Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[ArtieE]

Agnosticism is very different from weak atheism. It can even be theistic.

How in the world can one manage to confuse agnostic with weak atheism when you can have an agnostic theist!?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why should we refer to agnosticism when we are discussing atheism? Why change the subject? The subject when we are discussing theism/atheism is BELIEF or absence of BELIEF. Why start talking about gnosticism/agnosticism which is about knowledge not belief and is a different subject?

It's relevant to what is being discussed. We use the word 'belief', in an inherent surety position, unless specified otherwise. Even stating something as ''know'' instead of belief here, sounds odd, and isn't the same inference as to what is being said.

It tells us that the person knows or doesn't know and the theist label tells us the person knows gods exist and the atheist label tells us the person knows gods don't exist.

That's fine, but we don't know how they arrived at that conclusion, and here, it's also the 'same' thing as saying belief or believe. Or rather can be the same thing; in religious context, it is assumed the same thing ie
the persons belief

 

[ArtieE]

It's relevant to what is being discussed. We use the word 'belief', in an inherent surety position, unless specified otherwise. Even stating something as ''know'' instead of belief here, sounds odd, and isn't the same inference as to what is being said.


That's fine, but we don't know how they arrived at that conclusion, and here, it's also the 'same' thing as saying belief or believe. Or rather can be the same thing; in religious context, it is assumed the same thing ie
the persons belief

What!?

 

[LuisDantas]

How in the world can one manage to confuse agnostic with weak atheism when you can have an agnostic theist!?

It depends on how much significancy one lends to the idea of theism, I suppose. It is not entirely unreasonable.

 

[ArtieE]

We don't differentiate the 'belief' adherences, merely because someone likes to use the word 'know', etc

Then can you find me a definition of theist where it says that a theist is a person who knows god(s) exist or a definition of theism saying theism is the knowledge that god(s) exist?

 

[Shad]

Have you seen these documentaries about Jesus?

http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com/

This is not from BBC, watch you own video... This is from Mysteries of the Bible in the 90s. You can figure this out by looking at the credits. The host gives it away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysteries_of_the_Bible

 

[Desert Snake]

Then can you find me a definition of theist where it says that a theist is a person who knows god(s) exist or a definition of theism saying theism is the knowledge that god(s) exist?

That isn't what Theism is, because the ''know'' is arbitrary. One usually thinks they ''know'' their belief to be truth, but it isn't part of the word meaning, because ''theist'' does not require 'knowing'', or what have you.

most people, when using 'belief', and theism', in a religious context, consider that they ''know'' such. The words are not inherently different in meaning, only contextually.

 

[ArtieE]

This is not from BBC, watch you own video... This is from Mysteries of the Bible in the 90s. You can figure this out by looking at the credits. The host gives it away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysteries_of_the_Bible

Then take it up with YouTube not me... just write jesus in india youtube in google and go to the youtube page. I never said it was from BBC myself.

 

[McBell]

''belief'' has religious adherence connotations, /especially Xianity; and 'know', besides being non-informative anyway, generally doesn't.

You need to get outside more.

How many people "believe" trump to be the better candidate?
How many people"believe" Hillary to be?

Lets not open the false beliefs concerning the law....

 

[McBell]

In post 212 you said I was moving the goal posts and ignoring the second definition. In post 207 you didn't quote the second definition when you quoted me and asked for source.

Except I did not quote EITHER of your given definitions...
Below is our exchange:

That is "the" definition of God.

Says who?

And what makes your source "the" authority?

The authority on the definition of the Christian God is the Jews and the Christians and the Bible of course. They are the ones who invented him. And the dictionary just quotes them.

Seems you are now moving the goal posts from god to Christian god....
And are ignoring the second definition YOU provided in doing so.

See how Mestemia moves the goal posts now. Everybody take a look at post number 207 where you can clearly see that Mestemia only quoted: "That is "the" definition of God." And now he complains that I only explained who's the authority on the definition of God.

ROTFLMAO

Please be so kind as to explain how asking for a source is moving the goal posts?

Never said asking for a source is moving the goal posts.

