Originally posted by LemonJelloRiiiight. The first nine posts after the OP,<ooops> there's Starrman's post. As stated. Repeatedly. Again.
No, you then later said within the first 9. Then whitey responded and said he checked the first nine and didn't find anything. Then you jumped on him about...the 10th post.
Like I said, don't worry your pretty head about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, you're still pretty confused. Starrman doesn't fit your strange notion of "unbeliever". (Off the top of my head, I do not think I know anyone who would actually would fit the description.) Don't you know that Starrman doesn't take the "gift" to be real because he doesn't think your God exists in the first place?
I don't mistakenly think him to be an unbeliever; I am correct in assuming that he is an unbeliever, given his rejection of the gift, despite the given.
You're mistaken if you think his testimony demonstrates that he is an "unbeliever". What it demonstrates is that he would be an "unbeliever", so he claims, if he were to be presented with reasons sufficient for thinking the "gift" to be a real, live option. I must say, I don't really blame him for saying so because, after all, your "gift" ain't actually a gift. Starrman is actually just making a comment against the coercive and offensive nature of your God concept. Can you really not see this?
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEDIT: Oh whatever. Perhaps I give you the benefit of the doubt and we say that the "after the OP" was implicit in your instruction to Whitey.
Riiiight. The first nine posts after the OP,<ooops> there's Starrman's post. As stated. Repeatedly. Again.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf the "unbeliever" believes in the "given" then he is another "believer" alongside the other "believers" and not an "unbeliever".
I don't mistakenly think him to be an unbeliever; I am correct in assuming that he is an unbeliever, given his rejection of the gift, despite the given.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt must be tiring to continue reading the explanation yet remaining mystified by such a relatively simple concept.
No, you're still pretty confused. Starrman doesn't fit your strange notion of "unbeliever". (Off the top of my head, I do not think I know anyone who would actually would fit the description.) Don't you know that Starrman doesn't take the "gift" to be real because he doesn't think your God exists in the first place?
You're mistaken if you think his ...[text shortened]... cive and offensive nature of your God concept. Can you really not see this?
Consideration about God and the soul's existence is not in view. It is a given, assumed to be true. Therefore, any and all statements are reserved for the question, namely, why reject a gift? The given is assumed to be true by the sheer weight of its relevance to man's existence. Its monolithic nature has cast a shadow so large, so encompassing over man's history that it cannot be dismissed. A topic demanding a position: so much so, small groups of like-minded people have recently entered the historical scene to denounce the existence of God and the soul. As you have said, how many (rational) people do you know who will take the time and effort to establish positions about that which they take to be non-existent?
Realizing the silliness of their posturing, some of these like-minded folks have gone so far as to adopt the FSM, foisting this made-up creature back onto the rest of the world, demanding everyone else to take a position about its existence. Apparently, it is rather cold and lonely out there in the land separated from reality and misery demands company.
Don't you know that Starrman doesn't take the "gift" to be real because he doesn't think your God exists in the first place?
If that were the case, i.e., if his rejection were a result of his refusal to accept the given, his response would have been different than what it actually was. He would have said something along the lines of 'Go pound sound with your gift, because it depends on the given and I refuse to accept the given. No given, no gift, period, end of story.' But he didn't say that, did he? No--- much to your chagrin--- he said "even if" which is the same as saying "assuming it to be true." He then based his rejection of the gift on what he perceives to be character flaws in the Giver.
As stated, Starrman answered honestly. From what I can tell, the only one to do so. You, FMF and a few others instead have worried yourselves over what constitutes a 'believer,' despite the fact that 'believer' has been defined early and often, even repeatedly. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that acknowledgement of God's existence is the same thing as being a believer. It is--- unequivocally--- not... at least as far as God is concerned. He defines a 'believer' as one who accepts the gift, not one who acknowledges His existence. When we all stand before Him (in the stages of judgement), the separation which occurs will not be on the basis of acknowledgement of His existence, or lack thereof. The question will decidedly not be, "Did you think I exist?" but instead "What did you do about the gift I gave you? What did you do about the Lord Jesus Christ?"
I must say, I don't really blame him for saying so because, after all, your "gift" ain't actually a gift. Starrman is actually just making a comment against the coercive and offensive nature of your God concept. Can you really not see this?
