(January 24, 2013 at 10:42 am)Celi Wrote: I think I am beginning to see what you mean, though. While you don't believe that nothing bad ever happens in that sense, you mean that nothing is truly bad because ultimately God is in control and he pilots the world like a well-oiled machine, never doing anything that's ultimately bad for us even if he does do things that we wouldn't want him to. Do I have that right? If so, I guess I can see how that might be comforting, but not to me personally.

Ultimately, God, and therefore good, rules. In the end, God engineers everything to his own just and good conclusion, because God is just and good.

Some things, and some people are very bad. Really bad. Things are only bad from a perspective. You couldn't call the natural order bad, but you might experience pain and suffer as a consequence of natural forces in action.

People are bad for a reason. The consequence is other people getting hurt, and without some resolve, passing on that hurt by being bad themselves.

I don't see how you would ever find this comforting... you'd have to understand it first! The point to me isn't " comfort " lol. The point is that it gets me the most out if life. I can very effectively deal with problems that would limit my full enjoyment of life. That's the only point in being a Christian.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 10:42 am)Celi Wrote: You acknowledge that I have the information, but then say that I'm still ignorant because I don't have the knowledge.

No. You have the information, but you don't understand it, is what I actually said. You have a problem understanding that??

You said I was 'ignorant of the facts'. Then when I refuted that claim, you said that I had the information but didn't understand it--and then justified your calling me ignorant by saying that I lacked 'knowledge'. So yes, you did say that, between saying two other things that contradict it.

This is what happens when you defend your belief by rationalizing it rather than actually thinking about it rationally. You get arguments that contradict each other and only make sense to yourself.

---

Quote:No. You're position is logical. Everything has to add up in your mind or you'd have some serious conflict going on. If you see 3 balls, your logical conclusion would be that there are 3 balls. If, looking at the same scene, I see 5 balls... My logical conclusion would be that there are 5 balls. Two balls are obscured from where you are standing. Logical conclusion in this instance is a matter of perspective. Both of us are right > from our own perspective.

You realize I could say the exact same about you, right? We have the same infomation, but we come to different conclusions. You say that I don't understand the facts, which here means that I am wrong in my interpretation of them. I, believing that I am right and that you aren't, could say that you're the one who doesn't understand the information. See how that works? All it really means is 'I think you're wrong'. As I mentioned before, an atheist and a theist are obviously both going to think each other wrong, but unless you actually present your claims and reasoning/evidence for them, there's no point in having an argument. You've taken every opportunity to avoid that, ignoring most of my requests for you to clarify your vague and/or incomprehennsible posts, opting instead to alternately insult me and atheists in general and accuse me of intolerance/dogmatism.

---

Quote:This was your own invention? I see. I thought you were addressing Christianity. Apologies.

At this point, I'm fairly sure you're being disingenuous about this. I've explained that sentence several times, and if you're really still misinterpreting it that badly, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

(January 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Celi Wrote: You said I was 'ignorant of the facts'. Then when I refuted that claim, you said that I had the information but didn't understand it--and then justified your calling me ignorant by saying that I lacked 'knowledge'. So yes, you did say that, between saying two other things that contradict it.

We have a basic comprehension fail here. You can't understand the simple statement that you reply to. You have the information, but you don't understand it.

Misunderstanding is never a correct interpretation. If that were so someone would have successfully defeated it. That isn't the case.

The only rational stance that you have is your world view.

(January 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Celi Wrote: You realize I could say the exact same about you, right? We have the same infomation, but we come to different conclusions. You say that I don't understand the facts, which here means that I am wrong in my interpretation of them. I, believing that I am right and that you aren't, could say that you're the one who doesn't understand the information. See how that works? All it really means is 'I think you're wrong'.

If your interpretation was even close to viable, that statement might hold true.

Look at the wildly inaccurate conclusions that you continually reach about my position. You don't understand it so how can you say I'm wrong? Please try to stick to saying things you know, rather than things you don't know.

(January 24, 2013 at 2:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't see how you would ever find this comforting... you'd have to understand it first! The point to me isn't " comfort " lol. The point is that it gets me the most out if life. I can very effectively deal with problems that would limit my full enjoyment of life. That's the only point in being a Christian.

What exactly are these problems that your religion helps you deal with?

(January 24, 2013 at 4:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We have a basic comprehension fail here. You can't understand the simple statement that you reply to. You have the information, but you don't understand it.

Misunderstanding is never a correct interpretation. If that were so someone would have successfully defeated it. That isn't the case.

