Deism is more strictly the belief in a god that was the original cause and all that, but does not influence his creation, and the deist rejects scripture and any other revelation. Jan very much adheres to scripture as revelation, and I'm sure he has cited scripture as a source of understanding. So a deist he isn't. I would say his view is more panentheistic. But none of that should affect his grasp (or lack thereof) of logic etc.
We don't know what Jan takes away from his "scriptures", though. He must pick and choose, because different religious traditions clearly contradict one another in many ways. That's a word I actually haven't come across before. Thankyou for the link; it is most enlightening. I agree with you that it seems to fit Jan's views well. Right. However, if you have a poor grasp of logic, then you're very likely to be less rigorous in demanding consistency in your own beliefs, so that could explain some of Jan's continuing confusions. I'm also worried about his problem with distinguishing objective fact from subjective belief, but I also recognise that if that is a real problem for him then it would also go some way to explaining his God belief.
All of the above, including the Vedas. His view seems to be that religions all worship the same deity, so all scripture - if he holds all scripture to be revelation - is to be considered.
panendeism Noun (uncountable) belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts. Contrasted from Panentheism in that the existence of, and relationship with, the creator god (prime mover) is determined from observance of nature, not rationality and thought. He describes his current spiritual position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism' , something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit". "Marine's Balled Honors Soldiers, Trappist Monks" Albuquerque Journal (Saturday, November 11, 1995) B-10 Origin Blend of panentheism and deism <>
The key, though, is that Jan believes scriptures to be revelation, therefore can not be considered any form of deistic belief. Deism rejects all scripture as revelation. Jan believes that scriptures are revelation. Thus Jan can not be deistic in his belief.
It's much worse. And much simpler. It's not a game at all: Jan has declared that both teams are his teams. Look: So he is referring to JamesR's playing field, but declares that the two players are those for whom God "Is" and those who are without God. Jan then goes on to make it perfectly clear that God is also the opposing team: Jan has demonstrated here that he believes there are actually - not two choices - but no choice at all. There are only two teams and both teams are his teams. An opposing possibility does not even register in his mind; he is incapable of acknowledging anything beyond his own reality. And that means he has slipped beyond any possibility of being able to have a discussion about it. We have lost him to his own internally reflective bubble where all he can see or conceive of is this own thoughts. He's gone catatonic!
If you have as an option, I'm defining God into existence. we can assume that God does not exist as far as you're aware. On what basis do you deny. or reject God? The difference between us is that you are frightened to assert that God does not exist, as far as you're aware. You assume your position to be the default one. But as your label states, you are the one that is lacking. If I ask why you reject and deny God, you undoubtedly chant the atheist mantra, no evidence. Which is just a way of rejecting and/or denying God, for reasons I explained earlier. jan.
??? Highlighting what I see as a flaw in your argument in no way speaks about my own position. I could just as well be someone who believes that God exists, and your argument would still sound like defining God into existence. But rather than clarify your position, and explain how it is not simply defining God into existence, you instead try to deflect and avoid. Rather telling, On what basis do you assert that God necessarily exists? Assuming that you use the words "deny" and "reject" in a manner that they are loaded with the implication that God exists, please convince me that God exists/Is so that I can first be sure that there is something to deny or reject (i.e. define what you mean by "God" and then put forth something that you think convinces me that it exists/Is). Until then, your question is rather meaningless. Are you frightened to assert that you have stopped beating your partner? So, noting how loaded your assertion here is, Jan, I will simply say that it's not a matter of fear, but rather it's a matter of not stating something I don't know to be true or not. I simply do not know if God exists or not, so I can not state whether God exists or not. If it helps, and as I am sure I have explained before, I am no more aware of God not existing than I am aware of God existing. I consider mine to be the rational position of those who hold the same knowledge as I hold, and who lack the same knowledge as I lack. I make no assumption that it is the default position, though. Rather it is a position I have concluded (hopefully rationally) based upon what I know. And back you are to your dishonest ways of arguing against what you think the label means and not what the person actually is or says. Shame on me for expecting anything else, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I simply refer you to the answer given above. If you want to insert another answer of your own devising, more suitable for your own arguments, then I'm sure your strawman will be more accommodating.
