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.

No problem. Here's a couple points you did not address from my very last post:

1. "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." <---Tack, address point here

2. "I don't have to be hurt by something to hate it." <----- Tack address how this is not a valid point as you made claim?

And now a rebuttal to your last claim: You will not, and possibly cannot (due to your arrogance - see dictionary), admit that I answered the question Min posed to me - and answered it succinctly. Yet in your very last rebuttal you wrote, quote, "DP already answered my questions which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to", which is a blatant admission of what I've been saying all along. You want me to answer YOUR questions. Our original debate and the only one I'm still attempting is this:

You claim that I did not answer MIN's question and I of course claim that I did.

THAT is our current debate. None other. I told you and everyone else I wasn't going to get into a battle of "Who's god is more Likely" .... which is exactly what you tried to bate me into despite what you now deny. Your statement, "DP already answered my quesitons which I appreciate and you seem unwilling to" clearly shows that you are not even arguing the original topic and in fact have assigned me a defensive side for a position I never took.

MIN'S question: What's the difference between the Deist's god and No god? I told you I wouldnt answer it again. Scroll up. It's gotta be there about a half-dozen or so times now ... it's an entire paragraph. What's the difference between something and nothing?... not a hard question to answer, but apparently for you, a hard answer to understand.

Oh, and insult my intelligence all you want ... it's only a subtle attempt at deflection and is just tant amount to name calling. It's not good debating and your verbose presentation of it doesn't make you look superior. You've only succeeded at losing respect.

---

To answer your questions:

1.

your responces to CS and min

---

"I have to add that I do not know what Gods daily planner looks like but most Deists will tell you it is possible that God puts a hand on this planet much like any creator of any project would come back to a certain portion of that project and do a little re-adjusting. "
"The question you are asking implys that deists need a god for some reason. I don't need a god. People who need a god are called christians, or muslims or whatever. They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning. I don't need a god .... therefore its of no concern to me whether hes watching over the planet or has completely forgotten all about us. I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference. "

---

The only answer that talks about your belief about your god and isn't some Christian slander I can see in there is :
1a-"the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference."
1b-"God puts a hand on this planet"
Technically I fully concede you did answer min's question vaguely. Hopefully you can see where this is a less than a clear definition (with your words in front of you) and I fully admit it was hard to see past all of the emotionalism to pull out what little I could.The point of my observation was to point out your lack of an answer though. I then did try asking a question related to min's question which you refused to answer until this point was conceded. You gave a shitty answer to his question, congratulations, it doesn't help any of us better understand deism and why you chose that over nothing or some other theism.

2- I fully agree that you don't have to be hurt by something to hate it, as you hate Islam. However you don't go on emotional rants about Islam in this thread, so I assumed you hated Christianity, which you admit to. I gave a possible reason and you rejected it without sharing your true reason. OK, you hate Christianity, got it. You don't want to say why, fine. It's not because you were butt raped, good, glad to hear it.

If my addressing your posts isn't clear enough you addressed min's question. It was not succinct and was riddled with emotionalism. If you don't want to compare gods that's fine (I honestly never intended to, just wanted to find out more about deism from a deist), DP already answered some questions.

I am not claiming a superior intelligence or insulting yours. I am claiming you are either being intellectually dishonest or emotionally biased beyond reason. If you don't want to discuss theological philosophies I'm fine with that. If you want to address the claim of your intellectual dishonesty read on (pardon the verboseness).

A)In post 15 you started with "and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs -"

excerpt from post 13 in case you don't remember

---

They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning.

---

which you can see is clearly intellectually dishonest.

B)Also in post 13 you then claimed that you already answered with the above 2 posts and for further info you linked to a deist site. You also claimed "I wasn't asked to prove that my God was better than a theist god .... I already know I cannot prove that. And I don't care to. " Which is true and clearly stated.

This is as far as I got (about 4 lines) into the site before I saw misinformation and bias

---

"inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "

---

So that clearly wasn't much helping me gathering information about deism, nor were you willing to help further answering my questions. Your refusal to answer simple questions shows closed-mindedness. Your references to your beliefs are biased, as I can only conclude you are emotionally biased beyond sound reason by your use of them.

C)You clearly claimed deism was not theism. I clearly cited clear dictionary references where it was. It is either ignorance, intellectual dishonestly or you making up your own definitions, which?