Jan Ardena:
Apart from your assertion, what about your life could be considered atheist?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
Tell me something you do, that could be considered atheist. If it is subconscious, so be it.
It sounds like you want atheism to be a religion. I already explained why it isn't.
What I do that's atheist is that I don't believe in God. That's what "atheist" means.
I am well aware that I have much more than that in common with many other atheists. Atheism is more compatible with some worldviews than others. But those extra things are not primarily about atheism, even if atheism has certain implications for them.
What are you trying to get at with your question? What do you do that could be considered theist?
So basically, you don't know enough, to make any decisions about God.
Wrong. Remember you said it was very simple? It is. You don't have to know much to make decisions about God. Theists like yourself get by on faith, not knowledge.
Yes. Not by you, not by me.
Why repeat myself? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote on this earlier?
Not absolutely, no. But then neither of us know many things absolutely.
I have an informed opinion on this particular topic, which is more than I can say for you.
So what are you talking about when you say we know enough about the universe, to rule out God's necessary agency?
I said no such thing.
I asked first.
Are you afraid to talk about God (for a change).
What would you like to talk about?
You've made your choice.
You are so confident in that choice, you say silly things like, we know enough about the universe to know God is not necessary, let alone exists.
I said no such thing, and you're right: that would be silly if I were to say it. Stop making things up.
That's deep-rooted belief.
Not a belief I have, so irrelevant to our discussion.
No it's not.
You use "evidence" as a place holder.
No, I really don't.
Why haven't you responded to the post where I outlined what I would regard as sufficient evidence for God, in response to your question? Why are you ignoring that?
You're making the mistake of thinking you're talking about God. If God Is, there is no, could God be real, or not.
And if God Isn't?
But in answer to your question, I can convince myself that God exists, and because God doesn't show itself, like pots and pans, it doesn't exist. Therefore God would not exist, as far as I was aware.
I can't parse what you wrote there. You said nothing about what would convince you that God isn't real.
Want to try again?
But you believe them, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
I believe them because I see no reason to take their statements about their own beliefs to be lies, unless there is some evidence of that. Like I said. It has nothing to do with what I believe about God.
Atheism is a close-minded system.
*wry smile* Nice irony, Jan.
James, please don't lie. It's totes unnecessary. Thanks.
Do I need to dig up a few quotes where you said "We're all a part of God"? Did you forget you wrote that (multiple times)?
I doubt very much you were ever a theist, do stall as much as you like. You only confirm my doubt.
Wait a moment. Let me get this straight.
In this thread, you are asserting that atheists do not actually exist. Ergo if you are correct, I am not an atheist. I am, according to your assertion, in fact a theist at heart, right now as I write this.
How can you doubt that I used to be a theist, when you assert that I am, in fact, still one as we speak?
At least aim for some consistency in your argument.
I know that some Christians, aren't theist.
How is that possible?
Verbally, mostly. Sometimes through music.
When you do it verbally, what do you say?
I don't recall saying that, a minute ago.
Do I need to dig up some quotes where you said that your God belief isn't about the evidence, that evidence is something that only atheists are concerned with, and so on? The question of God's existence, you said, is only of concern to atheists, because theists like yourself
just know that God Is.
Maybe you ought to read back over a few of your own previous posts to refresh your memory.
A minute ago you said we know enough to rule God's necessity out.
No. You are mistaken. I said that, based on what I know, God does not appear to be necessary.
Do you have any knowledge to add that would tend to suggest that God is necessary? If so, please present your argument.
Really? Is that objectively speaking?
No. That was my opinion. You're still struggling with the whole objective/subjective distinction, aren't you?
Yes you are now, the most faithful.
(Bizarre.)
You'll have to explain, I'm afraid.
I have a spiritual relationship that I don't know about? My soul is playing around with God behind my back? How dare it!
Well, I don't know what you're talking about.
Everything you bring up, is an entire subject matter in and of itself. Yet you just wave it away, like brushing fluff of your jacket.
It's a pity that, with your voluminous knowledge of all these matters, you're only capable of posting one-liners in response to any question asking you to explain one of your assertions.