1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    19 May '10 13:241 edit
    Given that the soul expires upon our death and our only choice is the manner in which we spend *this* life, what keeps the believer in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept this is the only life you have and get on with living it as best you can?


    See what I did there? 😵
  2. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 May '10 13:28
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Given that the soul expires upon our death and our only choice is the manner in which we spend *this* life, what keeps the believer in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept this is the only life you have and get on with living it as best you can?


    See what I did there? 😛
    Sure. I think the best person to ask such a question of would be avowed atheists. Try Christopher Hitchens, for starters. When asked is he'd like to see faith in God completely wiped out, he said--- unequivocally--- no.
  3. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 May '10 13:35
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Given that the soul expires upon our death and our only choice is the manner in which we spend *this* life, what keeps the believer in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept this is the only life you have and get on with living it as best you can?


    See what I did there? 😵
    The problem with your argument, however, is that you are referencing the first with the second without asking a question.

    Example:

    Given that x is true, why live in belief that x is not true?

    It also infers that somehow those who reject the given are in some fashion living lives less [something] than those who accept the given. While that may be true of some folks who otherwise share a similar rejection of your given, most folks who reject your given live their lives with a zest at least equal to those folks who accept your given... subjective examples to follow, to be certain.
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    19 May '10 13:414 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The problem with your argument, however, is that you are referencing the first with the second without asking a question.

    Example:

    Given that x is true, why live in belief that x is not true?

    It also infers that somehow those who reject the given are in some fashion living lives less [something] than those who accept the given. While that may be ...[text shortened]... east equal to those folks who accept your given... subjective examples to follow, to be certain.
    But I am asking a question...Look closer and you'll see it has the form
    Given X>1 is not true, why not make the best use of X whilst X=1?

    I was careful enough to match the structure of your question; but it seems that when you are on the receiving end it is awash with flaws 😵
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    19 May '10 13:45
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Sure. I think the best person to ask such a question of would be avowed atheists. Try Christopher Hitchens, for starters. When asked is he'd like to see faith in God completely wiped out, he said--- unequivocally--- no.
    I'd rather ask you
    🙂
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 May '10 14:07
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'd rather ask you
    🙂
    You are asking me to accept the given, which is in contrast to the question I offered. The previous query assumed the given and did not ask for comment on the same. It asked why someone would reject a gift.

    Here, you are asking why a person would not simply live their lives to the fullest--- which has nothing to do with the given. You haven't established that anyone who rejects the given will somehow live a life slackened in fulfillment or will be in any other fashion incapacitated from pursuing a rewarding life.
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    19 May '10 14:244 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    You are asking me to accept the given, which is in contrast to the question I offered. The previous query assumed the given and did not ask for comment on the same. It asked why someone would reject a gift.

    Here, you are asking why a person would not simply live their lives to the fullest--- which has nothing to do with the given. You haven't establi ...[text shortened]... ed in fulfillment or will be in any other fashion incapacitated from pursuing a rewarding life.
    Well one can assume that the *gift* is the opportunity to make the most productive use of this one life we have (in light of the given) if semantics is your problem. The question I am asking is identical in form to yours.

    Assuming one accepts the given, then living their life as though he/she expects an afterlife and worrying that he/she should not act against or offend the entity that shall not be offering such an afterlife is not the most productive way to conduct ones life.

    🙂
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '10 19:22
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Well one can assume that the *gift* is the opportunity to make the most productive use of this one life we have (in light of the given) if semantics is your problem. The question I am asking is identical in form to yours.
    It will be in identical form if you further define in a later post (as Freaky did) that a 'believer' is someone who accepts the given (that the soul expires at death) yet acts otherwise.
    In your case though I think you may find that such people do exist, whereas Freaky has failed to convince me that anyone matches the description in his OP.
  9. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    19 May '10 20:033 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It will be in identical form if you further define in a later post (as Freaky did) that a 'believer' is someone who accepts the given (that the soul expires at death) yet acts otherwise.
    In your case though I think you may find that such people do exist, whereas Freaky has failed to convince me that anyone matches the description in his OP.
    It would be a truly remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance if such people did exist...I cannot myself understand such a mindset.

