"atheist" equals "theist"

[Age]

No. I asked you;

1. Why do you believe that my assertion here is a bold assertion?

Yes, I know what words you used.

Well at least 'we' have ascertained that you can 'see' the words that I have used here.

Now, 'we' just have to ascertain if you can understand the words that I use here.As it seems like 'we' are never going to find out 'why' this one believed what it did here.

The fear that this one has here in regards to just answering and clarifying seems to be absolutely debilitating, for it.

It seems beyond your ken the idea that there are the words we use and what the words do in a given context. I was pointing at what you were doing?

Can you understand that difference?

But I do not care, at all, what you were assuming or believing here, and what you are pointing at.

I 'was' just curios as to why you believe what you did, back then.

Also, do you understand that what you, perceived, and were pointing at could be False and/or Wrong, anyway?

Anyway, yes I can understand that you were 'pointing at' what you assumed or believed was true, which might not be at all.

What you do not yet seem to understand here is what you were doing.

You may not agree that what I said is what you were doing, but do you understand that there is what one says, and also there is what one is doing in a specific context with what one says?

Yes. Do you understand that what one says, and what you assume or believe that what 'the other' is doing could be absolutely of your own imagination, only?

Are you aware of that there are two things happening or are you do you think there is only one?

For one who criticizes 'me' for not staying on the 'topic title' of the thread, are you aware of just how often and how much you do this very thing "yourself"?

If you are unable to answer this question and clarify why you believe that my assertion is bold assertion, then so be it.

you also criticize 'me' for continually saying that you use absolute language, when you say you do not. Yet, you continually say that I believe things, although I continually inform you that I do not.

The hypocrisy and contradictions that you show and reveal here are quite amazing considering the job and role that you claim you have in Life.

But, most people 'know' why they believe the things they do. But, that is only if they are prepared to 'look' within "themselves" and be open and honest.

Obviously, one would have to believe things in order for them to 'know' why they believe things.

And, considering the Fact of how many times I have asked you why you believe what you do, and you do not answer nor clarify, at all, then it is quite hypocritical of you, again, to be saying what you are here.

Could you be even more hypocritical as you have just shown and revealed you are here, now?

I justified/explained the title of this thread when I said, and wrote;
Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while, equally, the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people, equally, can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

1) You've just now contradicted yourself.
Elsewhere you said:

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:23 am
Here 'we' have another prime example of one who believes that it is, laughingly, actually possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else in just a few words, which a forum provides.

Yet you claim here that you justified the title of the thread.

Yes, I did.

It appears your reading and comprehension skills are, finally, improving.

If you are going to say 'But I used more than a few words' it was you who introduced the phrase and condition 'few words', not me.

you will, really, not let your own pre-existing beliefs and presumptions get in the way here.

you are so, so far off track here.

So here you are claiming that you justified the title of the thread when it was laughingly ridiculous for me to believe it is possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim.

Once again, because you missed the 'important words' in my sentence, you have missed the whole context of my sentence, and because of your pre-existing beliefs you also have ended up making up and coming up with you very own misinterpreted version here.

I would clarify things for you here, but like the other times I much prefer to leave you in your very own beliefs. That is, until you seek out the actual clarification "yourself".

If you do or not shows and reveals if you have any interest, or not, in others views and perceptions.

2) That's not a justification of the title of the thread. It is a question.

Wow, you are even far more off track than i just previously realized you were.

It certainly implies a kind of justification. But I have noticed that if I respond to what is implied, you deny that you have asserted it. But if you want to offer what is implied there as a possible justification as your justification, you can certainly do that. In that form it will then not end in a question mark.

If you do actually read 'the words' that I write and use here, did you notice that I have now added the 'equally' word, so that you can see and become aware that both "theists" and "atheists" here are 'equal' in....

Now you are starting an actual justification.

And here's a problem right off....

Here you say there are equal in....

No I am not. And, I will leave you to work out why.

And it is a specific way your consider them equal. The thread title is non-specific.

LOL This forum is not big enough for me to put all I want in very specific detail, let alone the threads themselves having enough room, yet here you are expecting me to be 'specific' in just the thread title space alone.

Could you get more critical 'of me' here "iwannaplato"?

And I think you'll notice that several posters react precisely to that general claim.

Who cares?

More than several people reacted in all sorts of ways, and for quite some time, when one was just trying to explain that, 'Actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun'.

This is more or less all one was just trying to explain and get across to a group of people with beliefs, and look at how long it took that one to do just that.

To me, your general claim here is about as significant as that fart that child did about one and a half million years ago outside of a cave somewhere.

