What is the true source of rights?

Nowhere, where does it say to treat them equally and that they are equal?

God works through his followers does he not?

What is commanded of a couple that has sex while the woman is menstruating? Aren't the followers ordered to put them to death? Doesn't the very next passage say that it isn't a sin?

The bible isn't a good constitution.

 

The difference is *NOT* whether God exists but whether he is active in the world.

 

Thats why I said deism isn't theism.

 

What about those who know no God? They may not recognize any "creator" or "Nature's God"? Where do they fit into the picture of things?

 

I didn't say that deism and theism are synonymous. I said deism is a brand of theism. Deists believe in a god, making them theists. All deists are theists. Not all theists are deists. I can draw a Venn Diagram if you like.

 

You said: "Without usung the constitution as the guiding document we'd have no rights.
Look at some Islamic countries as proof. Given they claim the very same creator as you."

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Man has free will. Not everything a man does is caused by God.

Which has nothing to do with the equality of the sexes in God's eyes.

The Jedeo-Christian moral code has resulted in the survival of the culture for over 5000 years. Sounds like a pretty good constitution to me![/QUOTE]

 

Not recognizing the Creator doesn't mean their rights don't flow from the Creator!

 

I'm familiar with the canned response, but I never said that the slavery of the Bible was the slavery of blacks in America. Although, it is worth noting that American slave owners used the story of the Curse of Ham that I just related in order to justify their practice.

Going back to what I actually said, I said that according to the Bible, God invented hereditary slavery as a inter-generational punishment. Your observation that it isn't the same thing as the slavery of blacks in America is a complete straw man.

And again, I never said it was. But any honest person can see how this is a violation of the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being inalienable rights.

No one was volunteering to be executed for practicing freedom of religion. And you are dodging the point. Under the orders of the God of the Bible, freedom of religion was not regarded as an inalienable right. He is incompatible with the rights you claim that he is responsible for.

I didn't say it wasn't a religious belief. I said it was incompatible with the concepts of individual rights. Corporate guilt and the concept of individual rights are complete polar opposites. So, strike four.

 

Deism is non theist.

Believing a god exists doesn't mean a person has theology. Theism is the presence of theology. Deism is non-theist

Deism is non theistic. A venn diagram suggesting they are would be useless. Deists simply aren't nihilist.

 

You've said that already, and you are still just as wrong as you were last time.

Correct.

Well, there's your problem right there. You simply made up a new definition of theism in order to shoehorn your terms in. Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. That's it. Theology is the philosophical discipline that purports to deal in the study of god. Plenty of theists have no particular theology. Plenty of deists have a complex theology.

Deists believe in a god or gods, making them theists.

Nihilists?

Anyway, maybe one of these will help:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

 

I said no such thing.

Proof that religion makes shitty government? Well that is my argument.

This doesn't say that non believers should be treated equally. There is a passage that suggests that but you are way off.

So God does not work through his follows?

So you'd love living in a nation that exterminated people that had sex with one another while the woman was menstruating as long as they killed both of them?

You should try living in Iran if religions make such wonderful governments.

 

Odd. Why quote others and use them to make a point if you aren't in agreement.

How can a natural right be suppressed?
They're natural.

 

No I am correct.

Wow I control google now. Am I...Am I a god?
the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Huh, I thought deism meant exactly the opposite of the emboldened part of that. Who knew.

de·ism
ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/
noun
noun: deism

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

It's almost as if these two definitions are mutually exclusive.

Apparently not somehow.

Odd the definition for theism I looked up said otherwise.

Seems other dictionarys distinguish theists from deists.

theism
[thee-iz-uh m]
noun

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
   

Not according to common parlance.

Dictionarys make a distinction. Maybe they are just wrong like last time as well.

 

It follows inescapably from your assertion that rights are earned, obviously.

 

Google isn't turning up your definition of requiring theology to be a theist.

Funny how you bolded the OPTIONAL part of the definition and ignored the core definition. Shall I define ESPECIALLY as well?

Not for anyone who has actually taken the time to read them.

Given how terrible this definition is, I'm not surprised you didn't link to it. According to this definition, polytheists are not theists.

The common parlance is that theists are people who believe in a god or gods. Deists believe in a god or gods.

Dictionaries make a distinction, just as they will make a distinction between lizards and reptiles, but lizards are still a subset or reptiles.

 

However google does seem pretty consistent that deism is distinctively different from theism which was my argument.

I didn't bold an optinal part i balded the part that seems to coincide with the definition of deism.

If it helps suggest that deism is theism despite the definitions of those two things being almost specifically exclusive of one another.

So explain to me how the phrases "especially a creator intervening in the universe" and "specifically not intervening in the universe" are synonymous. They seem mutually exclusive to me. I did actually take the time to read them.

1. If your complaint is with how the dictionary defines a word, simply explain deeper. I accept that the dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive, and if you are using a form of the word not in common parlance, i can accept that.

The Dictionary describes common parlance.

Well i didn't argue that deists aren't mammals.

