Atheists and others here:

[Electric Skeptic]

All rehab centres do as well.

AA as well.

 

[SteveB]

And you switched to religion to numb your pain.
Many desperate people do.
It doesn't prove it's validity. Unless it proves the validity of all religions.
All religions have followers with similar stories.

Then you get to live with your pain.
No God-hope.
No God-comfort
No God-encouragement
No God-Joy

Oh, wait...
I forgot...
You have sex, drugs, alcohol, money and pleasure.

All to pass away at death.

This is the truly amazing thing...

According to psalm 16:10,

In the presence of God, there is fulness of joy and at his right hand there are pleasures forever more.

So, what you lose at death, we who follow Jesus get an exponential increase, which will ever increase and never pass away.

Sounds like I win God's friendship, and you lose.

 

[Whatsisface]

I switched to Jesus because he took all my sorrows, all my griefs, all the heartache and gave me his hope, his joy, his life, his liberty, his dignity, his love, ...

This is the real reason you believe, you were at rock bottom in desperate need and the idea of Jesus lifted you out of it. The problem with this as evidence is that the idea of it alone could do the trick. It does it to Muslims etc too, who are convinced they have a relationship with Allah.

Or didn't you read that part when you read the bible?

Isa 53:3-5 WEB 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of suffering and acquainted with disease. He was despised as one from whom men hide their face; and we didn’t respect him. 4 Surely he has borne our sickness and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.

If you missed it, here it is.

He took all our pain, and gave us his wholeness.

I'll gladly exchange my agony for himself. I no longer have the sorrows I once lived with.

So...

Yeah?
And?

This does not show God is real.

 

[Furion]

That is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand, deciding to not see what is plainly right in front of your eyes, as plainly posted by me, and just refusing to deal with it. I don't understand how anyone can do that, but there it is.

Plainly you did it and now try to justify yourself. Plainly.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Plainly you did it and now try to justify yourself. Plainly.

I said there was more to it than that and specified exactly what it was that was more. You just repeated that there wasn't anything more more, despite me identifying what was more.

Now, you could disagree that what I said was relevant or applied or whatever, but you haven't even done that, you just keep repeating what you're claiming. How do we have a conversation when that happens?

 

[Tiburon]

Then you get to live with your pain.
No God-hope.
No God-comfort
No God-encouragement
No God-Joy

Oh, wait...
I forgot...
You have sex, drugs, alcohol, money and pleasure.

All to pass away at death.

This is the truly amazing thing...

According to psalm 16:10,

In the presence of God, there is fulness of joy and at his right hand there are pleasures forever more.

So, what you lose at death, we who follow Jesus get an exponential increase, which will ever increase and never pass away.

Sounds like I win God's friendship, and you lose.

It sounds like it. Sounds like you win the imaginary friend contest. Take a selfie of the two of you when he shows up at your birthday party.

 

[Furion]

I said there was more to it than that and specified exactly what it was that was more. You just repeated that there wasn't anything more more, despite me identifying what was more.

Now, you could disagree that what I said was relevant or applied or whatever, but you haven't even done that, you just keep repeating what you're claiming. How do we have a conversation when that happens?

You think snarky skepticism can haz conversation?

I mean you can have it here, tell the world of your atheism, get people to think straight, right?

 

[Whatsisface]

You think snarky skepticism can haz conversation?

I mean you can have it here, tell the world of your atheism, get people to think straight, right?

Good grief. Gus is the exact opposite of snarkyness.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You think snarky skepticism can haz conversation?

I mean you can have it here, tell the world of your atheism, get people to think straight, right?

Because you are not seeing the reciprocity in my approach, it leads you to think I am arrogant in trying to get others to think clearly. I'll try to explain again:

Here's an analogy: Let's say person A has a table and I go and take something off A's table. You'd think I was selfish and stealing. But if I say that I have a table, and part of the game A and I are playing is that we get to take things off of each other's table, then your original evaluation changes completely.

That's how I view having a conversation and thinking clearly. Both sides get to show the other how they may not be thinking clearly.

Also: it is a necessary part of holding a position that contradicts another's position that you think you are thinking clearly and the other isn't. How could it be otherwise? You think the other person is wrong, so they are not thinking clearly, which is the thing that led them to their incorrect (from your standpoint) position. What you're calling arrogant is merely holding a position you think to be correct in the face of someone else who disagrees, and explaining to the other how their thinking went astray, in your own opinion. That's not arrogant, that's just disagreeing and talking about it.

So, look, I've explained this several times and in several different ways. If you have a question about it that comes from actually trying to understand what I've been saying, I'm happy to answer it. Otherwise, that's the last I'm going to say on the topic to you here.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Good grief. Gus is the exact opposite of snarkyness.

