Wayne, do you understand the crucial difference between correlation and causation? I honestly do not believe you do, as evidenced by the earlier discussions here about how everything has been getting worse since 1963.
I know the difference and so did the founders that prayed fervently for God's protections of a baby nation, just like I prayed for my baby girl. It worked for them, and I'm following their example. The coorelation of our prayers was the causation of their future safety.
I just know your going to love that answer Anfauglir.
It's what I've come to expect from you Wayne - cutting the crucial part of my question so that you can ignore it. Here's the bit you chopped out:
Would you be okay with stating what you understand by the two terms, and how you would go about determining if something was one rather than the other?
I.E. "Causation is.....", "Correlation is.....", "the process I use to determine if a thing is one or the other is....."
Because I honestly don't believe you understand the difference between the two terms. And if you don't - and if you have no way of differentiating between the two - then every single one of your glurges holds no meaning for anyone other than yourself.
The glurges: I had to look that up.
1.Sickeningly sweet stories with a moral, often hiding slightly sinister undertones.
Imitative of the retching that might be induced by stories of this kind
http://en.dictionary.org/wiki/glurge
You have such a kind way with words, you and bertatberts make a good team.
We should start from ground zero.
My first introduced story called:
Why God Let Those Kids Die, and analyse just what it is about it that makes it a glurge.
Point by point, the sinister undertone. Please explain.
Then, would you next please point out each point and phrase about it qualifies as sickeningly sweet.
You throw these terms around, I need you to defend them.
I have told you all before that I am a reporter of what has happened to me, I'm not a fiction writer. As you look at what I've written in that light, and the dire repercussions that have resulted from atheist bad behavior, I hardly think that qualifies as a glurge.
However, if someone is at a loss to find an adequate rebuttal to the reporting of supernatural guidance, they resort to profanities.
So, are you using Glurge as a profanity because you are at a loss? Or do you think my Why God Let Those Kids Die is sickeningly sweet?
The rest of you take note.
This causation coorelation thing has its applications in a normal argument. What I have done here is deliver reports, many reports of the supernatural. I am not making them up. I am not lying about them. I am not demented. I have no mental illness. I am not psychotic. I am not deranged.
All of these truths of the matter should give you pause as you try to apply your normal analysis to what I have written. The causation coorelation may be meaningful in some instance but the shear number of accounts I have cannot be diced up in the conventional way.
Anfauglir is doing
his best with what she has here, but it is wholly inadequate. It doesn't work with the supernatural.
Look at my earthquake story. Where is the sickeningly sweet part there? Is it not absurd to hammer at it with causation and coorelation analysis? Where is my sinister undertone to be found in my reporting of a supernatural incident?
It's OK Anfauglir. You are doing your best. I'm not asking you to quit, I'm saying slow down and think about it. It is futile to attack a report of the supernatural as if it is a malformed opinion. My interpretation of the meaning of the supernatural incident could be questioned I suppose, but my misinterpretation doesn't diminish the fact that it is a supernatural event.
Why don't you try this: strip away any commentary of what I think God meant by the earthquake incident, and tell me what the incident would have meant to you if it had happened to you. Re read that story and forget about whatever it was I said I thought it meant.
edited to say: Sorry, I got your gender wrong, forgive me. I swear I didn't know.