The distinction i see between theist and deist isn't similar to the difference between a water monitor and an iguana. It seems to indicate they are mutually exclusive. One cannot be a deist if they believe God intervenes with the universe and one cannot be a theist if they don't first believe in God and specifically believe that God does intervene in the universe.

But since you have taken the time to read and anybody that argues against you clearly hasn't explain how a mere belief in god existing equates to theism since theism is especially the belief that God intervenes and deism is specifically not the belief that God intervenes.

If you don't mind.

 

In the same way that the definition of "lizard" is distinct from the definition of "reptile," sure.

You bolded the optional part. Do I seriously need to define "especially." If I tell you that "Northern Europeans typically have fair skin, especially Scandanavians" you do realize that Scandanavians are not the only ones with fair skin, yes?

As you can see from the definitions I've provided (assuming you read them and reflect on what the word "especially means), they are not specifically exclusive. In the definitions I provided, theism is inclusive of deism.

Then how did you miss the word "especially"? "My kids are smart, especially Tom," does not mean that only Tom is smart. "Most peppers are hot, especially habanero" does not mean that habanero is the only hot pepper. Get it now?

1. I accept that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, but my complaint is not with how dictionaries define the word. I agreed with the definitions I supplied. And the common parlance of "theist" is someone who believes in a god or gods.

You can certainly be a theist and believe that God does not intervene in the universe. That's why the definition said "ESPECIALLY" not "ONLY".

Again, the word here is "especially." If you understand what the word "especially" means and if you read the entire definition, the answer is clear.

Try replacing it with the word "chiefly" if the word "especially" is tripping you up.

 

Explain why it is in that same way. I mean reptiles are a cold blooded vertebrate in the animal kingdom. And lizards are a cold blooded vertebrate in the animal kingdom. So i get how lizards are reptiles. But a theist is a pertain that believes in god especially in a creator that intervenes in the universe. That seems to be opposite of a person that doesn't believe a creator intervenes in the universe.

Three definition of reptile applies to lizards. The definition of theist based on the words i bolded seems to be in direct conflict with the definition of deist.

So explain how it's the same.

I didn't.

If you are suggesting it means anything other than distinctly in this context yes.

Depends on the context.

The definitions I presented of theism and deism suggests that they are mutually exclusive. My understanding of the terms are mutually exclusive. For you to claim theism is a larger grouping and deism is a sub grouping as in kingdom and class, you'd have to make a better case than pointing to ambiguity outside of context with regard to the word "especially" and insistence on my personal incredulity.

In the definitions I provided them is exclusive of deism.

I didn't.

It wasn't used in that context.

1. yes Fiesta someone who believes in God but they are distinctly different from a deist because a theist also believes the Creator intervenes atheist does not that's why when the definition says especially context means that as specifically

perhaps in different context yes. But you absolutely cannot be a deist and believe God intervenes. That's mutually exclusive.

I never suggested it said only clearly it didn't only and especially aren't synonyms. Did use the word especially in that context to mean specifically and we can go by the definition of deism so it's a specific difference between a deist and a theist not too different types of theists.

yes I got the answer it's clear a deist and a theist are not the same thing they're mutually exclusive specifically is a synonym for especially in this context.

it's not used in that context. If it was there would be a conflict between the definition of theist and the definition of deist.

Try using the synonym specifically in place of especially in that definition.

 

If you know what the word especially means, you know why you are wrong.

 

Your bias is the source of rights for you, to roughly allude to the great Obi-Wan Kenobi

 

I know what the word especially means that's why I know I'm right. Because it doesn't have anything to do with the definition of theism it has everything to do with the definition of deism. Deism mutually excludes that part of theism and that's done on purpose specifically so we know the difference between deist and theist.

Theism said especially people who believe the Creator intervenes I never argued that against you I know and I accept that. It's the definition of deism that makes it not theism

 

. . . the word appeared in the definition of theism. So yes, it does have to do with the definition of theism.

That part was not part of the core definition. It was a caveat.

"Especially implies" that not all theists believe that way. Especially =/= necessarily. Try bolding everything that came before "especially" instead and try reading it again.

 

to describe something specifically that alienates deism from the definition.

It's uncanny that they would say one is this and one is that that's almost like the words mean what I'm saying they do and you were just trying to save face.

it was a caveat that excluded the definition of deism specifically.

it's like talking to a brick wall.

I never said it did. The definition of deism excludes it from theism because of that caveat.

I read it the first time I didn't Bowl in it because it wasn't relevant. The caveat that says that theists believe a creator that intervenes mutually excludes deists that believe the Creator does not intervene.

Those two concepts are mutually exclusive you can't be something to that mutually excludes you I can't be a turtle and lizard if I was either one of those things I would be reptile but that doesn't matter. We aren't talking about a word that's equivalent to reptile or talking words that are equivalent to turtle and lizard.

 

Given the fact that, under most definitions, deism is a subset of theism, they obviously aren't mutually exclusive.

 

If you're a believer then I'd say yes. But for those who know no god, they would not agree with you.