belief is theism

I am at a loss as to how you are stringing your thoughts together or how they are supposed to form an argument, so instead I will simply refute these statements in the order you have said them. "belief=imaginary=false" What if I have a belief in something that is true? Some people believe in a god, even if he is unprovable. Some people do not believe in that specific god. Both people cannot simultaneously be wrong, so one of the beliefs, while unknowable, is true. "know=physical experience=True(now)" You refer to a posteriori knowledge. What about a priori knowledge? A sphere is a solid three dimensional shape with radius r, which is the equidistance from its center. This is true by its own definition, you do not need a physical sphere to know this. (Indeed, there is no perfect sphere anyhow). "knowledge=Memory=truth" We"ve been over this one, yes. Memory is fallible, and I don"t see the relevancy here, but other than that I addressed knowledge = truth in the previous round. "am i wearing a hat as i type this? you have to imagine it if you believe i am, you are a theist and i am your god, i could also claim its a fact" This is an interesting concept, but that"s not quite how it works. I can believe you are wearing a hat without believing you are a god. It seems like a non sequitur, does it not? You seem to be relying on your claim as a premise again. This is still a fallacy, a claim needs external support outside itself to give it standing. "reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown imagination is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now here now is the limited size of my physical existence" I refer back to my previous statements on a priori knowledge. You can imagine, and know, things outside physical experience. You can also imagine true things. This line of equivalency is untenable. "i dont know=i know, as i dont know is a position i know, and know is real" This is a flat-out contradiction. Something cannot be simultaneously known to you and unknown to you. "everyone is agnostic by default on the god claim, unless they know a god is true or false, but then its not religion becasue no one knows god, the agnostic position becomes specifik, i accept i dont know (on a higher level, only know is true, and i dont know god)" A quick poll of theists would probably show a significant portion that believe in their deity but do not claim to know, per your definition, his existence. Do you mean to claim that these people do not count as practicing a religion? "if you believe, then you dont accept you dont know" This is untrue. As I gave example of in the previous round, you can believe in something you don"t know. Do you have any argument to back up this claim? "theist=belief atheist=belief to the contrary agnostic=non belief know=physical experience i dont have to imagine gravity" Are these new definitions or additional ones? You"ve made an interesting stew of equivalencies. Given your equations so far, I could say agnostic = non belief = dis belief = atheist = I accept imagination = theist = belief? That is all rather contradictory. It gets even worse if you allow the equation to substitute into itself, since belief = all those things, one of which is disbelief. Consider especially the following continuation: Belief = theist = I accept imagination = atheist. There you have it, belief is not theism, as you claim in this debate, but atheism! The exact opposite! "belief=belief in god=theism" The fact that you have to specify "in god" in your own argument is rather telling. What if it is belief in that mustard is the best condiment? Or belief in the tooth fairy? These are beliefs that are not beliefs in god. "i am saying, atheism is theism in itself. look, belief is doubt, so believing god is false is doubting god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true" A theism is theism in itself? Belief is doubt? What are you saying? Pro"s arguments are an amalgam of incomprehensible, baseless claims and attempts to apply principles of mathematics to words and phrases. He has given a rebuttal to my argument nor supplied an argument of his own that is not self-contradictory or holds the conclusion as the premise.