The default position...

[Bunyip]

I like the "of course" followed by the use of "theist" as an adjective.

Not at all. Your post is quite readable and easily understood. However, so is the statement "atheists are rocks".

Which only you have stated. I certainly didn't say that. Are these misrepresentations all you can think to do?

The problem isn't that what you are saying is complex, just that it is wrong. You demonstrate this not m8erely by ignoring usage and logic and so forth, but by statements like "all theists are atheists"

I did not make that statement Legion, you are lying. Nice quote mine - you edited out the majority of what I said because if you quoted the whole sentence it makes perfect sense. Any fool can quote mine Legion.

based on the use of nouns as adjectives (and if that is too much of an argument by grammar, then simply consider it a way of pointing out that having defined theists as atheists and vice versa, you defend this contradiction by using words in ways they aren't used, not just to mean things they aren't used to mean).

That was just gibberish buddy. Theism and atheism are both nouns and adjectives.
As usual you assert emphatically that I am wrong, but give no rationale (other than misquotes) because you don't have one. Saying 'that's wrong' is not a rebuttal Legion. Nor is dishonestly misquoting me.

If I am so wrong, you would not need to rely on quote mining, misrepresentation and nonsensical dismissals.

Misquoting people deliberately is easy Legion, but it is also transparently dishonest and a poor alternative to open discussion. Sure mate, you can assign stupid claims to others and then attack them for your own invention - but how can you seriously think nobody notices?

I could respond in kind by saying: "Ha! Legion is an idiot because he said that his mum was a frog and his dad was an elf....hur, hur, hur...wrong!"

But what would be the point? I don't need to misrepresent others to make my point. Why you feel you need to do so is indicative only of your own intellectual limitations.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Haha. I did not say anything about passing on beliefs. I only said that there will be some characteristic inclination toward what the parents believes.

Ah, so you did reference influence, though when it comes to the religious zealots it tends to be more akin to brainwashing.
Children shouldn't be taught theistic values until they are old enough to realize that the ones they are being taught isn't the only option on the table.
But that's just my opinion, I guess.

 

[Bunyip]

LegionOnomaMoi

Your dishonesty appears limitless, so I will ask specifically that you desist from falsely attributing the statements; "atheists are rocks" and "all theists are atheists" to me as you have done several times. It is a deliberate misrepresentation.
As is your claim that I 'defined theists as atheists and vice versa'.

Please Legion, this is a friendly casual forum - there is no need to behave in such a fashion. If all you can think to do is misrepresent, you shouldn't comment.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, no - not at all. If you wanted to understand what a person believes - you would simply ask them.

I can ask you this question in roughly half a dozen languages (and possibly more; there are languages I am familiar with but that I doubt my ability to formulate such a question in a way that a native speaker would). Chances are that if I asked this in at least one of these languages you would be unable to understand me. Here's why this matters:
You are defining what people CAN believe by determining what descriptions of their belief CAN mean and you are ignoring the fact that meaning comes from usage in order to not only use words to mean what they are not used to mean but in ways (grammatically) that are ludicrous.

 

[Bunyip]

I can ask you this question in roughly half a dozen languages (and possibly more; there are languages I am familiar with but that I doubt my ability to formulate such a question in a way that a native speaker would). Chances are that if I asked this in at least one of these languages you would be unable to understand me. Here's why this matters:
You are defining what people CAN believe by determining what descriptions of their belief CAN mean and you are ignoring the fact that meaning comes from usage in order to not only use words to mean what they are not used to mean but in ways (grammatically) that are ludicrous.

Nope, I am doing nothing of the sort. You attack only your own misrepresentations and assumptions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your dishonesty appears limitless

Perhaps because you either don't read what I write before responding, or lack the capacity to understand it. I favor the former. For example:

so I will ask specifically that you desist from falsely attributing the statements; "atheists are rocks" and "all theists are atheists"

...to whom? I didn't attribute this to anybody. That includes you. .

Please Legion, this is a friendly casual forum

Yes, I'm aware of how "friendly" you are when you insult, dismiss, and otherwise violate forum rules in your attempts to show that others are at fault for doing the very things you do in your posts that castigate such actions. You ask for honest dialogue while abusing definitions, asserting that your idiomatic definitions are facts, and using ad hominem arguments to dismiss others for doing this (and this is a small sample of your hypocrisy).

If all you can think to do is misrepresent

...then at best I would be offering more than you can.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nope, I am doing nothing of the sort.

Who else uses "theist" as an adjective? What is your basis for any of your personal definitions you assert to be fact despite even idiotically simplistic use of dictionary definitions, let along logic or language? You assert your view to be fact and defend this by asserting it's fact. That's the extent of your position: circular reasoning and the application of your own definitions as if they were factual.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps because you either don't read what I write before responding, or lack the capacity to understand it. I favor the former. For example:

...to whom? I didn't attribute this to anybody. That includes you. .

I quoted you directly buddy. Post 1441.

Yes, I'm aware of how "friendly" you are when you insult, dismiss, and otherwise violate forum rules in your attempts to show that others are at fault for doing the very things you do in your posts that castigate such actions. You ask for honest dialogue while abusing definitions, asserting that your idiomatic definitions are facts, and using ad hominem arguments to dismiss others for doing this (and this is a small sample of your hypocrisy).

...then at best I would be offering more than you can.

Further false accusations don't help you Legion. I have not done any of those things.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I quoted you directly buddy. Post 1441.

