Saying that one person is without a personal God doesn't mean that you are with one.
Agreed.
The atheist position is generally that they have not yet been convinced there is a god. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim to justify it. So it doesn't matter if we don't know whether evidence for a god exists somewhere.
What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone.
Secondly, I am making no claim. Theos = God, ATheos = without God .
Although I do believe in God, God's existence is not being claimed, and even if it inadvertantly does come up, it is not an important aspect of my point.
If I can't convince you, or prove that God exists, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it simply means I can't prove He exists. Plus you know that you don't have to be convinced
by any theist proposal. So the whole idea of burden of proof, when it comes to God, is yet another diversionary tactic of the atheist, to justify his position.
Again, doesn't matter. We are looking for evidence of it's existence, not a revelation of god itself.
It doesn't matter how you will know that the evidence presented, does in fact point to God?
That's brilliant SP! You've just confirmed something that I have always thought to be true about atheists. They're not even bothered about God.
The word 'atheist' perfectly describes you.
Hell no. I wouldn't worship that monster.
Another one! Boy you're full of revelations today. Aren't you?
I like talking to you because you don't really care about the whole God thing, so you just blurt out what you really feel.
Whereas the others try to play mind games so as not to reveal the reality of what it is to be atheist.
jan.