"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,

I am an atheist in as much as I don't believe there is any entity in existence that conforms to anything I would describe as God.

How would/do you describe an entity, as 'God'?

If 'you' let 'us' know this, then 'we' will have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss', here.

Until then what God is, exactly, has already been proved, and thus known, which does conform to a thing described as 'God'. And, who the Entity is, exactly, which, also, conforms to a thing, which people say and/claim is 'God' is known and HERE, in Existence.

But that is not the same as believing and claiming that God does not exist.

So, what do you believe here?

And, do you disbelieve that God exists or could exists?

Atheism, in my case, is best described as an absence of belief.

Okay, but maybe in 'your case' 'it' is not atheism, and 'it' is in fact something else.

I don't actually care whether God -or a god- exists, which is probably why I haven't given much thought to the question beyond concluding such an existence is highly unlikely.

Why do you consider that God existing would be 'highly unlikely', exactly?

So, in my case, and probably several others, your above assumption about atheists is incorrect.

But you appear to have not yet at all considered that your definition of the 'atheist' word is not the same as mine.

Does 'your case' make some thing here 'correct', in and of itself?

Also, why do you say 'my assumption'?

Is 'your definition', in 'your case', of a word 'an assumption', or just 'the way' that you are just 'defining' 'a word' here?

yet none of these people can inform absolutely anyone of who and/or what God even is, exactly?

Again, you are incorrect. Lots of theists are able to inform anyone of who or what the God they are referring to is. So can atheists when they are referencing a specific concept of God.

Great, what is your own personal definition of what who and what God is, exactly, that you refer to, when you claim that the existence of God is 'highly unlikely', exactly?

Also, maybe I could have been clearer and expressed that none of you have been able to define God in a way that all could agree with, and except.

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

Will anyone who does this explain why they do this?

I do it because when I talk about God, I am usually talking about the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is conventionally referred to as he.

So, just because some thing is, conventionally, referred to, even when the 'conventional usage' of that 'thing' is an absolute impossibility to exist, 'that usage' will kept being used?

So, when 'we' are discussing whether God exists or not, and 'we' are claiming God is a male gendered thing, then no wonder you consider that 'that thing' existing would be highly unlikely.

It is, after all, an absolute impossibility that God is male gendered So, what 'we' have here, 'now', is the absolute Truth and irrefutable Fact that 'this God' does not exist.

So, 'this' has, finally, been solved, and resolved for every one forever more.

Actually, some people insist on capitalising "He", but I never do that, which is my way of demonstrating irreverence.

In case it has not been noticed, I do not capitalize you human beings also, and maybe for the exact same reason you do not capitalize what you do not here.

[Harbal]

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,

I am an atheist in as much as I don't believe there is any entity in existence that conforms to anything I would describe as God.

How would/do you describe an entity, as 'God'?

If 'you' let 'us' know this, then 'we' will have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss', here.

The word "god" refers to a supreme being or deity that is often believed to have power over the universe, creation, and human lives. I plucked that definition off the internet, and when the word, "god", is mentioned, that is the definition I assume to be applicable. I assume it because that is usually what people mean when they talk about god, but if they don't want me to assume that, I consider it to be up to them to make it clear what type of god they are referring to.

Until then what God is, exactly, has already been proved, and thus known, which does conform to a thing described as 'God'. And, who the Entity is, exactly, which, also, conforms to a thing, which people say and/claim is 'God' is known and HERE, in Existence.

No, that isn't true. There is no "proven" description of what God is.

But that is not the same as believing and claiming that God does not exist.

So, what do you believe here?

And, do you disbelieve that God exists or could exists?

I don't have any actual beliefs about God. I don't believe God doesn't exist, or couldn't exist, but neither do I believe God does or could exist. I just think it extremely unlikely that God does exist.

I don't actually care whether God -or a god- exists, which is probably why I haven't given much thought to the question beyond concluding such an existence is highly unlikely.

Why do you consider that God existing would be 'highly unlikely', exactly?

I consider the existence of God, as described in the definition I gave earlier, to be highly unlikely because my lived experience of reality has informed me that such things simply do not occur. Even so, I always try to allow for the possibility of things beyond my own knowledge and understanding.

