₦airaland Forum

FOLYKAZE:
Can you name one impersonal God? Pls here I am not refering to impersonal force but impersonal God. This will buttress the point that for anything to be god, it is already personal. God been personal or taking the form of person does not mean it is person. Personal God is figurative expression of a Force or entity. All God are personal but some forces been worship as sacred are not personal.

And now you are sounding like atheist advocate, are you in essense telling us atheism is disbleiving in personal God only and not God in the general sense? Do atheists believe in your so called "impersonal God"?

Oh you want to school me while you are the one that needs to start visiting lecture classes where you can learn more about atheism.

Atheism from the greek words a + theos meaning No God. (please this is different from Godlessness). Atheism is the opposite of theism.



If my God is Consciousness, it is theism.

If my God is Mountain, it is theism

If my God is Nature, it is theism.

If my God is idea, it is theism

However, atheism which is opposite of theism is the denial, rejection and disbelieve in all these God existence.


Lying out here that atheism out here that atheism is disbelieve in personal God only wont bring you into some good book. You know? Lol

Smh. Digest this from Mcsterling

"When atheists here attempt to define their concept of god, it is this same you who begins to ask asinine questions, cavil and argue about how they aren't truly atheists because they believe in natural entities you've termed god. Perhaps, to you, atheism means disbelief in every thing other people have chosen to call god, even when these things can be empirically observed and proven to exist. According to you everything can be defined as god: planetary bodies, stones, grapes, fishes, water, yourself etc. and every atheist must disbelieve in all of these together with other concepts of god in order to be in fact atheists, no?"

...cus to be honest am tired of you

Abeg when your video on oogun dey hit YouTube?that's a discussion am interested in

McSterling:
So, when a piece of obsidian is worshipped as god by some, then I, a geologist who also claims to be atheist must disbelieve in the existence of obsidian to in fact be an atheist My atheism is now contingent on what some decide to worship as god. Does that even make any sense?

No sir, atheism isn't disbelief in anything called god. Obviously, there is an exception when the thing called god is provable. Provable things aren't what the atheist refers to as god.

Obviously Folykaze knows this already, he's using all of you to catch fun.
Am yet to see how someone denies the existence of "Gaia" should drive Folykaze to forcing down disbelief in the existence of "Gē" (anglicized to "Geo" along with it
The very Greeks knew the difference between "Gaia" their Goddess and the Earth they saw and felt under their feet in Matter as opposed to a spirit they couldn't feel as matter but created stories about

Nd oh! There are many who realize what Gaia stories means to the existence of the earth but discard them as stuff that never happened even as atheist and non greek Pagans grow to accept or at least respect the greek Gaia and make some new concepts about the earth...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Misanthrope:
Identify yourselves.

I believe agnostic Atheists would still fall into that category since he/she does not posit who/what or how a god/gods is' but leaves it to be defined by the theist before giving any reply on belief, so the term "god" is vague and no different from "ooga booga" to agnostic Atheists..

macof:
Smh. Digest this from Mcsterling

...cus to be honest am tired of you

Abeg when your video on oogun dey hit YouTube?that's a discussion am interested in

If Eledua will that I should live till next month, everything will be shot during this ileya festival. And by next week, everything should be ready.


Atheism. . . .opposite of theism.

To put it simply, theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god - nothing more, nothing less. Theism does not depend upon how many gods one believes in. Theism does not depend upon how the term 'god' is defined. Theism does not depend upon how one arrives at their belief. Theism does not depend upon how one defends their belief.

That theism only means "belief in a god" and nothing more can be difficult to understand at times because we don't normally encounter theism in such isolation. Instead, when we see theism, it is embedded in a web of other beliefs - often religious in nature - which color not only the theism itself but also our perception of that theism.


Are you too blind to see the bolden?

No matter what and how believers made out of ther God, atheists are against it.

I think you are already shredded on personal God you were clinging on.

