Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it.
Then there wouldn't be any commonality to speak of when discussing the subject.

So? To limit discussion to those with which we have commonality would be to limit our discussions to those who believe only what we believe. That would be a) boring, b) limiting, and c) ensure that we never challange our own conceptions.

Indeed, it is exactly what many religions encourage, in order to keep their flock from drifting laugh

I would agree with your reply in principle....
Yet your words:
Originally Posted By: geek
Doesn't exist = no words

and your previous comments don't imply that you are bored, nor challenged by the word God, and that any concepts are already known and cancelled by current understanding and data.

You've already assigned a face value to the word and any concepts around the word associated with my beliefs/experiences/knowledge/understandings and closed the case.
Now this conversation has simply come to be a testimony to the fact that I won't define God and all the reasons that has become unreasonable to you. wink

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!