Brilliant. You can interpret numbers. Now try to quote me attributing the position you claim I did to you.

 

[Bunyip]

Who else uses "theist" as an adjective?

Well the dictionary for starters.

What is your basis for any of your personal definitions you assert to be fact despite even idiotically simplistic use of dictionary definitions, let along logic or language? You assert your view to be fact and defend this by asserting it's fact. That's the extent of your position: circular reasoning and the application of your own definitions as if they were factual.

Nope, again you are attacking only your own inventions.

 

[Bunyip]

Brilliant. You can interpret numbers. Now try to quote me attributing the position you claim I did to you.

I just did.

"However, so is the statement "atheists are rocks". The problem isn't that what you are saying is complex, just that it is wrong. You demonstrate this not merely by ignoring usage and logic and so forth, but by statements like "all theists are atheists" based on the use of nouns as adjectives (and if that is too much of an argument by grammar, then simply consider it a way of pointing out that having defined theists as atheists and vice versa, you defend this contradiction by using words in ways they aren't used, not just to mean things they aren't used to mean)."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I quoted you directly buddy. Post 1441. Further false accusations don't help you Legion. I have not done any of those things.

You have done nothing other than offer your definitions and claim them to be facts. That's it. That's why you use "theist" as an adjective and define theists as atheists. Is there any support for this you can offer behind your various assertions that your private definitions are fact? No. Or you would have proffered some.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I just did.

Not at all. Your post is quite readable and easily understood. However, so is the statement "atheists are rocks". The problem isn't that what you are saying is complex, just that it is wrong. You demonstrate this not merely by ignoring usage and logic and so forth, but by statements like "all theists are atheists" based on the use of nouns as adjectives (and if that is too much of an argument by grammar, then simply consider it a way of pointing out that having defined theists as atheists and vice versa, you defend this contradiction by using words in ways they aren't used, not just to mean things they aren't used to mean).

There's the post. Where do I attribute to you the position that "atheists are rocks"?

 

[Bunyip]

You have done nothing other than offer your definitions and claim them to be facts. That's it. That's why you use "theist" as an adjective and define theists as atheists. Is there any support for this you can offer behind your various assertions that your private definitions are fact? No. Or you would have proffered some.

Legion, further false allegations aren't helpful. I did no such thing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well the dictionary for starters.

Dictionaries disagree with you so fundamentally that the PART OF SPEECH you claim that "atheist" AND "theist" to be isn't found here. No dictionary defines atheism such that ALL ATHEISTS ARE THEISTS, that's purely your nonsense, and you defend it by contradicting any dictionary's description of the parts of speech these words belong to. Start with the dictionaries you claim to be using, ignore the fact that your definitions are in conflict with them, and simply realize that your usage contradicts the parts of speech they attribute to the lexemes you misuse.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I did no such thing.

I didn't accuse you of having produced any evidence for your position, because you haven't. You can't. You assert theists are atheists and defend this with assertions that "atheist" is an adjective that describes a property such that a theist can be an atheist "with respect to" anything. This isn't just baseless, illogical crap, there isn't any dictionary ON THE PLANET to support such usage and NO USAGE to be discovered that does either. Yet you assert it to be fact.

 

[Bunyip]

Dictionaries disagree with you so fundamentally that the PART OF SPEECH you claim that "atheist" AND "theist" to be isn't found here. No dictionary defines atheism such that ALL ATHEISTS ARE THEISTS, that's purely your nonsense

Why bother with these childish inventions? I never said that all atheists are theists. Making up these little lies is pointless buddy.

, and you defend it by contradicting any dictionary's description of the parts of speech these words belong to. Start with the dictionaries you claim to be using, ignore the fact that your definitions are in conflict with them, and simply realize that your usage contradicts the parts of speech they attribute to the lexemes you misuse.

You are evading - the dictionary defines theism as an adjective and a noun. I am also not at any point 'asserting a usage', I am just identifying mine. These silly inventions get you nowhere.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't accuse you of having produced any evidence for your position, because you haven't. You can't.

Why wpuld I need to? I am just identifying my usage - as is appropriate.

You assert theists are atheists and defend this with assertions that "atheist" is an adjective that describes a property such that a theist can be an atheist "with respect to" anything. This isn't just baseless, illogical crap, there isn't any dictionary ON THE PLANET to support such usage and NO USAGE to be discovered that does either. Yet you assert it to be fact.

You are tilting at windmills mate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why bother with these childish inventions? I never said that all atheists are theists.

naturally, all theists are also atheists

"is" is an identify claim. Logically, if x is y than necessarily y is x. But it doesn't really matter. The quoted claim is just as ridiculous and clearly wrong as "all atheists are theists" even if you try to weasel your way out of identity.

You are evading - the dictionary defines theism as an adjective and a noun.

And what is the adjectival definition? Is there a dictionary IN THE WHOLE ****ING WORLD that defines this adjective such that theists can be "athiests" with respect to anything? NO. You just make crap up and then go on and on about how others won't debate or won't engage in constructive dialogue while you insist your personal definitions are facts (and refuse to support your position in any other way).

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I think you need to re-read the thread. I am not asserting any definition as fact - in fact I stated quite the opposite I said that there is no universally accepted definition. Hardly insisting on one. Nor did I state that 'all theists are atheist', or 'all atheists are theist'. Nor that the dictionary said so.

Please re-read before going further.