Well, here at least you finally admit that Starrman answered the question under the rules of engagement. For whatever reason, you continue to argue in other places (see above) that he didn't even though you are here admitting that he did. I don't understand you sometimes. I mean, why go to so much trouble in denying something you already know to be true? You know for certain that Starrman's rejection is informed by his perception of God's nature, you know for certain that he responded with his honest answer if (as though) the given were true--- and yet in other parts of your posts you persist in saying otherwise.
Why would a highly-intelligent person behave so obstinately?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOn the contrary. The thing that has been making you look stupid throughout this thread has been your definition of "unbeliever".
You, FMF and a few others instead have worried yourselves over what constitutes a 'believer,' despite the fact that 'believer' has been defined early and often, even repeatedly.
Originally posted by FMFAppearing stupid to someone who lacks reasoning ability doesn't do a lot to my self-image. Appearing stupid to someone who is unable to comprehend concise sentences written in their own language gladdens my heart.
On the contrary. The thing that has been making you look stupid throughout this thread has been your definition of "unbeliever".
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI do not lack reasoning ability. Nor do I have a problem with comprehension or language. Personally, I think you are also quite able to reason and comprehend, your odd sense of mischief notwithstanding. Your OP and subsequent wrigglings have been an unmittigated dud. And I do not think you are stupid, as it happens. I just think this thread is making you look stupid.
Appearing stupid to someone who lacks reasoning ability doesn't do a lot to my self-image. Appearing stupid to someone who is unable to comprehend concise sentences written in their own language gladdens my heart.
Originally posted by FMFI do not lack reasoning ability.
I do not lack reasoning ability. Nor do I have a problem with comprehension or language. Personally, I think you are also quite able to reason and comprehend, your odd sense of mischief notwithstanding. Your OP and subsequent wrigglings have been an unmittigated dud. And I do not think you are stupid, as it happens. I just think this thread is making you look stupid.
This conclusion comes only after being forced to repeat the basic concept more times than warranted. Once? Not unusual. But nearly ten times? Unwarranted.
... your odd sense of mischief notwithstanding.
Truly, no mischief was or is afoot.
Your OP and subsequent wrigglings have been an unmittigated dud.
I've always wondered what the full effect of a dud would be like. In the past, I've only been able to offer half-assed duds. Now I know. Now we all know.
And I do not think you are stupid, as it happens. I just think this thread is making you look stupid.
I didn't say you did; but thanks for looking out.
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, here at least you finally admit that Starrman answered the question under the rules of engagement. For whatever reason, you continue to argue in other places (see above) that he didn't even though you are here admitting that he did.
It must be tiring to continue reading the explanation yet remaining mystified by such a relatively simple concept.
Consideration about God and the soul's existence is not in view. It is a given, assumed to be true. Therefore, any and all statements are reserved for the question, namely, [b]why reject a gift? The given is assumed to be true
Why would a highly-intelligent person behave so obstinately?[/b]
Man, you're just dense. What I said is that Starrman responded to your OP with a comment against the coercive and offensive nature of your God concept. But Starrman, obviously, does not represent an instance of your "unbeliever". Like I said, I think I know no one who actually would fit the description.
As you have said, how many (rational) people do you know who will take the time and effort to establish positions about that which they take to be non-existent?
Realizing the silliness of their posturing, some of these like-minded folks have gone so far as to adopt the FSM, foisting this made-up creature back onto the rest of the world, demanding everyone else to take a position about its existence.
So it's silly posturing to hold the position that some particular concept is not actually instantiated? Come to think of it, didn't bbarr already explain this all to you very, very clearly in Thread 129755? It's just remarkable how resistant you are to any sort of learning.
Beyond that, I've already told you that I think your OP is really stupid. Heck, I even provided some reasons (in my posts to you and FMF) why I think so. You're welcome to respond at some point to the actual reasons I gave. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing here with you.
2 edits
The Greek noun [I]pistis[/I] essentially means to trust, to have confidence in; often translated as “faith”, it was also translated in the KJV as “belief”. At the time, this may have been an appropriate (if somewhat poetic) rendering. Similarly, “believers” was used to render [I]piston[/I], and “unbelievers” was used to render [I]apiston[/I] (I am ignoring other grammatical cases); the same for the verb [I]pisteo[/I]. However, “believers” is also sometimes used to render [I]adelphon[/I]: “brothers” (i.e., followers of Jesus).
