Amoral Inaction

[tackattack]

---

I already said I would not answer the same question a fourth time so I'm only going to offer a rebuttal to one point: #5
This is the third time in two threads that you have used the phrase, you're too emotionally hurt to have an open mind. This rude little remark is just your subtle way of implying that I don't really have a valid point because I'm "emotional" about the topic. You're attempting to discredit me and minimalize my point by responding to me as if I was your wife on the rag .... "It's ok honey, you're just emotional."
It's condescending bullshit, but what really annoys me the most about it is that you don’t know a damn thing about me. My hatred of christianity is almost equal to my hatred of Islam. If you don't believe me - go read my posts in threads concerning Islam ... and I assure you, I've never practiced Islam and no single muslim has ever "emotionally hurt" me in my life. I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it. I don't care if you are a moderator and everybody loves you - it's a bullshit argument and you should be embarrassed to have relied on it so many times. This is NOT the first. Stop presuming what I feel.

That being said, I still only hate two people on this forum and you are not one of them.


(notice that I have not been emotionally hurt by them – but I still despise them)

As aside, as long as we're having a discussion and you're not just making unsupported assertions, you shouldn't care one iota about me being a mod, it doesn't factor in unless someone is breaking the rules or their intent. I come here to discuss, not gain respect or get people to like me. I also come fully aware that a vast majority of people here have little concern for my beliefs and feel they're complete crap.

4) Glad you're not entertaining this further as it would derail the thread
5)I admit freely that it's rude to presume how someone else is feeling. I am trying only to read your words at face value though, and they're coming off as emotional, just as mine were coming off as rude. I also have personal bias with people considering me irrational, stupid and being hateful towards me, simply for my religious beliefs. Probably much the same way as athesits are assumed by a lot of people to be arrogant, overly-intellectual, amoral people. I try not to play into those biases whenever possible though. My rudeness was intentional, as to hopefully get you to reevaluate how you've written, not what. I'm also not assuming you have no point, you've made no point. I asked several question succinctly and numbered them. Your original question which you claim to have repeatedly answered (number 7) I followed with another question (pardon the punctuation), but you chose not to address that or any other points I've made.

You do not bother addressing every single one of my points either. What’s good for the mod is good for the member. Deal with it. Besides, it’s not just you – I address the points I choose and the ones I deem worthy of a response. Several of yours do not. And in regards to your additional question … What motivation do I possibly have to answer a new question when you will not accept an answer I gave to the first question. Scroll up pal - it’s a lot longer answer than the one line sentence you keep referencing.

You have then made no point other than, "I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role." and have not supported it personally.

I don’t have to support anything on matters of belief. It’s not a science! And furthermore, an imbecile could answer the question – “What’s the difference between something and nothing?” Min did not ask me to prove my answer or ask me why my God was better than yours. He did not ask me for an in-depth description of Deism. You are interpolating all of that additional bull shit on your own. I answered the question posed to me and just because you smugly reply that I didn’t does not make you correct. I described several parameters of what I think my God is … certainly enough to show a difference between a Deist God and nothing at all. So you sir are the one who does not have a valid point. Nice trying to bate me into an argument about superior gods though. Typical Christian arrogance …. “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I say so”.

6) Since you refuse to acknowledge this point I'll assume all I like that you are either intellectually dishonest or are conceeding that deism is a variety of theism.
7)You don't want to support your statement, fine with me.
8)You don't want to define your god, but claim his existence, fine with me as well.

All your “points” have been addressed … if you can even call them that.

---

Post 28 by you is where you started to attempt to answer some of my questions.
I addressed the 3 points you made there
your points summation?
1.Christianity lies somewhere between utter nonsense and morally reprehensible
2.deists are not a bunch of theists
3.That you did in fact answer min's question
my rebuttal was in post 31 (4,6,7,8) following is a summation:
4-your first point is opinion alone and you have a positive assertion/generalization, prove it with me as an example
6-your definition of deism or theism isn't in line with the dictionary
7- You answered the question now support your claim if you wish
8-I never said what you claimed I did, if you would like to define your god please do.

If you need an example of actual discussion where someone asks questions and they're answered, please see post 22 and 25 by DeistPaladin.

The only thing you actually rebutted was point 5 which was a personal side note and not related to your points. You claim to have already sufficiently supported your claim that your god is different than nothing, which is easiest summed by the one liner I "continuously quote". You haven't rebutted anything other than the side point 5. I'm not trying to bait you into an argument, just asking some simple questions about deism to a deist. DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to. Luckily he doesn't assert that deism isn't a type theism, because that was the easiest to rebut. If that is still your contention after reading the dictionary then I am forced to conclude you're intellectually incapable of seeing things objectively. That is not claiming that I am intellectually superior to you or a claim out of arrogance, it's simple English and a dictionary.

If there are any points of yours I did not address, please lay them out clearly and I'd be happy to answer your questions.