Again, if there's some fact I don't have right that you can explain to me that will make me come around to your point of view, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, when you say that I misunderstand something, you're really just saying that my interpretation of the information is incorrect. And obviously you think that, but I think you're wrong too. Obviously.

Quote:If your interpretation was even close to viable, that statement might hold true.

Look at the wildly inaccurate conclusions that you continually reach about my position. You don't understand it so how can you say I'm wrong? Please try to stick to saying things you know, rather than things you don't know.

Please show me what inaccurate conclusions I've made about your position. Sure, I don't fully understand it, because you won't explain it in anything more than the vaguest terms, but I've acknowledged that. I have gone into clearly-marked conjecture as to what those posts might have meant, because you typically ignore me when I ask you to elaborate.

Besides which--atheism isn't even close to viable? Who's dismissing who out of hand?

Quote:Ultimately, God, and therefore good, rules. In the end, God engineers everything to his own just and good conclusion, because God is just and good.

So the answer to my question is yes, then? I'm not sure because, while that seems to match what I thought it was, you tell me again that I don't understand it.

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: So the answer to my question is yes, then? I'm not sure because, while that seems to match what I thought it was, you tell me again that I don't understand it.

No. You got it totally wrong again and by some miracle you seem to think the opposite. I don't know how you're missing it. I'm trying to simplify my language but it isn't helping.

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote:

Quote:If your interpretation was even close to viable, that statement might hold true.

Besides which--atheism isn't even close to viable? Who's dismissing who out of hand?

Look at this!!! Where the hell did I say that atheism isn't couse to viable???

Have another stab at it and see if you can't get closer to understanding what I'm actually saying without wildly misinterpreting it.

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: Please show me what inaccurate conclusions I've made about your position. Sure, I don't fully understand it, because you won't explain it in anything more than the vaguest terms, but I've acknowledged that. I have gone into clearly-marked conjecture as to what those posts might have meant, because you typically ignore me when I ask you to elaborate.

You keep belly aching about vagueness, yet the subject of our conversation us an overview of our world views. There is nothing finely detailed in what we are discussing.

Examples? See every time I say no to you? Those are your inaccuracies. I'm explaining the same points over and over. I'm taking into account now that you have a Methodist background, so should have some idea of what I'm talking about, as that's my background too. But you seem to be totally clueless about Christianity.

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: Again, if there's some fact I don't have right that you can explain to me that will make me come around to your point of view, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, when you say that I misunderstand something, you're really just saying that my interpretation of the information is incorrect. And obviously you think that, but I think you're wrong too. Obviously.

Yeah... The one 'fact' is that I believe in God. You are not going to understand that, unless you believe yourself. Let me break that down for you... I believe through faith. Faith is acting upon information that you trust. You have the information, but you don't trust it/ assent intellectually. Therefore you cannot act upon it and believe.

What you have to do here is respect someone's position without understanding it yourself. You can know the mechanics of it, like above, but your conclusions won't be the same.

... ran out of time. I'll try to get back to you on your question.

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: What exactly are these problems that your religion helps you deal with?

Problems of justice. A human court can't really know for sure about anyone they pass judgement on. Sometimes injustice will go unpunished. Sans God, that's just the way it it. With God, justice prevails.

(January 25, 2013 at 8:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Problems of justice. A human court can't really know for sure about anyone they pass judgement on. Sometimes injustice will go unpunished. Sans God, that's just the way it it. With God, justice prevails.

That's no use until after death. God clearly doesn't help with stopping criminals while they are still out committing crime.

---

Oooh and I forgot. Hey fr0d0!

(January 25, 2013 at 8:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: What exactly are these problems that your religion helps you deal with?

Problems of justice. A human court can't really know for sure about anyone they pass judgement on. Sometimes injustice will go unpunished. Sans God, that's just the way it it. With God, justice prevails.

Bullshit! All a criminal has to do is ask god for forgiveness and bingo, he gets into heaven.

That is not justice by any reasonable persons standard.

(January 25, 2013 at 8:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Celi Wrote: What exactly are these problems that your religion helps you deal with?

Problems of justice. A human court can't really know for sure about anyone they pass judgement on. Sometimes injustice will go unpunished. Sans God, that's just the way it it. With God, justice prevails.

Wishful thinking, mon ami.
Tons of wishful thinking.

(January 25, 2013 at 9:34 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Bullshit! All a criminal has to do is ask god for forgiveness and bingo, he gets into heaven.

That is not justice by any reasonable persons standard.

Hey peeps!

Ah but that would you be judging God. Assuming God knows everything, justice has to be served.

What you're doing is supporting my point that sans God, it all looks very unfair.