A pantheistic argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the belief in god is identical to the belief in the universe then the belief in god is identical to an atheist's belief in the universe - and if the belief is identical, the atheism and theism distinction becomes meaningless in that particular case because the very definition of them being opposites is dependent upon the definition of them being differences of belief.

LOL, people and their "ifs". Are you ever going to get around to turning that "if" into an is, or is this the point where I say "garbage in, garbage out"? If I agreed that the universe was god....then there would be no difference in our beliefs here, and I would no longer be an atheist. I don't agree, you haven't given me any reason why I should agree, and so I still don't believe that god exists. I remain an atheist.

It doesn't matter whether god exists, indeed. But it matters whether the universe is god or not

Not to our beliefs it doesn't. The universe -could- be god and I still might not believe in gods, and similarly the universe may not be god and I may still believe that it is.

because since at least most atheists believe in the universe, if the universe is god,

which is something atheists don't believe......by definition.

that would make their belief identical to the theistic belief of god being the universe.

Except that it isn't identical, atheists don't believe that the universe is god

Because they believe in exactly the same thing: The universe.

See the above

It is merely the label that is different.

The "label" here isn't -just- a label, it's the only qualifier between the two terms.

] That's not the difference between theism and atheism.

It is, but I apologize, I assumed that we were both referencing belief here...I didn't know that I was going to have to spell that out..but seeing as how loose words are becoming maybe I should have known better. There are no gods present in my "beliefs"..there is at least one present in yours.

That's the difference between the truth or falsehood of theism and atheism.

If we were talking gnostic or agnostic [insert whatever you like here] then sure, but we aren't.

Theism and atheism by themselves are about belief/non-belief, not about whether they are right.

Is there a god present in your belief system? Because there isn't a god present in mine, such as it is.

Of course it's a matter of what god is. If atheists believe in the universe, and theists believe that god is the universe, then they both believe in the same thing: the universe.

except that one doesn't believe in god

By your logic if I believed that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" meant "apple" and yet the meaning of "pastafarian" was no different to what it normally is I would be more of a pastafarian than non-pastafarians who believed in apples and just as much of a pastafarian as someone who actually believed that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, in the sense present in the gospel of the FSM.

LOL, no, "by my logic" you would be confused. A person who believes in at least one god is a theist, a person who does not believe in at least one god is an atheist. It is not up to me to define what a god is for you, but if you choose to call it a god, then so be it. This is a problem of your own making that does not apply to me.

Let me try and make this simpler. I'll start from the basics.

The only difference between atheism and theism is belief/non-belief.

-in a god, I''ll keep saying this until it sinks in.

Therefore, if there is no difference between the belief/non-belief of theism/atheism, there is no difference between theism and atheism.

More "ifs", but as it stands there -is- still a difference.

So, whether you label the universe as "god" or not, if in both cases the belief is completely the same because you are believing in the universe in exactly the same way

Trouble is that I am not "believing in the universe in exactly the same way"...-that much should be obvious....

and that is all that is meant by "god" the belief is identical and, therefore, for the reasons stated in the above paragraph, the difference between atheism and theism is none and there is a resulting logical contradiction that makes the whole meaning of theism and atheism collapse.

Is it supposed to be some revelation that so long as a word can be defined, redefined, or tasked in any way one wishes to at any moment that communication loses all meaning?

See above. If I merely define god as "the universe", nothing more and nothing less, and then believe in it in what respect do I believe in something different to you at all?

In that you believe that it is god..and I do not, again, that should be obvious.

I label it as "god", you don't. That is all. The label is different, the belief isn't.

The belief is different in that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.......

So you are saying that even if god meant "the universe" you still wouldn't believe in god? That would imply that you didn't believe in the universe...

More accurately I would flat out state (you'll never need to wonder what I'm implying..I promise) that I find your definition to be ridiculous. We can both agree that the universe exists, while disagreeing on whether or not it is god.

If the very meaning of "god" is "the universe" then if someone asked you "Do you believe in god?" and you replied "No" you would be denying the very existence of the universe.

I suppose I simply expect more out of a god, eh?

If they hinge upon belief in god, they hinge upon belief.

-in a god

Therefore when a theist defines god as "the universe" and an atheist also believes in "the universe"

Does the atheist believe the universe is a god?

they are believing in the same thing, just with different labels. The belief is the same.

except for the god bit eh?

Therefore there is no difference in belief, therefore there is a logical contradiction between theism and atheism because their belief is the same

Except that it isn't the same, eh?

and that cannot be logically possible by definition and so the whole thing collapses completely and becomes meaningless.

I think that would be more of a problem for a person who's definition of a god leads them to both believing in god and not believing in god simultaneously. IE, not me.

I only need to demonstrate that the same particular definition of "god" being addressed is being believed in in both cases.

aaaactually, you'd need to get some agreement from me in the definition you used before you went about telling me that I believed in god...that's fair, don't you think?

If "god" is defined as "the universe" for example, then that means atheists don't believe in the universe.

This atheist doesn't believe in gods, but also thinks that your definition is ridiculous.

But since that isn't true because atheists do believe in the universe we then have a logical contradiction and the whole thing collapses.

Problem is that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt. I understand that you do....but that doesn't really mean much to me.

If I am defining "god" as the universe and you don't believe in that definition of "god" that I'm using - the universe - then you don't believe in the universe.

Think I already handled this but I'll do it again...I don't agree with your definition Doubt........

No, I was demonstrating that if god is defined as something and atheists believe in that something then there is a logical contradiction, so:

If they believed in something, and accepted a definition that termed it god they would not be atheists...

If atheists believe in the universe, and god is the universe, either atheists don't believe in the universe or the theism and atheism dichotomy logically collapses.

OR- atheists don't believe god is the universe...or that the universe is god, eh?

TLDR version, so long as you insist upon robbing words of their meaning at the very outset, anything becomes possible - except communication.....

BTW, you did say that the universe is god, if you didn't mean it I understand. Nevertheless, it was the conclusion of the argument you presented...so at least own it.