The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Celi]

If you want to quote multiple parts of a post, just take the quote and copy+paste it a few times, then in each quote delete the parts of the post that you don't want to quote. When you just keep editing we can't tell when you're done.

[fr0d0]

Apologies. I'm on my mobile so that's just impossible. I'll have to put "done" when I'm finished

[Celi]

Apologies. I'm on my mobile so that's just impossible. I'll have to put "done" when I'm finished

Oh, that's fine. It was just annoying when I answered only to see that you had added more to your post, so to avoid double posting I had to edit my own post to respond to the new part of yours.

...says the guy who just implied that I'm incapable of rational thought.

lol

I don't have to refrain from torment to tolerate you

So when you say most atheists are incapable of rational thought, you're 'refraining from torment', whatever that means, but when I said that one possible interpretation of a really vague thing you said is irrational, I'm being intolerant toward you.

No, that's the basis of following your own morals (aka not being a complete selfish ass).

It's the beginning of the same thought process. You see benefit from interacting positively. Up to a point.

What. Does. That. Mean? Are you being deliberately vague?

[fr0d0]

So when you say most atheists are incapable of rational thought, you're 'refraining from torment', whatever that means, but when I said that one possible interpretation of a really vague thing you said is irrational, I'm being intolerant toward you.

You made a categoric statement that to have a belief that good wins was irrational. Like an opposite view would be impossible. As I'm stating an opposite view, you are saying that you don't tolerate my view. I never made such an intolerant statement to you. Torment in this case = sarcasm. It never fails to amuse me how atheists always regard themselves so intellectually superior. You say that all atheists are rational, yet I find the majority of atheists to be quite ignorant, not only of religion and the subject they attack without understanding it at all.

---

What. Does. That. Mean? Are you being deliberately vague?

No I just have an awkward way of putting things sometimes.

You said something agreeing with people being kind to each other... Interacting positively.
That's similar to the rationale for my world view. But my world view takes it further, because my belief in God as a force for good, means that I am not limited by an end point of nature being neutral. My reasoning end point is a good God.

[Celi]

So when you say most atheists are incapable of rational thought, you're 'refraining from torment', whatever that means, but when I said that one possible interpretation of a really vague thing you said is irrational, I'm being intolerant toward you.

You made a categoric statement that to have a belief that good wins was irrational. Like an opposite view would be impossible. As I'm stating an opposite view, you are saying that you don't tolerate my view. I never made such an intolerant statement to you. Torment in this case = sarcasm. It never fails to amuse me how atheists always regard themselves so intellectually superior.

Earlier, when you finally gave us your definition of 'hope':

To have a rationally based positive belief that universal goodness prevails.

Since that's still really vague, in my next post I quickly addressed three different possible interpretations. The first, the most obvious interpretation and the most ridiculous, would be a storybook notion that the good guys always win in the end, with no exceptions. So I got that out of the way first, without really offering an argument against it because I really doubted that was what you meant anyway. Was it?

In any case, if 'intolerance' is merely stating that your beliefs are 'impossible', what are you doing in an argument anyway? You know that, to have an argument, people have to disagree about something, right?

I can see how you might think we think we're intellectually superior--and I think there are plenty of atheists who do--but I don't. I think plenty of very smart people are theists. On this specific topic, though, I'll obviously always think you're wrong. I'm an atheist and you're a theist; we disagree quite vehemently about something rather important, at least to you. Doesn't mean I think you're stupid.

You say that all atheists are rational, yet I find the majority of atheists to be quite ignorant, not only of religion and the subject they attack without understanding it at all.

And here we are again with the insults. Is my saying one possible (rather silly) interpretation of something you said is wrong so much worse than your telling me I have no understanding of this subject, and calling me ignorant of everything else?

---

What. Does. That. Mean? Are you being deliberately vague?

No I just have an awkward way of putting things sometimes.

You said something agreeing with people being kind to each other... Interacting positively.
That's similar to the rationale for my world view. But my world view takes it further, because my belief in God as a force for good, means that I am not limited by an end point of nature being neutral. My reasoning end point is a good God.

People trying to follow their own morals isn't really specific to any particular worldview. In fact I'd say that 99% of everybody thinks it's a good idea not to be a complete selfish ass.

And again you refer to nature's neutrality. What could that possibly mean? It's like saying a jar of peanut butter has no opinion on abortion--of course it doesn't, it's not a sentient being that can take sides to begin with.

