The atheist realty sucks

You'll like this,

deist (n.)"one who holds to some general doctrines of Christian religion and believes in the existence of a personal God but denies revelation and dogma and church authority," 1620s, from French déiste (1560s), from Latin deus (see Zeus). [**]

But you understand that no where in the dictionary definition does it preclude deistic gods from the definitions? Because you haven't rebutted that. If you are trying to get at something, I believe in NO gods,  deistic or theistic. 

Notice the strategic placement of the word, "OR" (which is definitely NOT the same as the other word you seem to prefer, which is, "AND").

ALSO,

I'm not arguing that "the definition" of "ATHEISM" "precludes" (or specifically excludes) "deistic god($)".

I'm suggesting that it simply DOES NOT INCLUDE "deistic god($)".

Except, did you notice the difference? It did not say, "Or *insert adjective here* gods" it said, "or any gods" Key part being the "s" at the end, I would argue that is in reference to the plural account of gods not making a distinction between theistic and deistic gods, otherwise there would be a clear modifer before the word gods. 

Zoiks.

Do you know the difference between the logical operation of the word "OR" in contrast to the logical operation of the word "AND"?

Yes. Or can be used to make a comparison "or" show the dichotomy of something. However, or, can also be used to show the addition of something similar to and in certain functions, even if I were to agree that this definition is making a comparison, it would be pressumptious of you to declare the things being compared: deistic and theistic, therefore, even if I were to accept that, you still wouldn't be correct in asserting as you have.

If I said, "you can have cake (OR) ice-cream" what would you think?

If I said, "you can have cake (AND) ice-cream" what would you think?

Is there an obvious and clear difference between these two statements?

Your reality is clearly the one which is warped. 

You do not have the explanation as to why what you wrote is so which usually tells the readers of this that you are a troll or dont have enough of the mental skills to explain what you mean.

I will helping you though so lets take the example of you for example and see if your reality is warped and look at the evidence.

     1) Is the avatar picture really you?

     2) You have a record which is unproved because you only just joined and you did not fill in any details which is very suspicion.

     3) Nobody in the real world makes the argument by making the unqualified statement which is being very arrogant.

So you see that anybody reading what you are saying and then considering those 3 points might be making questions about whether or not you have a reality at all.

Try this - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTZK3TCjuhA

God really sucks.

CNN political reporter Andrew Kaczynski and wife and Wall Street Journal banking reporter Rachel Louise Ensign are mourning the loss of their 9-month-old daughter Francesca, who died on Christmas Eve after a cancer battle.

Thanks God she wasn't aborted, God had a plan for her.

That is an assumption, maybe some people are afraid of gay people, but that does not necessarily mean the same that they are homophobic, you are committing a non-sequitur. 

According to A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of psychology and human services at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, one reason we hate is because we fear things that are different from us. [LINK]

Yes, a reason, not the reason. Not to mention that is not the only reason we could hate something. For example: I hate it whenever someone enters an idea into the stream of thought, only to say no one should criticize it, that doesn't necessarily mean that I fear that happening. Yes, that could be a reason, but you have not shown any evidence that this is what is happening in masse towards homophobia. You haven't proven anything accept that, "In some cases this may or may not be the case, as we get by speculation." Which isn't really evidence. But this is all not the point, whenever I first made this example, you called it a red herring, obviously this is not the case, and you never conceded that point. You were wrong. Not only that, but even if you were to disprove this single example, there are other words that are combined to make new specific meanings. Not to mention, the literal definition of atheist, does not support your view. It doesn't matter how you cut it here, you're wrong.

I've made a case that psychology professionals have linked fear and hate.

Where's your case that "homophobia" is NOT linked to fear?

What? That is your burden to prove, that homophobia is like this a majority of the time. You have proven that anger can be linked to fear, not that is necessarily, where is your proof that is in the case of homophobia, because you have not done that suffciently. Not to mention, again, no mention of anything else, nor an actual rebuttal. Just an assertion and a non-sequitur, well technically the assertion is a non-sequitur, but that's not really all that important.

You made the initial claim.

Which was, "homophobia" is NOT based on fear.

Yes... my evidence of that is the definition of homophobia, to which you claimed that anger at and fear are often intrinsically linked, to which I responded, sometimes in certain cases, prove that its the case in homophobia, and you went, "No... that's your burden" so... no, it is your turn to prove this. 

Weinberg ( 1972 ) labeled these attitudes and behaviors homophobia, which he defined as the dread of being in close quarters with homosexual men and women as well as irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance by heterosexual individuals of homosexual men and women. . . .Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, several psychoanalytic explanations have emerged from the idea of homophobia as an anxiety-based phenomenon. One psychoanalytic explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia. For example, de Kuyper (1993) has asserted that homophobia is the result of the remnants of homosexuality in the heterosexual resolution of the Oedipal conflict. Whereas these notions are vague, psychoanalytic theories usually postulate that homophobia is a result of repressed homosexual urges or a form of latent homosexuality. Latent homosexuality can be defined as homosexual arousal which the individual is either unaware of or dent. Psychoanalysts use the concept of repressed or latent homosexuality to explain the emotional malaise and irrational attitudes displayed by some individuals who feel guilty about their erotic interests and struggle to deny and repress homosexual impulses. In fact, West stated, 'when placed in a situation that threatens to excite their own unwanted homosexual thoughts, they overreact with panic or anger." Slaby ( 1994 ) contended that anxiety about homosexuality typically does not occur in individuals who are same-sex oriented, but it usually involves individuals who are ostensibly heterosexual and have difficulty integrating their homosexual feelings or activity.

Specifically, the present study was designed to investigate whether homophobic men show more sexual arousal to homosexual cues than nonhomophobic men as suggested by psychoanalytic theory. . . .

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and experiences. Furthermore, their ratings of erection and arousal to homosexual stimuli were low and not significantly different from nonhomophobic men who demonstrated no significant increase in penile response to homosexual stimuli. These data are consistent with response discordance where verbal judgments are not consistent with physiological reactivity, as in the case of homophobic individuals viewing homosexual stimuli. Lang (1994 ) has noted that the most dramatic response discordance occurs with reports of feeling and physiologic responses. Another possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977 ). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges. These data are consistent with these notions. [LINK]

And I concede that this specific example was not correct, I haven't seen that particular piece of research, considered me convinced in that regard. However, again, as I said in the excerpt above, there are more examples where the root word and additions don't mean the same thing as the new word:

Not to mention, but once again, your own argument didn't exactly support your stance.