The tolerant atheist

Dear Glennn, so very glad to hear from you, you see we have had exchanges between us but not consummated.

I like very much that when people get together to think together in search of better knowledge and yes control of reality, they should not ever part company until they have arrived at the last concurrence, in which concurrence both sides have succeeded to be happy with their final concurrence, on the issue of concern when they started off.

So, you want to tell me that atheists do think.

And my thesis is that atheists don't think, they emote.

Here is my gambit, tell me what is your concept of yourself as an atheist, on the assumption that you identify yourself as one.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what reaction Glennn has for me in my present post here.

Will he tell me what is his concept of his being an atheist, or he will go into something else not connected at all with the question from me, “What is your concept of being an atheist?”

Actually, I was under the impression that theists emote. The term, atheist, is used to denote one who does not believe in the god. There is as much validity to the notion that theists don't think as there is to the notion that atheists don't think. But there is no basis for either assumption.

Do you have an emotional investment in the idea that there is a god?

Dear Glennn, I asked you to tell me what is your concept of your being an atheist, on the assumption that you are one.

You have not done that.

You just go into claiming atheists to be thinking and theists to be emoting.

And I don't claim but I am certain I know the fact: atheists emote instead of thinking, in re God exists or not.

Now, suppose you tell me on your thinking prowess that you assuming from me that you are an atheist, what is your concept of an atheist?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and again await with bated breath to see whether Glennn will get busy with thinking, instead of repeating that he opines theists to be emoting and atheists to be thinking, and I the opposite.

This situation is not going to get resolved by us two, unless we do thinking on it, than opining without thinking, i.e. explaining with bringing up truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Okay, please, dear Glennn, are you going to tell me and mankind what is your concept of an atheist? assuming that you are one.

Okay, dear readers here, will Glennn tell us what is his concept of an atheist, assuming that he is one, or go into another thing instead of what I request him to do?

I should have said that I was under the impression that theists emote, too. But I did made it clear that the notion that "atheists don't think" has as much validity as the notion that "theists don't think; which is to say that you are incorrect when you imply that atheists are emotionally motivated, and theists are not. You offered no rationale for such a position.

You make the assumption that if someone doesn't believe in the same source as you believe in, they therefore don't believe in anything besides the physical manifestations of existence. That assumption does not reflect reality.

My concept of an atheist is: one who does not share in the mental images of those who assign personality and characteristics to their conjecture.

Dear Glennn, I am asking you whether I am correct in assuming you to be an atheist.

Are you indeed an atheist, because we cannot get connected when I don't know what you are, atheist or not.

So, again I am asking you, assuming that you are an atheist, what is your concept of yourself being an atheist, please just don't keep on and on and on talking with third person impersonal anonymity in limbo (see below in Annex), on what is an atheist.

Please make a declaration to the effect that you ascertain to me that you are an atheist or not.

If not, then what are you at all, if anything.

I don't like to talk with posters who do nothing but deal in third person impersonal anonymity sentences in limbo, see Annex below.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what is the reaction of Glennn to my present post.

Will he be into third person impersonal anonymity sentences again in limbo?

Instead of affirming my assumption that he is an atheist, and wherefore telling me what is his concept of an atheist from his own personal part of being an atheist.

Annex

Perhaps this would be the time for you to define atheist for me.

So now we will wait to find out what Sus' definition of an atheist is in order that we might discover whether or not I fit the description. If, or when, he complies, perhaps he will also treat us to his rationale for deciding that theists think, but atheists don't. I have asked him to explain himself concerning his rationale for thinking such a thing, but so far he has evaded the question--pretending that it was never asked. I have seen this kind of thing before.

Okay, dear Glennn, from my own personal observation and from whence insight-ing into atheists, they are into evasiveness, and in effect what I call the cult of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, on the issue God exists or not; AND illogically concluding to the non-existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, now, dear Glennn, it is your turn to tell me what if you are an atheist, what you yourself think of yourself from your very own personal examination of yourself, is your concept of what you are as an atheist, in particular your explanation on how you get to become an atheist.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness, whether Glennn will tell us from his own examination of himself as an atheist, how he comes to the self-identification as an atheist.

I did not come to identify myself as an atheist. Other humans--including you--are the ones who chose to identify me as an atheist. I had no part in it.

Now, as far as I can tell--since you refuse to define the word, atheist--you believe that anyone who doesn't share your belief in the mental image to which you have assigned the role of creator to is an atheist. In that case, I am an atheist to you. You have also deemed anyone who doesn't share a belief in your created image of a creator as incapable of thinking. Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that holding such a crystalized concept of a creator has caused you to become limited in your thinking; that is, one-dimensional in your vision?