Also, within your 'general claim' you have managed to MISS, completely, what I thought was a fairly blatant point that I made. And, if you had not MISSED it, then you would not have made the totally ridiculous remarks and claims that you have just here, now.

And it would not be hard to make the more specific claim in the title space.

Okay, if you say so.

Also, what even is the 'more specific claim' that you claim would not be hard to make in the title space, anyway?

Let 'us' see if you have the ability and/or courage to even just answer this one very tiny little clarifying question asked to you.

[Age]

Age you need a class of philosophy of religion.

Okay. And, if I recall correctly I asked you some clarifying questions, which obviously you could not answer or just did not want to answer for reasons that maybe you are not that well learned up "yourself".

(Words used purposely).

Also noted has been your inability to counter or refute any thing I have actually said, and meant, here.

So, what is 'it' do you believe that I 'need' a class in or of, exactly?

Just saying and claiming that you need a class of 'philosophy of religion' is not really saying any thing at all. Could you get anymore vague here?

Now, what do you suppose that could be taught, to me, in a 'philosophy of religion' class, which you claim I 'need'?

Let 'us' see if you actually 'know' what you claim here.

[Iwannaplato]

The fear that this one has here in regards to just answering and clarifying seems to be absolutely debilitating, for it.

Really? Absolutely debilitating? Anyone who thinks that seems to the case is very confused regarding life or the words they use.

For the rest you keep quoting yourself as if I had said these things, then you respond to yourself.

[Age]

The fear that this one has here in regards to just answering and clarifying seems to be absolutely debilitating, for it.

Really? Absolutely debilitating? Anyone who thinks that seems to the case is very confused regarding life or the words they use.

So, if one claims something 'about you', which you say and believe is not true, then, to you, this then means that the other is confused about life, itself, or about the words that they "them" 'self' use.

Here 'we' have another example of this one again using absolutist language without recognizing when it does.

'We' have an example of if these words were swapped between posters here then it would be a case of me not looking deep enough and not considering what I am doing, or in this case not doing and the reasons for this.

Also, noticed was just how quickly this one, once more, went straight into assuming something, which could have been true or not but jumping to one conclusion only, and then believing that it's chosen assumption and conclusion is the true, right, accurate, and correct one.

Yes, yes this really is what this one does.

For the rest you keep quoting yourself as if I had said these things, then you respond to yourself.

Anyway, as I was saying, and have ve already explained, again, for this one, "atheists" just like "theists" are 'equal" in that they both see 'the world' equally through the lenses if belief. They just happen to be opposing beliefs here, though.

[Iwannaplato]

So, if one claims something 'about you', which you say and believe is not true, then, to you, this then means that the other is confused about life, itself, or about the words that they "them" 'self' use.

No, I never said that. I said that claiming that I or someone else who is obviously not absolutely debilitated is absolutely debilitated or even seems to be...that person is confused.

For some reason you draw a conclusion, starting as many conclusions do with the word 'So' and ridiculously generalizes what was clearly and obviously a specific claim about what someone had said about me, someone who can see that I am capable, for example, of writing posts and cannot possibly be absolutely debilitated at the times this is and was being written.

A person who is not confused and who spent even a moment thinking about the phrase they used 'absolutely debilitated' would understand I don't seem that way to them.

[Age]

So, if one claims something 'about you', which you say and believe is not true, then, to you, this then means that the other is confused about life, itself, or about the words that they "them" 'self' use.

No, I never said that.

Are you aware that there is 'a difference: between what one says, and writes, from what one is or could be meaning?

So, when one says that 'that' is, or is not, 'what I said', in a written word based place like this one here is, then anyone can just 'look back' to 'see' what was actually written, thus said. Therefore, one just has to look back here to see what the actual Truth is here.

But, when one says that that was, or was not, what they were meaning or meant, then this is a whole other, different, thing and matter.

What 'you said', was what you,actually, wrote here. But, what 'you meant' might be a whole other, actual, thing.

I said that claiming that I or someone else who is obviously not absolutely debilitated is absolutely debilitated or even seems to be...that person is confused.

Are you sure that 'this' is what you said?

Remember, one only has to :look back', to 'see' what 'you, actually, said'.

