"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by Suzianne
Manipulation: 10
Maneuvering: 10
Game Theory: 10
Sincerity: 0
Conviction: 0

Faith: 0
Hope: 0
Love: 0

Value: 0

So please stop reading and responding to my posts. You rarely actually address the contents of them, instead you seem to have nothing but vitriol.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There is one stern reality that neither you nor I can ignore or deny: At some point in a time not of our choosing, we both shall die. Cessation of Brain Function, Loss of Heart Pulsation and the Absence of All Sensation will occur.The question we must both ask ourselves has been implied before: Where will our beings (our personalities, memories, ...[text shortened]... hen reside? Also, do we know with an absolute confidence that we will be safe and happy forever?

I believe I know the answer to the question. In fact, I believe the answer is contained in the question. You say we will die. To die is to cease to be. You ask 'where will we our beings be' yet our beings are what died and ceased to be.
Can I ask you where your childhood memories, personality, acquired knowledge went? Do you still have all of it, or only some?
If we develop alzheimer's later in life, where will our memories, personality, acquired knowledge go?
I have absolute confidence that I will not exist forever. In fact I have absolute confidence that who I am does not exist for more than a moment but is instead ever changing. I am a new me.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I believe I know the answer to the question. In fact, I believe the answer is contained in the question. You say we will die. To die is to cease to be. You ask 'where will we our beings be' yet our beings are what died and ceased to be.
Can I ask you where your childhood memories, personality, acquired knowledge went? Do you still have all of it, or only s not exist for more than a moment but is instead ever changing. I am a new me.[/Bolding removed]

"There is one stern reality that neither you nor I can ignore or deny: At some point in a time not of our choosing, we both shall die. Cessation of Brain Function, Loss of Heart Pulsation and the Absence of All Sensation will occur.The question we must both ask ourselves has been implied before: [1] Where will our beings (our personalities, memories, acquired knowledge, vocabularies, etc.) then reside? [2] Also, do we know with an absolute confidence that we will be safe and happy forever?" Note: "I'll continue this attempt at simplification with direct answers to your remaining questions as we go." -Bob

...............................

"I believe I know the answer to the question. In fact, I believe the answer is contained in the question. You say we will die. To die is to cease to be. You ask 'where will we our beings be' yet our beings are what died and ceased to be.
[1] Can I ask you where your childhood memories, personality, acquired knowledge went? [2] Do you still have all of it, or only some?
[3]If we develop alzheimer's later in life, where will our memories, personality, acquired knowledge go?
I have absolute confidence that I will not exist forever. In fact I have absolute confidence that who I am does not exist for more than a moment but is instead ever changing. I am a new me." (twhitehead)

...................................

Two questions were asked. In answer, three were asked. In summary, please recognize that the human body bears the head. There is an established dichotomy of body and soul at birth. You appear to subscribe to a nihilistic view of human life, with little if any differentiation between the two. And an "absolute confidence that [you] will not exist forever". Ipso Facto, we have no further basis for conversational inquiry. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If you are wrong you have lost everything, as Pascal duly noted hundreds of years ago. I've enjoyed learning about you. Let's stay in touch. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There is an established dichotomy of body and soul at birth.

What do you mean by 'established'? How do you define 'soul'?

You appear to subscribe to a nihilistic view of human life, with little if any differentiation between the two.
Yes, to the differentiation, the nihilism could be disputed.

Ipso Facto, we have no further basis for conversational inquiry.
Why? Because we are both sure of our positions and our positions differ, we cannot converse?

If I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If you are wrong you have lost everything, as Pascal duly noted hundreds of years ago. I've enjoyed learning about you. Let's stay in touch. -Bob
Both you and Pascal are wrong. If you are wrong, you lose a lot. Its also a pretty stupid argument for believing something, or are you just comforting yourself?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, here's a condensed summary.

First, my answer to your hypothetical question in the opening post of this thread would be "No."

Second, I commented that you labor under the notion that atheists stand in willful rejection of some putative gift from some eternal supernatural entity; whereas such a notion is false.

Third, I asked for clarificatio ...[text shortened]... as in any way apt in response to rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'.

