(June 7, 2013 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: You seem really desperate to win this point, all the while acknowledging that it'll have no discernible impact on the actual core debate at all. I wonder why that is.
He's desperate to win this point because, on some level, he understands that his absolutely impossible-to-prove gnostic theism puts him on an intellectual tier below agnostic atheism as long as he holds it, which leaves him with two options: abandon a positive assertion he cannot demonstrate to be true, or do his best to redefine our position so it looks like we're all just as fucking stupid as he is.
It's a pattern I notice very frequently with almost every argumentative theist on this site; at least part of their argument almost always involves either equivocating us with their beliefs because there's no other way for them to pretend their argument displays any intellectual weight, or comparing the actions of their allegedly perfect and omnigood god to that of the not-perfect or omnigood humans they, themselves, are taught to believe are nigh-infinitely inferior to their god in every way. I argued from that side of the fence once, I know the mindset.
And, what this all boils down to is that Waldorf's understanding of English is so poor that he doesn't know the difference between the prefixes a- and anti-. Are asexuals positively against sexuality, or do they just not want to have it? If you are amoral, do you hate morality or just lack it? "Theism" is the belief in a god. "Atheism" is lacking that belief. The people who initially coined the term used it improperly, the term 'antitheist' is the accurate word to describe what Waldorf insists is atheism. We're simply fixing their mistake, though Waldorf knows better and uses it incorrectly on purpose.
