It depends on what you describe "God" as

You do realize You just wasted a few minutes of your life with this unnecessary B.S. Good job.

 

Look, if you know what someone means (which if you have any practical sense you should have known what I meant), you don't need to get technical.

 

If you are desiring to allow everyone to live their lives in the manner in which they deem appropriate without harming the rights and property of others, then you would not submit comments such as "You just wasted a few minutes of your life with this unnecessary B.S. Good job. " It is my life.

As for me Knowing what 'someone means', , , I had to pry that 'meaning' out of you. Once I did manage to pry that information out of you, you still remained in that attitude of 'common' with regard to sense. Now in your most recent posting, you are suggesting "practical sense"... Which only begs the question: What do you consider 'practical' when placed in relationship to "sense"? I am not a mind reader. What is 'practical' to you, may not be 'practical' to me or many other people.

 

Do you really think I read ALL this unnecessary waste of bandwidth? Make (*)(*)(*)(*) short and sweet.

 

Why? So that it would make an easy target to attack?

 

Why be long winded and waste time? Why be overly technical about everything even if you (should) by inference know what someone means?

 

Making an answer to all of your above questions as simply as possible and as short as possible: ACCURACY in expression and ACCURACY in understanding what someone else has stated.

 

Or more accurately, you engage in word games in order to avoid difficult queries or embarrassing subjects; yet another reason why you should not post here.

 

Once again,,, all you seem to be able to post is just your private opinions. Do you ever post anything that can be backed up and supported by empirical evidence, evidence that is irrefutable or that is not questionable?

 

Yes, he does.

You do realize that you are not the first atheist to bust into the religion section?

Do you know how many times anyone debating atheists has been accussed of misrepresenting what atheists say AFTER they are pinned? How many times thay insist on getting absurdly technical in defining themselves (agnostoaheists abound, as do theists agnostics, and even atheist Christians). Many atheists attempt to redefine entire meanings and definitions, often dismissing dictionaries when the contrast with their conceptions.

So, yes, being precise about what one is talking about is necessary when dealing with atheists, and wastes even more bandwith t repeatedly castigate someone over their precision than it does to simply accept it and offer an actual rebuttal.

 

Empty, as per usual.

 

As are your opinions.

 

Bear with me here but I'm still not sure I'm buying it. This might be an issue of me not understanding the finer nuances of English.

This is what discombobulates me:

"If you assume on faith that the earth is flat then the flatness of the earth is a premise of that faith. It is either true or the faith can't exist."

"If you assume on faith that the earth is flat". Ok, with you so far, person X thinks that the earth is flat.

"then the flatness of the earth is a premise of that faith". Person X believes that the earth is flat. He holds the premise that the earth is flat as true. Right?

"It is either true or the faith can't exist." Whoah, does the earth have to be flat in order for X to believe so? Are you saying that

It (the premise that the earth is flat) is either true (the world is flat) or the faith (believing that the earth is flat) cannot exist.

=>

Either, the world is flat or one cannot believe that the earth is flat.

=>

If the world is not flat, there cannot be people who believe that the world is flat

which contradicts the fact that there have been people on our round earth that have believed that the earth is flat.

 

Or me not being able to utilize finer nuances. We could of course do it in Swedish but that'd be against forum rules.

Not thinks but takes it on faith. The difference is crucial.

Right.

No, the faith that the earth is flat has nothing do to with the shape of the earth. It is solely based on holding the aforementioned premise as true.

There are two types of 'knowledge' in play here. You can either conclude independent of experience or you can conclude from experience. These two methods usually go hand in hand in every cerebral enterprise, and it usually won't present any problems.

For example, we often make simple syllogisms like, if X and Y are like this then Z must be like this. Both X and Y are here taken a priori because the conclusion does not rely on authentication of X or Y. It solely relies on the given premises. If the premises pertain to the physical world, we can then choose go out into the world and see if the premises apply to that reality and, if so, then Z applies to the same reality.

But we can also choose not to and simply settle with the conditional statement that IF X and Y are as proposed THEN Z is true. While it is true, it does not necessarily pertain to reality.

Likewise, though not necessarily drawn from a syllogism, you can simply assume that the earth is flat without any other justification than your ability to conceive of it. While it is TRUE a priori, it has nothing to do with the actual shape of the earth.

 

That is an absurdity. Outside the realm of autonomic responses within the brain which control body functions, all other actions are the result of determinate thinking. Any determination which is the result of mental activity requires the act of determinate thinking. If a person determines that it is his/her desire to believe that the earth is flat, that conclusion to believe in such a manner was the result of determinate thinking.

 

Incorporeal, I can stretch as far as saying that I should have said "Not just thinks but takes it on faith". The word "think" does not specify any particular method of negotiation but encompasses all kinds of reflections. That distinction is crucial to the point.

 

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda,,,, Does not change what you did state, and what you did state, is what is being addressed.

 

Some kinds of feistiness are not becoming.

 

Oh well... deal with it.

 

Believe me when I say that's the easiest part.

The hard part is to be of service to another person's comprehension.

 

Which you have not demonstrated other than a comprehension of Atheism... as if Atheism is the only thing in the world that has importance.

 

Thanks, but it's especially hard to be of service to the comprehension of others when it comes to the absence of their own faith.

 

That is just about as close as I have seen you come to hitting the nail on the head... A TRUE Christian will not give up the fight in the face of the enemy and will maintain his/her grasp on that 'faith' regardless of what the temporal world says is the required level of comprehension... Why? Because we comprehend something that has intentionally been refused by those others.... including those that were traitors ....

 

This is a good alternate take on perseveration: "the pathological, persistent repetition of a word, gesture, or act, often associated with brain damage or schizophrenia."

 

Resorting to character assassinations? That would be the equivalent of a personal attack. Hmmmm.