"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Suziannes contribution to the overall clarity of this thread : 0

Attempted obfuscation: 8

Sincerity: n/a

Conviction: 10

Faith in twhiteheads sincerity: 1 (which is utterly sad, imo)

Love: (Seems we have no guidelines to mark this one)

Hope: 9 (Not that it matters at all)

Value (in terms of clarifying Suziannes overall intention): 10

Overall value in terms of thread contribution: n/a .....well you get the drift ,eh? 😀 😀

So I can only assume that you endorse twhitehead's antics in this forum.

Well, I guess that's what fanbois are for.

Originally posted by LemonJello
twhitehead answered the opening hypothetical from Bobby in a very straightforward fashion with reasonable concerns. They are, in fact, some of the same concerns I have. In particular, Bobby's hypothetical seems to suppose that persons -- believers in his particular strain of theism and non-believers alike -- have taken a stance of repeated willful rejec ...[text shortened]... ly stupid" in his simple quest for some clarification on the matter.

So, give over.

Most of your "given"s here are false (well, at least half of them). And you know what that means for your hypothesis. As to your (1), GB obviously wasn't including 'believers' for obvious reasons, and as to your (2), the premise is defined by the poser, the answerer cannot redefine the question as he sees fit (or the answer becomes mere nonsense), so there is, in fact, a 'willful rejection' on the part of the 'unbeliever' merely by not believing. This is not even going into the rejection of the offer merely because they do not believe it is a 'genuine option'. Rejection is non-acceptance, for whatever reason, and willful merely because the decision was made not to accept it, again, for whatever reason. Anyone who is not 'monumentally stupid' gets this much.

The man plays word games that strain the limits of credulity by asking questions where the answer is more than obvious. He has no "reasonable concerns" because by his own admission, he's not concerned about anyone or anything in these forums, and his only pastimes seem to be making fun and/or driving everyone to distraction with side issue questions.

Of course I implied that he was being "monumentally stupid" because his "questions" could only be asked honestly by a monumentally stupid person. He understood GB's OP, he was just using his tired old tactics of distraction and obfuscation. How many times does he just sit back and smugly ask someone to define some word used on the border of the conversation, a word that everyone with even a minor understanding of the language understands? I've long since stopped submitting to his personal brand of game-playing in discussions because that's all it is. I'd rather have an actual discussion, and not have to dance to his whims. But it seems not everyone here is as tired of this as I am. And others go so far as to actually defend it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So I can only assume that you endorse twhitehead's antics in this forum.

Well, I guess that's what fanbois are for.

sorry for ever doubting your sexuality dave......and i hate to stereotype but that was a classic passive aggressive female argument.

'oh you liked what clarie said did you!!! i suppose you think everything she says is hilarious!!! why dont you and your mates all marry her then!!!!'

i hate to gender stereotype but ive seen variations of that conversation so many times.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Most of your "given"s here are false (well, at least half of them). And you know what that means for your hypothesis. As to your (1), GB obviously wasn't including 'believers' for obvious reasons, and as to your (2), the premise is defined by the poser, the answerer cannot redefine the question as he sees fit (or the answer becomes mere nonsense), so ther ...[text shortened]... s tired of this as I am. And others go so far as to actually defend it.

maybe its a perspective thing, depending on which side of the fence you sit. but i generally 'get' twhitheads posts. the questions he asks from my point of view are usually relevant and things i would like to see answered.
when you mention the definition of words, i totally understand why he does it. so often we give our own little spins on the words or words are used to cover over vagaries. my own personal bug bear is the constant use of the word 'love' as a factual description, yet in reality 'love' is vague.
also i dont think a person needs care about people on here to be interested in debate. i think you see him as nit-picking but for me thats where the truth lies, in the detail.
you should cut him some slack and read his words rather than the agenda he may or may not have.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

"His concern is spelled out in the second post of this thread, way back on page 1. Please revisit it if you honestly cannot remember what it was."

I've commented on his convoluted questions. Pursuing them further is fruitless. Perhaps he'll launch his own thread. (gb)

"Pursuing them[his convoluted questions] further is fruitless."