There are milions of God been worship out there. Ranging from Sun to Moon, from stone to hill, from snake to bull, from river to ocean. They are Gods which people worshop in different culture. Atheists disbelieve all. Any atheists trying to wave away one God for another is just silly hypocrite.

finofaya:


But they must have some particular god in mind sir. Ask then which "god" they are referring to when they say that the term "god" is meaningless. I'm sure the gallery in a theatre is not meaningless.

They have foresight. Not like you that hate everything called God.

They ask you to define what you mean by God before they can tell you their decision. Implication of this reveal that they accept some breakdown meaning of God and can dislodge some at will.

Atheism is disbelieve in God. It does not continue with definition of the word God. Therefore we assume you disbelieve in everything that is God.

macof:
Obviously Folykaze knows this already, he's using all of you to catch fun.
Am yet to see how someone denies the existence of "Gaia" should drive Folykaze to forcing down disbelief in the existence of "Gē" (anglicized to "Geo" along with it
The very Greeks knew the difference between "Gaia" their Goddess and the Earth they saw and felt under their feet in Matter as opposed to a spirit they couldn't feel as matter but created stories about

Nd oh! There are many who realize what Gaia stories means to the existence of the earth but discard them as stuff that never happened even as atheist and non greek Pagans grow to accept or at least respect the greek Gaia and make some new concepts about the earth...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

It was how you said Orunmila the Yoruba God of wisdom is different from Ope (palm tree). You keep slumping in falacy. Why? I know very little about the greek Gods. I would have hit you hard.

There is no difference between a God and representation of it. The snake that is worshipped or handled as sacred in India is the same one I kill for food back in the days.

My point is, atheism is the disblieve in the existence of God. Nothing more nothing less. The key point here is that God is not defined or have any specific attribute. So we can all assume everything that is God, they disbelieve in it existence. On the other round, atheism is the direct opposite of theism. In theism, almost everything is God. The tree, snake, bull, earth, sun, moon and even individual are Gods. In essense atheism is denying their existence because it is against everything that is called God.

An atheist trying to give me a new definition of God is a silly hypocrite trying hard to make sense from their falacy.

FOLYKAZE:
They have foresight. Not like you that hate everything called God.

They ask you to define what you mean by God before they can tell you their decision. Implication of this reveal that they accept some breakdown meaning of God and can dislodge some at will.

Atheism is disbelieve in God. It does not continue with definition of the word God. Therefore we assume you disbelieve in everything that is God.

These people claim to be ignostic atheists. Ask them what they are atheists to. I'm sure you know that atheism is an incoherent position.

finofaya:
These people claim to be ignostic atheists. Ask them what they are atheists to. I'm sure you know that atheism is an incoherent position.

Ignostic atheists do not just disbleieve in God. They debelieve in the God that is vague, inconsistent and irrational evaluations of what God is. They take their time to evalute what a theist mean by God unlike atheism which disbleieve in everything that has to do with God.

Ignostic atheism is very like spiritual atheism. I dont believe in God defined as a man living behind the wind but I define God as a natural entity and force. As you can see we demand for clarification before accpeting or disclodging God.

FOLYKAZE:
Ignostic atheists do not just disbleieve in God. They debelieve in the God that is vague, inconsistent and irrational evaluations of what God is. They take their time to evalute what a theist mean by God unlike atheism which disbleieve in everything that has to do with God.

Ignostic atheism is very like spiritual atheism. I dont believe in God defined as a man living behind the wind but I define God as a natural entity and force. As you can see we demand for clarification before accpeting or disclodging God.

You've been trolling here for far too long and have adopted a childish equivocation argument as your sole post..

When deciding whether something falls into a certain definition, all traits shared by members agreed to fit it are highlighted and used to accommodate future inclusions into it..

So right now the traits agreed in a god-belief involve anthropomorphic entities that may/may not exist in human form, may/may not exceed human lifespans and may/may not be believed to interact in nature and may/may not possess the capability to express it's own intent in one form or another.

