"atheist" equals "theist"

[Iwannaplato]

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.

And then the thread title is an assertion, a bold one.
Does the OP make any effort to support this assertion? No.
What it does is ask people to justify their positions or define their deities or the ones they don't believe in.
And what will happen then? the onslaught of questions.
A lesson in how to avoid justifying anything.

[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?

Your declaration that theists and atheists "believe and claim" about gods, as if they're interchangeable,

Why did you even begin to presume such a thing as this?

I have never ever thought that those two words were interchangeable. So, how you could 'see'', in the words that I have used here, that, 'as if they are interchangeable', is a prime example of how people 'see things:, which are not even 'there', because of their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

Once these people removed these 'distorting pre-existing conditions', from their thinking, and thus from their viewing abilities, then it was then that 'these people', back then, really started 'seeing things' much more 'clearly:, and much in more in how 'they' really were, and are.

Also, and furthermore, your use of other words in that sentence and claim were also completely Wrong, and so you have completely distorted what I actually said, and actually meant, in other ways, as well.

when in fact belief in the metaphysical is reasonable whereas claiming knowledge about the metaphysical is not.

Now you have gone so, so far off and away that I could not be bothered trying to even bring you back on track.

This here is a prime example of just how quickly, simply, and easily these people, back then, would 'miss the mark' and just end up completely and utterly lost and confused.

Every thing that this one has said and claimed here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have actually said, and have actually meant, here.

But, this will not stop this one believing otherwise, as it will end up proving me True, here.

Just so 'we' are absolutely clear here "luckyr", to me anyway, the word 'beliefs', and the word 'claim', are not, and I will repeat, are not, interchangeable.

[Age]

Theism are the philosophical concepts of God of the Old Testament, New Testament, Quran.

Would you be kind enough to share what the actual difference is between 'philosophical concepts' of God of the 'old and new testament, and of the quran', and and just 'concepts', themselves, of God of the 'old and new testament, and of the quran'?

If no, then I do not know what you are talking about and referring to here.

Also, do you class or call "yourself" a "thiest" or "atheist"?

If yes, then how do you, or how would you inform another, of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

The rest are not philosophically interesting.

'The rest' of 'what', exactly, are not 'philosophically interesting', to you?

And, what is the difference, to you, between 'philosophically interesting' and just plain old 'interesting', anyway?

An atheist does not believe in the philosophical concepts found in the three testaments.

Are you able to and will you provide what the, exact, 'philosophical concepts' found in the 'three testaments' are, exactly, to you?

And, how many other people do you think or believe would agree with, and accept, your version or definition of the 'philosophical concepts', which you have personally ascertained and/or obtained? And, which, exact, books or testaments did you get your views or concepts from, exactly?

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.

But, I already have come to my own conclusions. Here they are again:

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?

This has been, and can and will be proved True again, by me, now, asking the question, again, to the so-called "theists" and "atheists":

Who and/or what even is God, exactly, to you?

If, and only when, these people do this, then, and only, then they can be shown where the errors and falsehoods, and, where the correctness and truthfulness is, exactly, in the views, opinions, and/or beliefs.

My other conclusion here are:
Some of these people refer to God as a "he".

I, still, wait for anyone who does this to explain why they do this?

Is it because;

God is, actually, a "he"?

God is just believed to be a "he"?

Or, is there some other reason?

Oh, and also, I could read other's writings, opinions, or stories. But, if they are not here, in this forum, or if they are just what is called 'dead', then I cannot ask them further clarifying questions, nor challenge them, here, over their thinking, claims, or beliefs.

Obviously, I can only do 'this' here, in this forum, with people who are 'alive' and who are 'here' and capable of responding.

Also, those people who you suggested I read above here did not have 'actual answers', which has actually solved any real thing here. Actually their views have caused more confusion in some which causing more of you other human beings to just quarrel, bicker, and fight more. Which, I know, did not need mentioning and saying as this is plainly obvious.

[Age]

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

So, 'we' are back with the 'almighty' and 'superior' one here known as "Immanuel can".

Now, "Immanuel can" has come here, claim that there is 'some thing', that is 'so absurd', but, like another one in this forum, will only ever 'allude' to what 'that thing' 'might be', which is 'so absurd', but as I will prove True, this one will never ever actually answer and clarity what 'it' is, exactly, with is, supposed, to be 'so absurd', here. Will you "immanuel can"?

