(July 5, 2013 at 3:14 am)apophenia Wrote:(July 5, 2013 at 2:03 am)Inigo Wrote: Stop telling me to use theism in a particular way when the way I am using it is historically accurate and perfectly acceptable.Appealing to historical usage is an example of the genetic fallacy.
(July 5, 2013 at 2:03 am)Inigo Wrote: A 'theistic' god is taken by those who have been properly educated to mean a god who possesses the 3 attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and perfect moral goodness. And a 'theist' to those of us who know this, is someone who believes in the existence of such a god.You might want to go correct the good folk at Oxford then, seeing as you are properly educated and they, obviously, are not.
While appealing to the notion that you were using the word 'theist' in a narrower sense is clever, it was max-greece's usage which you were disputing, as seen below, and, his usage was correct. As long as you qualify under one of the above definitions, disputing his claim that you are a theist is an error.
(July 4, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Inigo Wrote: Well, I'm not a theist.
(July 5, 2013 at 2:03 am)Inigo Wrote: I really don't care one tiny weeny bit how you use the word. I'm telling you how I use it so that you understand what I mean. If you don't like it, deal with it.
Yes, that much is obvious. It is also obvious that someone who will engage in this amount of pettifoggery and bullshit to avoid the admission that they have made a slight mistake in English usage cannot be trusted to render a fair assessment of the merits of his arguments or those of his adversary.
I predicted you'd do precisely this. I assume you were previously religious and miss having an authoritative book to appeal to. And so you've decided to replace the bible with a big fat report on how a population of fools use words. You worship that catalogue of idiots' grunts if you want, but I'm not a dictionarian.
Anyway, address my arguments or go boil your head.