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.
Clearly, since he uses the singular form. I think it's also apparent that monotheism doesn't exactly narrow the subject much. Yes, well, post count ftw...
/// It is obvious you do not actually believe in a god if you cannot explain much about it. It is clear that saying you are talking about monotheism does not say much. Arguments about many gods are far less cliché than those about 1 god. The jokes work fine. Get over it. You claim there is a god & indicate we do not understand so it is up to you to explain. It would be good to specify which god & which scripture if any then go on from there. <>
If it makes you feel better, like sticking one to God, then do it. I understand your frustration. jan.
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. jan.
You make the claim. You back it up. Otherwise, the claim is dismissed. End of discussion. Who wants to talk World Cup? 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.
God has everything... But he still wants everything in his possesission. Imo this would be an instance of compatibility. Wants everything, but he wants nothing, this being a exapmple of the middle way, "this but not that."
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? Why do I have to explain, and you don't? Not at all. I don't deny or reject unicorns. How is it that you deny and reject God? jan.
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.
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. Is this an incorrect summary of your position? If so, why don't you correct the record?
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. For instance if Mary was advocating that the water from a particular water well is very healthy, yet Bob made specific endeavours to never drink from it, publicly cast doubt on the validity of Mary's position to vouch for the authority of drinking water and was stacked to the hilt with vocal opinions on what Mary was really up to or on about when she was talking of water quality etc etc ..... one has to wonder whether it is actually meaningful to define Bob's position as essentially lying outside of "not-x is true".
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? Suppose an American were to confide to you that "I'm not convinced that Zimbabwe exists. I'm a Zimbabwe agnostic." Would you expect that person's behaviour to be noticeably different from that of another American who tells you "I believe that Zimbabwe is not real. I think it's a fictional country."? 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. 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?
Quite a lot if I happened to be living there. The most obvious and direct would be the rejection of domestic/political institutions. Of course if I am already living a life divorced from such institutions (for instance, if I am living in America), your example is moot. 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. It is just like putting Bob in some radical environment divorced from Mary's well (like the ISS ... assuming he gets his water sourced from a continent distinct from Mary) or an atheist outside of the cultural/philosophical/social dialectic of religion (like maybe having grown up and living in Antartica, divorced from all social and political conventions). IOW your very choice to equate possible belief in God with possible belief within an American of Zimbabwe reveals your atheist world view ... namely that the status of God on life, much like the status of Zimbabwe on the life of an American, are ultimately of little consequence and have very minimal (real, at least IYHO) behavioural variations among adherants, either for or against or in between. IOW you beg the question by invoking an example that doesn't bring with it core distinctive behaviours. 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. 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. If, as a so called agnostic a/theist, you have no new behaviours available in the direction of a/theism that you could adopt, it indicates that your behaviour is already in line with full dis/belief in God. As such, one has to wonder if retreating to the ramparts of agnosticism is simply an irrationality on their behalf of atheists to avoid being stuck with the philosophical impossibility of defending an absolute negative? I guess it gets down to the question of whether we bring logic after we bring behaviour, or whether we bring behaviour after we bring our logic.
If Anne does believes in God, and Bob does not believe in God. Would he have an opposing belief? How is your response relevant to my response to gebobs? 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? A theist believes in God, an doesn't. That is a lot easier to grasp. Don't you think? Jan.
You said... "There's no practical difference, according to you. All gods are God, according to you." You don't see the difference between that and... all gods are references to, or aspects of, the one God. No need of "references to". Jan.
No. He would simply have no 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. 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?
OK. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So Anne "has belief" in God, and Bob "has nobelief" in God. Would he have an opposing view? No. You're clearly the one with a blinkered view on atheism. Anyways... Yes, I could see how not believing God exists could be a good reason to not believe in God. But why obfuscate? Why not just tell it like it is? I did, thank you. What is the difference in meaning? You'd have to point out the subtleties, for us to find out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
