This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

No matter how I look at it. Heaven ****ing sucks. (long rant)

#121UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/11/2013 8:47:51 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
Unfair is being silly.


*insults me and doesn't elaborate*

Well then what does that make you?
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#122fudrickPosted 2/11/2013 9:27:46 AM
UnfairRepresent posted...
Because you can't refute it. You still can't.


Refute... what, exactly? I've pointed out that the definition of bliss includes pleasantness, meaning that perfect bliss would include perfect pleasantness. Referring to this experience as unpleasant is an absolute oxymoron. You've done nothing to refute that.

I ask again, what actual reason do I have for disagreeing with your claims and stating that they're nonsensical if I don't think they are? Do you think I'm just arguing with you for s***s and giggles even though I really agree with what you're saying?

UnfairRepresent posted...
Then we disagree, I would state agony is undesirable.


I just stated that I'm not commenting on whether it would be "desirable" so I'm not sure where you got this.

UnfairRepresent posted...
Ah, thought so


You don't either. No one does.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#123UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/11/2013 9:32:27 AM
fudrick posted...


Refute... what, exactly?


How eternal bliss would not agony. How heaven would be desirable. How the person experiencing it would still be you.

I ask again, what actual reason do I have for disagreeing with your claims and stating that they're nonsensical if I don't think they are? Do you think I'm just arguing with you for s***s and giggles even though I really agree with what you're saying?


Well considering you've previously confessed that you don't understand what I am saying, yes I do.




You don't either. No one does.


Well first off I believe that I do.

But more importantly I covered this earlier. If it is beyond your comprehension and my comprehension and the comprehension of every human being, we can't talk about it. Because we can't comprehend it. You can't say "We don't know what it's like, but it's not agony because eternal bliss would be great to experience!" and simultaneously claim, you don't comprehend/understand it.


You have just defeated yourself
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#124fudrickPosted 2/11/2013 10:13:59 AM
UnfairRepresent posted...
How eternal bliss would not agony. How heaven would be desirable. How the person experiencing it would still be you.


I have not claimed any of those things, so I'm not sure why you're expecting me to prove those claims.

UnfairRepresent posted...
Well considering you've previously confessed that you don't understand what I am saying, yes I do.


I never "confessed" to such a thing. I understand that you are saying that perfect bliss would be unpleasant. I'm just saying that's an oxymoron.

UnfairRepresent posted...
Well first off I believe that I do.


You comprehend the concept of eternal bliss itself. So do I. You don't comprehend the experience. No human can comprehend the experience of anything eternal.

UnfairRepresent posted...
But more importantly I covered this earlier. If it is beyond your comprehension and my comprehension and the comprehension of every human being, we can't talk about it. Because we can't comprehend it. You can't say "We don't know what it's like, but it's not agony because eternal bliss would be great to experience!" and simultaneously claim, you don't comprehend/understand it.


You have just defeated yourself


I can work within the definitions of words, though. If someone makes a claim that it will be perfectly blissful, you have no basis to state that it will be unpleasant, as unpleasantness is automatically impossible in a state of perfect bliss. That's what that word means. How are you still not getting this
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#125countzanderPosted 2/11/2013 12:55:32 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Unfair is being silly.

But on a tangential note, I find it extremely interesting how highly free will is espoused by the theists on this board, and yet you have no problems with being forcibly turned into happy-bot grovel-trons in heaven. Why is it suddenly acceptable to lose free will in the afterlife, and how do all the arguments you guys use in favour of free will being of the utmost importance in life stack up against your notion of heaven?

There's a very strange reversal of views there that I don't quite get. I would argue that losing the choice or opportunity to be unhappy or angry or any other of those essentially human feelings and emotions is completely the opposite of what I, and apparently God, wants for us in life. Losing those negative emotions diminishes the value of those emotions in the first place; you can't have bliss without knowing misery and vice-versa because they are comparative states.


Free will might not exist on earth either... Just saying.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#126UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/11/2013 4:50:31 PM
fudrick posted...


I can work within the definitions of words, though. If someone makes a claim that it will be perfectly blissful, you have no basis to state that it will be unpleasant, as unpleasantness is automatically impossible in a state of perfect bliss. That's what that word means. How are you still not getting this



You can't claim that you can't comprehend something, then claim "It would be this! That's what the word means!"