So redefining a god-belief that is generally regarded and categorized using the above as maybe a "hat" or "car" is not only disingenuous, it is a juvenile equivocation fallacy.

Plus "spiritual" is a vague term also..

FOLYKAZE:
Ignostic atheists do not just disbleieve in God. They debelieve in the God that is vague, inconsistent and irrational evaluations of what God is. They take their time to evalute what a theist mean by God unlike atheism which disbleieve in everything that has to do with God.

Ignostic atheism is very like spiritual atheism. I dont believe in God defined as a man living behind the wind but I define God as a natural entity and force. As you can see we demand for clarification before accpeting or disclodging God.

So ignostic atheists have to believe in clear, consistent and rational deities like Yemoja, then?

davien:
You've been trolling here for far too long and have adopted a childish equivocation argument as your sole post..

When deciding whether something falls into a certain definition, all traits shared by members agreed to fit it are highlighted and used to accommodate future inclusions into it..

So right now the traits agreed in a god-belief involve anthropomorphic entities that may/may not exist in human form, may/may not exceed human lifespans and may/may not be believed to interact in nature and may/may not possess the capability to express it's own intent in one form or another.

So redefining a god-belief that is generally regarded and categorized using the above as maybe a "hat" or "car" is not only disingenuous, it is a juvenile equivocation fallacy.

Plus "spiritual" is a vague term also..

The enbolen exposes how shallow the mind of atheists are. Who in the world takes seriousness out of antromorpophization while leaving out the representation of the anthromorpophic entity?

1. Anthropomorphization is a process of attributing human form or personality to non personal entity. This entity could be depicted as human but it is not human in the real sense. Anthropormophized entities though take the form of human, they are not human. So when an object is been expressed as human having some personal trait, one need to have his attention wrapped not to that human presented but what the human represent.

2. No religion or spirituality accepted that Human trait of God or personal God is real. Rather, they all agree that the human trait of God are meant for figurative expression, parable and figure of speech. A quick check are these;

Christianity

Christian theologian Alister McGrathwrites that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Judaism

Jewish theology states that God is not a person. However, there exist frequent references to anthropomorphic characteristics of God in the Hebrew Bible such as the " Hand of God." Judaism holds that these are to be taken only as figures of speech. Their purpose is to make God more comprehensible to the human reader.

Islam

There are quite a number of traditions in Sahih Bukhari describing that God has a sign in his leg, and he put his leg over the hell and so on. For instance see Sahih Bukhari, Arabic-English version, 9.532s in which Allah is said to have a sign in his shin (leg) and when he uncovers his shin (leg) people will recognize him. Or in the same volume see Tradition 9.604 and 9.510 where it is said that Allah has fingers. Such reference are used metaphorically and do not refer to actual finger, hand or leg.

Let me choose those three for the sake of argument.

Anthropomorphized entities are not human though have human traits and very much personal but they actually exist either as force (impersonal force), natural entities and ideas.

Atheists are the incoherent being who choose to make noise because of some unjustified religion belief. You blindly cling on figurative expression leaving out what this expression represent. I think you would be able to rule out who is employing juvenile argument or acting like a kid.

3. Anthropomorphized entity is simply a figurative illustration of an entity. It is more or less personification of an object. The object could be illustrated in drawing and painting, stories and literatures, this does not make such object a human. It does not make the human trait attribution real. However, figurative expression is meant to make an illustration more admirable and understandabe.

It is foolishness combed with childishness like atheists are exhibiting to choose clinging on figurative exression while rather what message the expression is trying to pass across.

It is like using animal while expressing a nation figuratively. One mind is not in the animal but in what the animal represent. Israel was called Sheep. Some nations Lion, Wolf and buffalos. One mind is not clinging on the animals but what the animalis figuratively expressing in matter of context. Only the foolish 'God Haters' bark round figurative expression.