Since all I have done is ask for your source, then mentioned that it SEEMS to me that you moved the goal posts, please be so kind as to explain when, where, and how, I moved what goalposts.

I did delete a part of the first post of yours I replied to.
Here it is:

"If other people have their own definitions of God and it's different from this one, it isn't God they are defining."​

I deleted it because it merely makes a further claim upon the the part I did not delete.

Now, please be so kind as to explain the who, what, where, and when I moved goal posts.

 

[McBell]

That you haven't seen any evidence for the existence for the existence of God is even more revealing.

Another bold empty claim from you based upon your bias assumptions.

I never said I have not seen any evidence for god, or fairies for that matter.

Perhaps you should stop trying to dictate to others what they believe?

 

[ArtieE]

Except I did not quote EITHER of your given definitions...
Below is our exchange:



I did delete a part of the first post of yours I replied to.
Here it is:

"If other people have their own definitions of God and it's different from this one, it isn't God they are defining."​

I deleted it because it merely makes a further claim upon the the part I did not delete.

Now, please be so kind as to explain the who, what, where, and when I moved goal posts.

In post number 207 you quoted me as saying:

"That is "the" definition of God."

And you said:

"Says who?

And what makes your source "the" authority?"

I answered that in post number 211.

And then in post 212 you said: "Seems you are now moving the goal posts from god to Christian god....
And are ignoring the second definition YOU provided in doing so."

You quoted me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and ask for a source and when I give it to you you complain I'm ignoring the second definition. You didn't ask for a source for the second definition. You just quoted me saying "That is "the" definition of God." and asked for the source for it. Everybody see post 207.

 

[McBell]

In post number 207 you quoted me as saying:

"That is "the" definition of God."

And you said:

"Says who?

And what makes your source "the" authority?"

I answered that in post number 211.

And then in post 212 you said: "Seems you are now moving the goal posts from god to Christian god....
And are ignoring the second definition YOU provided in doing so."

You quoted me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and ask for a source and when I give it to you you complain I'm ignoring the second definition. You didn't ask for a source for the second definition. You just quoted me saying "That is "the" definition of God." and asked for the source for it. Everybody see post 207.

and yet you still have not shown where I set a goal post, then moved it....

 

[ArtieE]

and yet you still have not shown where I set a goal post, then moved it....

First you quote me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and ask for a source and I meet that request and then you complain that I'm ignoring the second definition. You didn't ask for a source for the second definition in the first place in post 207. That is called moving the goal posts.

 

[McBell]

First you quote me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and ask for a source and I meet that request and then you complain that I'm ignoring the second definition. You didn't ask for a source for the second definition in the first place in post 207. That is called moving the goal posts.

I asked for your source that the definition you provided is the "the" definition.
You replied that the source and authority for your "the" definition is the Jews, Christians, and Bible.
Which completely ignores the second definition YOU provided.

Thus the reason I said it SEEMS you are moving the goal posts by ignoring the second part of your own definition.

You then claimed I moved a goal post.
Which, as far as I can tell, has been nothing more than a diversion tactic.

 

[ArtieE]

I asked for your source that the definition you provided is the "the" definition.
You replied that the source and authority for your "the" definition is the Jews, Christians, and Bible.
Which completely ignores the second definition YOU provided.

You didn't ask for any source of the second definition in post 207. You only quoted me talking about God. Everybody see post 207.

 

[`mud]

I'm tripping over goal posts !
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

You didn't ask for any source of the second definition in post 207. You only quoted me talking about God. Everybody see post 207.

I asked for the source of your claimed "the" definition.
Your claimed "the" definition contained TWO definitions.

Your sourcing only half your claimed "the" definition is on you, not me.

 

[ArtieE]

I asked for the source of your claimed "the" definition.
Your claimed "the" definition contained TWO definitions.

Your sourcing only half your claimed "the" definition is on you, not me.

Now that was just pathetic. I rest my case and won't be continuing this exchange any more.

 

[`mud]

Was someone arguing over _od, or GOD, or some god ????
I lost track !
~
'mud