I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

No, theism is a thing to be blamed upon, not blamed for. The distinction may seem meaningless to you, but it's a pretty useful one for me.

Metaphorical uses of prepositions aren't all that helpful, but knock yourself out.

Bait and switch, who cares whether a belief system is theistic or atheistic, you keep trying to determine this and then go on to make conclusions about justifications. Mr A believes god told him to do something, that's justification (at least in his mind) and "implements" theism. Mr B just happens to be an atheist and is going to do something, where atheism fits in I suppose is just that you'd like to add it in there for spice. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this has been unintentional.

Right, I'm trying to get at the difference between "happens to be X" and "is motivated by X". Since the key distinction we're talking about is theism vs. atheism, I'm trying to get a definition we can agree on, because I think we're not really talking about the same thing right now.

I know, you have a habit of answering your own questions in the asking.

Kinda. I think of what I would object to if I was on the other side of the argument, and then I try to include and address that in case it's what you were thinking of too. It can help speed things along.

What part of that statement was difficult to understand?

Really? I take back the above, this shit is intentional. Bait and switch. (I don't think gods talk to people either Clive, nice to know we have common ground)

You said this:

Yes, Clive, "god told me to" is a result of "at least one god exists"...there's really no way to spin this....

That is, you're claiming the belief "god told me to" is a result of the belief "at least one god exists". Which means that you can derive "god told me to" from "at least one god exists".

Now, I really don't see how that could be done. Can you show me the proof?

Bait and switch. You know, you seem to have such an easy grasp of what it means to be an atheist all of a sudden, I wonder why you had so much trouble with the term before.....

My definition hasn't changed since I got into this thread. It's really a continuation of work that I've done on belief systems in other forums.

My guess is that you might finally be trying to understand what I'm saying, instead of just taking the worst interpretation possible. =D

You'd take anything as an admission would you?..lol. You did give those steps, in no uncertain terms, one right after the other. Have we reached the infamous "declaration of victory" moment already?

Where did I give those steps? Remember the criteria they must follow:

1. Each step must be valid.
2. The result must be that theism is responsible for A's behavior.
3. The result must be that atheism is not responsible for B's behavior.

Now, I don't remember ever offering these steps. Could you link to where you remember me giving them?

---

It's because I'd say that the following system is theist:

{"God exists", "God commands us not to kill", "Killing is wrong"}

Many theists would argue over the last two.

Giving zero fucks about that, right now.

---

Then the following system is theist

{"God exists", "God commands us to kill", "Killing is right"}

I appreciate that you have an interpretation of what god commands or desires that precludes killing people, I really do. I think that's a fine judgement call on your part. Others disagree.

Yes, that system is theist as well. "Theist" doesn't mean "true"--and neither does "Atheist". Remember, Theist and Atheist are merely classes of belief systems in my formulation.