4. Spirituality is not vague. You are the one looking at it from your blind religious angle.

finofaya:
So ignostic atheists have to believe in clear, consistent and rational deities like Yemoja, then?

that is after I explain to them what Yemoja is.

FOLYKAZE:
1. Anthropomorphization is a process of attributing human form or personality to non personal entity. This entity could be depited as human but it is not human in the real sense. Anthropormophized entities though take the form of human, they are not human. So when an object is been expressed as human having some personal trait, one need to have his attention wrapped not to that human presented but what the human represent.

2. No religion or spirituality accepted that Human trait of God or personal God is real. Rather, they all agree that the human trait of God are meant for figurative expression. A quick check are these;







Let me choose those three for the sake of argument.

Anthropomorphized entities are not human though have human traits and very much personal but they actually exist either as force (impersonal force), natural entities and ideas.

Atheists are the incoherent being who choose to make noise because of some unjustified religion belief. You blindly cling on figurative expression leaving out what this expression represent.

3. Anthropomorphized entity is simply a figurative illustration of an entity. It is more or less personification of an object. The object could be illustrated in drawing and painting, stories and literatures, this does not make such object a human. It does not make the human trait attribution real. However, figurative expression is meant to make an illustration more admirable and understandabe.

It is foolishness like atheists are exhibiting to choose clinging on figurative exression while rather what message the expression is trying to pass across.

It is like using animal while expressing a nation figuratively. One mind is not in the animal but in what the animal represent. Israel was called Sheep. Some nations Lion, Wolf and buffalos. One mind is not clinging on the animals but what the animalis figuratively expression in matter of context. Only the foolish 'God Haters' bark round figurative expression.

4. Spirituality is not vague. You are the one looking at it from your blind religious angle.

Your reply here is just a bloated piece, the point I can find you trying to make is that "Atheists are foolish" because god-beliefs are figurative...

In reality,god-beliefs are figurative expressions of mainly anthropomorphic elements that are presented as factual and it is this claim that the atheist rejects and disbelieves until evidence to justify it is presented.

And again, you're a juvenile troll in that you'd say "spirituality isn't vague" and go on with your strawman without presenting an objective term that best describes it...so have fun with that...

FOLYKAZE:
that is after I explain to them what Yemoja is.

Lol. Don't you think they would have taken Yemoja, and every other deity, into consideration before branding themselves ignostic atheists?

davien:
Your reply here is just a bloated piece, the point I can find you trying to make is that "Atheists are foolish" because god-beliefs are figurative...

You expose the foolishness of atheists even more.

Your attempt to twist my words wont work here. I didnt say at any point that god-belief is figurative. What I said and pointed out is that illustrations, stories and accounts of God which depict God as human or personal entity are figurative.

No one is talking about God belief here. Believing in God is different from accepting and acknowledging in it existence. I am emphasising on the later from the general depiction which postulate God as human.

All Gods are personal. They have human attributes and forms. However, they are not human but representation of an entity which exist as Force, Natural entities and Idea.

The foolishness of atheism like you and finofaya are looking out for human or person in God which is figurative while leaving out what God is expressing in it context.

davien:
In reality,god-beliefs are figurative expressions of mainly anthropomorphic elements that are presented as factual and it is this claim that the atheist rejects and disbelieves until evidence to justify it is presented.

You always prove to me that atheism is nothing but noise of people who cannot justify some religious belief. Your ignorance and hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

1. I have provided Christian, muslim and judaic view on the personhood of God. Non of these three religion agree at any point in time that personhodd of God is factual or present it as fact. They are agree that personhood of God is metaphoric, analogical and figure of speech.

The christian said there is n person called God in the sky or at any place in the universe. That you are blind to see real facts and deceitful to reject facts does not mean others will fall in line with your foolish deceitful trait.

2. Anthropomorphic element is an analogical representation of an existing element.

3. This issue has already been justified. You may have problem with other doctrines which believers hold too but the existence of God has been justified by various religion theoloian.

