(June 6, 2013 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If anyone needs any clarification on this point, deism is like atheism but with poetic flourishes.

I don't even correct anyone who says I'm an atheist. The hair-splitting distinction is more than anyone who uses the word "atheist" as a pejorative will be able to comprehend anyway.

From my perspective, I would treat a deist exactly the same as an atheist or agnostic, to me they are all united in rejecting the notion of a Creator that sustains, cares, and interacts with His creation.

(June 6, 2013 at 6:10 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: From my perspective, I would treat a deist exactly the same as an atheist or agnostic, to me they are all united in rejecting the notion of a Creator that sustains, cares, and interacts with His creation.

What if you're an agnostic theist?

(June 6, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: What if you're an agnostic theist?

Same thing really. A person who's an agnostic theist obviously doesn't believe in a kind of Creator I mentioned, they might think it's a possibility but that doesn't mean they believe fully.

(June 6, 2013 at 8:12 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Same thing really. A person who's an agnostic theist obviously doesn't believe in a kind of Creator I mentioned, they might think it's a possibility but that doesn't mean they believe fully.

Well, an agnostic theist definitely would believe and it is definitely possible they believe the same kind of creator you mentioned; they just wouldn't 'know.' I'm interested in this concept of half-believing you bring up, though.

(June 6, 2013 at 8:12 pm)ideologue08 Wrote:

(June 6, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: What if you're an agnostic theist?

Same thing really. A person who's an agnostic theist obviously doesn't believe in a kind of Creator I mentioned, they might think it's a possibility but that doesn't mean they believe fully.

Your misunderstanding of the definitions, caused by a conflation of 2 separate concepts, leads you to this erroneous conclusion. One can believe fully but still not claim to know for certain just as one can disbelieve fully but still not claim to know for certain. The sincerity or 'fullness' of one's beliefs is not defined by one's claims to knowledge.

(June 6, 2013 at 5:08 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: I didn't say you were right did I? Nope.

Of course not. You're defending the atheist despite the clear evidence.

Quote:I said it was embarrassing that you weren't addressing his actual point, you saw STFU and claimed that that was his point when his point was clearly not 'newbies stfu' it was, 'lets move past the same tired arguments, here they are now get past it cuz I'm tired of talking about the same shit in circles with you.' Get the point?

His words speak for themselves:

Quote:If you do offer these arguments, do not expect anything more than irritated GTFO or STFU retorts.

And as I noted, if he's tired of such, the simple and obvious solution is to stop reading those types of threads. Duh.

(June 7, 2013 at 8:59 am)John V Wrote: And as I noted, if he's tired of such, the simple and obvious solution is to stop reading those types of threads. Duh.

Except that I don't want to let Christians get away with their bullshit. Hence, my solution of a quick link. "Already debunked. Here it is. *Link*" But that would make Christians cry and feel oppressed.

Because their belief is on shaky ground?

(June 7, 2013 at 9:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Except that I don't want to let Christians get away with their bullshit.

Uh, you're not the only atheist poster here. I don't see an abundance of unanswered Christian threads.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:33 am)John V Wrote: I don't see an abundance of unanswered Christian threads.

Thank you.

It's always good to know when we're all doing our part. Teamwork!

Seriously, I can't read their minds but I'd be willing to wager that all or at least most of them are just as sick of the oft-repeated-oft-debunked canned apologetic arguments and would like the simplicity of simply typing "Been there. Debunked that. **Link** "