21 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI told you how much fun I can be, didn't I?
Ha ha. What is it with you? Are you simply unable to see that your usage of the term was non-standard (at least for your readers) and that that lead to confusion regarding your meaning?
In order to avoid any confusion, I clarified the terms within the first page, capping it off with the first post of the second page. The confusion set in after the clarification. Curious.
21 May 10
7 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll of that being said, the given in the OP does not allow for a question of God's existence. Believer or unbeliever, neither are commenting on the given but rather making a decision about the gift.
[b]So, in addition to thinking it okay to use the terms 'believer' and 'unbeliever' in ways that actually have nothing whatsoever to do with belief...
You seem a little confused about the term 'belief' and how it relates to the term 'believer.' Belief has a long, standing tradition (dating from the late 12c in Old English) as meaning a trust or conf re a tragic figure.[/b]
As we all are. I'm asking for a rewrite, however. You?[/b]
This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
"Unbelievers" do not reject something that they have no reason to think exists in the first place. I don't know about you, but I do not go out of my way making "decisions" about things that I would take as nonexistents.
In the OP, you say blah, blah, blah is given. Well, that means we broadly take blah, blah, blah to be the case in examination of your hypothetical. It doesn't however mean that the hypothetical players in your hypothetical have any particular stance on blah, blah, blah. So, unbelievers should include persons who find it outrageously implausible that such a 'gift' exists in the first place; persons that find it outrageously implausible that we are immortal; persons that find the notion of God outrageously implausible; etc.
If you just want to stipulate that "unbeliever" is here someone who takes such things as plausible or true; but yet willfully rejects God; then your question is really not interesting (nor does the OP actually translate in any clear fashion to this). I'm not even sure how many such persons exist in the first place. And, supposing they do, how should I know what propels them to reject something like that? So, I think your OP is pretty stupid either way.
21 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFI pretty much agree with you.
Must say this thread has been an eye opener. I have come to realise that he's getting some kind of zealot's woody from luring people into a 'discussion' where they have to agree to assume that both believers and unbelievers believe, but the unbelievers are in denial. It really is as shallow as that. twhitehead was too charitable earlier. Bosse got it right: "Ten pages and counting of Freaky not taking 'your OP is stupid' for an answer".
The OP is very poorly conceived.
If we take it how it reads at face value, the answer should be pretty straightforward: unbelievers do not accept the 'gift' because they do not take it to be existent in the first place. Such a 'gift' is for them not a live option.
If we contort the OP to read as Freaky actually intended, then we are left entertaining the ridiculous caricature that the realm of atheism is populated by persons who actually believe that God and the option of eternal life in heaven exist but willfully reject them at the same time...which is basically nonsense. (Or I guess we entertain the idea that theism is partially populated by persons who believe God and the option of eternal life with him exist but rejects them, which is also nonsense. Basically, just the idea that persons exist who take the 'gift' as real but reject it is pretty much nonsense.)
Either way, pretty stupid.
21 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloWow! Seven edits to say you don't know? That seems excessive, but who am I to pass judgement, right?
All of that being said, the given in the OP does not allow for a question of God's existence. Believer or unbeliever, neither are commenting on the given but rather making a decision about the gift.
This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
"Unbelievers" do not reject something that they have no reason to think exists ...[text shortened]... hem to reject something like that? So, I think your OP is pretty stupid either way.[/b]
This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
No, not really. I've said the same thing from the onset. This wasn't a question of God or the soul's existence. Why? Because every one who considers the topic already has conceded that issue... including the atheist.
"Unbelievers" do not reject something that they have no reason to think exists in the first place. I don't know about you, but I do not go out of my way making "decisions" about things that I would take as nonexistents.
I'm not sure you fully appreciate the irony of your statement in light of your previously stated position of atheist. Funny thing, truth.
I'm not even sure how many such persons exist in the first place. And, supposing they do, how should I know what propels them to reject something like that? So, I think your OP is pretty stupid either way.
Surprisingly, one poster considered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.
21 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBy the way, you never responded to my inquiry. Why did you say that I am unable to count?
Wow! Seven edits to say you don't know? That seems excessive, but who am I to pass judgement, right?
[b]This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
No, not really. I've said the same thing from the onset. This wasn't a question of God or the soul's existence. Why? Because every one who considers the topic already has ...[text shortened]... idered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.[/b]
21 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSeven edits to say you don't know?
Wow! Seven edits to say you don't know? That seems excessive, but who am I to pass judgement, right?
[b]This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
No, not really. I've said the same thing from the onset. This wasn't a question of God or the soul's existence. Why? Because every one who considers the topic already has ...[text shortened]... idered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.[/b]
I also had to articulate why I think your inquiry is really stupid.
21 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSurprisingly, one poster considered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.
Wow! Seven edits to say you don't know? That seems excessive, but who am I to pass judgement, right?
[b]This is really one of many places where you are profoundly confused.
No, not really. I've said the same thing from the onset. This wasn't a question of God or the soul's existence. Why? Because every one who considers the topic already has ...[text shortened]... idered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.[/b]
That poster is decidedly not an instance of someone who takes the 'gift' to be real yet denies it, genius.
21 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloClue: when he wrote "even if" that is the same as considering it to be true for the sake of the argument.
[b]Surprisingly, one poster considered it and gave an honest response. You gotta tip your hat to a person like that.
That poster is decidedly not an instance of someone who takes the 'gift' to be real yet denies it, genius.[/b]
I hope you don't do this kind of stuff for a living.
21 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd I hope you don't mistakenly think that his reply demonstrates an instance of your "unbeliever".
Clue: when he wrote "even if" that is the same as considering it to be true for the sake of the argument.
I hope you don't do this kind of stuff for a living.
21 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, 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.
Funny, I said within the first ten posts. Starrman's post was the tenth of this thread, ninth after mine.
Like I said, don't worry your pretty head about it.