(June 7, 2013 at 5:38 pm)Ryantology Wrote: 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.
Bro, are you serious? First off, whether he was desperate or not is debatable and irrelevant, you fucks. Why even say that? Second off, his insistance to prove a point is based on all the information he currently khad told him he was correct; it doesn't stem from all this personal bullshit you're bringing up. Up until my most recent post, there was no reason to believe he was anything but right (although I was questioning his assertion that the prefix 'a' means anything but the definition of the prefix.) You guys really are fucks. Why can't we have a nice debate about the semantics and etymology behind a word without you attempting to delve into the psyche of your opponent, questioning his character, his motivation, his sincerity, ect?