So, in my case, and probably several others, your above assumption about atheists is incorrect.

But you appear to have not yet at all considered that your definition of the 'atheist' word is not the same as mine.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities who are involved in the creation and governance of the universe. I consider an atheist to be someone who holds no such beliefs. An atheist may or may not actively disbelieve in God, to my understanding.

Does 'your case' make some thing here 'correct', in and of itself?

I think I am using the the word, "atheist", properly. If you dispute that, you could check a few dictionaries, and then come back and correct me.

Also, why do you say 'my assumption'?

Because you seem to be doing exactly the same thing that others have done when you have accused them of making assumptions.

Is 'your definition', in 'your case', of a word 'an assumption', or just 'the way' that you are just 'defining' 'a word' here?

Do you not think your post is lengthy and messy enough without including such irrelevant and pointless questions?

Again, you are incorrect. Lots of theists are able to inform anyone of who or what the God they are referring to is. So can atheists when they are referencing a specific concept of God.

Great, what is your own personal definition of what who and what God is, exactly, that you refer to, when you claim that the existence of God is 'highly unlikely', exactly?

I don't have my own definition. Whenever I have claimed the existence of God to be highly unlikely, it has been in relation to the definition the person I was addressing used.

Also, maybe I could have been clearer and expressed that none of you have been able to define God in a way that all could agree with, and except.

Neither could you define God in a way that all could agree with.

I do it because when I talk about God, I am usually talking about the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is conventionally referred to as he.

So, just because some thing is, conventionally, referred to, even when the 'conventional usage' of that 'thing' is an absolute impossibility to exist, 'that usage' will kept being used?

If I am discussing the God of the Bible, what choice is there but to talk about the God described in the Bible?

So, when 'we' are discussing whether God exists or not, and 'we' are claiming God is a male gendered thing, then no wonder you consider that 'that thing' existing would be highly unlikely.

When I have discussed whether God exists or not, the discussion has always been about my counterpart's concept of God. It has to be, because I don't have my own concept of God. It makes no difference to me. I find not believing in a genderless God just as easy as not believing in a male one.

It is, after all, an absolute impossibility that God is male gendered So, what 'we' have here, 'now', is the absolute Truth and irrefutable Fact that 'this God' does not exist.

All I can say is that I have no reason to think such a God exists, either.

So, 'this' has, finally, been solved, and resolved for every one forever more.

I wasn't in need of a solution, so I'm impartial on the matter, but that does seem like a rather over ambitious claim.

Actually, some people insist on capitalising "He", but I never do that, which is my way of demonstrating irreverence.

In case it has not been noticed, I do not capitalize you human beings also,

I would probably only notice if you did capitalise, because it would be grammatically incorrect.

[Iwannaplato]

I think I am using the the word, "atheist", properly. If you dispute that, you could check a few dictionaries, and then come back and correct me.

It is amazing how often I've seen hundreds of pages of arguments, often between theists and atheists, but also between atheists and agnostics and or other atheists over the definition. Generally it means a. : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. And there's a clear difference between those two. Those long threads often battle over one being correct and the other being false, with some people saying that you can't merely lack a belief in God. You either, supposedly, believe there is no God or you believe in God - which is where the agnostics rush in where Angels fear to tread. And of course some them consider themselves agnostic atheists, which then always makes someone gnash their teeth. Probably better to find out if they agree that if they see a baby crying, alone on the ground in a park, they would try to make things better for that baby.

[Harbal]

I think I am using the the word, "atheist", properly. If you dispute that, you could check a few dictionaries, and then come back and correct me.

It is amazing how often I've seen hundreds of pages of arguments, often between theists and atheists, but also between atheists and agnostics and or other atheists over the definition. Generally it means a. : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. And there's a clear difference between those two. Those long threads often battle over one being correct and the other being false, with some people saying that you can't merely lack a belief in God. You either, supposedly, believe there is no God or you believe in God - which is where the agnostics rush in where Angels fear to tread. And of course some them consider themselves agnostic atheists, which then always makes someone gnash their teeth. Probably better to find out if they agree that if they see a baby crying, alone on the ground in a park, they would try to make things better for that baby.