Again, if you view it as a flaw, we can assume that God does not exist, as far as you're aware. No you couldn't, and no you don't. That is a fundamental difference. On what basis do you reject, and or deny God? Remember, you're the one who is lacking. Again you assume God does not exist. You need to admit that, for you, God does Not currently exist, before we move on. I don't beat my partner. But God does not currently exist, as far as you're aware. It has to be a fact. Either that, or God does exist, as far as you're aware. What you claim to know, or don't know, is irrelevant. God either exists, or not, as far as you're aware. Which is it? What does obtaining knowledge, or not, have to do with whether God Is, or one is without God. Either God Is, or you are without God. Those are the starting positions. As an atheist, you naturally assume there is no God. So this sitting on the fence, trying to shed the responsibility of what an atheist stands for, doesn't wash. Your position is that you are without God, regardless of any implications. You need to admit that. You only say it is dishonest because you don't like what it implies. But holistically speaking, you are, as your label suggests, without God. And I, as my label suggests, believe in God. Those positions are fundamental. There is no strawman, Sarkus. Your actual positions bears a striking resemblance to the proper meaning of the term "atheist". The many variations, and designs, atheists try to decorate themselves with, can not provide a solid interpretation of your actual position, which stems from the original meaning. We can see, the Emperor still has no clothes. Jan.
Let's assume, you accept the original meaning of the term "atheist" (without God). What do you think you could actually know about God? You only need to know that for you, there is no God. You should take comfort in that fact, and understand that you cannot go any further, as an atheist. It's a fact. You seem to specialise in denial. Yet that is what you do. You are committed to your position, which means you are forced to reject and deny God, or any attributes belonging to God. You can no sooner accept God, than a white supremacist can accept black people. Obviously I'm not saying you're a white supremacist, only that the level of conviction is in the same ball park. God isn't anything like pots and pans. But I've already explained this. Haven't I? I presuppose God because I am a theist. You presuppose no God because you are an atheist. Those are fundamental. Unfortunately you try relieve yourself of the responsibility, then try to make out as though there is only one claim, one presupposition. Very tricky! My response makes no difference to you. You're just looking for a way to deflect the attention. I'm interested in why you reject, and deny God. You know that you have no reason to. And you know that arguments for God, are stronger, and despite the atheist claims that they have been refuted, they have not. So why do you insist on rejection and denial? What do you comprehend about these other descriptions, why you think they differ from mine? It makes no difference to you, or your position, how confident I am. You only need know that I am a theist, and as such, I believe in God. I am theist. That's what is important. Not a discussion about God. You're acting as though I have to explain my fundamental position, and you don't. The problem is, you cannot have discussion about God, because God does not exist, as far as you're aware. You cannot accept that people believe in God, because of that problem. So discussions always go down the "there's no evidence of God, route. I want to go down the, why do you reject and/deny God route, for a change. It really makes no difference, to you. You view from the pov of 'there is no God'. It doesn't matter what I say, you will only see it from your atheist perspective. To grasp anything of what I'm saying, you need to stop being an atheist. Obviously. But do not dismiss the equally obvious characteristics of atheism (before designer labels) which is central to your worldview. I'm talking about theism, and atheism. The problem is, you desire to hold this position of not having to be accountable for your position. You fool yourself into thinking you are neutral, that you don't have beliefs, or faith. The only difference between atheists and theists are that atheists are without God. Aside from that everything else works as it is supposed to. Jan.
