Atheism is the punk rock of religion

[Reforged]

I think coming to that conclusion required some thought on it. It's a strong resolve I think.

Likewise theism is only a position on deity. Nothing else. A theist need not be associated with anything else either.

We have something in common, atheists and theists... we both have a position on deity. Position implies reason. We must have thought about it to reach a descision, wouldn't you agree?

People with no position on deity are the only ones who could claim immunity.

Any deity you're thinking of inparticular? We don't have a unique position on each individual deity. We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does.

[fr0d0]

Any deity you're thinking of inparticular?

Nope

We don't have a unique position on each individual deity. We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does.

Us theists have no unique position on any deity either. Neither do we have a unique position on proof, just like atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think he's finally flown the coop.

[Reforged]

Any deity you're thinking of inparticular?

Nope

We don't have a unique position on each individual deity. We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does.

Us theists have no unique position on any deity either. Neither do we have a unique position on proof, just like atheists.

So as a Christian you wouldn't subscribe to the existence of the deity written about in the Bible sometimes referred to as Yahweh?
The existence of which has not been remotely proven unless you count "faith" as proof. Most would not.

[fr0d0]

Who said Christian Raphael? You were talking about theists.

A theist is someone that believes in a god. Nothing else can be implied.

"Most" would rather not use their brains, is another way of saying that

[Reforged]

Who said Christian Raphael? You were talking about theists.

A theist is someone that believes in a god. Nothing else can be implied.

"Most" would rather not use their brains, is another way of saying that

A theist is someone who buys into a particular theology. Your theology is Christianity, your position is therefore Yahweh exists and the Bible is true to the letter. Do you deny this?

"faith/fāTH/
Noun:
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Intelligence is evidently not a prerequisite to faith, that you would mock people for not accepting it instead of proof says more about you than it does about the, none of it positive.
Answer the question or retreat.

[fr0d0]

No Raphael, a theist is someone who believes in a deity. Do you not adhere to your own rhetoric??

Cheery picking the dictionary now I see. Atheiofundy/ atheiotard... I see you haven't updated your religious views to be more accurate

That definition of faith certainly doesn't apply at all to Christians. Nor to most faiths. I'd explain it to you but it'd be a waste of effort. You are demonstrably incapable of serious thought, hence atheism.

For anyone else who happens accross this post...

What is Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Please pretend that you didn't read that Raphael. I wouldn't like you to stop pretending that I run away from questions

[Reforged]

No Raphael, a theist is someone who believes in a deity. Do you not adhere to your own rhetoric??

Cheery picking the dictionary now I see. Atheiofundy/ atheiotard... I see you haven't updated your religious views to be more accurate

That definition of faith certainly doesn't apply at all to Christians. Nor to most faiths. I'd explain it to you but it'd be a waste of effort. You are demonstrably incapable of serious thought, hence atheism.

For anyone else who happens accross this post...

What is Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Please pretend that you didn't read that Raphael. I wouldn't like you to stop pretending that I run away from questions

Pretending? I think people who read this can judge for themselves. Not only did you fail to register a theology is based around a deity thereby making your distinction meaningless but you didn't even make an attempt to answer my question. Instead you went on a long rant trying to convince people that faith is as legitimate a reason for showing certainty in anything as proof, even going so far as to attack the enlightenment itself. A period responsible for some of the most ground-breaking discoveries and innovations ever made. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a desperate, brazen and shameless attempt to sidetrack a subject in my life.
I'm not moved by your insults or your stalling fr0d0, I'm too adult to humour either.

I'll paste it here again in the vain hope you might develop some dignity and actually answer it but I'm not expecting much.
"Your theology is Christianity, your position is therefore Yahweh exists and the Bible is true to the letter. Do you deny this?"

Answer, retreat or further insult the intelligence of everyone here.
Your choice.

[fr0d0]

Are you really this stupid Raphael? lol

Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.

This is in direct contrast to your own assertion that atheists have no other beliefs than disbelief in a deity.

I really can't make this any simpler for you.

[Napoléon]

Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.

Ah but they do. A theist also believes such a god is interactive with the universe.

If they didn't believe that then they'd be a deist.