I suppose a lot of people think the existence of God is an important question, and that having a definite position really matters. I don't think that.

[attofishpi]

I suppose a lot of people think the existence of God is an important question, and that having a definite position really matters. I don't think that.

Stop kidding yourself Harbal, you are clearly intrigued by the subject of God or else why do you continually get involved in discussions of it? -you do appear more often than most atheists on the forum within God\soul debates.

It's not surprising, consideration of God remains the predominant area of philosophical enquiry that there is and anyone that denies it is ...well, I'd be interested to hear a subject matter that raises more and greater\deeper questions where philosophy is concerned.

[Harbal]

I suppose a lot of people think the existence of God is an important question, and that having a definite position really matters. I don't think that.

Stop kidding yourself Harbal, you are clearly intrigued by the subject of God or else why do you continually get involved in discussions of it? -you do appear more often than most atheists on the forum within God\soul debates.

It's not surprising, consideration of God remains the predominant area of philosophical enquiry that there is and anyone that denies it is ...well, I'd be interested to hear a subject matter that raises more and greater\deeper questions where philosophy is concerned.

I'm not interested in the subject of God, but I am interested in how some people try to persuade others to adopt their own religious beliefs. I think that is irresponsibly wrong. My interest is to try to impede the propagation of potentially harmful rubbish.

[attofishpi]

I suppose a lot of people think the existence of God is an important question, and that having a definite position really matters. I don't think that.

Stop kidding yourself Harbal, you are clearly intrigued by the subject of God or else why do you continually get involved in discussions of it? -you do appear more often than most atheists on the forum within God\soul debates.

It's not surprising, consideration of God remains the predominant area of philosophical enquiry that there is and anyone that denies it is ...well, I'd be interested to hear a subject matter that raises more and greater\deeper questions where philosophy is concerned.

I'm not interested in the subject of God,

..bulldust!!

but I am interested in how some people try to persuade others to adopt their own religious beliefs.

I don't see much of that on a philosophy forum beyond what everyone is attempting to do, convince others that their point of view on ANY subject is correct.

I think that is irresponsibly wrong.

Personally I don't see what the points is, I don't think responsibility comes into it (unless it's Islam )

My interest is to try to impede the propagation of potentially harmful rubbish.

Did Christ state stuff that you are concerned about? What about Muhammad?

[Harbal]

]My interest is to try to impede the propagation of potentially harmful rubbish.

Did Christ state stuff that you are concerned about? What about Muhammad?

What do I know about what Christ or Mohammad are supposed to have said? Now if they were here on this forum saying it, I would probably get involved.

[attofishpi]

]My interest is to try to impede the propagation of potentially harmful rubbish.

Did Christ state stuff that you are concerned about? What about Muhammad?

What do I know about what Christ or Mohammad are supposed to have said? Now if they were here on this forum saying it, I would probably get involved.

Well, what's this 'potentially harmful rubbish' that you mention?

[Harbal]

Did Christ state stuff that you are concerned about? What about Muhammad?

What do I know about what Christ or Mohammad are supposed to have said? Now if they were here on this forum saying it, I would probably get involved.

Well, what's this 'potentially harmful rubbish' that you mention?

Lots of damaging garbage is spread in the name of religion. Trying to make people feel guilty about abortion; persuading people that homosexuality is "sinful" and is to be condemned, are two things that come immediately to mind. When people are influenced by crap like that it affects their lives and the lives of those close to them. Telling people they will suffer for eternity unless they live their lives in a way you approve of is a vile thing to do.

[attofishpi]

What do I know about what Christ or Mohammad are supposed to have said? Now if they were here on this forum saying it, I would probably get involved.

Well, what's this 'potentially harmful rubbish' that you mention?

Lots of damaging garbage is spread in the name of religion. Trying to make people feel guilty about abortion; persuading people that homosexuality is "sinful" and is to be condemned, are two things that come immediately to mind. When people are influenced by crap like that it affects their lives and the lives of those close to them. Telling people they will suffer for eternity unless they live their lives in a way you approve of is a vile thing to do.

