Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, if I were an atheist, I'd turn your argument on it's head. Death is really nothing more than the default state of matter. What we call life is a bizarre result of a complex set of chemical reactions. Obviously no chemical reaction can persist indefinitely. "Quod erat demonstrandum, baby." (bonus point for identifying the source of the quote)
Take a swipe at it, avalanche.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat'OUK OIDA / AGNOEO' Ignorance is either a lack of knowledge because
For one, the atheist is unable to explain why death exists, whereas the theist cannot only explain it, he is able to speak of its remedy.
You're having a bit of a laugh here ain'tcha, Freaky!
you have not learned it, or information you have learned yet rejected.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI would differ with you regarding your second point. If one is aware of data but rejects it, one is not technically ignorant of it. One might, however, argue that modern vernacular English accepts the word as a synonym for 'stupid', often encountered in association in association with the word 'gullible'.
'OUK OIDA / AGNOEO' Ignorance is either a lack of knowledge because
you have not learned it, or information you have learned yet rejected.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually the theist, rather than actually addressing death, redefines the words 'life' and 'death' in a futile attempt to explain it and suggest a remedy. The so called explanations are usually little more than attempts to hide the question, and the so called remedy is incoherent.
For one, the atheist is unable to explain why death exists, whereas the theist cannot only explain it, he is able to speak of its remedy.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDeath exists because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and because evolution takes place more quickly if parents don't compete with their kids.
For one, the atheist is unable to explain why death exists, whereas the theist cannot only explain it, he is able to speak of its remedy.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat"One might, however, argue that modern vernacular English accepts..."
I would differ with you regarding your second point. If one is aware of data but rejects it, one is not technically ignorant of it. One might, however, argue that modern vernacular English accepts the word as a synonym for 'stupid', often encountered in association in association with the word 'gullible'.
Avalanche, wouldn't most reasonable people be inclined to agree that arguing
with random derivatives is tantamount to playing tennis with the nets down?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyArguing? I merely offered an alternative to a questioned definition. But in answer, no, it seems unlikely to me that this particular metaphor would occur to most reasonable people.
[b]"One might, however, argue that modern vernacular English accepts..."
Avalanche, wouldn't most reasonable people be inclined to agree that arguing
with random derivatives is tantamount to playing tennis with the nets down?[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you hope for something you have?
I still maintain that you are not really making any sense. If a hope is realized in the here and now, it cannot be stolen at a future date. If your hope is such that it is never realized, it is hardly a worthy hope. You have failed to explain away that contradiction in your claims.
Kelly
Originally posted by avalanchethecat"I would differ with you regarding your second point. If one is aware of data but rejects it, one is not technically
Arguing? I merely offered an alternative to a questioned definition. But in answer, no, it seems unlikely to me that this particular metaphor would occur to most reasonable people.
ignorant of it. One might, however, argue that modern vernacular English accepts the word as a synonym
for 'stupid', often encountered in association in association with the word 'gullible'"
..........................................................................
In our context, Avalanchethecat, the metaphorical inference of the word
'argue' rightfully belongs to the portfolio of your intellectual property.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't. I hope for something I will have. Once I get it (the hope is realized) it cannot be taken away. You claimed that my hope is in some way inferior because you believe it is impermanent either in anticipation or in realization. I dispute that. I also say you were some what inconsistent when giving your argument for why you think my hope is inferior.
Why do you hope for something you have?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo the only things you hope for no one would steal from you, they never
I don't. I hope for something I will have. Once I get it (the hope is realized) it cannot be taken away. You claimed that my hope is in some way inferior because you believe it is impermanent either in anticipation or in realization. I dispute that. I also say you were some what inconsistent when giving your argument for why you think my hope is inferior.
break or wear down, and so on? That which you hope for and get your
hope realized, as I pointed out I too 'hope' to recieve something, those things
in this life we both hope for can go through the process of breaking down,
or some such thing. The" hope for" for that which no one can steal, which
never wears down, or becomes lost, and so on are better things, yes.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCorrect. If I hope to live another day, and I do so, nobody can later steal that from me.
So the only things you hope for no one would steal from you, they never
break or wear down, and so on?
You are probably thinking of me hoping for a computer, which I then obtain and it is later stolen. But the hope that it wont be stolen, or the hope that I will have it for a given length of time has not been realized. Once a hope is realized, the hope itself cannot be taken away.
The" hope for" for that which no one can steal, which never wears down, or becomes lost, and so on are better things, yes.
Not necessarily. I would rather have a computer for a day, than a worthless piece of metal for eternity. I do not think that anything can be valued simply based on its timeless nature. Some of the most fleeting experiences are the best.
I rather suspect that you would not value the hope of going to hell higher than the hope of having a computer for a day, yet the former is supposedly eternal once obtained.