Question for Bosse de Nage.

Originally posted by stocken
Hey! Only us atheists may say that about you theists! 😠

😉

I would find it just as absurd to call myself a theist.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I would find it just as absurd to call myself a theist.

What are you having on about? One must be one or the other.*

*I do not consider agnosticism to be a separate category.

Originally posted by Nemesio
But this is my very question: Why, if he was so articulate on his
beliefs about (what he called) God and especially since he defended
himself against the very claim of being an atheist, did he maintain
that he was a theist?

Obviously, he didn't have any shame in making his unorthodox
claims about who he thought God was even though it was radical ...[text shortened]... I don't know (I've read nothing
except excerpts I can find on the internet).

Nemesio

I don't believe that BS was an atheist; I was merely offering one possibility for the situation. From the sound of his writings and various biographies of his life, I would say that BS simply saw things more organically than did his contemporaries. That organic view allowed him to see the patterns of God's thought throughout many aspects of life... something his counterparts were not accustomed to seeing.

The visionary wins again.

Originally posted by rwingett
What are you having on about? One must be one or the other.*

*I do not consider agnosticism to be a separate category.

Do I believe in God?

Yes and no.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do I believe in God?

Yes and no.

They haven't given you their definition of god , and yet, they want you to believe in it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do I believe in God?

Yes and no.

Speaking tersely may be equated by the habitually loquacious as being akin to wisdom, but those of us who are accustomed to such paucity in discourse regard this stratagem as being a highly dubious one. Which is to say that while 'brevity may be the soul of wit', There inevitably comes a point, a reductionist threshold if you will, which, if surpassed, points inexorably toward delibarate obscurantism. I think that point is well nigh. Hitherto you seem to have delighted in tossing off presumptive bon mots encapsulated within an absolute minimum of verbiage, but I daresay this charade grows a wee bit tiresome. If you could be so kind as to indulge those of us who are less quick on the uptake with a more expansive explanation of your various semi-koans within this thread, it would be greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by rwingett
Speaking tersely may be equated by the habitually loquacious as being akin to wisdom, but those of us who are accustomed to such paucity in discourse regard this stratagem as being a highly dubious one. Which is to say that while 'brevity may be the soul of wit', There inevitably comes a point, a reductionist threshold if you will, which, if surpassed, poi ...[text shortened]... ve explanation of your various semi-koans within this thread, it would be greatly appreciated.

and yet, a windbag is still only a windbag.

Originally posted by frogstomp
They haven't given you their definition of god , and yet, they want you to believe in it.

Isn't that exactly why he said yes and no?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do I believe in God?

Yes and no.

Maybe you are a semitheist?

Originally posted by Nordlys
Maybe you are a semitheist?

I'm an anti-semitheist.

Originally posted by Palynka
Isn't that exactly why he said yes and no?

probably.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm an anti-semitheist.

You mean like a Neon-Nazi?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm an anti-semitheist.

I am a hemidemisemitheist.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You mean like a Neon-Nazi?

😀 Excellent!!

Originally posted by frogstomp
They haven't given you their definition of god , and yet, they want you to believe in it.

There are also those who don't necessarily want you to believe in god, but they want you to call whatever you believe in "god", because they don't want you to be an atheist.