No, Jan. If I see it as a flaw in your argument then it means that I don't agree with your argument, not necessarily your conclusion or your overall position. Just your argument. If someone believed that Trump is dangerous because he had chicken soup on Sunday, and I said that his argument seemed fallacious, does that therefore mean I don't think Trump is dangerous? No. Nor does it mean I do think he is. Me highlighting what I see as a flaw speaks only to the argument, not to the premise(s) nor the conclusions. Just the logic of the argument. I was speaking hypothetically, Jan... I.e. Someone could believe in God and still find your argument flawed. So you're still not going to answer the question: on what basis do you consider God to necessarily exist? You have avoided it once and you continue to. Why? And I am lacking, Jan. I am lacking belief that God exists/Is. You have that belief, and I do not. I also lack the a priori assumption that God Is. There is no rejection or denial of God implicit within what lack, there is simply a lack of those things that you have. But you can't get your head round that, can you. If you think I am "lacking God" then it is you who claims it, not I. Care to support that assertion? I have made no such assumptions, nor anything that could be implied as such. I have certainly not started from the assumption that God does exist, but nor have I assumed that God does not. If you truly think that is what I am assuming, please indicate what I have said that has led you to that conclusion, and how you have reached it? How can I admit to something that I do not know the answer to? Is there an answer? I don't know. Do I know the answer? No. So why ask me to admit that I think the answer is one thing when I freely admit I don't know what the answer is, or even if there necessarily is a meaningful one. You are arguing against your strawman, Jan. Put it down. That's not what I asked. Clearly you're afraid of admitting it, Jan. So you keep asserting, Jan. You want it to be true of me, as presumably your strawman holds that position? Alas, it is not a position I recognise of myself, for the reasons given. For the umpteenth time, Jan: I don't know. And what I know or don't know is absolutely relevant: how can I say whether something exists or not for me if I don't know what it is like to be aware of it, or don't know how that awareness might manifest, for example? If God is my rumbling stomach at lunch then yes, I am aware of it, and would have always been aware of it even before someone said that it was God. If I do not know whether God exists/Is or not and how God my manifest his awareness if he does exist (or Is), how can I truthfully say whether I am aware of God or not? No, Jan, they are simply the only starting positions you see, given your a priori assumption that God exists/Is. Remove that assumption and you will see that more options open up. Not true. As an atheist I simply have no belief that God actually exists. Some atheists might make the assumptions but personally I make no assumption one way or the other. What does your strawman do, Jan? It's not done to try to "wash", Jan. It is what it is. You are the one who wants atheists to be a certain way, to think certain things, to fit your outdated vision of what an atheist is. You are so desperate for self-labelled atheists to conform to your view of atheism that you ignore what they tell you, and you seem utterly unable to comprehend their actual position. You think it is an effort to "shed the responsibility of what an atheist stands for" but this is what people have been telling you for a long time now: atheism doesn't stand for what you think it does. Have you admitted to having stopped beating your partner? Or are you gag to refuse to admit to a similarly loaded question? I thought so. You are the one who claims I am "without God". From your perspective, your belief, your a priori assumption that God exists, I fully understand why you think that. But it is not my perspective, Jan. There is nothing here for me to admit to. No, I call it dishonest because you know that atheism now has a different meaning to its original usage, and yet despite that you hold everyone who uses the modern meaning to the original meaning, to the extent that you no longer argue the person but the label. You ignore what they say and focus solely on the label they use. It is dishonest, Jan. And I call it as such. From your perspective as someone who believes in God, who holds an a priori assumption that God exists/Is, I fully understand why you might think that. But your assertions hold no more bearing on the actual state of affairs than your belief. Aw, don't say that... you'll hurt his feelings, Jan. There you go again with your dishonesty, claiming yours to be a "proper meaning". Simply put, Jan, your worldview is based on the a priori assumption that God exists. You can only see the definition of words through that worldview, so those that use those words must obviously hold your same worldview, hold the same a priori assumption. No, Jan. Not everyone does have that same a priori assumption. Not everyone uses words with what you see as implicit assumptions of God's existence built in. They use the same words sans those assumptions or implications. But you can't see that because you filter them out due to your a priori assumption. The clothes of an a priori assumption that you would have everyone wear? You're right, Jan, the Emperor isn't wearing those.
Your non-response and attempted deflection is noted for the record. Testing your own assertions for falsifiability would result in debative suicide.