These God exist not as human as depicted but as a natural entity, force and idea.

You are the one cowardly looking for dirt in distilled water under the tag of justification.

davien:
And again, you're a juvenile troll in that you'd say "spirituality isn't vague" and go on with your strawman without presenting an objective term that best describes it...so have fun with that...

Spirituality is one. Religion might try to dilute it but it does not change. You can do some research rather than sitting your dumbass waiting for foly to define spirituality for you.

finofaya:
Lol. Don't you think they would have taken Yemoja, and every other deity, into consideration before branding themselves ignostic atheists?

It seem you dont know what ignostic atheism is.

There are two sides to it. There may be more but these are the two sides:

1. I dont know what God is therefore I dont need to belief in it existence. Atheism out of ignornce.

2. I cannot accept this God because what you told me about it is not fatual. Atheism out of inconsistency of God.


Ignostic atheist might not know about Yemoja. Well if I explain to them what I mean by Yemoja, they might choose to accept it or throw it out base on reason.

This reason though can be stressed over and over.

FOLYKAZE:
It seem you dont know what ignostic atheism is.

There are two sides to it. There may be more but these are the two sides:

1. I dont know what God is therefore I dont need to belief in it existence. Atheism out of ignornce.

2. I cannot accept this God because what you told me about it is not fatual. Atheism out of inconsistency of God.


Ignostic atheist might not know about Yemoja. Well if I explain to them what I mean by Yemoja, they might choose to accept it or throw it out base on reason.

This reason though can be stressed over and over.

Smh. This is the misunderstanding that makes you think you can address Ignosticism by explaining who Yemoja is.

So it can be reasonable to deny that Yemoja exists?

FOLYKAZE:
It was how you said Orunmila the Yoruba God of wisdom is different from Ope (palm tree). You keep slumping in falacy. Why? I know very little about the greek Gods. I would have hit you hard.

There is no difference between a God and representation of it. The snake that is worshipped or handled as sacred in India is the same one I kill for food back in the days.

My point is, atheism is the disblieve in the existence of God. Nothing more nothing less. The key point here is that God is not defined or have any specific attribute. So we can all assume everything that is God, they disbelieve in it existence. On the other round, atheism is the direct opposite of theism. In theism, almost everything is God. The tree, snake, bull, earth, sun, moon and even individual are Gods. In essense atheism is denying their existence because it is against everything that is called God.

An atheist trying to give me a new definition of God is a silly hypocrite trying hard to make sense from their falacy.

Well for now I have nothing much to do. ..lemme play with you small. .

If you don't know anything about Greeks then learn. ..cus when you start using words like "atheist" "theist" that all come from Greek you need to know how they used the words

I've told you "Theos" is of the same root word as "Theory"
Theorie/Theoria - the word that has become "Theory"..originally meaning "Contemplation" "A looking at(with the mental faculty)"
Thea - A view, Idea, Notion. Masculine form of this word is "Theo" from the verb "δε" - "The(de)" meaning "to see"
Theos - the word for "Deity" or "God"
So my friend I can as well use the word "Theo" meaning Idea, it is afterall the root of the words "Theoria" and "Theos"

Idea is an image or representation of something. and in the past, more often than in modern times, ideas took shape into anthropomorphic entities with description like hands, head, wearing clothes, having sex, procreation, showing emotions etc and above all fine art. .. all this to help explain it better and easier

An atheist can reject an Idea doesn't mean he denies the existence of what the Idea is about

@ Folykaze I hope you know that no christian understands God (oh before you misunderstand this word...I mean the Christian God)
Infact to push to understand God is considered heresy...not to mention that there are so many denominations with different basic understanding of their God
To a typical christian. ..nobody knows God other than stuff like - God is a HE, God sits on a throne, God has a voice and speaks words and a few others
A christian takes his bible description of God very seriously. .and to him, it's a fact he is ready to die for

FOLYKAZE:
You expose the foolishness of atheists even more.