Sure but abortion and homosexuality is also despised by many non-believers.

[Harbal]

Well, what's this 'potentially harmful rubbish' that you mention?

Lots of damaging garbage is spread in the name of religion. Trying to make people feel guilty about abortion; persuading people that homosexuality is "sinful" and is to be condemned, are two things that come immediately to mind. When people are influenced by crap like that it affects their lives and the lives of those close to them. Telling people they will suffer for eternity unless they live their lives in a way you approve of is a vile thing to do.

Sure but abortion and homosexuality is also despised by many non-believers.

Arguments based on differences of opinion are one thing, but arguments with threats of eternal damnation are quite another.

[attofishpi]

Lots of damaging garbage is spread in the name of religion. Trying to make people feel guilty about abortion; persuading people that homosexuality is "sinful" and is to be condemned, are two things that come immediately to mind. When people are influenced by crap like that it affects their lives and the lives of those close to them. Telling people they will suffer for eternity unless they live their lives in a way you approve of is a vile thing to do.

Sure but abortion and homosexuality is also despised by many non-believers.

Arguments based on differences of opinion are one thing, but arguments with threats of eternal damnation are quite another.

Agreed.

[Age]

I am an atheist in as much as I don't believe there is any entity in existence that conforms to anything I would describe as God.

How would/do you describe an entity, as 'God'?

If 'you' let 'us' know this, then 'we' will have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss', here.

The word "god" refers to a supreme being or deity that is often believed to have power over the universe, creation, and human lives. I plucked that definition off the internet, and when the word, "god", is mentioned, that is the definition I assume to be applicable.

Okay.

So, why, exactly, do you not believe that there is any such thing, entity, being, nor deity, in Existence?

And, if that is the definition that you want to use, and hold onto, here, then there is proof that 'that thing, entity, being, and/or deity does, in fact, exist, and thus is in Existence.

I assume it because that is usually what people mean when they talk about god, but if they don't want me to assume that, I consider it to be up to them to make it clear what type of god they are referring to.

What about when you say or write some thing like, 'I do not believe there is a God in existence', then is it up to you to make it clear what type of 'God' you are referring to? Or, is, still, only up to 'others' to be clear when they talk about God?

Until then what God is, exactly, has already been proved, and thus known, which does conform to a thing described as 'God'. And, who the Entity is, exactly, which, also, conforms to a thing, which people say and/claim is 'God' is known and HERE, in Existence.

No, that isn't true. There is no "proven" description of what God is.

Here is 'another one' who thinks and writes, exactly, like "henry quirk' does. That is; what knowledge or information that they, personally, have obtained must be the 'exact same' for everyone else.

Now, why do you believe, absolutely, you are privy to all knowledge and information that all others have?

See, why can others not, already, have a 'proved' description of what God is?

But that is not the same as believing and claiming that God does not exist.

So, what do you believe here?

And, do you disbelieve that God exists or could exists?

I don't have any actual beliefs about God. I don't believe God doesn't exist, or couldn't exist, but neither do I believe God does or could exist.

Do you have any disbelief about God?

I don't actually care whether God -or a god- exists, which is probably why I haven't given much thought to the question beyond concluding such an existence is highly unlikely.

Why do you consider that God existing would be 'highly unlikely', exactly?

I consider the existence of God, as described in the definition I gave earlier, to be highly unlikely because my lived experience of reality has informed me that such things simply do not occur. Even so, I always try to allow for the possibility of things beyond my own knowledge and understanding.

Great.

It could be said and argued, now, that just about every thing that every human being considers to be highly unlikely, because of their own personal lived experiences of Reality, not just becomes possible but also becomes an actuality.

Now, of course what 'we' are discussing here is a bit different, but what the very Things are that the word God has been referencing, and was intended to reference from the beginning, actually are in Existence, including the Being, Deity, and/or Entity, which actually does have the power over the Universe, Creation, and your human lives.

To just obtain this knowledge and understanding absolute honesty and openness is needed, along with a serious want to change, for the better.

So, in my case, and probably several others, your above assumption about atheists is incorrect.

