of having a belief that God exists. The opposite would be having a belief that God does not exist.
Because you are the one making the claim. Simples, really.
In what ways would your behaviour change, do you think, if you were somehow to come to believe that the country of Zimbabwe does not exist? That is, if you were to assert "Zimbabwe is not a real place", and to honestly believe that, how would the casual observer be able to tell that you actually held that belief and that it wasn't merely a cover for an attempt to deceive others into believing that Zimbabwe doesn't exist?If Bob displays the exact same behaviours one would expect from a person who advocates not-x is true, one has to wonder whether he is merely layering his actual position behind a cover of deception to secure some sort of advantage.
Quite a lot if I happened to be living there.In what ways would your behaviour change, do you think, if you were somehow to come to believe that the country of Zimbabwe does not exist?
The most obvious and direct would be the rejection of domestic/political institutions.That is, if you were to assert "Zimbabwe is not a real place", and to honestly believe that, how would the casual observer be able to tell that you actually held that belief and that it wasn't merely a cover for an attempt to deceive others into believing that Zimbabwe doesn't exist?
That's begging the question since an american individual is existing politically, socially and geographically independent and isolated from Africa, what to speak of Zimbabwe.Suppose an American were to confide to you that "I'm not convinced that Zimbabwe exists. I'm a Zimbabwe agnostic."
Since you brought up "agnostic", I thought it would be a good opportunity to explain how the eradication of doubt provides clear behavioural changes. Perhaps this isn't clear in the example of an American ruminating on Zimbabwe, since their isolation is so distinct from general "Americaness" that whether Zimbabwe is real or not has no clear ramifications except perhaps to global geography of obscure nations .... a field Americans already appear remarkably indifferent to.I would expect to see one difference: the self-described "agnostic" would probably say things like "If you can show me convincing evidence that Zimbabwe is real, then I'll happily change my mind", whereas the other guy would be harder to turn around.
If the agnostic doubt of God is eradicated on the positive ("God exists"), then the agnostic opens up to new behaviours prescribed by theism. If the doubt of God is eradicated on the negative ("God does not exist"), then the agnostic opens up to new behaviours prescribed by atheism.Would you assume the Zimbabwe agnostic is somebody who is most likely layering his actual belief ("Zimbawbe isn't real") behind a cover of deception to secure some advantage in an argument with those who believe in Zimbabwe?
If Anne claims that X is true, and Bob doesn't make that claim, Bob is not claiming the opposite of Anne. If he stood up and said that not-X is true, only then would he be claiming the opposite.
Similarly, the absence of belief that God exists is not the opposite of having a belief that God exists. The opposite would be having a belief that God does not exist.
What are you talking about? All I did there was to repeat what you keep telling everybody here about your view on God vs gods - namely that, for you, all gods are references to, or aspects of, the one God.
No. He would simply have no belief.If Anne does believes in God, and Bob does not believe in God. Would he have an opposing belief?
You claim to have made no claims that gebobs didn't claim the opposite of. I am merely pointing out the error of your thinking.How is this relevant to my response to gebobs?
As far as you can tell, perhaps, but then you have a blinkered view of most things when it comes to atheism. The absence of belief in God simply means that they don't have the belief that God exists. Other than that they could believe in almost anything. Or nothing.What does absence of belief that God exists mean exactly? As far as I can can tell it means you don't believe in God. Why not just say that?
I presume you meant "an atheist doesn't"?A theist believes in God, an doesn't. That is a lot easier to grasp. Don't you think?
No. He would simply have no belief.
As far as you can tell, perhaps, but then you have a blinkered view of most things when it comes to atheism
The absence of belief in God simply means that they don't have the belief that God exists. Other than that they could believe in almost anything. Or nothing.
I presume you meant "an atheist doesn't"?
It may make things a lot easier to grasp, but rather than go with meanings that are easy, let's just go with what they actually mean, shall we
Or maybe you aren't capable of grasping the subtleties, and can only grasp the black and white view that you would prefer it to be? Is that is?
You claim to have made no claims that gebobs didn't claim the opposite of. I am merely pointing out the