Spirituality
19 May 10
19 May 10
Originally posted by AgergSure. 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.
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? 😛
19 May 10
Originally posted by AgergThe problem with your argument, however, is that you are referencing the first with the second without asking a question.
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? 😵
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.
19 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut I am asking a question...Look closer and you'll see it has the form
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.
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 😵
19 May 10
Originally posted by AgergYou 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.
I'd rather ask you
🙂
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.
19 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell 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.
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.
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.
🙂
19 May 10
Originally posted by AgergIt 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.
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.
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.
19 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt would be a truly remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance if such people did exist...I cannot myself understand such a mindset.
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.
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.
20 May 10
Originally posted by AgergYour 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.
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.
🙂
In a word, FAIL.
20 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo such definition was given. Try again.
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.
20 May 10
2 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" 😵
20 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Agerg gave no such definition? If so, I agree, hence my post.
No such definition was given. Try again.
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.
20 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, 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.
]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.
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.
20 May 10
Originally posted by AgergIf reason or logic were being employed,
[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" 😵
none of the combatants should be annoyed.
Truth in a torrent,
by bits,
by hints,
truth examined:
where are Agerg's fingerprints?