But you appear to have not yet at all considered that your definition of the 'atheist' word is not the same as mine.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities who are involved in the creation and governance of the universe. I consider an atheist to be someone who holds no such beliefs.

Okay. I consider that if 'theism' is the belief in the existence of one God, or in some gods, or deitie/s who are involved in the creation and governance of the Universe, then I consider 'atheism' to be the disbelief that the exact same thing/s exist.

I consider, also, 'agnosticism' to be the belief that if God, or gods, exist or not is not yet known, or is unknowable.

An atheist may or may not actively disbelieve in God, to my understanding.

Okay.

Does 'your case' make some thing here 'correct', in and of itself?

I think I am using the the word, "atheist", properly. If you dispute that, you could check a few dictionaries, and then come back and correct me.

But, if I did, then you might check a few other dictionaries, and then come back and 'counter-correct' me, correct?

If yes, then when does 'correction' end, exactly?

Also, why do you say 'my assumption'?

Because you seem to be doing exactly the same thing that others have done when you have accused them of making assumptions.

Well just to make it clear just providing a definition is not necessarily making an assumption, at all. Unless, of course, every case is an assumption.

Is 'your definition', in 'your case', of a word 'an assumption', or just 'the way' that you are just 'defining' 'a word' here?

Do you not think your post is lengthy and messy enough without including such irrelevant and pointless questions?

If you think any thing I say and write here is messy, irrelevant, and/or pointless, then you do think that it is wise to respond before you have obtained actual clarity and are absolutely clear?

Now, my question/s here are not irrelevant nor pointless at all. As can be and will be shown and proved. Again, that is only if any one shows actual interest.

So, what 'we' appear to have now is that when 'I' provided a definition, then it appears as an assumption. But, when "harbal" provides a definition, then it is not an assumption.

Again, you are incorrect. Lots of theists are able to inform anyone of who or what the God they are referring to is. So can atheists when they are referencing a specific concept of God.

Great, what is your own personal definition of what who and what God is, exactly, that you refer to, when you claim that the existence of God is 'highly unlikely', exactly?

I don't have my own definition.

So, whose definition do you have, and are using, here, when you keep claiming that the existence of God is 'highly unlikely'?

Whenever I have claimed the existence of God to be highly unlikely, it has been in relation to the definition the person I was addressing used.

So, would you like to claim that the existence of God is highly unlikely when you are addressing me also?

Also, maybe I could have been clearer and expressed that none of you have been able to define God in a way that all could agree with, and except.

Neither could you define God in a way that all could agree with.

What are you basing this assumption and belief of yours here on, exactly?

And, if you also accept and agree that none of you have already defined the God word in a way that all could agree with, and accept, then what has 'it' been, exactly, that you have all been disagreeing with, and fighting and bickering, over in relation to whether God actually exists or not?

I will, again, remind you human beings that when you work out and uncover, or learn, and understand and comprehend who and what the God word has been referring to, exactly, since that word's inception, then, and only then, you will come to understand, and know, whether God, Itself, actually exists, or not.

Until then, quarrelling over whether 'a Thing' exists or not, which the definition has not even yet been discussed, agreed with, and accepted would be, and has been, just a complete 'waste of time and of energy'. As the past few millenia of human discussions, up to when this was being written, has proved so.

I do it because when I talk about God, I am usually talking about the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is conventionally referred to as he.

So, just because some thing is, conventionally, referred to, even when the 'conventional usage' of that 'thing' is an absolute impossibility to exist, 'that usage' will kept being used?

If I am discussing the God of the Bible, what choice is there but to talk about the God described in the Bible?

One choice is to decide how to explain to a completely blindly indoctrinated group of human beings that;

1. The very reasons why the "he" word was introduced and has been used Falsely, Wrongly, Inaccurately, and Incorrectly up to 'now' from the very outset.

2. Just explain, to the same group of people, that it is an actually physical and logical impossibility that 'the God of the bible' is male gendered.

Once this is done, then absolutely clear thinking and seeing human being would call God a 'he' nor 'He' ever again.

And then, 'we' could move on to discuss if the, actual, God if the bible actually exists, or not.

