The logical consequences of omnipotence

[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.