14 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you are proposing a topic - seriously - based on the premise that "unbelievers" are defined as "believers", and that they both believe and reject what they believe at the same time? Isn't this just a kind of calculated General Forum-like daftness rather than a topic for spiritual contemplation?
You're positioning yourself on a topic not under current observation.
14 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBH😵
Eh? You still around? Have to say I'm impressed with my argument just by your presence. Thank you for the compliment.
[b]...if you just educated yourself a little on the subject of belief.
While I'm certain that with your clever word games and art of articulation you could finagle your way to declaring right 'wrong' and vice versa, I feel pret ...[text shortened]... none of your voodoo works either for or against the offer, why even bring the magic up?[/b]
My bad. I forgot for a second that you are a complete waste of time.
14 May 10
Originally posted by FMFOh boy.
So you are proposing a topic - seriously - based on the premise that "unbelievers" are defined as "believers", and that they both believe and reject what they believe at the same time? Isn't this just a kind of calculated General Forum-like daftness rather than a topic for spiritual contemplation?
I know this is tough one to get the mind around, but I fervently believe that if you really, really focus on what's been said, you're going to get the idea just fine. Start with the OP, where I use word clues such as "Given." These types of words tell the reader that whatever follows is assumed to be true in order to either make a statement (sometimes called argument) or formulate a question based upon that given.
When further clarification is required, it should be provided by the person making the proposal. I did both of these for everyone to read. I offered an assumed-to-be-true situation and then asked a question based on that possibility. I further clarified that a believer in the scenario offered is one who accepts the gift (not the assumption, mind you) whereas an unbeliever is one who rejects the gift (again, not the assumption).
With the scenario dependent upon the assumption, and the assumption already established (for the sake of argument, of course), the designation of believer or unbeliever is relegated to the scenario only.
14 May 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAh now Gramps, you're sounding a little patronizing there! I had hoped that you were a Christian who could engage in discourse with a non-believer without resorting to this tactic.
Please do yourself two favors: 1) Google the comprehensive and interesting 'Plato's Cave' discourse
for the useful secular point of view; 2) At some point come to the realization that two factors cause
these shadows (counterfeit truth mixed with error/falsehood and our own personal negative volition).
14 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAvalanchethecat, you got the acid straight/strychnine candor of it with no holds barred. My going in position is never ever to insult
Ah now Gramps, you're sounding a little patronizing there! I had hoped that you were a Christian who could engage in discourse with a non-believer without resorting to this tactic.
an almost friend, whom I respect, with arms length kid gloves. Of course you're free to relegate or dismiss at will. Choice is yours.
14 May 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHmm. Perhaps then I have misinterpreted you - I'll try to read the 'do yourself two favours' comment charitably. I have of course read and considered the allegory of the cave, and I'm pretty sure that Plato (or Socrates if you prefer) wasn't actually considering the immortality of the soul in this discourse.
Avalanchethecat, you got the acid straight/strychnine candor of it with no holds barred. My going in position is never ever to insult
an almost friend, whom I respect, with arms length kid gloves. Of course you're free to relegate or dismiss at will. Choice is yours.
In fact I think I understand fairly well what Plato was talking about when he referred to shadows, so no realization necessary. I had thought that you and I, however, were extending the allegory to an area in which neither of us can truly perceive anything but the shadows, to whit, the existence and immortality or otherwise of the soul. You, I understand, are able to believe in it, but if you are honest, you will admit that you cannot know that your belief is correct, and I am sure that you, like myself, would very much like to know.
15 May 10
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom the wording in your OP it is not at all obvious you meant that we are to *assume for the sake of argument* your premise; indeed when you address this later on you seem to relax the assumption and ask what keeps the person you responded to in a state of disbelief either way.
Oh boy.
I know this is tough one to get the mind around, but I fervently believe that if you really, really focus on what's been said, you're going to get the idea just fine. Start with the OP, where I use word clues such as "Given." These types of words tell the reader that whatever follows is assumed to be true in order to either make a statement (s ...[text shortened]... nt, of course), the designation of believer or unbeliever is relegated to the scenario only.
I don't see how you can elicit any useful information posing the question as you claim you did since (for illustrative purposes) were you to ask, say
Assuming for the sake of argument God transported you to Neptune because he is annoyed with your disbelief, why would you maintain such disbelief?
Then the assumption renders the question meaningless.
Same here, were one to assume for the sake of argument that the soul lives eternally, then you may well receive an answer that some of us would accept your supposed "gift" whilst others may accept a different "gift" like the promise of 72 virgins, say. But where exactly does a favourable answer get you? In reality we don't accept an eternal soul and your question has accomplished little. You certainly haven't exposed any flaws in our position. (As I understand it, in debates one usually assumes true a proposition in order that through a chain of logic on both sides arrive at a conclusion which is either feasible or untenable with that proposition)
15 May 10
Originally posted by AgergNever mind. I figured you could read and sort it out, GIVEN the clarity in both the OP as well as the further clarifications provided. My bad.
From the wording in your OP it is not at all obvious you meant that we are to *assume for the sake of argument* your premise; indeed when you address this later on you seem to relax the assumption and ask what keeps the person you responded to in a state of disbelief either way.
I don't see how you can elicit any useful information posing the question as yo ...[text shortened]... sides arrive at a conclusion which is either feasible or untenable with that proposition)
15 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour OP was artless and clumsy. Your subsequent 'clarifications' have been cringeworthy. None of it passes intellectual muster. If you think it does, then you are being disrespectful of your fellow posters here. And as a means of administering oneself a spiritual ego boost, quite frankly, it's woeful. I hope you've got better 'spiritual stuff' than this going on in your head and in your life. But enjoy whatever buzz you get. By all means.
the clarity in both the OP as well as the further clarifications provided.
15 May 10
Originally posted by FMFWith all due respect--- diminished as it may be--- the OP could not have been more economical and pointed. That you couldn't grasp it says more about you than anything else insinuated. The fact that you can only respond with insult should tell you how deep it cut... even without trying, which, despite your pains to hide it otherwise, are. Trying.
Your OP was artless and clumsy. Your subsequent 'clarifications' have been cringeworthy. None of it passes intellectual muster. If you think it does, then you are being disrespectful of your fellow posters here. And as a means of administering oneself a spiritual ego boost, quite frankly, it's woeful. I hope you've got better 'spiritual stuff' than this going on in your head and in your life. But enjoy whatever buzz you get. By all means.
16 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh I'm sorry!...you seem to over estimate my abilities to keep up with you even here, do you mean "GIVEN" in the "assume for sake of argument" sense or in the "having established" sense??? 😕
Never mind. I figured you could read and sort it out, GIVEN the clarity in both the OP as well as the further clarifications provided. My bad.
16 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI did grasp it. That is the whole point. As I said, without rancour, I hope there is more to your faith than this kind of thing.
the OP could not have been more economical and pointed. That you couldn't grasp it says more about you than anything else insinuated.