but it does not remove their belief in a different god

also, no real scottsman means that the qualifiers for something in particular qualify what the person is

so saying that someone is only a theist if they believe in a particular god is a no true scotssman

you need more hitchens and dawkins in your life

Ive read books from both of them

dawkins is a bit retarded for his rejection of group altruism as a role in society as a positive effect

which pretty much every evolutionary biologist accepts

but

the difference is that I actually understand concepts on a level where i can actually criticize them by synthesizing information

you just take it as doctrine

try reading some books that don't just serve as a confirmation bias for you

LOL

do you even understand dunning kruger?

you like little baby.....

its funny because thats such a basical psychological / philosophical point that is usually used by people who have no understanding of dunning-kruger

please

explain menlos slave

and explain how you are actually that same person

meno's slave

&

try and see how you are basically the same thing

You are basically like a greek slave who thinks he understands a concept, but doesnt really

thats the tl;dr version because i know you probably arent going to be able to conprehend the texts

yes was just resading it now, philosophy is cancer tbh... but if i understand what i just quickly browsed through tis bascially that people can be led to the correct answer, and that somehow proves they had the right answer all along?

The problem is that you don't have the logical foundation to understand a lot of these concepts. Like dunning-kruger, which is a psychological concept used by people in arguments who really don't want to be troubled with having to logically explain their argument, so they just point out that there exists something in where people have a cognitive bias, with a massive lack of proof. It's the "I am very smart" version of calling someone a Nazi.

On your original point

Atheist

on the contrary, it seems that i understand this issue far better than you but you cant not understand that because you have yet to learn aobut it, once you do you may then realise my point

Theist means belief in a god or gods. That is the only qualifer. You are saying that someone who has a god they do not believe in makes them atheist (which, at least to make a coherent argument i'm going to assume you meant towards a particular god). But in order to be atheist in a particular situation, obviously they could not be theist at the same time. So does theist dissolve when confronted in a particular scenario? Obviously not, because the belief in a god does not dissapear even in reference to another god. So belief in a god is A, another is B, etc. Atheist = any letter. This does not mean ALL letters.

also

I understand that you just stole this concept from someone else, but like you this person was also proven wrong

You need to develop your ability to think for yourself instead of just reciting from (ironically) better men

lol

Theism is a definitive statment; meaning that if someone had "allergies", just because they are not allergic to all things does not make them have "allergies"

does not mean they do not have*

what you are failing to grasp is that athiest is just another religious position

I do understand that

but that doesnt make sense

because

theism and atheism is just 2 sides of the same coin

and i reject that whole coin