13 May 10
Originally posted by FMFYou're positioning yourself on a topic not under current observation. But, you knew that, huh.
But these "non-believers" you talk about do [b]not assume "the soul's eternal status" so for them there simply is no "gift given", freely or otherwise, and your OP question is therefore the mischievous chat room equivalent of an optical illusion.[/b]
13 May 10
Originally posted by Agerg... and yes...with no justification or explanation for what a soul is in terms of that which cannot be described in physical terms I really do I find it difficult to accept the proposition of a soul.
I think you're making more of the proposal than is on the table. Is it that difficult for you to accept the proposition of personality, of soul? If so, then your presence in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual matters is contradictory.
No contradiction...this is the "spirituality" forum, not "pursuit of spirituality" forum. I enjoy the discuss ...[text shortened]... ve. If you cannot do this then you should try to realise why I cannot do likewise.[/b]
And yet you persist in frequenting a forum which concedes the point by nature of its very existence. Curiously inconsistent of you.
It's a lot more than that, apart from (as others have said) the fact that it is far from "free"
Would a drowning man reject a life preserver thrown to him? If so, wouldn't we consider that suicide?
... it is also a requirement that one recognises the existence of such a gift as something more than a hollow promise made by those with precisely no capacity to validly testify it is genuine.
And what standard would you suggest to test the validity of said capacity, exactly?
You can't go round saying we reject irrefutable truth if it isn't the case we have become convinced it has a supernatural origin and additionally we don't see any such truth.
Generally speaking, we typically accept at face value the veracity of accounts unless and until indisputable information which contradicts to the point of elimination as even remote possibility comes to light. As of yet, this hasn't happened.
Set aside your convictions, your experiences, your logic, and anything else. Suspend all reason and just believe. If you cannot do this then you should try to realise why I cannot do likewise.
You misunderstand. The origins of Islam were an intention to get back to the roots of meaning underlying the God of Abraham--- much like Joseph Smith with his "discovered" manuscript was stated as an intention to get Christians to return to morality, etc..
Once rejected out of hand by both Jews and Christians, Mohammed started something other. To be saved in this new, new religion, one must accept the religion as true and follow it thusly. Distinction with a huge difference.
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergAs stated, this isn't a proof for God, it is a question asked under the assumption that both He and the soul exists... kinda like I already stated both at the onset--- Given--- as well as at least once since then to steer things back to the OP.
I did...prior to that post đ”
Where is the strawman btw?...seems your position is pretty much isomorphic to that which I referenced!
The strawman exists when you respond to an argument not made.
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it was 'given', that is universally accepted, then there could be no 'unbelievers'.
Given that the soul lives forever and our only choice is where we shall spend that existence, what keeps the unbeliever in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept a free gift and move on?
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike I already hinted, you wouldn't ask such questions as the one in the OP if you just educated yourself a little on the subject of belief.
As stated, this isn't a proof for God, it is a question asked under the assumption that both He and the soul exists... kinda like I already stated both at the onset--- [b]Given--- as well as at least once since then to steer things back to the OP.
The strawman exists when you respond to an argument not made.[/b]
It wouldn't matter per se if, as matters of descriptive fact, God does exist and we also have immortal souls. What matters for belief building is what actually presents itself to me as evidence. So, you ask what keeps me in a state of disbelief toward such propositions? Well, I don't see what I take to be evidence to bring me into a state of belief on those matters. In fact, I only see what I take to be countervailing evidence on those matters.
What does any of this have to do with the notion of accepting or rejecting a free gift? Absolutely nothing, of course.
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know why an Unbeliever who accepted that the immortal soul exists would nonetheless reject it. It doesn't seem an entirely plausible scenario. Most Unbelievers I have come across don't believe because they don't accept the existence of an immortal soul.
Again:
Believer: accepts the gift
Unbeliever: rejects the gift
By the way, if someone were drowning, it would be your duty to throw them a lifebelt, rather than the lifebelt being a gift for you to bestow. Imagine a drowner seeing a lifebelt heading their way and thinking, Great, free lifebelt!
13 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo inconsistency...I see no Sticky thread saying this forum should be visited only by those who believe in souls.
... and yes...with no justification or explanation for what a soul is in terms of that which cannot be described in physical terms I really do I find it difficult to accept the proposition of a soul.
And yet you persist in frequenting a forum which concedes the point by nature of its very existence. Curiously inconsistent of you.
It's a lot accept the religion as true and follow it thusly. Distinction with a huge difference.
It's a lot more than that, apart from (as others have said) the fact that it is far from "free"
Would a drowning man reject a life preserver thrown to him? If so, wouldn't we consider that suicide?
I like your tactical omission of the key point which followed directly after what you quoted me on. đ
And what standard would you suggest to test the validity of said capacity, exactly?
I say that the only people who have a capacity to talk about the supernatural --- are people that are supernatural
Generally speaking, we typically accept at face value the veracity of accounts unless and until indisputable information which contradicts to the point of elimination as even remote possibility comes to light. As of yet, this hasn't happened.
No! generally speaking *you* accept at face value the veracity of accounts...
Not "we"!!!
As for your final point, you're asking me to reject reason and logic and clamber for a belief set that appeals to magic, a belief set originated by a collection of people who were ignorant of the world (what was science like over a thousand years ago???), I could carry on here but out of politeness shall not.
The point I'm making is that it would be a much bigger move on my part as a skeptic to accept as true the propositions you put forwards than for you to move on your stance towards Islam.
13 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatFor illustrative purposes, let's say you're teaching me beginner chess. First few lessons you explain the board's
Lead by example then Gramps - set up a thread and let's discuss it.
white corner square to the right, the names of the six figures and how they're able to move. I say, "The heck
with this... there's got to be a better way to play this game." How patient/longsuffering would you be with me?
..........................................
Edit: In the illustration, let's also consider that you know chess well and that the lessons are a Christmas Gift.
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou're free to invent your own chess rules and get others to play accordingly. There's Fischer Random chess, as well as another system by a master whose name I fail to recall ... There's also Chinese chess, quite different. If you don't like chess the way it's played, there are many other games to choose from.
For illustrative purposes, let's say you're teaching me beginner chess. First few lessons you explain the board's
white corner square to the right, the names of the six figures and how they're able to move. I say, "The heck
with this... there's got to be a better way to play this game." How patient/longsuffering would you be with me?
..........................................
The point: Chess is not the only game in town.
So?
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAgree. There are always alternatives... checkers, tiddlywinks, hopscotch, marbles
You're free to invent your own chess rules and get others to play accordingly. There's Fischer Random chess, as well as another system by a master whose name I fail to recall ... There's also Chinese chess, quite different. If you don't like chess the way it's played, there are many other games to choose from.
The point: Chess is not the only game in town.
So?
to name a few. It's all about self determination and uncoerced freedom of choice.
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut that does not fit your first post unless your two categories are not intended to be exhaustive.
Believer: someone who accepts the gift.
Unbeliever: someone who rejects the gift.
And would you care to answer the question I asked earlier:
Are you suggesting such people (unbelievers) exist?