For some reason you draw a conclusion, starting as many conclusions do with the word 'So'

Well,. considering the Fact that the word 'so', literally, means, implies, infers, or indicates that what follows has been concluded, or is the conclusion, then I would find it not surprising that many conclusions do start with words like, 'so', or 'thus', or 'therefore' or other words that indicate a conclusion has been made and is just about to be expressed, directly.

and ridiculously generalizes what was clearly and obviously a specific claim about what someone had said about me, someone who can see that I am capable, for example, of writing posts and cannot possibly be absolutely debilitated at the times this is and was being written

But, as can be clearly seen by what I said and by the the actual words that I have written and used here, I was not talking about nor referring to your ability to post nor write at all. Obviously you have once more, missed what what I was actually talking about and referring to, exactly.

I will, again, leave it up those with interest to ask me for clarification here..

A person who is not confused and who spent even a moment thinking about the phrase they used 'absolutely debilitated' would understand I don't seem that way to them.

Why are you using the words 'absolutely debilitated' on their own hee and not in context with absolutely anything else?

Have you, once again, 'successfully:, done what you usually do, and that is read a few or so words, then start assuming and jumping to a conclusion that I am meaning some thing, which I am not, which then blocks your ability to read and comprehend my further words, in the way that I have actually meant them?

After all you have been missing, misinterpreting, and/or misunderstanding quite a lot of what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

Will you explain to the readers here why you are seeing those two words here, alone, and talking about them not in context with what I obviously actually said, and wrote, here, and thus not in relation to what I obviously meant?

If no, then why not?

Obviously you, "iwannaplato", are obviously not 'absolutely debilitated', full stop.

Obviously you are also not 'absolutely debilitated' in writing posts, in the days when this is and was being written, as you, "yourself', alluded to.

But, I was never talking about those things, as can be clearly seen by what I said, and wrote, previously here.

[puto]

Age, you are a negative person. I feel sorry for you. You need help mentally. I would give you the hand-out you so desire what would that accomplish? You need a hand-up and that would be college level classes in literature and philosophy. Good travels to you.

[Iwannaplato]

So, if one claims something 'about you', which you say and believe is not true, then, to you, this then means that the other is confused about life, itself, or about the words that they "them" 'self' use.

No, I never said that. I said that claiming that I or someone else who is obviously not absolutely debilitated is absolutely debilitated or even seems to be...that person is confused.

For some reason you draw a conclusion, starting as many conclusions do with the word 'So' and ridiculously generalizes what was clearly and obviously a specific claim about what someone had said about me, someone who can see that I am capable, for example, of writing posts and cannot possibly be absolutely debilitated at the times this is and was being written.

A person who is not confused and who spent even a moment thinking about the phrase they used 'absolutely debilitated' would understand I don't seem that way to them.

Oh, and likewise 'absolutely debilitating'. I do rush.
That my fear (which by the way he simply asserted was presented as causal) seems absolutely debilitating indicates someone who has taken leave of their senses or when making stuff up, like to go extreme. And, of course, something that you have that is absolutely debilitating you leads to you being absolutely debilitated.

[Age]

Age, you are a negative person.

So, 'this claim' is made. But, I wonder if this one has absolutely any thing that actually backs up and supports this view and/or belief of this one. Do you "puto"?

If yes, then will you provide it/they?

If no, then why not?

Also, "puto", you are a negative person, as well as a not very intelligent one. Full stop.

I feel sorry for you. Full stop.

you need help mentally. Full stop.

I feel sorry for you. You need help mentally.

I would give you the hand-out you so desire what would that accomplish?

Again, absolutely no information provided at all about any so-claimed 'desired help', by me, but just a question mark, instead of a full stop this time, at the end. But, what the question is in relation to, exactly, absolutely no one else, besides "puto" knows, because only "puto" itself knows what the 'hand-out that I, supposedly, desire here is, exactly.

You need a hand-up and that would be college level classes in literature and philosophy. Good travels to you.

And what is that those who finish what you call 'college level philosophy' actually come out 'knowing', that they did not previously, and are 'now', supposedly, capable of doing, which they could not previously?

Learning what you human beings have written over thousands of years, and being instructed on how one views those writings or presumes those writings meant is not some thing that really interests me at all. Especially considering the fact that what all of these people were trying to ascertain and understand, exactly, is already 'known'.

[Age]

So, if one claims something 'about you', which you say and believe is not true, then, to you, this then means that the other is confused about life, itself, or about the words that they "them" 'self' use.

No, I never said that. I said that claiming that I or someone else who is obviously not absolutely debilitated is absolutely debilitated or even seems to be...that person is confused.

For some reason you draw a conclusion, starting as many conclusions do with the word 'So' and ridiculously generalizes what was clearly and obviously a specific claim about what someone had said about me, someone who can see that I am capable, for example, of writing posts and cannot possibly be absolutely debilitated at the times this is and was being written.