I hate to say it, but "I told you so." You should have just recognized the game-playing for what it was... disrespect, and moved on. But no, you showed that you welcomed more disrespect and so others have piled on. I'm telling you, it will not stop until you put a stop to it, as I have. Granted, others who don't see it for what it is try to call me out on it, but that's to be expected. After all, he kept suckering me into dead-end arguments where the main issue gets supplanted by irrelevant side issues for a long time before I finally said "no more", I'm not surprised that others get suckered in also, even the ones on 'his side'.

We're not here just for his entertainment, GB. We have a right to expect to be involved in honest discussions where both sides are listened to and responses are appropriate, not to be continually disrespected and made to gyrate in the wind for his 'giggles'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]"Pursuing them[his convoluted questions] further is fruitless."

I hate to say it, but "I told you so." You should have just recognized the game-playing for what it was... disrespect, and moved on. But no, you showed that you welcomed more disrespect and so others have piled on. I'm telling you, it will not stop until you put a stop to it ...[text shortened]... to be continually disrespected and made to gyrate in the wind for his 'giggles'.[/b]

no offense, i like you (well the web you anyway). but when it comes to debating between atheist and christian you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. i like to think i pretty honest and straight with no hidden agendas (im not sure if you see me like that, its hard to gauge perception'. but ive been posting on here for a few years and ive hardly ever seen you get 'involved' and like ive said i like you, you seem to have a good sense of humor and a general liberal outlook with which i agree. but to me its your criticism of twhithead seems unfair. the atheists on here normally have a million questions and thoughts about christianinty that may feel like we are setting traps, but in truth its because we feel like there is sooooo much wrong with christianity we trip over ourselfs trying to get it all out. from my angle there is normally a good reason for his questions.

Originally posted by Suzianne

[b]"Pursuing them[his convoluted questions] further is fruitless."

I hate to say it, but "I told you so." You should have just recognized the game-playing for what it was... disrespect, and moved on. But no, you showed that you welcomed more disrespect and so others have piled on. I'm telling you, it will not stop until you put a stop to ...[text shortened]... to be continually disrespected and made to gyrate in the wind for his 'giggles'.[/b]

Suzi, I understand. I also think of these guys during odd hours of the night and day. An invisible shudder courses through my rational being whenever I'm reminded of the stern fact that some may be separated and alone for all eternity. -Bob

Originally posted by Suzianne
You still do not realize that your actions have consequences, do you?

Apparently not, which was my point earlier in the thread, but instead of listening and understanding my point, you respond with denial then rudeness and hatred.
So, given that I am not aware that my actions have consequences, have I really rejected the dilemma? I realize that you think simple logical questions like this are maneuvering, manipulation, and game theory, but can't you at least try and answer the question rather than responding in your usual manner?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

I accept everything just the way it is, and I don’t know if that entity you described is existent or non existent. The “permanent relationship” with such an entity is, methinks, your own partial feeling dependent desire –but I am detached from that desire and I don’t depend on partial feelings; I only see that you seek spiritual pleasure for its own sake.
Since I think lightly of myself and deeply of the world, “eternal separation” to me as you pose it, is just one's excuse for being hooked on desire during one’s whole life😵

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i guess this all boils down to your leap of faith. you accept no matter how outwardly ridiculous things appear that god will have a better answer. i can to that, even if i accepted god exists i would still not be able to accept his methods.

i guess this all boils down to your leap of faith. you accept no matter how outwardly ridiculous things appear that god will have a better answer. i can to that, even if i accepted god exists i would still not be able to accept his methods.

The track record of God through the Bible would indicate that when man thinks the odds against God and His loved ones are ridiculously bad, God comes through.

Ie.
Adam's cataclysmic failure,
Noah's horrendous society,
Abraham and Sarah's birth of a son,
Joseph's sale into slavery and prison in Egypt,
Israel's slavery for 400 some years,
The Hebrews' wondering in the wilderness,
The insurmountable odds of the Canaanite,
etc.
etc.
Lastly, perhaps the rejection and execution of the Son of God.