[fr0d0]

I really doubted that was what you meant anyway. Was it?

You're so far off track now, with my limited medium I'm unable to recover it.

In any case, if 'intolerance' is merely stating that your beliefs are 'impossible', what are you doing in an argument anyway?

The difference between our statements, is that I call you ignorant of the facts, where you call mine impossible. Do you see the difference? I regard your opinion as under informed. You regard my position as something to be trashed. You dismiss it out of hand.

You are being dogmatic. This is an atheist site, and like theists on theist sites, it'd all too easy to get insensitive and make dogmatic remarks in the safety of ones peers. Maybe you don't even know that you're doing it. In my community theists are quite rare, and people just aren't so aware that there are other legitimate ways of thinking.

I can see how you might think we think we're intellectually superior

My response here was I think to your own statement of "atheists are of course rational".

I don't find this.

And here we are again with the insults.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to be factual. What do you call basic lack of knowledge of a subject besides ignorance? Above I quoted you dismissing my opinion like it shouldn't ever be considered by any rational person. That is ignorance of my position. I think you genuinely didn't realise. Still, yours is a position of ignorance. I don't think you should get hung up on the word.

calling me ignorant of everything else?

I don't call you ignorant of everything else. I do state that atheism is mostly a position of ignorance. Lack of belief in a deity, for example, is because you lack convincing information. No one is born believing in God. Therefore everyone starts out ignorant of that position.

I do think it's harder for non believes to be tolerant of believers, because believers have all been non believers at some point, where non believers don't have to have believed first. Chances are you have never understood it.

People trying to follow their own morals isn't really specific to any particular worldview. In fact I'd say that 99% of everybody thinks it's a good idea not to be a complete selfish ass.

And again you refer to nature's neutrality. What could that possibly mean? It's like saying a jar of peanut butter has no opinion on abortion--of course it doesn't, it's not a sentient being that can take sides to begin with.

Yes I would agree that unselfishness is pretty much a universally accepted good idea. That's my point.... You get the basis of my reasoning.

Natures neutrality, the very finality of that, is what ultimately you must base your world view on.

That's the problem you accurately assess. Not a problem even to you, because that is reality right? It's only a problem to me in light of the solution. The solution that my reality isn't neutral. It is positive.

[Celi]

This quote surgery is getting annoying, so I'm going to respond inside it. Colored text is mine.

The difference between our statements, is that I call you ignorant of the facts, where you call mine impossible. Do you see the difference? I regard your opinion as under informed. You regard my position as something to be trashed. You dismiss it out of hand.

So you were saying that good triumphs over evil all the time with no exceptions? Because that's what I called irrational, and it was only one possible interpretation of one of your incomprehensible posts.

Even so, you say that my position is 'ignorant of the facts'. As in, my argument isn't logically sound due to a lack of information on my part. (By the way, if you really think there are 'facts' that you could tell me that would make me abandon my argument and see the light, why haven't you given them to me? If that's not the case, then all you really mean is that I'm wrong, not ignorant.) I said one possible interpretation of something you said wasn't 'rationally based'--as in, not logically sound. Your claim that I see your position as 'something to be trashed' and that I'm dismissing it out of hand is incorrect and unsubstantiated. I've been fairly respectful to you, I think, considering all the offensive generalizations you've made about atheists and insulting implications about my own intelligence. I've looked at your position as objectively as I can, and I don't see any evidence or logic in it.

You are being dogmatic. This is an atheist site, and like theists on theist sites, it'd all too easy to get insensitive and make dogmatic remarks in the safety of ones peers. Maybe you don't even know that you're doing it. In my community theists are quite rare, and people just aren't so aware that there are other legitimate ways of thinking.

Pretty ironic, since that's how I feel living in an entirely Christian community. Anyway, I don't see where I've been in any way dogmatic, and if you can point out specific instances of this please do so. Frankly I'm tempted to assume you're just using your own definition again, and when you do that, I can't respond properly because I don't have any clear understanding of what you're accusing me of.

---

My response here was I think to your own statement of "atheists are of course rational".

I never said that. Ever.

