If there is a creator, so what?

[Edwardo Piet]

Notice how he bolds one small part and ignores the rest. What an annoying twat.

[FallentoReason]

Are Catholics closet pantheists?

That's a reasonable misunderstanding. Catholics hold that all things "participate"/"share" in god's being. Pantheists hold that all things ARE god's being.

What's the differentiation between participating in being and simply being? To participate in being *is* to be, surely? Otherwise, if you're not being, then what else is left to do?

[Angrboda]

Not at all.  I was a Hindu before becoming an atheist.  What reason would I have for presuming the creator is like your god rather than mine? [1] This points to a major problem with Christianity in that it is founded upon a book that has multiple flaws. [2] Why would I assume its putative author had anything to do with creation? [3]

1) The reasons that would have led to the conclusion that it is real. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not proposing at this point that the purely rational conception of god is the same thing as Christianity's god and certainly not Hindu's god.

The most basic, purely rational conception of god, as far as I can tell, is subsistent-being. If Hindu's god is subsistent-being, then at this point in the discussion, we have no disagreement.

Not the point. It doesn't matter whose god you choose, you're using a loaded definition of the word god. Such 'relationships' only materialize with certain gods. I don't have a relationship with Loki, nor is he subsistent being (a concept I detest, btw). What you have by acknowledging a creator is a deistic god about whom nothing is known, unless you load the box with your own self-serving definition.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ignorant is too intellectually dishonest and full of fallacies to be worth debating with.

[Whateverist]

Ignorant is too intellectually dishonest and full of fallacies to be worth debating with.

Doesn't seem that way to me.  That objective vs subjective thread OP was pretty ambitious and successful, I thought.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well as long as he only behaves that way towards some of us eh?

You can see that with me he cherry-picked me twice, only ever addressing one of my points, and also condescended me the second time.

[Whateverist]

I haven't got entirely caught up with the thread. But I do remember him from before and think he is rethinking his own position as he defends it. Can't really expect a whole lot more than that. Few theists come here specifically to lose their beliefs. But I was starting to react to triggers which upon reflection were more in my own mind than in anything he'd said. Just sayin' but suit yourself. You'll get to where you're going, as well you should.

[Angrboda]

Ignorant is too intellectually dishonest and full of fallacies to be worth debating with.

Maybe he's different with you, Hammy, but I've always found him an honest and sincere debater.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well maybe he is different with me. There's always his responses to me to check.

TBH I think it was both very rude and intellectually dishonest of him. Here's me addressing him and here's him bolding one line of my posts and ignoring the rests and then telling me to catch up and condescending me with how he believes in me.

But sure you can all enjoy him as long as you're only caring about how he talks to you. His selectiveness just displays his confirmation bias.

He probably just doesn't want me on his case so he brushed me aside. I'd spot his equivocations too easily.

[Edwardo Piet]

For the record I always thought he was one of the good ones until he started feeding me with this disingenuous shit more recently. His apparent willingness to change his mind is just that: Apparent. It's an act, in the end he just confirms his own biases and doesn't address people properly. Or he addresses people as long as they let some of his fallacies slip by.