So you see, God's resume in the Bible encourages us believers that "ridiculous" odds cannot stop God from doing His will. Though we may not know what marvelous thing He will do, His track record over a few millennia is that He can branch over the obstructing walls.

Originally posted by sonship
The track record of God through the Bible would indicate that when man thinks the odds against God and His loved ones are ridiculously bad, God comes through.

Which leaves us atheists with the question: why did he let it get so ridiculously bad?
I would also argue that since you cannot reverse suffering, it is actually impossible for God to 'come through' after letting it get ridiculously bad. At best, he may be able to compensate, or say 'sorry'.

Originally posted by black beetle

I accept everything just the way it is, and I don’t know if that entity you described is existent or non existent. The “permanent relationship” with such an entity is, methinks, your own partial feeling dependent desire –but I am detached from that desire and I don’t depend on partial feelings; I only see that you seek spiritual pleasure for its own sake ...[text shortened]... on” to me as you pose it, is just one's excuse for being hooked on desire during one’s whole life😵

"I accept everything just the way it is, and I don’t know if that entity you described is existent or non existent. The “permanent relationship” with such an entity is, methinks, your own partial feeling dependent desire –but I am detached from that desire and I don’t depend on partial feelings; I only see that you seek spiritual pleasure for its own sake.
Since I think lightly of myself and deeply of the world, “eternal separation” to me as you pose it, is just one's excuse for being hooked on desire during one’s whole life."

My friend, beetle, almost sounds as if an orphaned child of highly developed survival skills and street smarts, has abandoned any hope of reconciliation or reunion with its biological family. The "Pain/Pleasure Principle" seems reversed. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"I accept everything just the way it is, and I don’t know if that entity you described is existent or non existent. The “permanent relationship” with such an entity is, methinks, your own partial feeling dependent desire –but I am detached from that desire and I don’t depend on partial feelings; I only see that you seek spiritual pleasure for ...[text shortened]... n or reunion with its biological family. The "Pain/Pleasure Principle" seems reversed. -Bob

Your friend never strays from the way😵

Originally posted by black beetle

Your friend never strays from the way😵

.... nor his Beloved Scheveningen and 'Black Beastie'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Most of your "given"s here are false (well, at least half of them). And you know what that means for your hypothesis. As to your (1), GB obviously wasn't including 'believers' for obvious reasons, and as to your (2), the premise is defined by the poser, the answerer cannot redefine the question as he sees fit (or the answer becomes mere nonsense), so ther s tired of this as I am. And others go so far as to actually defend it.

there is, in fact, a 'willful rejection' on the part of the 'unbeliever' merely by not believing.

Now this statement is "monumentally stupid" if anything in this thread is. Do you honestly not understand that 'willful rejection' refers to a matter of volition on the part of the agent? How could the mere fact that S lacks belief in something be sufficient for S's standing, as a matter of volition, in a certain attitude toward that something. Come on, that's absurd, since S will lack belief in propositions for which S has no awareness at all.

Further, as I have already pointed out several times, the atheist does not have what he takes to be sufficient reason to believe God exists in the first place. So, clearly, the atheist has no reason to think some putative 'gift' offer from God is any sort of live option for him. So, the atheist does not stand in rejection of such a thing. It's all pretty simple here. I cannot help it if you and Bobby still do not understand this very basic line of reasoning.

The man plays word games that strain the limits of credulity by asking questions where the answer is more than obvious. He has no "reasonable concerns" because by his own admission, he's not concerned about anyone or anything in these forums, and his only pastimes seem to be making fun and/or driving everyone to distraction with side issue questions.

Nope. As I already made clear, twhitehead answered the hypothetical in a straightforward manner and had, in fact, reasonable concerns about it. It's not his problem if your panties are in a bunch for whatever reason. Unbunch them, and then get with the program.

I'd rather have an actual discussion, and not have to dance to his whims.

Right. And your idea of 'actual discussion' is implying that a person with reasonable concerns and who initiated no personal attacks, stayed on topic, etc, etc, is "monumentally stupid".

Nice try.