---

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to be factual. What do you call basic lack of knowledge of a subject besides ignorance? Above I quoted you dismissing my opinion like it shouldn't ever be considered by any rational person. The storybook notion that good always triumphs over evil, always, in every situation? Yep, I don't think any rational person would find that convincing. But I also don't think that that's what you believe, anyway--right? Because it's absurd, as anyone who's lived in this world for any amount of time should know. Bad things happen sometimes. That is ignorance of my position. I think you genuinely didn't realise. Still, yours is a position of ignorance. I don't think you should get hung up on the word.

Again, what exactly am I ignorant of? I'm pretty sure when you say ignorant you just mean wrong. If I'm really ignorant, then by all means give me the facts.

---

I don't call you ignorant of everything else. Your exact words were 'I find the majority of atheists to be quite ignorant, not only of religion and the subject they attack without understanding it at all'. I do state that atheism is mostly a position of ignorance. Lack of belief in a deity, for example, is because you lack convincing information. Haha, yep. No one is born believing in God. Therefore everyone starts out ignorant of that position.

Er, yes, infants don't know about the idea of God. Are you implying that I've never heard of it at all? Because I have, obviously.

I do think it's harder for non believes to be tolerant of believers, because believers have all been non believers at some point, where non believers don't have to have believed first. Chances are you have never understood it.

While a baby can't be born with a religion in its head, you can indoctrinate zir from early childhood, as is the case with most religious people. If that's what you mean, then yes, I was raised Methodist.

---

Yes I would agree that unselfishness is pretty much a universally accepted good idea. That's my point.... You get the basis of my reasoning.

Natures neutrality, the very finality of that, is what ultimately you must base your world view on.

I still don't get what you're talking about here. Could you clarify?

That's the problem you accurately assess. Not a problem even to you, because that is reality right? It's only a problem to me in light of the solution. The solution that my reality isn't neutral. It is positive.

...Reality itself is positive? I like the universe too. The only real difference is that I don't believe it was made specifically for humanity. Doesn't mean I can't love the world, and life.

[fr0d0]

So you were saying that good triumphs over evil all the time with no exceptions? Because that's what I called irrational

Yes, I'll say it again, that's what I believe. Not that there is no evil, but that good always triumphs.

This is the example of you dismissing my opinion out of hand. You don't seem to notice yourself doing it. Yes you don't get it. Don't get hung up on the word ignorant.

My world view is not irrational. It is just not known to you. A tolerant person respectfully disagrees. An intolerant person won't allow for any opinion besides their own.

Even so, you say that my position is 'ignorant of the facts'. As in, my argument isn't logically sound due to a lack of information on my part. (By the way, if you really think there are 'facts' that you could tell me that would make me abandon my argument and see the light, why haven't you given them to me? If that's not the case, then all you really mean is that I'm wrong, not ignorant.)

Ignorant of the facts does not equal logically unsound. With the information you have, you form your world view. You can do no other.

You were raised a Methodist. You should already have come across the facts. Understanding them is the key. What is the unlock code for you? I have no idea.

If you lack knowledge of something, then you are ignorant if it. I don't see you making a convincing attack of that definition.

I still don't get what you're talking about here. Could you clarify?

You get it exactly, because you just expounded on it. My point on that is, if you get, like you say the vast majority of people do, that there is a logical benefit to positive interaction between people, then that reasoning is the same that applies when considering God. Adding God into the equation extends the benefit universally, hence good wins.

You are not going to come to the same conclusion as me, because that would require belief in God. But you can see the rational process that predicates my conclusion.

The only real difference is that I don't believe it was made specifically for humanity.

But then you are talking about science and not theology. A category error.

[Celi]

You acknowledge that I have the information, but then say that I'm still ignorant because I don't have the knowledge. I hope you can see the inconsistency. And, of course, when you say that, you mean that I don't know about God. In other words, you mean that even with the same information as you, I came to the wrong conclusion. Hence, my position is logically unsound. Which doesn't bother me, since obviously you're going to think I'm wrong about God if you're a theist and I'm an atheist.

You still don't get what I was saying was irrational. You gave your megavague definition of hope, and the first most obvious interpretation I dismissed out of hand was that the world is totally perfect, nothing bad ever happens, this world is a fluffy pink ball of sunshine, etc. I know that isn't what you believe, since you were earlier arguing in favor of suicide and natural disasters.

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.

[fr0d0]

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??

my position is logically unsound.

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.

the first most obvious interpretation I dismissed out of hand was that the world is totally perfect

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