So, all 'we' have here is 'this one' telling you all that it is 'in disbelief' here that absolutely any 'body' would post 'some thing' 'so absurd'.

Which makes 'me' now wonder if "immanuel can" is aware that there could be others who are 'in more disbelief' than it is that "immanuel can" could post 'some thing' 'so absurd' as it has, obviously, done here?

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

you can 'presume'' all you like "immanuel can". Doing so does nothing 'to me', other than to prove my claim here absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Also, and that is right, you are one of the ones that believe, absolutely, that God, Itself, is male gendered and a "he".

Do you have the courage and intellectual ability to explain to the readers why you believe, absolutely, that God, Itself, to you, is a "male gendered he"?

If no, then will you explain to the readers here what God even is, exactly?

After all it is you who believes, absolutely and without any shadow of a doubt at all, some, male gendered, God exists.

Also, if 'we' really want to 'look at' and 'discuss' what is Truly 'so absurd', to most human beings, then it is 'your belief' here "immanuel can".

For most human beings, what is absolutely Truly absurd is for a sane thinking human being to believe, absolutely, irrefutably, and even unquestionably, that God is male gendered, and exists as a "he".

And, the fact that you cannot, and will not even try to, back up and support 'your absolute belief' here shows and reveals what is Truly absurd here.

[Age]

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.

[Age]

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.

So, 'what', exactly, is the 'undoubted reason' that 'I' 'got to be' 'mentally unfit'?

That I question and challenge you in regards to your 'undoubted belief' that God is a "he"?

Or, is there some other 'undoubted reason' you have?

That much is abundantly evident.

So, to "immanuel can", 'I' 'got to be' 'mentally unfit', and that 'this' is 'abundantly evident'?

Makes some wonder, what is the 'abundantly' word in relation to, exactly, and where is the 'abundant evidence', exactly, and what even the 'mentally unfit' reason is even given for, exactly?

I don't know whether to pity him or just feel complete frustration with him. But just not bothering usually works, too.

This one 'just not bothers' when it is being questioned and/or challenged over things like its persistent claim that God is, absolutely, a "he". But, it 'will bother' when it wants to just talk 'about me'.

This one also claims that this forum is not for 'off-topic, mean-spirited sniping', yet continually does these exact same things.

"immanuel can" also claims that 'posters here should be removed for being incapable of sustaining a reasonable philosophical discourse', Yet believes that when it claims some things to be true, that it does not have to have to sustain any reasonable discourse, at all. As it has said and stated on numerous occasions, already, 'I am not bothering'. This one seems to completely an utterly forget that if it wants to come here and make claims publicly, then it is best for it to already have 'the proof' for its claim, so then it could 'sustain a reasonable discourse', instead of running away and trying to hide behind trying to 'ridicule and mean-spirited sniping' like it has just done once again here.

"immanuel can" also said and stated;
It would be great to get all the ad hominem rabbit-trails out of here, and set some guidelines that stipulate we have to talk about the topics, not insult particular people.'

Yet, it went out of its way to come into this thread to write what it did, which is more or less, exactly, what it has already stated, 'would be great to get rid off', from this forum.

The hypocrisy here is blinding.

There is 'more', but which I will leave, for 'now'.

[Age]

"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.

But it is extremely very simple and very easy to explain what God is, exactly, not in those ways that you just mentioned here.

Why do you believe otherwise?

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

Okay, and are you absolutely sure that you have done what you claimed here 'hundreds of times', here?

[Age]

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.

And then the thread title is an assertion, a bold one.

Why do you believe that it a bold assertion?

Are you having some sort of presumption here, or do you have some some sort of pre-existing belief, here?

Does the OP make any effort to support this assertion? No.

I do not have to.

Do you make any effort to support all of the many assertions that you?

The answer is, 'No, just in case you never get around to answering and clarifying this question, as well.

What it does is ask people to justify their positions or define their deities or the ones they don't believe in.

Did it take you long to come to this conclusion?

And, could have any of your assumptions and/or beliefs here, which led you to 'this conclusion' have been Wrong or faulty in any way, to you?

And what will happen then? the onslaught of questions.

Well, if you human beings want to come into a public arena, and make claims about things, publicly, then expect to get questioned and/or challenged, publicly, over your claims.

Once again for those of 'hard of hearing', or who have not heard before, I suggest that if absolutely any one wants to claims some thing is true, and especially publicly, then have 'the actual proof' for your claim, beforehand, because expect you are going to get questioned and/or challenged over your claim, and especially more so in a philosophy forum.

