Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

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.