Three Rhetorical Questions

Three Rhetorical Questions

1) No matter how well travelled or educated or highly intelligent you may be, do you actually know everything there is to be known in both the vast secular and spiritual realms? 2) Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearning and the letting go of facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error? 3) If you were to die in your sleep tonight, what do you think would happen to the unique material and immaterial components of the person we all know by the composite of your posts, site nickname, avatar and self proclaimed forum title as you? Reply optional.

At the risk of being rudely ignored as is your style, I will give answers:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. The material components will continue to exist. The immaterial components will no-longer exist : by definition.

Now here are some for you:
1. Do you realise that better educated people tend to be correct more often than less educated people?
2. Do you realise that you may be the one who has got it wrong?
3. Do you realise that science is the best way to resolve questions about reality, and the question about what happens when you die has been pretty much answered by science.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Three Rhetorical Questions

1) No matter how well travelled or educated or highly intelligent you may be, do you actually know everything there is to be known in both the vast secular and spiritual realms? 2) Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearn ...[text shortened]... [/i] posts, site nickname, avatar and self proclaimed forum title as you? Reply optional.[/b]

None of these three questions are properly speaking rhethorical; all three of them are superficial and prejudicial.

I wouldn't quit your day job, Gramps, you're never going to make it as an after-dinner speaker.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
None of these three questions are properly speaking rhethorical; all three of them are superficial and prejudicial.

I wouldn't quit your day job, Gramps, you're never going to make it as an after-dinner speaker.

You should have taken the 'reply optional' option.

Because your reply is shallow and reveals your own biased opinion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At the risk of being rudely ignored as is your style, I will give answers:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. The material components will continue to exist. The immaterial components will no-longer exist : by definition.

Now here are some for you:
1. Do you realise that better educated people tend to be correct more often than less educated people?
2. Do you rea ...[text shortened]... lity, and the question about what happens when you die has been pretty much answered by science.

1. "Do you realise that better educated people tend to be correct more often than less educated people?"

Unquantifiable conjecture.

2. "Do you realise that you may be the one who has got it wrong?"

Nobody has it all right. That question does nothing to contribute to the thread OP questions.

3. "Do you realise that science is the best way to resolve questions about reality, and the question about what happens when you die has been pretty much answered by science."

Delusional science says it has. Truth is, science hasn't even begun to discover all there is to know.

How can you possibly believe that science has any knowledge of what happens after we die?

Originally posted by josephw
1. [b]"Do you realise that better educated people tend to be correct more often than less educated people?"

Unquantifiable conjecture.

2. "Do you realise that you may be the one who has got it wrong?"

Nobody has it all right. That question does nothing to contribute to the thread OP questions.

3. "Do you realise that science is the ...[text shortened]... w.

How can you possibly believe that science has any knowledge of what happens after we die?

Regarding (1), it's not so much that better educated people are correct more often, it's just that they know when they don't know, so to speak, and keep their mouths shut. That way they are wrong less often.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
None of these three questions are properly speaking rhethorical; all three of them are superficial and prejudicial.

I wouldn't quit your day job, Gramps, you're never going to make it as an after-dinner speaker.

"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer." (Wikipedia) "Reply Optional." Though retired there are numerous fond memories of corporate meetings and speeches at Convention Centers in Indian River County, Florida; Scottsdale, Arizona and Portland, Oregon to name a few; and I still remember the faces and names of many superiors, colleagues and subordinates. Thanks for your concern.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of [i]a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer."

So you are making a point and not really looking for responses?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Regarding (1), it's not so much that better educated people are correct more often, it's just that they know when they don't know, so to speak, and keep their mouths shut. That way they are wrong less often.

That I agree with.

As the saying goes, it's better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

But as regards the OP. Isn't the accumulated knowledge and experience of man just a drop in the ocean of all there is to know? Who can speak to the unknown? Isn't the declaration "there is no God", based on the idea that there is no evidence, really just opening one's mouth about something they don't know to be true or false because that knowledge may exist in the realm of the unknown for them?

And how can one say, "God created the heaven and the earth" without proof? Why would they say that without proof? Is the knowledge of God without proof and merely an expression of 'blind faith'?

Is this debate between fools and fools? I'm not calling anyone a fool. I'm just saying that these threads are full of contradictions. How can that be unless someone is wrong? Is it possible that everyone is wrong? I don't think so.

If there be Truth, then Truth is unchanging and absolute. Otherwise everyone is wrong all the time. Truth is the evidence for itself. There is no blind faith, except the faith in what is known not to exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At the risk of being rudely ignored as is your style, I will give answers:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. The material components will continue to exist. The immaterial components will no-longer exist : by definition.

Now here are some for you:
1. Do you realise that better educated people tend to be correct more often than less educated people?
2. Do you rea ...[text shortened]... lity, and the question about what happens when you die has been pretty much answered by science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"3. The material components will continue to exist. The immaterial components will no-longer exist : by definition."

"The material components will continue to exist" as dust? If "The immaterial components will no-longer exist : by definition" then what happens to your unique personality, vocabulary, bank of knowledge and memories? Source of your "definition"?

Originally posted by divegeester
So you are making a point and not really looking for responses?

Bobby said replies are optional.

Originally posted by divegeester
So you are making a point and not really looking for responses?

Correct.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Regarding (1), it's not so much that better educated people are correct more often, it's just that they know when they don't know, so to speak, and keep their mouths shut. That way they are wrong less often.

Do you think there may be some "better educated people" who are educated beyond their objectivity and intelligence?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
2)Do you realize that the lifelong process of learning often requires an implicit experience of unlearning and the letting go of facts mixed with fiction and truths mixed with error?

This is pretty much what happened to me.

Originally posted by josephw
You should have taken the 'reply optional' option.

Because your reply is shallow and reveals your own biased opinion.

But isn't this OP seeking people's opinions?

And isn't your suggestion that Shallow Blue's reply is "shallow" just your own biased opinion too?