* Yawn
I'd hardly see it that way as compared to a person that has to equate terms to present his case, all in all another empty post.

Your attempt to twist my words wont work here. I didnt say at any point that god-belief is figurative. What I said and pointed out is that illustrations, stories and accounts of God which depict God as human or personal entity are figurative.

You can chase your tail all day, it only shows how low and depraved you'd go to present your case.

No one is talking about God belief here. Believing in God is different from accepting and acknowledging in it existence. I am emphasising on the later from the general depiction which postulate God as human.

@bolded, The funny thing about equivocating terms is that you end up sounding like a slowpoke... can a belief in god(god-belief) stand on its own without an acknowledgement and acceptance in the first place? or are you going to sheepishly label god "limestone" this time?

All Gods are personal. They have human attributes and forms. However, they are not human but representation of an entity which exist as Force, Natural entities and Idea.

Really? What happens to the pantheistic and deism god concept? You've trolled yourself off here..

The foolishness of atheism like you and finofaya are looking out for human or person in God which is figurative while leaving out what God is expressing in it context.

What's really foolish here is you keep running around in circles, you keep trying to claim the notion of god has a specific context and when asked you'd keep mute and continue trolling.

You always prove to me that atheism is nothing but noise of people who cannot justify some religious belief. Your ignorance and hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

*Yawn
Another empty post, I'm not even sure if you actually read your own posts nor understand what you're saying.

1. I have provided Christian, muslim and judaic view on the personhood of God. Non of these three religion agree at any point in time that personhodd of God is factual or present it as fact. They are agree that personhood of God is metaphoric, analogical and figure of speech.

Again, you equate the general definition to the practise, practitioners of those religions whom call themselves "believers" would allege that those "metaphors" are true accounts, hence they believe.

The christian said there is n person called God in the sky or at any place in the universe. That you are blind to see real facts and deceitful to reject facts does not mean others will fall in line with your foolish deceitful trait.

The theology speaks for itself, and so far it speaks of ascension into the clouds and firmaments of waters in it, so you can keep deluding yourself and chasing your tail.

2. Anthropomorphic element is an analogical representation of an existing element.

Again,when you equivocate too much you end up contradicting yourself and making a fool of yourself... (below is a highlight of your post)

Anthropomorphized entity is simply a figurative illustration of an entity. It is more or less personification of an object. The object could be illustrated in drawing and painting, stories and literatures

So which does it express? real entities/elements or figurative ones?

3. This issue has already been justified. You may have problem with other doctrines which believers hold too but the existence of God has been justified by various religion theoloian.

You can either keep typing empty assertions or present them here... something that's been justified can be easily presented, so where is the presentation for god?

These God exist not as human as depicted but as a natural entity, force and idea.

Natural entity like what? poo? sand? You keep begging the question and again you're chasing your tail.

You are the one cowardly looking for dirt in distilled water under the tag of justification.

A classic case of a persecution complex... it's no wonder you keep chasing your tail.
The entirety of your post is pure garbage, either you equate in one section or outright try making an empty claim in another...

Spirituality is one. Religion might try to dilute it but it does not change. You can do some research rather than sitting your dumbass waiting for foly to define spirituality for you.

You definitively have a diaper rash, you made this claim, "Spirituality is not vague", but when it comes down to backing that up with an objective definition you'd run off and tell me to research the term.

This Folykaze of a guy has a distorted understanding of what Ignosticism is all about.

Take for example.

An atheist will say there is no God, while an Ignostic will tell you that the word God is meaningless and all attributes ascribed to him are either improbable or ludicrous. It's more like Strong Atheism.

Misanthrope:
This Folykaze of a guy has a distorted understanding of what Ignosticism is all about.

Take for example.

An atheist will say there is no God, while an Ignostic will tell you that the word God is meaningless and all attributes ascribed to him are either improbable or ludicrous. It's more like Strong Atheism.

