(August 1, 2019 at 9:48 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You have the internet, go do some basic research. Maybe you’ll fuck up less.

I did, and none of the cultures that you might be referring to regarding their views of property, support your unsupported claim that they lack a concept of stealing.

You provided no evidence for this claim, and there were no support for it when i searched myself.

Sure you did killer.

Meanwhile, I’m going to sit over here and laugh my ass off at such a transparent lie, followed up with a demand for evidence, from a “theist”....who’s already shown that he’ll argue in the face of any true and trivial thing presented in evidence to him.....

......as an excuse to bitch about how parents , excuse me, atheists....just don’t understand.

(August 1, 2019 at 9:40 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: They’re the defining characteristics of a theistic god. It’s what the term refers to. That’s the difference between a deistic god and a theistic god. A person who believes in an impersonal and non interventionist god.....is a deist.

Surprise surprise, another subject you know jack shit about but nevertheless feel compelled to argue with your betters over.

Now tell me again how mean atheists are just always misunderstanding your “theism”.

Deism is a form of theism, so is pantheism etc. This should be apparent to everyone who identities as an a-theist, as the reason why we don’t have adeist or apantheist, because the term theism covers them all.

“Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.


Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Pay close attention to the section “types of theism”, listing deism, etc.. under it.

Lol, you don’t even seem to understand what atheism means, let alone theism.

---

(August 1, 2019 at 9:53 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure you did killer.

Meanwhile, I’m going to sit over here and laugh my ass off at such a transparent lie, followed up with a demand for evidence, from a “theist”....who’s already shown that he’ll argue in the face of any true and trivial thing presented in evidence to him.....

......as an excuse to bitch about how parents , excuse me, atheists....just don’t understand.

Your the one that claims such cultures exist, and refuse to provide us any support for this claim of yours. So please don’t accuse me of dishonesty here.

Perhaps one of your buddies here, Grandizer etc.. could help you out? Because I would really like to hear about these unnamed tribes that lacks a conception of stealing.

You think you could of at least provided the name of the tribe?

There you go, arguing trivial shit, in evidence, presented to you. Oblivious to how and why we use the terms we do as an artifact of history and culture.

What would the point of educating you about the question of surface analytics in moral statements serve?

- just another excuse to bitch about atheists not understanding the things you know jack shit about.

---

I’m going to point out how phenomenally silly this has all been with another recap.

Theism is not the belief that there are narratives in reality, or your desire to be s dad, it is about a personal and intervening god, which you contest isn’t a requirement.....but not because you don’t believe in a personal and intervening god, as a theist....not a deist.

Like every other batshit argument you’ve launched yourself into, you’ve managed to get everything wrong, even though you had absolutely no reason to argue in the first place, and did nothing but misrepresent your own silly beliefs and justifications, while failing to advance your argument a single inch in the process.

(August 1, 2019 at 10:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: There you go, arguing trivial shit, in evidence, presented to you. Oblivious to how and why we use the terms we do as an artifact of history and culture.

What would the point of educating you about the question of surface analytics in moral statements serve?

- just another excuse to bitch about atheists not understanding the things you know jack shit about.

“Surface analytics in moral statements” , could you really sound any more pretentious? “Ethically subjective morally relativistic realism”.

Rather that swiveling a bunch of terms together like a Deepak Chopra generator, you could learn from the advice of more competent atheist writers like Dennett, and value writing simply.

It would help you work through your ideas and their objections in your head as well.

I prefer writing simply and accurately, you’re still bitching about not knowing shit.

Unclog your ears, do some research.

“I wanna argue with you about how nuclear reactors work, but you keep using all that physics mumbo jumbo, waaaaaah!”

How about this for simple. You’ve been simply wrong about every single issue we’ve discussed in thread, right down to what theism means.

(August 1, 2019 at 10:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: There you go, arguing trivial shit, in evidence, presented to you. Oblivious to how and why we use the terms we do as an artifact of history and culture.

What would the point of educating you about the question of surface analytics in moral statements serve?

- just another excuse to bitch about atheists not understanding the things you know jack shit about.

---

I’m going to point out how phenomenally silly this has all been with another recap.

Theism is not the belief that there are narratives in reality, or your desire to be s dad, it is about a personal and intervening god, which you contest isn’t a requirement.....but not because you don’t believe in a personal and intervening god, as a theist....not a deist.

Like every other batshit argument you’ve launched yourself into, you’ve managed to get everything wrong, even though you had absolutely no reason to argue in the first place, and did nothing but misrepresent your own silly beliefs and justifications, while failing to advance your argument a single inch in the process.

Ive provided you the support for the definition of theism, pointing out that deism is a form of theism, that theism doesn’t require belief in a personal or intervening god.

I also pointed out the obviousness of this definition, in the very label you attach to yourself “a-theist”.

But it appears cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, have taken over your
brain, since you’re adamant to apply one criteria to the definition of theism when it comes to a-theism, and another when it comes to theism itself.

If the voice in your head says so, it must be so.

I guess it never occurred to you that if the people on the other end of the coin at the time the word “atheist” was minted we’re deists, we would be using the term adeists.

Not “obvious” enough...and here you are trying to argue over the defining chacteristics of a theistic god, plainly accurately and simply stated to you... by reference to the word atheist?

Fuck that chicken, fuck it hard. Tell me how theism doesn’t mean what theism means, because atheist.

- and here’s the kicker....atheists could call themselves cabbages....and theism would still explicitly refer to a personal and intervening god.

---

So here’s what I think. I’m done trying to educate a pissy brick. If you insist that theism is somehow required for moral realism, then you need to cut all this silly shit out and get to explaining how realism requires the personal and intervening god you believe in, that defines theism.

Because that’s the -only- way to support that assertion.

The rest is just stalling for time in the absence of any such explanation.

(August 1, 2019 at 10:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If the voice in your head says so, it must be so.

I guess it never occurred to you that if the people on the other end of the coin at the time the word “atheist” was minted we’re deists, we would be using the term adeists.

Not “obvious” enough...and here you are trying to argue over the defining chacteristics of a theistic god, plainly accurately and simply stated to you... by reference to the word atheist?

Fuck that chicken, fuck it hard.  Tell me how theism doesn’t mean what theism means, because atheist.

- and here’s the kicker....atheists could call themselves cabbages....and theism would still explicitly refer to a personal and intervening god.

---

So here’s what I think.  I’m done trying to educate a pissy brick.  If you insist that theism is somehow required for moral realism, then you need to cut all this silly shit out and get to explaining how realism requires the personal and intervening god you believe in, that defines theism.

Because that’s the -only- way to support that assertion.  

The rest is just stalling for time in the absence of any such explanation.

Man, I indicated to you that deism, and other forms of belief in God are all forms of theism, i even pointed you to the Wikipedia entry on theism, that explicitly indicated different forms of theism. And its like all you do is stick your fingers in your ear, and whine "na, na, na I don't want to hear it". 

If this is the type of education you're offering, you can keep it, and should possibly refrain from trying to educate anyone ever again.

The username is certainly fitting, all those mental gymnastics.