A person who is not confused and who spent even a moment thinking about the phrase they used 'absolutely debilitated' would understand I don't seem that way to them.

Oh, and likewise 'absolutely debilitating'. I do rush.
That my fear (which by the way he simply asserted was presented as causal) seems absolutely debilitating indicates someone who has taken leave of their senses or when making stuff up, like to go extreme. And, of course, something that you have that is absolutely debilitating you leads to you being absolutely debilitated.

This one, still, appears to have completely and utterly MISSED what the words 'absolutely debilitating' were, and still are, in reference and in relation to, exactly.

But, this is a natural result when one reads some words, has a 'reaction', starts assuming some thing, and/or starts jumping to conclusions, the following words sometime are not comprehended nor understood in what they actually meant or are actually in reference to, or the following words are just missed, completely. As this one is continually showing and proving can happen quite often when one is assuming, concluding, and believing things before actual clarity is obtained first.

[Iwannaplato]

No, I never said that. I said that claiming that I or someone else who is obviously not absolutely debilitated is absolutely debilitated or even seems to be...that person is confused.

For some reason you draw a conclusion, starting as many conclusions do with the word 'So' and ridiculously generalizes what was clearly and obviously a specific claim about what someone had said about me, someone who can see that I am capable, for example, of writing posts and cannot possibly be absolutely debilitated at the times this is and was being written.

A person who is not confused and who spent even a moment thinking about the phrase they used 'absolutely debilitated' would understand I don't seem that way to them.

Oh, and likewise 'absolutely debilitating'. I do rush.
That my fear (which by the way he simply asserted was presented as causal) seems absolutely debilitating indicates someone who has taken leave of their senses or when making stuff up, like to go extreme. And, of course, something that you have that is absolutely debilitating you leads to you being absolutely debilitated.

This one, still, appears to have completely and utterly MISSED what the words 'absolutely debilitating' were, and still are, in reference and in relation to, exactly.

But, this is a natural result when one reads some words, has a 'reaction', starts assuming some thing, and/or starts jumping to conclusions, the following words sometime are not comprehended nor understood in what they actually meant or are actually in reference to, or the following words are just missed, completely. As this one is continually showing and proving can happen quite often when one is assuming, concluding, and believing things before actual clarity is obtained first.

This one still thinks that the phrase 'absolutely debilitating', for example in reference to the effects of fear, would be in relation to one thing, the 'what the words were in reference and in relation to.' This one uses absolutely quite often, when compared to other posters here, but doesn't seem to realize that someone with an absolutely debilitating fear would not simply be stopped from performing a certain verbal act. Even describing that as a debilitating fear would be a stretch. But an absolutely debilitating fear would have global effects in a person.

And this is not even getting into Age's poor psychoanalytic skills, and of course interprets the actions of others in ways that support his own biases and needs in a conversation.

It is beyond his ability to consider that I know what he meant was the effect of this hypothetical fear and the debilitation it caused, but focused on the absurdity of his claim, given that phrase. As usual this one makes many assumptions.

If someone doesn't do what he asks for, he will announce they are afraid to do it and/or can't do it. These are the only possible motives.
And sometimes claims that their not doing this proves his assertions are correct, which is confused in a numbers of ways mentioned in earlier posts.

[accelafine]

'God' with a capital 'G' is a character in a book, and in that book the character known as 'God' is a 'male' (how surprising). Do you also find it strange that Voldemort is referred to as 'he'?
In English, proper nouns are always capitalised.
Hope this clears up your confusion

[Age]

Oh, and likewise 'absolutely debilitating'. I do rush.
That my fear (which by the way he simply asserted was presented as causal) seems absolutely debilitating indicates someone who has taken leave of their senses or when making stuff up, like to go extreme. And, of course, something that you have that is absolutely debilitating you leads to you being absolutely debilitated.

This one, still, appears to have completely and utterly MISSED what the words 'absolutely debilitating' were, and still are, in reference and in relation to, exactly.

But, this is a natural result when one reads some words, has a 'reaction', starts assuming some thing, and/or starts jumping to conclusions, the following words sometime are not comprehended nor understood in what they actually meant or are actually in reference to, or the following words are just missed, completely. As this one is continually showing and proving can happen quite often when one is assuming, concluding, and believing things before actual clarity is obtained first.

This one still thinks that the phrase 'absolutely debilitating', for example in reference to the effects of fear, would be in relation to one thing, the 'what the words were in reference and in relation to.'

Of course.

Do you believe that the effects of fear would not be 'absolutely debilitating' in stopping one from doing that one thing and/or from other things?