A lesson in how to avoid justifying anything.

Here 'we' have another prime example of one who believes that it is, laughingly, actually possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else in just a few words, which a forum provides.

Look, "iwannaplato", what is usually entailed in what are called 'philosophical discussions' is views, ideas, assertions, positions, and/or claims are presented, THEN through back and forth open and honest discussions, which obviously would and will evolve questioning, challenging, clarification, verification, and elaboration, among other things before the actual, irrefutable, Truth is revealed and becomes known.

Expecting absolutely any one to 'justify' any thing, to all readers, in a relatively short few words is beyond absolute absurdity and ridiculousness.

And, just as obvious what is 'justified' to you may never be 'justified' to another human being. So, expecting someone to 'justify' things to you here, without you ever questioning, clarifying, nor challenging them is, again, absolutely foolishness, absurdity, and stupidity.

Also, if you believe that another has not 'justified' any thing to you, yet, then just ask them questions and/or challenge them until they do, or until you have proved, irrefutably, that they cannot 'justify' their position, claim, or assertion.

How much simpler and easier can things get here?

Just talking 'about another', like you are doing again above here, instead of challenging and/or questioning them, directly, will never ever get to 'justification', 'verification', 'clarification', nor Truth.

But, sometimes it is very obvious that you do not want to get to these things, and that you much prefer to try to make 'the other' look 'less than' or 'inferior to', and most in regards to 'you', "yourself", and/or some others, "themselves".

[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.

Funny how people, back in the days when this was written, would quote posts but not say anything.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do you believe that it a bold assertion?

Are you having some sort of presumption here, or do you have some some sort of pre-existing belief, here?

So, you'd like me to justify/explain my use of an adjective, but you haven't justified/explained the title of the thread. Are you having some sort of presumption here, or do you have some sort of pre-existing belief, here?

So, how is "atheist" equal to "theist"?

One ironic aspect of "age's" response here is that he manages to claim that people have proven his conclusions when they fail to demonstrate theirs.

Even if they merely ignore a request for proof or demonstration, he will claim this proves they are wrong or proves his contention. He doesn't seem to understand that the proofs are justifications, but one's that cannot be contradicted, and he seems to think people manage to do this not only with just a few words, but with no words at all.

[Iwannaplato]

Here 'we' have another prime example of one who believes that it is, laughingly, actually possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else in just a few words, which a forum provides.

Here we have another prime example of someone who seems to be confused about what justification means, given that this one uses proof and other words with the same root for what this one has done or what others have done in a few words.

This one also, for motivations unstated weirdly claims I believe that it is possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else?

This one sees it's own habit of using absolutist terms in other people's posts when they are not there.

[Age]

Why do you believe that it a bold assertion?

Are you having some sort of presumption here, or do you have some some sort of pre-existing belief, here?

So, you'd like me to justify/explain my use of an adjective,

No. I asked you;

1. Why do you believe that my assertion here is a bold assertion?

If you are unable to answer this question and clarify why you believe that my assertion is bold assertion, then so be it. But, most people 'know' why they believe the things they do. But, that is only if they are prepared to 'look' within "themselves" and be open and honest.

2. Are you having some sort of presumption, or do you have some sort of belief, here?

Obviously, this question only requires a 'yes' or a 'no' answer and response. But, if you are not even capable of just doing this, then so be it, as well.

I certainly do not want you to justify nor explain your use of 'an adjective'.

but you haven't justified/explained the title of the thread.

But from what I have noticed here I have not justified/explained just absolutely anything at all, well to you anyway.

Once again, could you have completely and utter missed what has happened and occurred, here.

I justified/explained the title of this thread when I said, and wrote;
Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while, equally, the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people, equally, can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

If you do actually read 'the words' that I write and use here, did you notice that I have now added the 'equally' word, so that you can see and become aware that both "theists" and "atheists" here are 'equal' in not just having 'a belief', and using 'the power of their belief' here, but they also both are equally incompetent in informing absolutely anyone what God even is, exactly.

Are you having some sort of presumption here, or do you have some sort of pre-existing belief, here?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

And, no I do not have any sort of belief here, at all. And, if you can see what 'it' is that I am assuming here, then do you have the ability to point 'it' out?

If yes, then will you do it?

So, how is "atheist" equal to "theist"?

Exactly how I explained in my first post here, and, as I further elaborated on, for you, above here in this post.

