The logical consequences of omnipotence

[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.