This one uses absolutely quite often, when compared to other posters here, but doesn't seem to realize that someone with an absolutely debilitating fear would not simply be stopped from performing a certain verbal act.

This one, once again, is 'trying' its absolute hardest to 'try to' 'justify' its obviously 'unjustifiable' misinterpretation here.

Now, obviously one with an 'absolutely debilitating fear', which is stopping them from doing one thing, only, would not simply be stopped from performing something else, entirely. Which is the 'misinterpretation' this one first took, but which is now, desperately, 'trying to' deflect away from, here, and on to some other thing else, here.

Even describing that as a debilitating fear would be a stretch. But an absolutely debilitating fear would have global effects in a person.

What a Truly weird, nonsensical, and irrational belief and/or claim to have and to make here.

Obviously, some human beings are not able to do some thing or things because of an 'absolutely debilitating fear' over or for that 'thing/s', which is 'self-explanatory' to most. This 'fear', which 'debilitates', absolutely, is sometimes also known as an 'irrational fear'. But, if 'any fear' stops one from doing some thing, like for example, being open and honest in answering a clarifying question, because of 'some, irrational fear', then process, or non process, as 'absolutely debilitating'.

I am not sure what seems to be the 'actual issue' here, again, with this one, this time.

And this is not even getting into Age's poor psychoanalytic skills, and of course interprets the actions of others in ways that support his own biases and needs in a conversation.

Has anyone even began 'getting into' 'yours', "iwannaplato"?

It is beyond his ability to consider that I know what he meant was the effect of this hypothetical fear and the debilitation it caused, but focused on the absurdity of his claim, given that phrase. As usual this one makes many assumptions.

So, what was 'the claim', exactly, which 'you claim' is absurd?

If someone doesn't do what he asks for, he will announce they are afraid to do it and/or can't do it.

Once more, here is another prime example of just what this one misses, exactly. Either 'on purpose', or 'unknowingly'.

These are the only possible motives.

This is obviously False and Wrong. As proved by 'my words' in this forum.

And sometimes claims that their not doing this proves his assertions are correct, which is confused in a numbers of ways mentioned in earlier posts.

Once more, another False claim, by "iwannaplato".

[Iwannaplato]

Of course.

Do you believe that the effects of fear would not be 'absolutely debilitating' in stopping one from doing that one thing and/or from other things?

In nearly all cases, no it would not be. Or no one would be doing anything. But, nice vague contextless question.

This one, once again, is 'trying' its absolute hardest to 'try to' 'justify' its obviously 'unjustifiable' misinterpretation here.

More mind reading attempts with more silly uses of 'absolutely'.

Now, obviously one with an 'absolutely debilitating fear', which is stopping them from doing one thing, only, would not simply be stopped from performing something else, entirely. Which is the 'misinterpretation' this one first took, but which is now, desperately, 'trying to' deflect away from, here, and on to some other thing else, here.

Go back to what you originally said and you will that you are rewriting history for your own convenience.

Even describing that as a debilitating fear would be a stretch. But an absolutely debilitating fear would have global effects in a person.

What a Truly weird, nonsensical, and irrational belief and/or claim to have and to make here.

Obviously, some human beings are not able to do some thing or things because of an 'absolutely debilitating fear' over or for that 'thing/s', which is 'self-explanatory' to most.

Same rewriting of history, adding in specific that were not there. Nice argument from incredulity.

This 'fear', which 'debilitates', absolutely, is sometimes also known as an 'irrational fear'. But, if 'any fear' stops one from doing some thing, like for example, being open and honest in answering a clarifying question, because of 'some, irrational fear', then process, or non process, as 'absolutely debilitating'.

It makes no literal sense. And we know how much you have distaste for the tropic.

I am not sure what seems to be the 'actual issue' here, again, with this one, this time.

Finally, he is unsure of something.
He knows I didn't do what he wanted me to do because of fear. (there could not be, in his mind, other motives, for examples ones pointed out by a number of posters, for not responding the way he prefers)
He knows that this fear is absolutely debilitating.
He knows that I am 'trying' my absolutely hardest to...etc.
But finally he can admit he doesn't know something.

If only some human beings back in the day this was written could have managed not to pretend that were psychic.

[Age]

'God' with a capital 'G' is a character in a book,

To you maybe.

To some others God is an actual "he". And,

To some other ones God is an actual human being.

But, what the word God could have been actually referring to, exactly, is even different again.

and in that book the character known as 'God' is a 'male' (how surprising). Do you also find it strange that Voldemort is referred to as 'he'?
In English, proper nouns are always capitalised.
Hope this clears up your confusion