"atheist" equals "theist"

[Age]

Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Also, some of these people refer to God as a "he".

Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?

[LuckyR]

It is an error to treat beliefs and claims (which imply knowledge) equally. They're quite different.

[Dubious]

Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Also, some of these people refer to God as a "he".

Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?

In Western culture, meaning the one based on the bible, the OT god is always depicted as some old guy with a beard while the historical Jesus was clearly a 'he' after all. All this Hebrew stuff is all so very patriarchal, ancient and proprietary. Of course, no such humanly conceived bilateral conceptions can ever remotely amount to being a god, if any such thing were required to begin with. The Islamic version is very like the Jewish one, on which it's based, stripped of all its human attributes, the I AM THAT I AM connotation being imageless denoting a complete abstraction. The one who 'carries' the image is, in effect, the prophet himself, a male, whose depiction is also disallowed.

God as a cosmic entity, not belonging to anyone, can best be denoted as an ungenderized IT...at least in English.

[Age]

It is an error to treat beliefs and claims (which imply knowledge) equally. They're quite different.

I do not recall ever treating 'beliefs' and 'claims' equally.

Do you have a reason for saying what you did here?

[Age]

Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Also, some of these people refer to God as a "he".

Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?

In Western culture, meaning the one based on the bible, the OT god is always depicted as some old guy with a beard while the historical Jesus was clearly a 'he' after all. All this Hebrew stuff is all so very patriarchal, ancient and proprietary. Of course, no such humanly conceived bilateral conceptions can ever remotely amount to being a god, if any such thing were required to begin with. The Islamic version is very like the Jewish one, on which it's based, stripped of all its human attributes, the I AM THAT I AM connotation being imageless denoting a complete abstraction. The one who 'carries' the image is, in effect, the prophet himself, a male, whose depiction is also disallowed.

God as a cosmic entity, not belonging to anyone, can best be denoted as an ungenderized IT...at least in English.

I agree.

To me, like you were suggesting, some people, 'today', still refer to God as a "he" solely because of the patriarchal society from which the bible was 'born', influenced the word "he" in relation to (a) God, and because the bible was also written by "men", who tend/ed to think of "themselves" as more superior, more knowing, and more powerful than "women" it was all to easy and simple for 'them' to call and label God as a "he". Those writers after all wanted to be like "him", and the closer they could make God like 'them', then the easier it was for 'them' to be more like God.

To me, the reason some people like ones in this forum, still, refer to God as a "he", 'today', when it is obviously an absolute impossibility, is because they are just carrying on an 'age old tradition' without ever having questioned why they do so.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Humorous that people, back in the days when this was written, would write that "these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is".

[Flannel Jesus]

Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Also, some of these people refer to God as a "he".

Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?

In Western culture, meaning the one based on the bible, the OT god is always depicted as some old guy with a beard while the historical Jesus was clearly a 'he' after all. All this Hebrew stuff is all so very patriarchal, ancient and proprietary. Of course, no such humanly conceived bilateral conceptions can ever remotely amount to being a god, if any such thing were required to begin with. The Islamic version is very like the Jewish one, on which it's based, stripped of all its human attributes, the I AM THAT I AM connotation being imageless denoting a complete abstraction. The one who 'carries' the image is, in effect, the prophet himself, a male, whose depiction is also disallowed.

God as a cosmic entity, not belonging to anyone, can best be denoted as an ungenderized IT...at least in English.

I agree.

Very amusing that you would agree with that, back in the days when this was written.

[puto]

Theism are the philosophical concepts of God of the Old Testament, New Testament, Quran. The rest are not philosophically interesting. An atheist does not believe in the philosophical concepts found in the three testaments. A proposition of negation needs explanation; are questions of reason unanswerable about the divine? Starting, with Aquinas would be a good explanation to your questions to the natural. Descartes' version of the argument of the GCB is also a good start. The argument; therefore becomes theoretical and correct. By showing, you to look at these philosophers first in an explanation is a good start to a philosophical investigation into your inquiry. God exists is true for a theist that is what I believe. According, to Kant objection "Existence" is not a predicate. By showing, you where to look and not giving you an explanation; then you can come to your own conclusions and go beyond opinions.

[Walker]

"theists" attract "atheists", everytime.

[puto]

Thanks, I found my Pascal's Wager paper. Believing, in a radical theological position, it was impossible in principle to acquire support or genuine religious faith by reason. Because the genuine, religious faith was a pure gift from God. Being, and epistemic approach to whether God exists. A pragmatic inquiry. On the night of November, 23, 1654 CE, Pascal had a religious conversion of joyful excitement, which he carried with him for eight years until his death at thirty nine years old.

[Immanuel Can]

I looked up this thread out of sheer disbelief anybody would post something so absurd. But once again, I'm astonished.

I look for Age's next threads: presumably, "wet = dry," "up = down," "right = wrong," "coherent = incoherent," and "sane = completely and utterly loony."

[Flannel Jesus]

I looked up this thread out of sheer disbelief anybody would post something so absurd. But once again, I'm astonished.

I look for Age's next threads: presumably, "wet = dry," "up = down," "right = wrong," "coherent = incoherent," and "sane = completely and utterly loony."

Words don't mean anything when age says them. He purports to have some path for humanity to follow to come to universal agreement, involving honesty and curiosity, but he can't even be plainly honest when people ask him basic questions. He's entirely full of shit.

[Immanuel Can]

I looked up this thread out of sheer disbelief anybody would post something so absurd. But once again, I'm astonished.

I look for Age's next threads: presumably, "wet = dry," "up = down," "right = wrong," "coherent = incoherent," and "sane = completely and utterly loony."

Words don't mean anything when age says them. He purports to have some path for humanity to follow to come to universal agreement, involving honesty and curiosity, but he can't even be plainly honest when people ask him basic questions. He's entirely full of shit.

Well, he's got to be mentally unfit. That much is abundantly evident. I don't know whether to pity him or just feel complete frustration with him. But just not bothering usually works, too.

[promethean75]

"Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?"

Um I've explained a hunerd times here why human beings can't conceive of what is tryna be generally meant with the word 'god' without anthropomorphizing the object of thought in at least some ways; that it is an intelligence, that it is creative, that it is benevolent, etc.

Clearly u are experiencing the great misfortune of not having read my posts on these matters.

[LuckyR]

It is an error to treat beliefs and claims (which imply knowledge) equally. They're quite different.

I do not recall ever treating 'beliefs' and 'claims' equally.

Do you have a reason for saying what you did here?

Your declaration that theists and atheists "believe and claim" about gods, as if they're interchangeable, when in fact belief in the metaphysical is reasonable whereas claiming knowledge about the metaphysical is not.