    I suppose with Freaky's question, one could accept the "given" yet fail to accept the gift he proposes in favour of an alternative gift proposed by someone else. I still find it hard to see what is accomplished (in terms of useful data to support his position or interesting knowledge) by asking his question though.
  10. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 May '10 03:12
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Well one can assume that the *gift* is the opportunity to make the most productive use of this one life we have (in light of the given) if semantics is your problem. The question I am asking is identical in form to yours.

    Assuming one accepts the given, then living their life as though he/she expects an afterlife and worrying that he/she should not act agai ...[text shortened]... all not be offering such an afterlife is not the most productive way to conduct ones life.

    🙂
    Your gift infers that the one who accepts the given is now enabled to live the "most productive... life," without any support. It is not identical, in any way, shape or form. My OP asks why someone would reject a gift. Yours suggests that acceptance of the given empowers the 'believer' with a magical ability to live a productive life. You do not establish that rejection of your given entails an inability to lead an equally satisfying life.

    In a word, FAIL.
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 May '10 03:13
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It will be in identical form if you further define in a later post (as Freaky did) that a 'believer' is someone who accepts the given (that the soul expires at death) yet acts otherwise.
    In your case though I think you may find that such people do exist, whereas Freaky has failed to convince me that anyone matches the description in his OP.
    No such definition was given. Try again.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    20 May '10 03:572 edits
    Your gift infers that the one who accepts the given is now enabled to live the "most productive... life," without any support. It is not identical, in any way, shape or form. My OP asks why someone would reject a gift. Yours suggests that acceptance of the given empowers the 'believer' with a magical ability to live a productive life. You do not establish that rejection of your given entails an inability to lead an equally satisfying life.

    In a word, FAIL


    To Freaky's mind this thread does niggle 🙁
    Watch him squirm, watch him wriggle
    With false belief his words are truth 😏
    he brooks no rebuttals from "uncouth"

    Ignoring logic and denying reason
    He'll stamp his feet at our ungodly treason 😠
    But his finishing move, his Holy Grail
    is nothing more than to splutter "FAIL" 😵
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 May '10 11:44
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    No such definition was given. Try again.
    I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Agerg gave no such definition? If so, I agree, hence my post.
    Do you mean you gave no such definition? Then you misunderstood me. I was referring to your equivalent (but reverse) definition for "unbeliever".

    From your thread:
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Believer: accepts the gift
    Unbeliever: rejects the gift


    It was of course quite misleading of you to use the word 'unbeliever' for someone who does in fact believe. One is left wondering at your choice of word.
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 May '10 16:001 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ]I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Agerg gave no such definition? If so, I agree, hence my post.
    Do you mean you gave no such definition? Then you misunderstood me. I was referring to your equivalent (but reverse) definition for "unbeliever".

    From your thread:
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Believer: accepts the gift
    Unbelieve liever' for someone who does in fact believe. One is left wondering at your choice of word.
    Again, you're putting the apples with the oranges. In my thread, both believers and unbelievers are subject to the given, i.e., the soul lives forever and decisions by the individual will determine where they spend that forever. Whether or not they 'believe' this to be true, it was described as a given.

    The labels for their status (believer or unbeliever) were described in reference only to the gift: acceptance or rejection. The given was not a determining factor in the label; only their decision regarding the gift was in view. Those who accept the gift are called believers, whereas those who reject the gift are called unbelievers. How much merit either put into the given is inconsequential, as is equally inconsequential how they live their lives as a result of their decision.
  15. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 May '10 16:04
    Originally posted by Agerg
    [quote]Your gift infers that the one who accepts the given is now enabled to live the "most productive... life," without any support. It is not identical, in any way, shape or form. My OP asks why someone would reject a gift. Yours suggests that acceptance of the given empowers the 'believer' with a magical ability to live a productive life. You do not establi ...[text shortened]...
    But his finishing move, his Holy Grail
    is nothing more than to splutter "FAIL" 😵
    If reason or logic were being employed,
    none of the combatants should be annoyed.
    Truth in a torrent,
    by bits,
    by hints,
    truth examined:
    where are Agerg's fingerprints?
Back to Top