Using your meaning, I could know all the same stuff you claim to know about God
How do you work that out?
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.
So what?
However, based on what we each know about God, you end up with belief, while I do not.
Sorry mate. There is no "end up with".
You begin with, and you develop. Whether theist or atheist.
The reason might, in theory, be that I know some things you don't, or vice versa.
So how is this relevant?
However, from what you have said, you actually don't believe in God for a reason.
I don't remember saying that.
From what you have written, it is clear that your belief is based on an a priori assumption rather than any process of reasoning.
From an atheist perspective maybe.
From what you have written, you are without God, and can only discuss God from that perspective.
No. I need to know the objective truth. Like I said, it may not be important to you, but it's important to me.
Go look in the mirror and tell me if you don't see a nose on your face.
As you are an atheist, you can only know atheist stuff, and atheist stuff is lacking.
What have I denied?
I'll point it out as you do it.
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
Most of the time you spend giving idiotic summaries. It doesn't seem to register with you that it is quite rude to talk to others about a person while the person is in the room. So I just ignore it
You don't understand theism, or the subject matter of theism. You just soldier in ignorance. Most of the time you think you explained or responded to a point, but you haven't. Most times you don't understand the point, but you write heaps any way.
In short your posts are too long (though no Tiassa long sheesh!). You have this idea that because you think you have explained something, it is therefore dealt with. That flaw in character is quite amusing.
Just let you know in advance, I don't think I'm going to address all your points, in this post.
What attributes belong to God? And how do you know this?
Already explained.
No. You're a theist because you presuppose God.
No. It's as I said.
Atheism is a conclusion, not an assumption.
Atheism is the natural position for those souls who for whatever reason, want to reject, and/or deny God.
You might have a stronger argument for claiming I'm in denial if you actually gave me something to deny
I only need to speak from a theistic perspective, and you denial radar goes berserk.
Why does it matter what I think about the ways in which other theisms differ from yours?
I'm okay with that response.
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.
Don't worry your secret is safe with me.
When anyone asks what an atheist is, I'll give them one of the many designer labels. Do you have any favourites?
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.
God does not exist, as far as you're aware, James. Unless God does exist.
That is a fact.
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.
Atheist = Without belief in God.
Theist =. Belief in God.
IOW an atheist does not believe in God.
What more is there to know.
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.
Why?
Third, it could be interesting to hear your theory on why atheists reject/deny God.
That is an entire subject by itself. But it can only a successful discussion, or debate, if atheist acknowledge that they do. Otherwise they are simply rejecting, and/or denying. An endless cycle.
If God was actually observed, I would be very interested to learn how that observation could be confirmed, for obvious reasons.
Why are you so adamant that God has to be observed in manner of your choosing, to perceived?
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.
That's nice.
A bit like a little hobby, or something.
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.
You're an atheist first, James.
That's fundamental.
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?
Rejection, and denial of God.
The belief we're concerned about here is the belief that God exists.
That's your concern, not mine.
"Neutral" would be failing to have any belief as to whether or not God is real.
In this case, neutral is not admitting that God does not exist, as far as you're aware, but replacing it with "I don't know if God exists, so I can't say yeah or nay. So the burden of proof is on you because I make no claim.
But for the rest of your atheist life you argue strongly against any positive notions of God. You either mock or ridicule, or you accept such behaviour.
We can see right through you.
My explanation happens to be based on reason, while yours is based on a priori assumption.
Yours is based on ignorance of God, dressed up as reasonable.
You're an atheist.
No matter what information you acquire, it will always be filtered through atheism. You cannot help it.
If you want to change it, you have to stop being an atheist.
Until that happens, we're never going to see eye to eye.
The real difference is only that atheists don't have the God belief that theists have.
From one perspective, yes. But from all perspectives, atheists are without God.
A separate question is the one about whether God actually exists, objectively.
That needs to be discussed with people for whom "existence" is an issue.
Or you can discuss it with me, if I'm in the mood to. But right now I'm getting a lot more enjoyment getting to the nuts and bolts of atheism.
And you continue to fail to make any progress in showing that God exists/"Is".
You're waiting for me to deliver God to you?
You're an atheist James.
As long as you remain so, there is no God for you.
You need to shed the your atheism to change that.
Anthony Flew did, and he became aware of God. You can do it too.
Jan.[/QUOTE]