belief is theism

I would first amend a typo I have made. The last sentence of last round should read "He has NOT given..." I will continue with the previous round"s format, as the arguments, and I use that term loosely, you have laid forth are no different in nature than the previous round"s arguments. "beLief=Nothing kNow=something matter is true, information is false and truth belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, only know is true know=true, not truth, not knowledge" Information is false and truth? Only know is true but I don"t know is also true? Would you like to explain your reasoning behind these statements? They are both contradictory and seemingly unsubstantiated. I could say vi_spex=false, but simply because I say that doesn"t make it true. I must substantiate the claim. "truth can only be in the past, now is true" Now is not in the past. How can now be true if truth can only be in the past. More importantly, how did you reach this conclusion? This seems to run tangent to the initial claim. "math is absolute, but if i imagine the sphere it dosnt make a sphere true, its just imaginary believing me, is me being your god, creating your world, as i didnt wear a hat, which is to say the reality you thought you knew is really just a unicorn i made to enslave you to my will... :) but, really, i was wearing a hat, and i just enslaved you to my will by you believeing that i wasnt lying about not wearing a hat, so i am your god in either case unless you accept you dont know imagination is false, there is no life, in my imagination, there are not things, in my imagination know is a position i know, how do you know you dont know a dog unless you know you dont know a dog.. no contradiction, i am sure that i know, therfore i am sure that i dont know if i dont know" Ah, but you believe that I believed you weren"t lying about not wearing a hat, so really I am your god! I jest though, since believing something about something does not make the object believed a god. Your examples keep using entities. What if I believe something about an inanimate object, does it then become a god? Regardless, you still have yet to support this claim. Prove to me you are a god, or I must insist you use a different argument. I have shown rather blatantly that beliefs outside of beliefs in deities exist. If you"re going to keep claiming that these objects of belief are actually gods, you must support this in a non-fallacious manner. "accepting that i dont know, is accepting that it is untrue, therfore belief is negated, to go beyond what i dont know is belief, is to not accept that i dont know" Accepting you don"t know something is not accepting it is untrue. I accept I don"t know if you will win this debate. Does this make the statement that you are going to win the debated necessarily untrue? Careful, if you accept that line of reasoning it would mean you are going to lose even if your argument is considered right. "agnostic=non belief=not disbelief and belief=not atheism and theism=i accept reality not imagination" But earlier you said agnostic=I accept reality. Which is it, agnostic or theism? "yees, you got it, theists are atheists and atheists are theists. a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism" I think I am beginning to understand your argument. However, atheism does not equal disbelief it equals disbelief IN GOD. So when you deduct the negative you have belief IN GOD equals theism. As I have stated and shown, there are beliefs in things beside god(s), so belief is not necessarily belief in god and therefore is not necessarily theism. I would outline here that this means you must either provide proof that theism is not belief in god, but simply a belief (which is wrong by your own initial definition of theism) OR that no other beliefs beside beliefs in god(s) exist, which is an absurd claim. "belief in mustard=belief in god" Surely you do not mean to make such a semantic argument that anything with a belief is a god. Then everything becomes a god and is equal. Belief in mayo? Mayo is god. Mustard is also god, so mayo is mustard. This makes the term god pointless and without a useful definition at all. More over, it begs the question and is flies in the face of common sense. "belief there is a nut inside the nutshell in my hand, is belief in god" Still simply no. Just because you say something doesn"t make it true or even arguably true. I refuse to continue bothering to refute unsubstantiated claims when the burden of proof is on you! If you keep asserting claims without evidence I will insist I can dismiss them without evidence. "belief is doubt, an atheist, believe god is false, this DOUBTS, god is false, therfore believes god is true, how else would you doubt that propositon?" " What??? Belief is doubt? Those are antonyms. In summary, this round continues with unsubstantiated and self-contradictory claims by pro that follow no logical conclusion. In addition no attempt has been made yet to refute the counterargument that that beliefs in things beside gods exist except for the absurd claim that everything is god.