That's your response. You have got to be kidding. Do you even begin to understand the point I am making?

If there is a God, then it is unlikely that concepts like sex or number have any real relevance. Pointing out that different religions have different concepts means nothing with respect to the fundamental concept of theism.

Don't respond. Just try to think. You probably can. Do not look at this as some kind of exchange you can win. Just try to reach a little higher level of understanding. If that sounds condescending, it is but only because you brought it on yourself.

Concerning the OP, I do not see how anyone could make the general statement that atheism is a religion. That is a non-starter as far as I can tell.

The only thing you might say is that some extreme atheists can become religious about their position and can begin to make obviously flawed statements such as "Religion is the root of all evil". Obviously that is not true. If the person saying that truly believes that to be accurate in the face of all counter-arguments, then I would probably sympathize with someone who accused them of following a religion. But in general most of the atheists on this forum do not fall into that category.

Of course you already know this...but you're giving an inexplicable priority to your personal opinion.

"1 And God spoke all these words: 2 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 You shall have no other gods before me.'" (Exodus 20. NIV.)

"4 Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 6. NIV.)

"There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." (The Shahada.)

The multiplicity and implied gender of God are very relevant to almost every theist alive.

I DARE you to go to an Evangelical Bible study and open with: "Our Mother who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name..."

Not relevant...lol...

“God is so masculine that all creation is feminine in comparison.” (C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength...iirc.) All the monotheistic traditions, even in their most liberal forms, are unapologetically patriarchal.

So make your point explicitly if you want to support Wamy.

What you are saying is that because I can see that gender is irrelevant to a description of God, I am an atheist except to my concept.

Is that a fair restatement of your point?

So RLK, how do you account for the hugely divergent versions of this deity? How does everyone save christians (and jews to a some extent) get it so very very wrong. I can see the different versions of the judeo christian god as being a better example of your point. However, to suggest that all the thousands of religions out there are just a wrong interpretation of the one God of the bible has disturbing implications for your God - particularly with regard to his honesty. Unless you're going to say that any personal connection these other folks have had with their version of God were - what - hallucinations? Self deception? Why is only the biblical version to be taken as accurate? And even if we are to accept that they are all versioins of the same deity, why should Christianity get the nod?

Strawman argument.

Quote the statement where I said that the Judeo-Christian view was superior to the other religions.

I never said any one of them was specifically right. Why do the atheists on this site persist in arguing against points I have never asserted? My point was that all religions are going to be incorrect in the details of their picture of God. That is not an argument against the existence of God, just an argument for the imperfection of human understanding.

Rizeagainst is a moron but he had one point correct. This forum is a waste of time.

What? You're entitled to your opinion; my point is that it's bizarre to ignore that almost every self-identified theist alive disagrees with you.

If you still don't understand my gist, just pick a random Jew, Christian, or Muslim and try to convince her to shift her religious imagery away from: a unitary, patriarchal God.

You'll get my point...quickly.

Whether you are right or not about monotheistic traditions, you are certainly wrong if you think you can find support for that in Lewis.

You might also want to consider:

Galatians 3:

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You may know Christians who wouldn't blink if you used the feminine pronoun for God, but I've never met such people. This is my point. The gender identification of God is very very very very relevant for devotees of the monotheistic traditions.

Identifying God as masculine isn't patriarchal, unless you mean something by that word different from what I understand it to be.

Well, it certainly is trying to have a discussion with you, after all, you have the answers, and it is for us to simply figure out why. I will refrain in the future. But perhaps there are some aspects to your position which require further thought. Perhaps my question was less of a strawman than you first thought.

Anyhow, back to SMP you go...

Dunno what you understand, but by 'patriarchal' I'm referring to institutionalized use of the masculine for God. This exclusionary male concept of 'God' mirrors and enforces obvious social hierarchies. (I.e. patriarchy.)

Christians use the masculine for God because the Bible does, which is His Word. As for the relations of men and women in this world in this life, that's a completely different question - if Christians have been wrong in some ways in the past about what the Bible teaches doesn't mean there's anything wrong with God being identified as masculine.

NR being obtuse, how novel

Really? Why then does Lewis argue in this essay that the Anglican church should not allow women to be priests? He acknowledges that there is no inherent worthiness in men that would justify such a view, but argues that this patriarchalism is part of the mystical tradition of Christianity and thus preserving it is a way of preserving Christianity. Here is a representative passage from the essay:

It is clear that Lewis was in some ways uncomfortable with this tradition, and perhaps he was in other respects a gender egalitarian, but he clearly recognizes that the tradition of Christianity is a patriarchal tradition and thus supports patriarchal practices as part of the practice of Christianity.

Well, monotheistic narratives and institutions have profoundly defined gender relations across the world. And this relation has been: oppression and rape, both physical and psychological.

I prefer to match my language to reality, as much as I can....hence I describe the monotheistic God as 'patriarchal'---one more psychological weapon of the patriarchy.

I don't deny that Lewis recognized that not only is there a difference between the genders in nature but also in the Bible. I'm arguing against the idea that men are in any way considered Scripturally as superior to women wrt to their worth in God's eyes. In other words, neither Lewis nor the Bible are sexist in the sense of being guilty of invidious discrimination. Men and women have different roles to play, neither is superior to the other, and it's temporary anyway and won't exist in the final state.

See, this is what I mean. Masculine = patriarchal = oppression and rape - what rot if you think that has anything to do with Lewis or the Bible.

Wow that C.S. Lewis quote made me throw up a little bit. We are insufficiently masculine? Wow. What a thing to say.

Well obviously patriarchal religions such as Christianity were invented by men (who else?) living in patriarchal societies. So that's the basic causal chain. But as Christian institutions gained power, naturally they re-imprinted their patriarchal origins.

I'm not going to argue history with you, though you are as wrong about that as you are about Lewis, but my point is what the Bible teaches about gender, whether particular Christians have got it right or not.

So the Bible teaches that the sexes are equal? People have just been misinterpreting it for 2k years? Yeah, you cannot be serious.

I just demonstrated it.