Thanks, truly; no /s.

 

[Furion]

Because you are not seeing the reciprocity in my approach, it leads you to think I am arrogant in trying to get others to think clearly. I'll try to explain again:

Here's an analogy: Let's say person A has a table and I go and take something off A's table. You'd think I was selfish and stealing. But if I say that I have a table, and part of the game A and I are playing is that we get to take things off of each other's table, then your original evaluation changes completely.

That's how I view having a conversation and thinking clearly. Both sides get to show the other how they may not be thinking clearly.

Also: it is a necessary part of holding a position that contradicts another's position that you think you are thinking clearly and the other isn't. How could it be otherwise? You think the other person is wrong, so they are not thinking clearly, which is the thing that led them to their incorrect (from your standpoint) position. What you're calling arrogant is merely holding a position you think to be correct in the face of someone else who disagrees, and explaining to the other how their thinking went astray, in your own opinion. That's not arrogant, that's just disagreeing and talking about it.

So, look, I've explained this several times and in several different ways. If you have a question about it that comes from actually trying to understand what I've been saying, I'm happy to answer it. Otherwise, that's the last I'm going to say on the topic to you here.

That is very confusing, how has my thinking gone astray? Maybe you can get my thinking straight on it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

That is very confusing, how has my thinking gone astray? Maybe you can get my thinking straight on it.

Wait, are you saying you don't understand my point about reciprocity and clear thinking in a disagreement? What part don't you understand?

 

[Furion]

Wait, are you saying you don't understand my point about reciprocity and clear thinking in a disagreement? What part don't you understand?

What do you mean by "clear thinking"?

It sounds suspiciously similar to 'think like Gus' Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[Gus Bovona]

What do you mean by "clear thinking"?

Are you saying that you didn't understand what I meant by clear thinking? I don't see how what I specifically meant by clear thinking has anything to do with the idea of reciprocity in a disagreement, and whether I was being arrogant.

Can you just answer my question plainly, without asking a question itself, and then I'll be happy to clear up anything you truly didn't understand.

It sounds suspiciously similar to 'think like Gus' Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Nope, that would be a wrong conclusion to draw.

 

[Furion]

Are you saying that you didn't understand what I meant by clear thinking? I don't see how what I specifically meant by clear thinking has anything to do with the idea of reciprocity in a disagreement, and whether I was being arrogant.

Can you just answer my question plainly, without asking a question itself, and then I'll be happy to clear up anything you truly didn't understand.

Ok. What do you mean by "clear thinking"?

Nope, that would be a wrong conclusion to draw.

Answer the above.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Ok. What do you mean by "clear thinking"?

Answer the above.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the part of my point about reciprocity that you didn't understand was what clear thinking is.

There are nuances, of course, but the simplest definition of clear thinking I know is "thinking logically." That's what I mean by clear thinking.

ETA: Now, please answer a question of mine: do you understand my point about reciprocity?

 

[Furion]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the part of my point about reciprocity that you didn't understand was what clear thinking is.

That's not a benefit, nice one.

There are nuances, of course, but the simplest definition of clear thinking I know is "thinking logically." That's what I mean by clear thinking.

How do you tell your thinking is clear?

 

[Gus Bovona]

That's not a benefit, nice one.

How do you tell your thinking is clear?

Nice try, but it's your turn to answer my question, did you see my ETA: in my last post?

 

[Furion]

Nice try, but it's your turn to answer my question, did you see my ETA: in my last post?

Are you thinking clearly?

Tell me how you know.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Are you thinking clearly?

Tell me how you know.

Do you understand my point about reciprocity?

it would only be arrogant if I didn’t accept from others their attempts to get me to think clearly. In fact, that’s what happens, ideally, when two people disagree and discuss it. Each is trying to get the other to think clearly. In fact, both may succeed

Here's an analogy: Let's say person A has a table and I go and take something off A's table. You'd think I was selfish and stealing. But if I say that I have a table, and part of the game A and I are playing is that we get to take things off of each other's table, then your original evaluation changes completely.

That's how I view having a conversation and thinking clearly. Both sides get to show the other how they may not be thinking clearly.

Also: it is a necessary part of holding a position that contradicts another's position that you think you are thinking clearly and the other isn't. How could it be otherwise? You think the other person is wrong, so they are not thinking clearly, which is the thing that led them to their incorrect (from your standpoint) position. What you're calling arrogant is merely holding a position you think to be correct in the face of someone else who disagrees, and explaining to the other how their thinking went astray, in your own opinion. That's not arrogant, that's just disagreeing and talking about it.