I'm a theist, Sarkus. That means I believe in God. You're an atheist. That means you don't believe in God. There's no argument (as yet) in this discussion, because these are our fundamental positions. I accept that that God Is, you accept (even though you deny it), that there is no God. If I'm expected to explain my position, then I expect you to explain yours. Which argument are you talking about? You don't have say it. It is implied in your position as atheist. If you have no knowledge of God's existence, then there is no God for you, until you gain knowledge of God. Why do you thing that unless you admit there is no God, you remain neutral on the matter? It really is bizarre. As far as you're concerned God either exists, or God doesn't exist. If you have to ask for convincing evidences, arguments, and explanations, then it means as far as you're concerned, there is no God. So God does exist, as far as you're aware. Why didn't you say so? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From your perspective it is an assumption. Obviously because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. Quite right. How can you accept something that doesn't exist, as far as you're aware. You may think you have to acquire knowledge in order to be aware of God, but that is understandable, as you don't currently have a clue. It reminds me of when Bill Clinton looked squarely into the camera, and proclaimed he didn't have sexual relations with that woman (Monica Lewinsky). You can change the common understanding of what ''sexual relations'' mean. But those of us who have had sexual relations know exactly what it means, irrespective of it's new and modern meaning. If being a theist means that one believes in God. Then being an atheist must mean that one does not believe in God. Trying to say that your position is without the belief that I have, is dishonest tactic, designed to make your fence-sitting more comfortable. You don't believe in God, because there is no God for you to believe in. Period. Lame. jan.
Mixing writing theories just doesn't work. That Jan doesn't understand the tautology is its own thing; that you have no idea what you're on about would mean something, except it's probably not especially, or even generally, important. That you require finite, and therefore false, gods in order to satisfy your pedantry is actually kind of funny.
The existence of objects, only exist as long as they last, meaning they cease to exist, as the object, after some time. The definition of God holds that God does not exist the way objects exist. ''God Is'', means that God is what we term as eternal, no cessation in God's being, by definition. Why not go with proper definitions? jan.
More fundamentally it means that I don't hold the belief that God exists. It would require cognitive dissonance on my part to then believe in God. "Argument" as in "reasoning", Jan. Yes, there is an argument, each time we put forth our case. Your reasoning, your argument, seemed to me like defining God into existence. You have simply avoided that issue. Instead you try to turn me highlighting what I see as a flaw into some fallacious implication. Try addressing the flaw in your argument, Jan. Please explain why it is not simply defining God into existence? And no, not believing in God is not my fundamental position. My fundamental position is not holding any a priori assumptions regarding the existence (or Is-ness) or otherwise of God. Put your strawman down, Jan. It's dishonest to keep referring to what your strawman says and attributing it to me. I no more accept that there is no God as I accept that there is a God. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this position, Jan? Why do you assert that it does not exist as a valid position, that everything must conform to your view of either accepting God or accepting that there is no God? Why does the position of "I don't know" scare you so much that you're effectively blind to it, and have to resort to your strawman for guidance? Where have I not explained myself, Jan? If you're unclear on something I've written, just ask. Your argument from post #272: "If God didn't necessarily exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion." No, Jan, it is implied only in your understanding of the label "atheist" that you feel applies to everyone who self-identifies with the term, even if they identify with the modern usage and not your archaic definition that stems from an a priori assumption that God exists/Is. But since you don't listen to them, since you only argue against their label, and argue against it as if it means what you think it means rather than how it is actually used by those who self-identify with it, it is no wonder that you come to the flawed conclusions that you do. No, Jan, you are still arguing black and white. You seem utterly stumped by the notion of "I don't know" that you seem incapable of parsing it, reverting to your strawman's view each time. It is tiresome. It's no more bizarre than being asked if a complex equation equals zero or minus one, and not being able to commit to either option because you don't know what the equation is. If you say that you don't believe it is zero, does that mean that you think it is minus one? No, Jan, it doesn't. I remain neutral on the matter, Jan, because that is my position. I really am sorry that you can't get your head around it. Not every atheist conforms to your caricature of one. Perhaps you can explain how you get from what I said to concluding that God does exist, as far as I'm aware? Then we can perhaps get to the bottom of your difficulty, if it isn't a matter of not grasping logic. You've even previously admitted that it is an a priori assumption, referring to it as your "fundamental position", the epitome of the a priori assumption. So yes, from my perspective, which is that of someone who has read what you've written, it is an assumption on your part. No, Jan. How can I accept something that I have no awareness of whether it exists or not. Maybe the subtlety of the agnostic position is simply too much for you. So how do you propose to know that it is God you are aware of rather than you miscomprehending what you are actually aware of? In order to know that it is God you are aware of, Jan, you do need to know. The clue is in the word. Otherwise all you have is belief that your assumption (that it is God you are aware of) is correct. I.e. Believe to believe. Rather a flawed example, Jan, since those words have not changed meaning. But just like "awful" still means "full of awe", and "silly" still means "worthy or blessed", Jan, you don't get to cherry-pick which words you want to retain the old meaning of. You stick to the archaic meaning because you want it to come loaded with the a priori assumption that God exists/Is. It is all you have. It means, as has been explained to you, not holding the belief that God exists. This, as stated, leads to not believing in God (unless one feels they can believe in that which they don't also believe to exist). You were the one asserting that atheism means "lack of belief" and in this regard it is quite right to say that atheists do lack the belief that you have. You have also tried to assert that the word means "without God" and that comes from you sticking rigidly and fallaciously to the archaic meaning that comes preloaded with the a priori assumption that God exists/Is. And you're back to not listening, or simply being unable to comprehend so reverting to your strawman. It's come to the point where I will leave the two of you to continue your debate alone.