You mean weak atheism, because strong atheism presents a definition of the god rejected.

Seems like I'm an Ignostic Theist.

Misanthrope:
This Folykaze of a guy has a distorted understanding of what Ignosticism is all about.

Take for example.

An atheist will say there is no God, while an Ignostic will tell you that the word God is meaningless and all attributes ascribed to him are either improbable or ludicrous. It's more like Strong Atheism.

Oga stop calling on me like I missing. For the moment, let me answer your post.

I do not have any distorted understanding of the word Ignosticism. Yoy are the one that need to educate yourself more.

Here is a link http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Ignosticism for some help

IGNOSTICISM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
An ignostic is one who refrains from making any judgments about "god" until a coherent definition is provided. It is often considered a subset of agnosticism and/or atheism, and is compared to theological noncognitivism. It should not be confused with agnosticism or theological noncognitivism, however.

Etymology

The term "ignosticism" is a play on the words "ignorance" and "gnosticism." A direct meaning of ignosticism would mean something like, "ignorance of god(s)," meaning the ignostic doesn't know anything about gods, or doesn't know what the term "god" means. Typically the ignostic takes a position of refraining from making arguments for or against the existence of god(s) until a coherent definition of "god" is provided. Many ignostics are also theological noncognitivists, although the two positions are not mutually inclusive.

History

The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

Difference between ignosticism and agnosticism

The agnostic (and here I use Huxley's intended meaning) makes the claim that we cannot know anything about God, whereas the ignostic claims that we cannot even form an opinion of God. The difference is subtle, but distinct. The agnostic has made an opinion of God; the agnostic has a concept of God in mind and has determined that we cannot discern anything about this God. The ignostic, on the other hand, refuses to make any opinion of God in the first place, remaining ignorant until someone provides a coherent claim of God.

Read through and tell me where I err in what i said so far

macof:
@ Folykaze I hope you know that no christian understands God (oh before you misunderstand this word...I mean the Christian God)
Infact to push to understand God is considered heresy...not to mention that there are so many denominations with different basic understanding of their God
To a typical christian. ..nobody knows God other than stuff like - God is a HE, God sits on a throne, God has a voice and speaks words and a few others
A christian takes his bible description of God very seriously. .and to him, it's a fact he is ready to die for

At which point did Christian agree that their God is human and person?

Secondly why are you with some atheists beaming light on something or position ehich Christians never agree to?

Finofaya said he was looking for tge personhood of God. You said he meant Abrahamic God. So tell me bro, what person or human are you looking foe in Christian God when the so called Christians did not at anyt point agree that tgeir God is human?

macof:
Well for now I have nothing much to do. ..lemme play with you small. .

If you don't know anything about Greeks then learn. ..cus when you start using words like "atheist" "theist" that all come from Greek you need to know how they used the words

I've told you "Theos" is of the same root word as "Theory"
Theorie/Theoria - the word that has become "Theory"..originally meaning "Contemplation" "A looking at(with the mental faculty)"
Thea - A view, Idea, Notion. Masculine form of this word is "Theo" from the verb "δε" - "The(de)" meaning "to see"
Theos - the word for "Deity" or "God"
So my friend I can as well use the word "Theo" meaning Idea, it is afterall the root of the words "Theoria" and "Theos"

Idea is an image or representation of something. and in the past, more often than in modern times, ideas took shape into anthropomorphic entities with description like hands, head, wearing clothes, having sex, procreation, showing emotions etc and above all fine art. .. all this to help explain it better and easier

An atheist can reject an Idea doesn't mean he denies the existence of what the Idea is about

Thanks for you time here. But I think you err big time.

Make i no lost inside bush. Will get back when we get home

FOLYKAZE:
At which point did Christian agree that their God is human and person?

Secondly why are you with some atheists beaming light on something or position ehich Christians never agree to?

Finofaya said he was looking for tge personhood of God. You said he meant Abrahamic God. So tell me bro, what person or human are you looking foe in Christian God when the so called Christians did not at anyt point agree that tgeir God is human?

