Based on the information given, Anne has no more formed an opinion than Bob has. You don't know that. Work with the information at hand. It is a matter of one is a theist, and the other is an atheist. Theists believe in God. Atheists don't believe in God. I get you. You think the reality of theism and atheism, implies that God exists. But, the atheist simply, does not believe in God. So in a sense, the meaning of atheism is now, what is a reason for atheism. God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God, or any other reason one can come up with, Rotating them as one sees fit. Jan.
What do you mean by rationalisation occur afterwards? No they're not. Debates between modern day philosophers reveal that the arguments are not flawed, or inconclusive. Or denial of what has been established as true. Denial knows no bounds. You do realise this is denial, don't you. Not very long ago, I took a little time to set out what I would regard as a sufficient explanation of my theism. Have you forgotten? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is the downside of being in constant denial. You see and hear things in a way that satisfies your worldview. I don't have to make any claims. I am not the one who is in denial, or reject the obvious evidences of God. I'm not the one who shifts the goalposts of my worldview to shed responsibility of explaining it. Theist - a person who believes in God. I am a theist. Atheist - a person who does not believe in God. Are you an atheist? Jan.
Jan Ardena: I mean what I wrote. People - like you, for instance - tend to hold beliefs first, then come up with rational-sounding justifications for those beliefs later. You said yourself that your starting point was accepting God. That's not something you arrived at after a careful examination of evidence, or by thinking the matter through. You also said that belief in God comes "naturally" to you. No need for all that hassle of requiring a good reason to believe; that's not for you. Which arguments for God are you thinking of, in particular, that are flawless and conclusive? (This could be a topic for a separate thread.) I don't think you know what the word means. Got a link? And again you avoid addressing the point I made in order to repeat a baseless accusation. What's all this business about "God Is" etc., then? You seem very keen to drive that point home. That's not a claim? Go on, Jan. Tell me how it's an observation again, despite the fact that you can't explain how you observe it. (If you like, you can also tell me how it's now a claim to say that you've observed something.) What obvious evidence are you referring to? Are you changing your tune again, so that now suddenly evidence is important to you? If so, we can discuss your evidence. Go ahead and present it. For somebody who never shifts the goalposts, you sure spend an inordinate amount of your time bogged down in the minutiae of trying to redefine words to suit yourself. Yes. Are you really still trying to sort out whether atheists believe in God, after all this time? I think you're in the wrong thread for that discussion, anyway. What happened to the one where you were trying to argue that all atheists are actually closet theists? If you've ditched that thread and are now able to accept that atheists do not believe in God, as you have written here, I'm happy to proceed on that basis. It will certainly save us a lot of time that could be better spent.
P.S. Jan - we're now 325 posts into this thread, and I don't believe you have attempted to answer the opening post yet. Do you intend to answer the questions of the thread? Way back in post #79 you quoted the questions and the best you could come up with was this: You didn't keep your promise. So, seeing as you're still here, and you've had almost a month now to think up an answer, do you think you could reply on topic?
Thanks but I'm not a agnostic theist what force put Bohmian mechanics into existence? Certainly not any man. We merely discovered what's already in place
Have you ever experienced believing something without reason? Do you you think it is possible to choose anything you want to believe? They're not flawless, bit they're not flawed in the way you think they are. At least in the arguments against, you've given in the past. Do you have any new arguments against the arguments given by Bill Craig? I don't think you mean that. No. Just helping you out James, but again you display denial. I'm a theist James. God has to Be, for me believe. Just like there has to be no evidence for you not to believe. No. It's a description. God exists, would be a claim. Have you observed no evidence of God.? What does it look like? Already stated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just read something by Bill Craig. I'll present that has my evidence. He says it so much better than I could. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well you're going to have to present these redefinition if we are to progress in this paricular accusation. That would be weird as an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. It's probably in the same place as your other false accusations. If you'd bothered to read that thread you'd have noticed that I did write that. Several times. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Theist - a person who believes in God Atheist - a person who does not believe in God. Common denominator - God. You're way behind JamesR. Jan.
I believe I did answer the question. But if not, I'll answer it now. God does anything God wants to do. Oops! My bad. God does anything God wants to do. Jan.
And ladies and gentlemen here we have entered into the realm of Which Came First the Chicken or the Egg or in Technical Babble Infinite Regression Since there is no end to infinity we had best stop here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So what do you think put all that in place, quark by quark by quark by electron, atom by atom? Think of a wheat field in full bloom. How many grains of wheat will you count?
I have a modest opinion of the "creator". At best, if he existed, he might have been playing with toys that already existed. If you could show that he existed, that would be all you were showing.
Maybe so, but obviously something has been lost in translation when our gas has such rapid, adverse effects .... unless the essence of your critique of the environmental consequences of the industrial age is "our culture was simply to much theisticly inclined." .... I mean you could say we are religious in our zeal to destroy the planet, but you are not using conventional language.