Jan Ardena: But I don't accept your preferred meaning of "atheist". Using your meaning, I could know all the same stuff you claim to know about God, but I would nevertheless choose to deny or reject him for reasons that you haven't made clear. On the other hand, the actual position we find ourselves in is one in which we both, in principle, have the same access to information about God. However, based on what we each know about God, you end up with belief, while I do not. The reason might, in theory, be that I know some things you don't, or vice versa. However, from what you have said, you actually don't believe in God for a reason. From what you have written, it is clear that your belief is based on an a priori assumption rather than any process of reasoning. No. I need to know the objective truth. Like I said, it may not be important to you, but it's important to me. What have I denied? (I also note that I wrote a post not too far above talking specifically about denial, that you ignored. You are very selective about what you choose to respond to, and I notice that your general pattern is to ignore the hard stuff and to write one-liners in response to the rest. I also notice that you don't take points on board. You pretend you never saw them, and you revert back to your straw men, often in your very next post.) What attributes belong to God? And how do you know this? So the problem, as you see it, is only that I'm set in my ways. I think you have a bigger problem than that. Maybe one day you'll start honestly asking yourself some questions about what you really know and what you don't know. Yes. Your argument is that the thing that enables existence itself need not actually exist. It's a fairly tortured kind of argument, on its face. No. You're a theist because you presuppose God. The same cannot be said for all theists. Many theists, for example, will give reasons for why they believe in God, but you don't think you need reasons. Atheism is a conclusion, not an assumption. You can't get there unless you ask the question, and you have no interest in asking the question. I don't think you have a good response. But we don't need to do this in this thread. I started a separate one on this particular question. You can participate in that, or not, as you wish. My strong suspicion is that you have nothing to say on the matter, and if that's the case, that's just fine. Some other theists are responding, anyway. We're not even having that discussion in this thread. You have put no arguments for God here, strong or weak. You simply advocate that people should just believe in God, for no reason. Just assume it from the start, you say, and everything will be all right! You might have a stronger argument for claiming I'm in denial if you actually gave me something to deny. All we have from this thread is my unwillingness to accept your a priori assumption, which is there because there is no reason to accept it. What I insist upon, for myself, is rationality, consistency and reasonableness. It is nice to come across other people who set the same standards for themselves, but I know that there are many who do not. I realise the futility of trying to insist on such things for other people. Why does it matter what I think about the ways in which other theisms differ from yours? We're not debating religious diversity here, but the basics of belief. Of course. Asking the question might create dissonance for you, so you won't ask it. I completely understand why you are afraid. I have already explained my position, several times, at some length. I also understand precisely what your position is. All the battle here is to get you to accept what you have been told about atheists and atheism, instead of this straw-man version you've invented to make yourself feel more comfortable. Firstly, I have told you time and again that I don't know whether God exists or not, but you keep ignoring that; it doesn't suit he straw-man image you have of atheism. Second, I completely accept that (some) people believe in God, and I am quite interested in what are the factors that lead them to hold that belief. I'm not sure why you would imagine I have difficulty accepting the rather obvious fact that people believe all kinds of different things. Third, it could be interesting to hear your theory on why atheists reject/deny God. Maybe you should start a new thread where we can examine your ideas on that. It would give me some additional insight into the particular kind of theist mindset you display. It makes quite a lot of difference to me, actually. If God was actually observed, I would be very interested to learn how that observation could be confirmed, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, if God is merely defined, then my interest lies mainly in the psychology/culture/history/neuroscience/etc. that leads to the idea of God being so prevalent and persistent. I view it from the point of view that we shouldn't accept things in the absence of any evidence. Blame my scientific training or mindset for that, if you like; I make no apologies for that. The only obvious characteristic of atheism, as far as I can tell, is a non-belief in God. What other obvious characteristics of atheists do you have in mind? The belief we're concerned about here is the belief that God exists. I don't have that belief/faith. You do have that belief/faith. Neither of us is "neutral" in terms of that belief - we come down on one side of the line or the other. "Neutral" would be failing to have any belief as to whether or not God is real. As for accountability, I believe I have "accounted for" my belief, in that I have explained why I hold the belief I hold. That's the only kind of accounting needed for a belief. In that sense, you have also accounted for your belief. My explanation happens to be based on reason, while yours is based on a priori assumption. The real difference is only that atheists don't have the God belief that theists have. A separate question is the one about whether God actually exists, objectively. Unless God exists, atheists can't properly be described as "without God" in the sense that you use that term, for reasons that I have explained at length previously. And you continue to fail to make any progress in showing that God exists/"Is".