However, if you are simply assigning the name God to the life force behind that which is, then I have no problem with that. It's when you presume to assign personality and characteristics to something too vast for your three dimensional mind to embrace that I have a problem with. But in reality, it's not really my problem; it's yours.

So, to sum up, I do not believe in the image of a creator that you have created for your own purposes. Also, I don't believe that defying you is a sign that I cannot think.

Dear Glennn, you say: "Now, as far as I can tell--since you [Susmariosep] refuse to define the word, atheist..."

That is not the fact, I have defined for myself what is an atheist, see below, and rewrite your post.

Dear readers, this is the trouble with Glennn, he does not know how to read; let us all now sit back and await with bated breath to witness the reaction of Glennn, will he exhibit himself as a literate person or not?

That's not the definition of an atheist. It's a childish, overt insult to anyone who doesn't believe in the particular mental image of a creator you've created for yourself; it is your way of expressing your discontent and frustration with those who disagree with your concept of a god. Further, it is your way of deliberately quelling any real communication, since you must understand that no one wants to discuss anything with someone whose opening comment is that atheists lack intelligence and therefore cannot think.

Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't understand the effects of your personal insults against those you claim to want to talk with? How would you feel if I told you that I desire to have a nice discussion about reality, but started out by telling you that theists have a mental condition which prevents them from thinking straight?

You are missing something. Sus has worked out that insults are one way of getting responses and that's all he's neurotically here for having been thrown out elsewhere.
He'll string you along as long as you have the energy to respond.

You assume that , by asking readers to sit and await someone to respond to your dumass presumptuous questions, you have something valuable to offer . And, besides, you further incorrectly conclude that anyone here even gives a **** about what you have to say.

I'm not missing anything. I know how to corner anyone. Call it word chess. Keeps me honed.

Okay, Glennn, you have not come up with your very own personally thought up concept of what is an atheist.

I will react to you on that, when I see it, okay?

Just put your concept at the top of your next post addressed to me.

Firstly, my concept of the word atheist is exactly that; it's a word. And that word is what you use to label those who don't share in your mentally constructed image of a creator being. To put it succinctly, you're having difficulty understanding that an atheist is simply one who doesn't share your belief in a creator being, and you take exception to such people. That is no one's problem but your own. And I have no doubt that you will continue to pretend that you didn't hear me tell you what an atheist is, and will ask again. That, too, is no one's problem but your own. I can't help you with your hostile attitude towards people who don't share in your personal beliefs.

You have degraded your position to the point where you willfully and zealously indulge in ridicule and insults, and then pretend that you don't know why people will not discuss anything with you. To illustrate my point, consider your definition of the atheists whom you claim to invite to discuss atheism:

". . . atheists, they are into evasiveness, and in effect what I call the cult of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, on the issue God exists or not; AND illogically concluding to the non-existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

With such an opening preamble as an invite, how can you reasonably expect the people you call atheists to enter into a friendly discussion. Will you now pretend to not recognize the hostility in your definition of atheists? I think you will.

Dear Glennn, at this point in time I like very much to seek from you what is your thinking on the issue God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

From my part, the point that I am always into getting people to comment on, is that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what is Glennn's reaction to my thought, namely, what does he think of my point that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Will he contribute a comment that is of relevant cognitive orientation to my point, namely, that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

Or he will go into a direction that has no relevancy to my point, namely: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

Dear Glennn, when you write to react to my present post, please just tell me what is your point, in re commenting to my point, that God is in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Please abstain from the urge to tell me that you have already told me, whatever it is, you have already told me.

Just whatever it is that you have already told me, just tell me in your next post, whatever it is you have already told me, spelling it out in words, that do not make up the thought namely, literally: to the effect that you have already told me.

You see, dear readers here, that is one ruse that malicious posters resort to, in order to not get linked up productively with me, but to just engage in useless waste of the forum's bandwidth but still satisfying themselves, that they still put up their useless presence in the dialogue of concern.

From my part I am telling you that my point in this thread is that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to witness what is the reaction of Glennn to my present post, namely:

My present post is to stir up Glennn to contribute a relevant cognitive comment to my point that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

I do not believe that there is a personal being that is the source of all that is. I believe that the cause of all that is is beyond your comprehension, and mine as well.

It is apparent that you believe that you have identified a being that is responsible for all that is. So why don't you describe that being, and then tell me all about it?

Dear Glennn, you say:
"I do not believe that there is a personal being that is the source of all that is. I believe that the cause of all that is is beyond your comprehension, and mine as well."

Tell me how you get to comprehend something to exist at all, okay?

As I function, I encounter this and that. Why do you ask?

Now why don't you describe that being, and then tell me all about it?