Lemme remind you that I was a Christian for almost 20 years
So I don't know what you are talking about

macof:
Lemme remind you that I was a Christian for almost 20 years
So I don't know what you are talking about

That you are a christian for decades is not an answer here.

The question again is that at what point in time did christian agree that Christian God is human or person?

davien:
* Yawn
I'd hardly see it that way as compared to a person that has to equate terms to present his case, all in all another empty post.

Anthropomorphic entity is not human. The human trait attribute are figurative expression pointing to an existing element.

davien:
You can chase your tail all day, it only shows how low and depraved you'd go to present your case.

This does not make your twisted lie truth.

davien:
@bolded, The funny thing about equivocating terms is that you end up sounding like a slowpoke... can a belief in god(god-belief) stand on its own without an acknowledgement and acceptance in the first place? or are you going to sheepishly label god "limestone" this time?

Do you see that you are having comprehensive problem?

I said there is difference between belieiving in God and acknowledging in it existence?

The difference here is very clear. For example, christians acknowledge the existence of other Gods. They accept that some other Gods exist in other cultures. Even these Gods were mentioned in the bible. But do christians believe in these Gods?

For dummy which you are:

do christians acknowledge some other Gods exist? Yes.

Do christians believe in these other Gods? No.

I dont know what is hard to understand here.

davien:
Really? What happens to the pantheistic and deism god concept? You've trolled yourself off here..

You better start up some reading dumbo.

Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. I believe you do not want me to start schooling you on the personhood of hindu Gods.

Deism

Deism[ edit]
In general, most Deists view God as a personal God.

Foolish dumbo. Where are you going to hide your blocked head?

davien:
What's really foolish here is you keep running around in circles, you keep trying to claim the notion of god has a specific context and when asked you'd keep mute and continue trolling.

You are too dumb.

God are described as a person but that doesnt make them a person. It is foolishness that you cling on figurative expression which depict man as human rather than decoding the message.

davien:
*Yawn
Another empty post, I'm not even sure if you actually read your own posts nor understand what you're saying.

Again, you equate the general definition to the practise, practitioners of those religions whom call themselves "believers" would allege that those "metaphors" are true accounts, hence they believe.

Liar. All theologists agree that the account are metaphor.

davien:
The theology speaks for itself, and so far it speaks of ascension into the clouds and firmaments of waters in it, so you can keep deluding yourself and chasing your tail.

Your lies shredded.

davien:
Again,when you equivocate too much you end up contradicting yourself and making a fool of yourself... (below is a highlight of your post)


So which does it express? real entities/elements or figurative ones?

Can you explain how it is contradictory?

davien:
You can either keep typing empty assertions or present them here... something that's been justified can be easily presented, so where is the presentation for god?

Shakti is Energy.

Gaia is Earth.

Ogun is Iron.

These Gods existence justified.

davien:
Natural entity like what? poo? sand? You keep begging the question and again you're chasing your tail.

Incoherent.

Gaia represent Earth. Natural entity.

Lady Justice represent Law/Justice. Idea.

What more do you want dumbo?

davien:
A classic case of a persecution complex... it's no wonder you keep chasing your tail.

You are not addressing anything.

davien:
The entirety of your post is pure garbage, either you equate in one section or outright try making an empty claim in another...

Running of out of counter argument.

davien:
You definitively have a diaper rash, you made this claim, "Spirituality is not vague", but when it comes down to backing that up with an objective definition you'd run off and tell me to research the term.

Did you tell us how it is vague?

FOLYKAZE:
That you are a christian for decades is not an answer here.

The question again is that at what point in time did christian agree that Christian God is human or person?

Go to a church and maybe your question will be answered

macof:
Go to a church and maybe your question will be answered

Should we conclude christians do not agree that their God is human or person?

Misanthrope:
Identify yourselves.

What do you wanna do with them?