One ironic aspect of "age's" response here is that he manages to claim that people have proven his conclusions when they fail to demonstrate theirs.

Why are you 'now' bringing up so totally off-topic thing as 'this' here.

you appear to have an obsession, 'with me', and a fixation on making sure that I am 'seen' as doing things I do not, and 'seen' as some thing that I am not.

Even if they merely ignore a request for proof or demonstration, he will claim this proves they are wrong or proves his contention.

I have never ever done this, and assert that 'this' exists in 'the imagination' within 'that body' here.

He doesn't seem to understand that the proofs are justifications,but one's that cannot be contradicted, and he seems to think people manage to do this not only with just a few words, but with no words at all.

Once again, you make up and say some of the most outrageous claims, ever.

Now, what has made you believe, say, and claim that I do not seem to understand that the proofs are justifications, as well as the rest of what you have here?

Also, what has any of this got to do with, exactly, anyway?

[Age]

Here 'we' have another prime example of one who believes that it is, laughingly, actually possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else in just a few words, which a forum provides.

Here we have another prime example of someone who seems to be confused about what justification means,

Once again, you have completely and utterly MISCONSTRUED, MISSED, and/or MISUNDERSTAND the actual point that I was making, saying, and meaning, here.

you are STUCK and FIXATED on 'your own belief' that I do not know what 'justification' means.

If you ever remove that completely distorted, False, and Wrong belief, from 'you', then, and only then, you might see what I was actually talking about and referring to, exactly.

But, if you never remove that False belief that you keep going back to, then 'you' nor 'us' will ever know if you will ever get to see what I am actually talking about and meaning here.

given that this one uses proof and other words with the same root for what this one has done or what others have done in a few words.

This one also, for motivations unstated weirdly claims I believe that it is possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else?

Well you keep claiming that I have not yet justified things.

you, obviously, seem to not understand that just because I may not have 'justified' some thing, to you, that I may have actually 'justified' that thing, to others.

you seem to have the belief' that if some thing has not been justified, to you, then that thing has not been justified.

Which is about one of the most ridiculous beliefs that one could have, and could keep maintaining.

This one sees it's own habit of using absolutist terms in other people's posts when they are not there.

you may well believe that 'they' are not there, but yet if it can be proved that 'they' are, then 'they are there'. No matter what you believe is true.

[Iwannaplato]

No. I asked you;

1. Why do you believe that my assertion here is a bold assertion?

Yes, I know what words you used. It seems beyond your ken the idea that there are the words we use and what the words do in a given context. I was pointing at what you were doing?

Can you understand that difference?

You may not agree that what I said is what you were doing, but do you understand that there is what one says, and also there is what one is doing in a specific context with what one says?

Are you aware of that there are two things happening or are you do you think there is only one?

If you are unable to answer this question and clarify why you believe that my assertion is bold assertion, then so be it. But, most people 'know' why they believe the things they do. But, that is only if they are prepared to 'look' within "themselves" and be open and honest.

I justified/explained the title of this thread when I said, and wrote;
Why do the so-called "theists" here believe and claim that God exists, while, equally, the so-called "atheists" here believe and claim that God does not exist, yet none of these people, equally, can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

1) You've just now contradicted yourself.
Elsewhere you said:

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:23 am
Here 'we' have another prime example of one who believes that it is, laughingly, actually possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim to absolutely everyone else in just a few words, which a forum provides.

Yet you claim here that you justified the title of the thread. If you are going to say 'But I used more than a few words' it was you who introduced the phrase and condition 'few words', not me. So here you are claiming that you justified the title of the thread when it was laughingly ridiculous for me to believe it is possible to 'justify' one's own position or claim.

2) That's not a justification of the title of the thread. It is a question. It certainly implies a kind of justification. But I have noticed that if I respond to what is implied, you deny that you have asserted it. But if you want to offer what is implied there as a possible justification as your justification, you can certainly do that. In that form it will then not end in a question mark.

If you do actually read 'the words' that I write and use here, did you notice that I have now added the 'equally' word, so that you can see and become aware that both "theists" and "atheists" here are 'equal' in....

Now you are starting an actual justification.

And here's a problem right off....

Here you say they are equal in....[my emphasis added]. The are equal in some specific way.

And it is a specific way your consider them equal. The thread title is non-specific. And I think you'll notice that several posters react precisely to that general claim in the title of the thread.

And it would not be hard to make the more specific claim in the title space.

[puto]

Age you need a class of philosophy of religion.