Having discussions about if some thing exists or not, which is both an empirical and a theoretical impossibility is just beyond absolute absurdism. Well to me anyway.

And that you human beings, and the supposed 'adult' ones at that, have beed doing this very thing for thousands of years up to when this is being written would be even 'more absurd' is that was possible.

I think it is about time you adult human beings just 'grow up' and just stop discussing, and even wondering, about things that are not even a possibility. If a Thing created the whole Universe, Itself, then, very obviously, It is not going to be a single gendered Thing.

And, just as obvious is the fact that when books, and stories, like the stories written in the bible, were being written, which were written by male gendered humans, who believed that the male gender were the smarter and stronger ones, then obviously they would describe God as a "He".

Because the "men" who wrote the bible believed that "men" were the smartest and strongest then it goes without saying that they would presume, and believe, that if a male gendered Entity or Deity created the whole Universe, Itself, then that Being, Entity, or Deity would be not just the smartest and strongest but would also be omni-scient and omni-potent.

But, and just as obvious, is that what some human beings presume, and/or believe, is true is not necessarily True, nor Right, at all. And, consider that the writers of the bible were, literally, 'story tellers' what they have 'told' never has to be, literally, true at all.

So, when 'we' are discussing whether God exists or not, and 'we' are claiming God is a male gendered thing, then no wonder you consider that 'that thing' existing would be highly unlikely.

When I have discussed whether God exists or not, the discussion has always been about my counterpart's concept of God.

Always?

Am 'I' included as 'your counterpart'?

If yes, then if 'we' have discussed wether God exists or not, then has it always been about 'my concept' of God?

In fact are you even aware, fully, of what 'my concept' of God even is, exactly?

It has to be, because I don't have my own concept of God. It makes no difference to me. I find not believing in a genderless God just as easy as not believing in a male one.

Okay. But, is this because you do not care at all about the fact that God exists, or for some other reason?

It is, after all, an absolute impossibility that God is male gendered So, what 'we' have here, 'now', is the absolute Truth and irrefutable Fact that 'this God' does not exist.

All I can say is that I have no reason to think such a God exists, either.

Just like you have no reason to think that a male gendered rock exists as well, although, and obviously, a rock exists.

So, 'this' has, finally, been solved, and resolved for every one forever more.

I wasn't in need of a solution, so I'm impartial on the matter, but that does seem like a rather over ambitious claim.

you were also in no need of an answer here.

I am, however, providing the, absolutely irrefutable, answer, and also the resolution here, to your very many discussions, with others here, about God, Itself, being male gendered and existing or not.

So, once again, this has now been resolved, for once, and for all, and so now 'we' can move along here.

Actually, some people insist on capitalising "He", but I never do that, which is my way of demonstrating irreverence.

In case it has not been noticed, I do not capitalize you human beings also,

I would probably only notice if you did capitalise, because it would be grammatically incorrect.

Once again, it appears that what I have actually said, and meant, here has been absolutely completely missed and/or misunderstood.

What I have been writing is absolutely 'grammatically incorrect' to you people, in those days, when this is being written.

So, why do you think you have not, yet, noticed what I am talking about and referring to here?

[Age]

I suppose a lot of people think the existence of God is an important question, and that having a definite position really matters. I don't think that.

Stop kidding yourself Harbal, you are clearly intrigued by the subject of God or else why do you continually get involved in discussions of it? -you do appear more often than most atheists on the forum within God\soul debates.

It's not surprising, consideration of God remains the predominant area of philosophical enquiry that there is and anyone that denies it is ...well, I'd be interested to hear a subject matter that raises more and greater\deeper questions where philosophy is concerned.

I'm not interested in the subject of God, but I am interested in how some people try to persuade others to adopt their own religious beliefs.

Are you just as interested in how some people try to persuade others to adopt their own religious beliefs, when their own 'religious beliefs' are a disbelief in God and/or a disbelief in God's existence?

I think that is irresponsibly wrong.

Do you think it is just as 'irresponsibly wrong' to try to persuade others that God does not exist?

My interest is to try to impede the propagation of potentially harmful rubbish.

Does this include the 'harmful rubbish' that God does not exist, as well?