Is theism required for agreement on these unalienable rights and the virtue it requires?

No, theism is not required for agreement on unalienable rights. These rights are fundamental principles that are recognized across different cultures and belief systems. The concept of U.R. is rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

"What if what you call God, and another calls: 'Wralda', does that mean the latter is promoting atheism, or deism?"

This appears to be a semantic question that highlights the complexity of language and cultural differences. The terms "God" and "Wralda" may refer to different concepts or entities, but they both imply a belief in a higher power or transcendent reality. The distinction between theism, atheism, and deism is not solely dependent on the label used to describe the divine.

Do you see the trap set when accepting the Deep State buzz words. They are funding all sides of the argument, every single time.

This kind of hyper-skepticism leads to a self-referential and self-defeating circularity. The argument youre making (and almost the entirety of the Truther Movement/Great Awakening Movement) is that the "Deep State" is funding all sides of the argument, implying that any information or knowledge we have is potentially tainted by this alleged control.

However, this raises a crucial question: How do we know that this information about the "Deep State" isn't also part of the alleged control? In other words, if we assume that the "Deep State" is controlling the narrative and funding all sides of the argument, then how can we trust the information that leads us to believe in the existence of the "Deep State" in the first place? Isn't that information also potentially part of the controlled narrative/Matrix?

This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.

As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.

I've been thinking about this very topic (the foundation of True knowledge in the Great Awakening movement) for a while now. And it' appears to me that if we're not careful, then we'll all end up in some form of Solipsism.

In the context of the Great Awakening movement, the emphasis on questioning everything and doubting the official narrative can be beneficial in encouraging critical thinking and promoting media literacy. However, if taken to an extreme, this skepticism can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking, where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself.

When we start to question everything, including the nature of reality, it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge. If we're not careful, we might end up in a situation where we're unable to trust anything, including our own senses, and that's when solipsism can become a tempting, albeit flawed, solution.

Solipsism, in this context, can manifest in various ways. For instance, some individuals might start to believe that they're the only ones who truly understand the "truth," while everyone else is deceived or asleep (something affecting almost all of us in this forum). This can lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them (raises hand).

Another risk is that solipsism can foster a kind of paranoid thinking, where individuals begin to see conspiracies everywhere and doubt the intentions of others. This can create a toxic atmosphere, where people are more focused on uncovering hidden truths than on engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration (another guilty charge).

I've waxed eloquent. Apologies. I guess I still suffer from a little PTSD from my discussion with @slyver (another pede in here) about this very topic.

I digress.....

Is theism required for agreement on these unalienable rights and the virtue it requires?

No, theism is not required for agreement on unalienable rights. These rights are fundamental principles that are recognized across different cultures and belief systems. The concept of U.R. is rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

"What if what you call God, and another calls: 'Wralda', does that mean the latter is promoting atheism, or deism?"

This appears to be a semantic question that highlights the complexity of language and cultural differences. The terms "God" and "Wralda" may refer to different concepts or entities, but they both imply a belief in a higher power or transcendent reality. The distinction between theism, atheism, and deism is not solely dependent on the label used to describe the divine.

Do you see the trap set when accepting the Deep State buzz words. They are funding all sides of the argument, every single time.

This kind of hyper-skepticism leads to a self-referential and self-defeating circularity. The argument youre making (and almost the entirety of the Truther Movement/Great Awakening Movement) is that the "Deep State" is funding all sides of the argument, implying that any information or knowledge we have is potentially tainted by this alleged control.

However, this raises a crucial question: How do we know that this information about the "Deep State" isn't also part of the alleged control? In other words, if we assume that the "Deep State" is controlling the narrative and funding all sides of the argument, then how can we trust the information that leads us to believe in the existence of the "Deep State" in the first place? Isn't that information also potentially part of the controlled narrative/Matrix?

This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.

As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.

I've been thinking about this very topic (the foundation of True knowledge in the Great Awakening movement) for a while now. And it' appears to me that if we're not careful, then we'll all end up in some form of Solipsism.

In the context of the Great Awakening movement, the emphasis on questioning everything and doubting the official narrative can be beneficial in encouraging critical thinking and promoting media literacy. However, if taken to an extreme, this skepticism can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking, where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself.

When we start to question everything, including the nature of reality, it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge. If we're not careful, we might end up in a situation where we're unable to trust anything, including our own senses, and that's when solipsism can become a tempting, albeit flawed, solution.

Solipsism, in this context, can manifest in various ways. For instance, some individuals might start to believe that they're the only ones who truly understand the "truth," while everyone else is deceived or asleep (something affecting almost all of us in this forum). This can lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them (raises hand).

Another risk is that solipsism can foster a kind of paranoid thinking, where individuals begin to see conspiracies everywhere and doubt the intentions of others. This can create a toxic atmosphere, where people are more focused on uncovering hidden truths than on engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration (another guilty charge).

I've waxed eloquent. Apologies. I guess I still suffer from a little PTSD from my discussion with @slyver (another pede in here) about this very topic.

I digress.....