Any response forthcoming, Bobby?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Manipulation: 10
Maneuvering: 10
Game Theory: 10
Sincerity: 0
Conviction: 0

Faith: 0
Hope: 0
Love: 0

Value: 0

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 rejection of some 'gift' from some supernatural, eternal entity. As I said, Bobby is free to suppose whatever he likes for hypothetical purpose; but, if he is supposing that such a supposition bears any relevance to reality, it requires quite a bit of explaining to support that. It actually requires significant explanation on every level across the board, since it would seem one would have strong reasons to think BOTH (1) it is generally not the case that believers in Bobby's particular strain of theism would stand in willful rejection of the 'gift' offer (2) it is generally not the case that non-believers stand in willful rejection of the 'gift' offer, since they in fact do not have what they take to be sufficient reasons to think the offer is a live or genuine option in the first place.

twhitehead raised these reasonable concerns, and it was in fact YOU who tried to imply that he was being "monumentally stupid" in his simple quest for some clarification on the matter.

So, give over.

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]

no. such an all powerful, all knowing, all wise entity would surely be able to come up with some other alternatives for us poor, misguided fools,no?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, here's a condensed summary.

First, my answer to your hypothetical question in the opening post of this thread would be "No."

Second, I commented that you labor under the notion that atheists stand in willful rejection of some putative gift from some eternal supernatural entity; whereas such a notion is false.

Third, I asked for clarification c ...[text shortened]... ay apt in response to rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'.[/bold removed]

"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?" (OP)

"Ok, here's a condensed summary."

"First, my answer to your hypothetical question in the opening post of this thread would be "No."

Second, I commented that you labor under the notion that atheists stand in willful rejection of some putative gift from some eternal supernatural entity; whereas such a notion is false.

Third, I asked for clarification concerning how your medical example was in any way apt in response to rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'." (LemonJello)
________________________

First: If I may ask, Why, "No"?

Second: If false, does this assertion become tantamount to acceptance (howbeit with some modification of terms)?

Third: Please refresh my memory of "rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'" in layman-speak.

Thank you. (gb)

Originally posted by karoly aczel

no. such an all powerful, all knowing, all wise entity would surely be able to come up with some other alternatives for us poor, misguided fools,no?

On what [or whose] authority?

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 ut your perverting the term 'gift'" in layman-speak.

Thank you. (gb)[/b]

First: If I may ask, Why, "No"?

Because, as I already said, there seem to be other options available, such as non-eternal separation as one example.

Second: If false, does this assertion become tantamount to acceptance (howbeit with some modification of terms)?

Of course not. If one says that S does not stand in willful rejection toward offer X because S does not think that X exists as a live option in the first place, why on earth would you assume that means S stands in acceptance of X? S's standing in acceptance of X -- like S's standing in rejection of X -- also requires that S think X is a live option in the first place.

This really tells me that you are just not paying attention. Why do you start such threads asking for considered responses, when you apparently have no intention of bothering to read those responses; and apparently little or no intention of responding in kind?

Third: Please refresh my memory of "rwingett's concern about your perverting the term 'gift'" in layman-speak.

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.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Manipulation: 10
Maneuvering: 10
Game Theory: 10
Sincerity: 0
Conviction: 0

Faith: 0
Hope: 0
Love: 0

Value: 0

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? 😀 😀

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
On what [or whose] authority?

on my authority, of course.

(BTW, this "authority" has been reviewed by the high council of 'interdimensional masters' and they have given me the green light.)

Originally posted by LemonJello

First: If I may ask, Why, "No"?

Because, as I already said, there seem to be other options available, such as non-eternal separation as one example.

Second: If false, does this assertion become tantamount to acceptance (howbeit with some modification of terms)?

Of course not. If one says that S does not stand in wil ad, way back on page 1. Please revisit it if you honestly cannot remember what it was.

"Because, as I already said, there seem to be other options available, such as non-eternal separation as one example." (LemonJello)

I fail to understand "non-eternal separation". (gb)

"Of course not. If one says that S does not stand in willful rejection toward offer X because S does not think that X exists as a live option in the first place, why on earth would you assume that means S stands in acceptance of X? S's standing in acceptance of X -- like S's standing in rejection of X -- also requires that S think X is a live option in the first place." (LemonJello)

I believe the topics of this forum relates to human spirituality. (gb)

"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)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
on my authority, of course.

(BTW, this "authority" has been reviewed by the high council of 'interdimensional masters' and they have given me the green light.)

Your certainty fascinates me as much as your comedic dismissal concerns me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So please stop reading and responding to my posts. You rarely actually address the contents of them, instead you seem to have nothing but vitriol.

You still do not realize that your actions have consequences, do you?