Bree

This is exactly what I was getting at.

Stormy

diana: You simply do not understand a word that I say. To make it easy on the both of us... I will accept the total and complete responsibility for all your misunderstanding of me.

But I will no longer engage in conversations with you.

I find more pleasure beating my head against a wall.

Love

Stormy

Bree: One more time...

If you want to know for a fact that God thinks it is wrong that you are an Atheist...

I do not know.

If you want to know if I was given undeniable factual proof that could only have came from God...

Yes.

When CF opens browse through some of my post. That is the only other place that I have spoken, a little, about my experiences.

I have no idea what if anything it is all about. I am confused and upset ... not what you would probably expect... me neither.

If you can give me an explanation... I will be very relieved.

Then I may tell you more.

diana... Just leave it alone.

Bree

This is where I'm confused. You are contradicting yourself. You say you received factual proof - "factual" meaning you can prove it, as one can prove the world is spherical and not flat. However, you say that this factual proof is not factual enough for you to say, without a doubt, that it is wrong for me to be an atheist.

Therefore: (1) either your factual proof does not live up to the standard to which we hold other facts (2) you have an entirely different definition of the word "fact" or (3) you don't really have an arguement.

I'm not really sure where this leaves us. I'm trying very hard to understand where you're coming from, but I can't get over the hump of this initial contradiction. Facts are facts - or they aren't. You can't have proven Theory A 100% correct, but have the outcome of Theory A be undetermined - if Theory A is 100%, then its outcome must also be 100%.

Stormy

I will chose #3 ... I really do not even want an arguement.

diana

Why hello, Stormy!

Leave what alone?

The goal of discussion in OPEN FORUMS, STORMY, is to make yourself understood. When it becomes clear that another poster in that OPEN FORUM, STORMY, does not understand you, the polite thing to do is to rephrase your previous comment--the one that you feel has been misunderstood--and expand upon it, possibly, giving examples, in an attempt to make yourself better understood. This is commonly known as "good faith," Stormy.

I note that you aren't having trouble understanding me. So far, you seem to have understood everything I've said. The problem does appear to be on your end. I think you're wise to accept the total and complete responsibility for all my misunderstanding of you.

If you scroll back through my responses, you--or anyone else in this OPEN FORUM, STORMY, who feels the urge--will note with some amusement that my supposed "misunderstanding" of everything you've said invariably has included verbatim quotes of what you yourself have said. If anyone here is misunderstanding things, it's beginning to look as though you don't understand yourself.

I'm beginning to think you've simply never been confronted with how little sense you make.

Then I suggest you leave this OPEN FORUM, STORMY.

You may note the subliminal messages as we go along. If you're sharp. There's a little something I'm trying hard to communicate to you here. Please pay attention.

Leave what alone, Stormy?

I wonder if you're cursed with such one-way convoluted communication skills in every other walk of life, or it's only in religion where you are so deaf.

ARE YOU STILL BEATING YOUR WIFE, STORMY? This phrase, in argument, is known as the "complex question." It's a fallacy. That is, a mistake in reasoning. It assumes, or takes as given, two things: that you have a wife and that you beat her in the past. There is simply no reasonable or fair way to answer the question unless you have a wife, you beat her in the past, and in fact are still beating her. (If this is the case, please keep it to yourself, as I'd rather not get to know you that intimately.)

Your comment, "If you want to know for a fact that God thinks it is wrong that you are an Atheist," suffers from the same problem (or, as I like to call it, the same rude presumption). It assumes (1) there is a God, (2) God thinks (about what? But that's a completely different tangent), (3) that Bree gives a good goddamn what you think your god thinks about what she thinks. It's all bullshit. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? BULLSHIT.

We don't believe in your god, get it? If you wish to communicate with us on any meaningful level, you must address this basic problem. You can say you know "for a fact" that God does not take dumps and we will still say, "Why do you think there's a God, Stormy?"

Leave what alone, Stormy?

Undeniable factual proof can be, uh, proven. Yeah. That's it. That's just the word I was looking for. Almost downright tautological, really, the idea that "proof" can be "proven."

Put up or shut up. Let's see it.

That would be lovely, dear, but judging from your performance in these forums thus far, I really should keep my running-bamboo-shoots-under-my-fingernails appointment that afternoon. And if I'm up to it, I might freshen up later and pop down to the corner for a little flaying alive.

You have "no idea what if anything it is all about," but somehow you're convince that it's "undeniable factual proof that could only have came from God"? Do you see the inherent contradiction in these two comments? Are you mental?

Golly Gee, Stormy...leave what alone?

Here's a tip: if you want to have a private conversation, do it privately. If you want the moderator of a certain forum to leave your inane posts alone in all their pristine glory, you might consider finding another forum to bless with your banalities.

Feel free to not respond to this post. Fuck knows you haven't bothered to actually respond to any points I've made. It's just as well that you cease pretending to do so on any level.

In return, I will feel free to point out your failure to elucidate at every opportunity. That's one of the beauties of an OPEN FORUM, STORMY.

d

Bree

<sigh>

Stormy, I'm not attacking you (believe it or not). I'm honestly trying to understand where you are coming from on this matter. When I was a Christian, I never thought to ask these types of questions. Just because I'm not a Christian doesn't mean I'm not still interested in Christianity - I'm trying very hard to learn and understand.

I'm not picking a fight with you, and I don't want an argument either. I just want your opinion, served up plain. I can only assume that, when I ask a question and people roll over and play dead, that there is no answer. Hopefully this isn't the case - there are millions of Christians all over the world, and it would be a pity to see their religion based on unanswerable questions.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Boro Nut

While I am prepared to accept god as the creator of the universe and all that is in it, I am afraid that I have a real problem with imagining him as my father, as it implies that he has been knobbing my mam. The woman is a saint, as her children will all testify. There is no way she would agree to being knobbed by anyone, god included.

Boro Nut