Therefore, you "don't believe in God". Because God does not exist as far as you're aware. It seems that way to you because you reject, and/or deny God. Why? You can add what you like. But the reality is you don't believe in God, because for you, God does not exist. There's no strawman Sarkus. The fact is you don't accept God, because God doesn't exist in your world. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that for you, God does not exist. Why the denial? You're not being honest. God either exists (your understanding), or God does not exist. For you, God does not exist, but you deny it. Why? P1 Is-ness = cause of existence (call Is-ness what you like. I call it God) P2 If something exist, it exists because of Is-ness. C1 We exist. C2 Is-ness necessarily exists Sarkus, as an atheist, you don't believe in God, so you are "without God". That you do not know whether or not God exists, assumes that there is no God, but you claim to be accepting of a God that you are prepared to believe in, if it is suitable. This reveals that for you, there is no God. The problem with you, is that you believe that theists believe in the idea of God that you hold. The idea that you are prepared to accept if it particularly suitable to your specification. Which is why you need evidences, and explanations. You need these to see if it matches your idea of God. But as long as God is God, you will not accept until you stop being atheist. Of course I listen to modern atheist, designer labels of atheism. But they are always flawed, because the atheist denys and reject God. As a theist, I don't. So it is easy to spot the arbitrary meanings given. As a theist, I can see that atheists do not believe in God, because there is no God for them to believe in. I understand that position perfectly. While you "don't know", God does not exist for you. You live your life as though God doesn't exist, because that is your worldview. You cannot live your life as if you don't know God exists, because your life is current, and your in it. The fact that you think you, again implies that God does not exist as far as you're aware. Wake up Sarkus! You're not "sorry" Sarkus, you are frustrated because your little cover is blown. You now have to consider what I say. Either that, or you can reject and deny it. I get the feeling you don't like lying to yourself. That's fair enough. Same difference. Things exist because of awareness. If we're not aware of something, then that thing does not exist for us. If someone claims that something exists, that we're not aware of, it doesn't suddenly mean that we shift from it not existing, to I don't know if it exists. The thing still doesn't exist. IOW nothing changes, until it changes for real. What? More insults? Now there's a surprise. Belief in God, is a natural attribute that human beings have. You don't need to go and amass knowledge, to accept God. In fact amassing knowledge, for that reason, can have an adverse effect. Because you can fool yourself into thinking that God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence that support God's existence. You can think you now know there is no God, or you can even believe that you are God. Can you think of any important structures that are paramount to our existence and survival that we use at every moment of our existence (lest we die) that the majority of the entire world's population, have no clue about, whatsoever? I know I can. It sparked a debate at the time. "Is oral sex to be considered" sexual relations". If you look up "sexual relations" today, it means having "sexual intercourse". But if you knew your wife was giving out bj's to anyone she felt like, wouldn't you regard her as having sexual relations with other people? Maybe you wouldn't, but I don't know anybody, male, or female, that wouldn't. If that's how you want to put it, fine. But I'm sticking with you do not believe in God, because that's what it actually is. It seems like that to you because God does not exist for you. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to be seen to change your mind, and I'm definitely not going to change mine. Jan.