That's having it both ways. You have to pick one or the other
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#127fudrickPosted 2/11/2013 5:26:41 PM
UnfairRepresent posted...
You can't claim that you can't comprehend something, then claim "It would be this! That's what the word means!"

That's having it both ways. You have to pick one or the other


You don't understand. We, as finite humans, can't fully comprehend eternity. We can easily comprehend the concept of perfect bliss, at least to the extent that we realize what it would be. And what it would be is a state in which unpleasantness is impossible. You're never going to get around this.

You say everyone is just "repeating eternal bliss over and over" and that that's not an argument, but that's not what we're doing. We're repeating that perfect bliss and unpleasantness are mutually exclusive. If something is unpleasant in any way, it's automatically not considered eternal bliss, and referring to that unpleasant experience as such would be a misnomer. In reality, you're the one who just keeps repeating nonsense over and over. You haven't done anything to demonstrate why this specific experience would suddenly invert the definitions of the words used to describe the experience.

Also, your claim that "You can't claim that you can't comprehend something, then claim 'It would be this! That's what the word means!'" isn't accurate. If there was a word which was defined as something like, "appearing as both 100% pure white and 100% pure black simultaneously," we wouldn't be able to comprehend whatever it is that is being described with that word. However, I'd still be able to say you were wrong if you said that such an object would appear 100% pure blue, regardless of the fact that neither of us can comprehend what is described by the term, as that's contrary to the term's very definition.

That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking a claim that people make about an experience which we, as humans, can't fully comprehend, mostly because it involves eternity but also because "perfect bliss" isn't exactly something that anyone has ever truly experienced, and then claiming that that experience would actually be the opposite of the meaning of the words used to describe it, because... something something something heaven sucks something something agony
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#128UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/17/2013 10:53:45 PM
fudrick posted...


You don't understand. We, as finite humans, can't fully comprehend eternity. We can easily comprehend the concept of perfect bliss, at least to the extent that we realize what it would be. And what it would be is a state in which unpleasantness is impossible. You're never going to get around this.


So we can understand perfect bliss now? Make your mind.

I think I can. And I think it would be agony.

You say everyone is just "repeating eternal bliss over and over" and that that's not an argument, but that's not what we're doing. We're repeating that perfect bliss and unpleasantness are mutually exclusive. If something is unpleasant in any way, it's automatically not considered eternal bliss, and referring to that unpleasant experience as such would be a misnomer. In reality, you're the one who just keeps repeating nonsense over and over. You haven't done anything to demonstrate why this specific experience would suddenly invert the definitions of the words used to describe the experience.


This is false. You can't claim "It wouldn't be unpleasant because if it was unpleasant then it wouldn't be eternal bliss." That's circular. The point is I think eternal anything would be unpleasant, and bliss is certainly no exception.

Also, your claim that "You can't claim that you can't comprehend something, then claim 'It would be this! That's what the word means!'" isn't accurate. If there was a word which was defined as something like, "appearing as both 100% pure white and 100% pure black simultaneously," we wouldn't be able to comprehend whatever it is that is being described with that word. However, I'd still be able to say you were wrong if you said that such an object would appear 100% pure blue, regardless of the fact that neither of us can comprehend what is described by the term, as that's contrary to the term's very definition.


Said unironically while our brains incorrectly perceive the violet sky to be blue.

No you can't make these assumptions.
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#129Faust_8Posted 2/17/2013 11:40:06 PM
Troll confirmed.

A long time ago this was confirmed, but it needs to be said. He is deliberately being obtuse.

Or he's so thick-headed as to not deserve our attention. Move along, this topic should die.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#130OrangeWizardPosted 2/17/2013 11:44:23 PM
From: UnfairRepresent | #128
So we can understand perfect bliss now?


We at least understand that, if you have perfect bliss, you cannot have any amount of agony. I think everyone here understands that but you.

You can't claim "It wouldn't be unpleasant because if it was unpleasant then it wouldn't be eternal bliss." That's circular


No, that's a valid logical argument. If eternal bliss and unpleasantness were mutually exclusive, which they are, you cannot have both, as per the definition of the phrase "eternal bliss"

The point is I think eternal anything would be unpleasant, and bliss is certainly no exception.


Sadly, your opinion does not govern what is or is not objectively true. If you wish an echo chamber where opinions are treated as facts, go to r/atheism. Over here, we don't care what you think, we care what you can prove.

So telling us what you think only gets you laughed at.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.