However, translation issues themselves aside, there has been since then 400 years of the continuing evolution of the English language. Some newer translations use such terms as “faithful” and “unfaithful” instead, though perhaps not in all cases. I would question whether “belief/unbelief” is not a confusing rendering in today’s English.
The word “atheist” (or some Hebrew or Greek counterpart) nowhere occurs in the Biblical corpus.* The context of the Hebrew Scriptures is generally (with regard to this kind of dichotomy) between monotheists of YHVH and idolaters (though there may also be a kind of Israelite henotheism there as well). The dichotomy in the NT is between those who “faith” [I]pisteo[/I] in Christ--or, perhaps, for the discussion here, the “Christ-gift/sacrifice”--and those who do not. The former are [I]piston[/I], the latter are [I]apiston[/I]. The context does not admit other designations.
To understand what the NT writers were talking about--and in what context their particular terminology (or language game) fit--one has to work backward from the various English renderings to the usage of the original Greek terms. In terms of the perceived options for what people [I]think[/I] (believe), the NT context is fairly narrow, reflecting a particular cultural context--or at least just those aspects of that cultural context that were of concern to the NT writers.
To simply wrench those terms into another cultural context (where such issues as theism and atheism occur) and in another language context (e.g., conventional modern understanding of the word “believe” ) can cause nothing but confusion. To apply concepts and words from a cultural/linguistic context that is exogenous (and, in this case, latter-day) to the original can cause nothing but confusion--confused thinking as well as confused communication.
_______________________________________
* This should not to be taken as implying that there were no atheists, in any cultural context, in the ancient world. There seems to be scholarly dispute, for example, over whether or not Epicurus was a philosophical atheist (or at least skeptical on the matter), who occasionally did some butt-covering. He was certainly a practical atheist (in my view), in that he did not believe that gods were in any way relevant to human living. Many (if not most) of the Stoics seem to have used [I]theos[/I] as synonymous with [I]phusis[/I] (nature), in no way referring to some supernatural being.
EDIT: The current word-processing program I am using insists on capitalizing the "i" that I use to set up italics, and I now see that that means the italics do not occur when I paste it over; I am too lazy to go back and change all of them. Apologies if that makes this harder to read.
Originally posted by LemonJelloMan, you're just dense.
Well, here at least you finally admit that Starrman answered the question under the rules of engagement. For whatever reason, you continue to argue in other places (see above) that he didn't even though you are here admitting that he did.
Man, you're just dense. What I said is that Starrman responded to your OP with a comment against the coercive ...[text shortened]... t to the actual reasons I gave. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing here with you.[/b]
Highly populated or reel dum? Let me guess...
What I said is that Starrman responded to your OP with a comment against the coercive and offensive nature of your God concept.
Just because the words you used are different doesn't mean you're not saying the same thing. Starrman offered his reason for rejection under the assumption that the given was true. I think your word games are very, very cute, but in the end, they're just so much crap. If this is an example of your reasoning ability, I say: watch out for wet paper bags!
But Starrman, obviously, does not represent an instance of your "unbeliever".
He emphatically and unequivocally does. He accepts the given for the sake of argument and then gives his reason for rejecting the gift, thus positioning himself as an unbeliever.
Like I said, I think I know no one who actually would fit the description.
I know a few.
So it's silly posturing to hold the position that some particular concept is not actually instantiated?
I think so, yes--- at least, in this case. Take your Santa example, for instance. We might want to know how the whole Santa thing came to be, trace it back and find that it was loosely based upon a real person, and yet took on legendary elements along the way... but was never truly offered as factual, always as a cautionary missive.
Your complaint that when given the same closer scrutiny, the issue of God disappears in the mist of no evidence. However, we both know this to be untrue. Santa has a beginning point in history, before which, he is not around. The same cannot be said about God. Not even considering the fact that the Bible claims God to be eternal, He has ALWAYS been in man's consciousness.
Come to think of it, didn't bbarr already explain this all to you very, very clearly in Thread 129755? It's just remarkable how resistant you are to any sort of learning.
Actually what occurred in that thread was the typical soft shoe executed by atheists when confronted by the fact that they label themselves in terms of the thing they are against.
Otherwise, I see no point in continuing here with you.
Somehow, I knew you'd get to this sooner or later. Typical formula: beat around the bush (that you insist is not there), never admit your reasoning is faulty and result-driven, insult, then depart owing to some unknown defect on the part of the other. Good stuff.