But people who don't accept God do try and pass laws to dictate what is taught in the science class. Theism, is not concerned with what is being taught. IOW the idea that I'D be taught along side a competing theory, is not a theist one. It is a common sense one. Jan.
An atheist schooling another atheist on what atheism is. Priceless. Or is it more a case of, what an atheist is supposed to recite, should you encounter a theist. Don't worry Write4U, I already clocked your admission. I dare say you will modify your persona. But we all know the truth is, how you naturally express it. The belief that God does not exist. As you obviously live your life as though God does not exist. What is the difference between thinking God does not exist, and God does not exist? Write4U, I take, is a modern human being. He is an atheist. He accepts that God doesn't exist. You are no different. God does not exist as far as the atheist is aware. Fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe it is possible that God may exist. If you truly believed that, then you would be accepting God (even as possibility). Your persona gives no indication of acceptance. For you, God does not exist. If you combine both perspectives, then, atheism implies God. That you want to bury your head in the sand regarding such a combination, is your issue, not mine. Jan.
The subject matter of what happens after the death of the body, should have a thread dedicated to it, with a good moderator. It most certainly isn't something that can be answered in the way seem to think. Jan.
God IS is not a perspective. There is nothing to observe or approach from any perspective. It's a mind-set, an indoctrination. A Tulpa of you own making. Be happy and live with that knowledge, but don't preach your Tulpa to me. If I am a "hard atheist", you are a "hard theist", never the 'tween shall meet. As Carlin said "keep thine religion to thine self." But I have science on my side, which will eventually find the Original Causality from evidence (even if it is inferential from physics and mathematics). You have a flawed Book, which cannot be considered scientific by any standard. So read your book, sit back and wait for God to reward you with death, as punishment for eating from the fruit of life and having evolved from a simple hominid to a homo sapiens. Your mind-set is totally irrelevant, by being human you are already cursed, by YOUR book. No amount of worship can save you or offer you an eternal sentient existence. When you die, you will be dead, just like the rest of us, regardless if you waste your time in prayer and scientist are actually going "out there" and experience the great adventure of the Universe. There are plenty of possible Original Causalities being studied by science. An Intentional God is not one of them. Period. If you cannot define properties, at least try to define its qualities instead of repeating your mantra over and over , ad nauseum. So far your entire argument has been that you believe in God, without any evidence or theory to support your belief, the lazy way out..
I admit only to believing your are a hard Theist. The evidence for that is overwhelming. As for me, stating that I do not believe a Intentional God exists is not an admission, it is a statement. If you disagree with that statement, prove me false. p.s. I know what Baldee was saying, I am familiar with the subtle distinction between "soft" and "hard" atheism. Science , by it's very effort to remain completely neutral and objective, is not allowed to definitively declare that there is NO God (in a non-biblical) sense. This it not an admission of any kind. These are the rules of science. When something cannot be falsified, no conclusion can be presented. That's all, no more, no less. What science can say, is that the Biblical account of Creation has been falsified and the rest is philosophy. Actually it does not even merit the term Philosophy which is founded on Logic. It's Spritualism, plain and simple.
My heart tells me only if it's working properly. Actually, it tells me only when it is not working properly The fool doth say in his heart, there is a God.
Would you agree that it is also "common sense" that all of the alternative ID theories be taught side by side, including the theory that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)? For reference, please see this Open Letter to the Kansas School Board: https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ I hope you are not one of those "Apastafarians" for whom the FSM does not exist as far as you are aware, which by your logic implies that He does exist, and you are just without him, denying him, etc. All lonely and cold, in the deep dark night, wandering around in the rain, in your underwear. Surely, you must agree?
The implication of God, lies in the original definition of atheist (without belief in God and/or gods. As the actual position of most atheists is that God does not exist, existence is not implied in their thinking. IOW. They reinforce their position by rejecting and denying God. Jan.
You mean you lack perspective. There are neither hard or soft theists/atheists in the reality of day to day life. There are simply atheists, and theists. I think you're deluded. That's right atheist, spill the beans so we can know more about the bits thinking, explicit atheist don't want to become public knowledge, again. Preach! My atheist brother. Preach! Because God does not exist, right? Which science is that? No it hasn't. Remember; just because you wish my points to be so, doesn't make them so. But please reveal more of your natural atheism. Please. Jan.
From post# 461 Theism is a World concept of god . Theism is defined as ; " Belief in the existence of god or gods , especially belief in one god as creator of the Universe , intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures ".
A theist is a person who believes in God. Existence is only an issue for atheists. An atheist does not believe in God Non existence is the predominant reason. Jan.
But you never defined the difference between the theism of god and the abrahamic definition of god . You have to be clear . You weren't . While I agree with you on the theism of god , I don't agree on how presented it . At all .
I don't distinguish between God, and God, with the addition of the "abrahamic" title. God Is one, without a second. That's my understanding. 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.
