belief is theism

You have hardly touched upon the actual topic of this debate and you’ve hardly responded to anything I’ve said in a meaningful way. I’d like to think more of your posts, but it’s hard to justify saying that you’re anything other than someone who uses DDO as a venue to do something similar to preaching and proselytizing in an obscure form of language which you seem to believe that others should be forced to adopt in order to communicate with you. I’ve already shown examples of how your particular brand of wordplay adds nothing to the content of what you’re saying and only obfuscates the meaning. I believe that you are capable of normal speech, and I have seen some evidence of this in your posts elsewhere. What is your purpose for obfuscating your meaning in this obscure form of language? What do you believe it adds? Is this just your way of trolling, or are you deluded into thinking that if you make your statements sufficiently ambiguous they will seem more profound? You would perhaps find greater acceptance with less educated new-age hippies on acid (you may want to avoid the psychonauts who are also scientists or science students) who inject their own meaning onto the ambiguity you excrete and misattribute to you the wisdom that you perhaps desire to be perceived to have. Not that I believe this of you, but you certainly come across as the type to me, so far. The debate is about whether belief is equivalent to theism. Since you haven’t addressed it, I will repeat my argument from Round 1. Argument 1: Belief is not a subset of theism, but theism is a subset of belief. There are infinite possible beliefs one could hold which are either unrelated to theism, or contradictory to theism. However, theism, being the belief that there is a god, is, as just stated, a belief. Therefore, while theism is a belief, belief is not theism as not all beliefs are theistic. One relevant example is the anti-theist position, which is the belief that there is no god. I wonder whether Pro will argue that anti-theism is theism. Responses I’ve been more than fair with responding to your blind, unjustified, unintelligent, and barely intelligible assertions. They don’t require an actual response any more than flat-earth evangelists require a scientific debate. Since you barely respond to anything I say, you certainly haven’t earned much of a response. But I’ll respond to some of it, because of how absurd it is. One of your main arguments is that something is only true if you know it to be true, and anything that is believed to be true is false. I’ve already addressed how this necessarily undermines any rational world view, even if we pretend it makes sense. This precludes the possibility of anything that is not known becoming known. And since truth is dependent entirely on what we already know, what you’re saying, translated into English anyway, is that the only things that are known are those things which you are born knowing. Everything else is false, and nothing else can ever be known. Do you believe this, or does your own ambiguity undermine your own intentions as well? You also say that events in the past must be remembered, but since memory isn’t perfect, we must inject our belief into those memory to fill in missing details. I agree with this completely. But you believe that what is happening in the present moment can be called knowledge because perception doesn’t have this flaw the memory has. That is incorrect. Perception has the same issue. Since your brain cannot process everything in your environment, it uses its belief/expectation about the current state of the environment to fill out the details of a lossy compression of what is actually perceivable. You can refer to almost any introductory neuroscience textbook to read about that [1]. “a blind man cant see reality, is absolute. logic is absolute.” That’s only a black-and-white interpretation of blindness. Most people categorized as ‘blind’ are partially sighted. “you still dont know wheather i was holding a rock or not, you never will as the past is impossible and know is now” That is why I said, “I don’t know”. Perhaps you will pick up on it this time. “now=reality loop 1 second or less” I disagree. Half a second ago is the past. “i can at best believe what others tell me, unless the are speaking of something here now, like i know i am typing these Words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it” Do you know it? To what extent do you really know it? It can’t be an illusion of some kind? A hallucination? Your black-and-white thinking about this issue is causing problems for you here. You are partially imagining it. When you look at a screen, or a painting, or in the mirror, what you are seeing is a blend of your brain’s perception of reality and your imagination. Again, introductory neuroscience [1]. “facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now” The past may not have material existence in the present, but misusing words doesn’t change the reality that the present is at least partially dependent on the past. “=(is)+(and)” You finally tell us what you mean by your symbols. Are you too lazy to type out the extra few characters? Those symbols are not simply short-forms for ‘is’ and ‘and’. In the mathematics ‘+’ is not the same as ‘and’. Perhaps you believed those were the same thing and were wrong. “so i am saying, information is separation is god is religion, as they can not exist without each other” Dependency is not equivalency. The exact same reasoning says that you are your mother because you cannot exist without her. Are you your mother? “how can i seperate without informaiton, how can god exist without religion and so on.. its the same” It almost has meaning if you cherry-pick the best possible interpretations from what you said. Don’t forget, you also said that information is god (we all have gods in our hard drives), god is separation, and religion is information. “you are trying to squeeze out the i dont know position..... just think about that for a minute, what is my moms name? ow you disbelieve i have a mom, well sir i shall do battle with Pictures of my mom and me!” No. If you reread the last couple of rounds, I am trying to prevent you from squeezing out the ‘I don’t know’ position. I don’t have a belief about your mom’s name because I don’t know your mom’s name. “if you look at the claim, what are your options, either you believe(i claim its a nice rock from the Beach with holes), disbelieve the claim(maybe im lying) or maybe i dont have hands and i sit in a Wheel chair typing with a straw in my mouth, or maybe i am a bot programmed to make you think i am human............. am i holding a rock in my hand?” We’ve already gone over this one. But I just wanted to say that I don’t believe you’re a bot, because a bot would do a better job. “i have no beliefs. ok listen, whenever you experience matter beyond now, tell me about it, ...” I’m not sure what you’re trying say. But yes, I do have beliefs about some things. It is probably impossible not to. The human brain cannot even perceive the world without some level of belief involved [1]. “atheism is antitheism, there is no other option...” See? You are trying to eliminate the “I don’t know” position. “you are missing the main point, belief is theism, ergo belief in anything is belief in god, a World creator” You are missing the main point of the debate. You are supposed to be explaining how any of that is true. But I guess we now know that you believe in a god. 1) Theism = yes, there is a god 2) Antitheism = no, there is no god 3) I don’t know, but I believe = I don’t know whether there is a god or not, but I believe there is 4) I don’t’ know, and I don’t believe = I don’t know whether there is a god or not, and I don’t actively believe there is Atheism = 2 and/or 4 (2 U 4) [1] Carlson, N., R. (2007). Physiology of Behavior, 9th edition. Pearson Education Inc: Boston, MA.