Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Esquilax]

WTF guys? Surtr provided my evidence, it's up to you guys to interpret it.

No. Surtr provided evidence for his position. And I refuse to believe you're stupid enough to actually think otherwise.

Hey, if you guys want to believe that something pertaining to an eon (an age) is eternal using circular reasoning, that's fine... I'll simply consider you fundie sheeple appologists...

You're making another claim without backing it up. Not the sheeple thing, that's just you being an asshole because- I'm now convinced- you have no evidence to back up your assertions. I mean the idea that Surtr used circular reasoning. Please, kindly provide how he did so.

Or hey, you could continue to ignore the need for evidence, or demand that other people find it for you. That's just doing wonders for your credibility.

[catfish]

... I mean the idea that Surtr used circular reasoning. Please, kindly provide how he did so.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-16457-po...#pid387573

[Esquilax]

... I mean the idea that Surtr used circular reasoning. Please, kindly provide how he did so.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-16457-po...#pid387573

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning requires that the premise be dependent on the premise being true, and that secondary definition of the word eonian remains true even if you were to redact any biblical references therein. Here, let me help you:

1. eonian - of or relating to a geological eon (longer than an era)
aeonian
2. eonian - continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life everlasting"; ageless, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unceasing, unending, aeonian lasting, permanent - continuing or enduring without marked change in status or condition or place; "permanent secretary to the president"; "permanent address"; "literature of permanent value"

There. The same definition, with the biblical stuff taken out. Does it seem that different to you?

Now, that on its own wouldn't be enough evidence of anything. In fact, it would put Surtr's assertion that Definition 2 is correct on the same level as yours that Definition 1 is correct. But here's where things diverge, because Surtr wasn't content with simply stating that his definition was correct, he also went ahead and provided some facts to support that. Lemme help you out again, since you do seem to be having trouble with this:

Let me clear something up for you: There is no indication in the bible of where those souls would go if Hell was temporary, and when they are brought back in Revelations, they are cast back into the "lake of fire" after being judged again.

Like that. If Surtr was relying on the fact that the second definition he cited used biblical concepts to illustrate itself as his only argument, then yes he would be guilty of circular reasoning. However, he wasn't relying on that at all. He provided real evidence to back up his claim.

Will you do likewise?

[catfish]

1. eonian - of or relating to a geological eon (longer than an era)

There. The same definition, with the stuff I don't agree with taken out.

Seriously dude, you're being dishonest and admitting it. Fucking sheeple...
.

[Esquilax]

1. eonian - of or relating to a geological eon (longer than an era)

There. The same definition, with the stuff I don't agree with taken out.

Seriously dude, you're being dishonest and admitting it. Fucking sheeple...
.

Are you literally the stupidest person alive? Or just the most dishonest?

Go back. Read what I said again. Think hard. I wasn't deleting biblical references because I disagreed with them, genius. I was doing so to demonstrate that the second definition of the word eonian was not dependent on those biblical references to be true, nor to be applicable to its use in the bible. For the record, I have no problem keeping the biblical stuff because it makes no difference; your assertion that those references constitute circular thinking is dead in the water. Here:

2. eonian - continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life everlasting"; "hell's perpetual fires"; "the unending bliss of heaven" ageless, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unceasing, unending, aeonian lasting, permanent - continuing or enduring without marked change in status or condition or place; "permanent secretary to the president"; "permanent address"; "literature of permanent value"

The unedited version, as if people couldn't simply go back and see it a few pages back anyway.

I notice you didn't address my point. You don't seem to address anyone's points. You just assert your own, over and over. So, and this is the final time I will do this: please provide evidence to prove your assertion, or at least some form of cogent argument as to why Surtr's counter-argument is an example of circular reasoning.

The debate's just waiting. Please, join it.

[catfish]

Dude how fucking stupid are you???

As in, I know eonian does not mean eternal. Or does it?
1. eonian - of or relating to a geological eon (longer than an era)
aeonian
2. eonian - continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life everlasting"; "hell's perpetual fires"; "the unending bliss of heaven" ageless, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unceasing, unending, aeonian lasting, permanent - continuing or enduring without marked change in status or condition or place; "permanent secretary to the president"; "permanent address"; "literature of permanent value"

Notice how most of the examples for the "everlasting" definition of eonian were religious ones. Even an example of hell's eternal punishment is thrown in there!

(bolded by me)

Surtr nerver got off the fence, there's no reason to go any futher until that is cleared up first. His whole reason for sitting there with a fencepost up his ass was because he wanted to know where those in hell would go if it weren't eternal? Really?

[Esquilax]

Surtr nerver got off the fence, there's no reason to go any futher until that is cleared up first. His whole reason for sitting there with a fencepost up his ass was because he wanted to know where those in hell would go if it weren't eternal? Really?

Whatever else he wrote there, his point still stands. Take exception to whatever you like there, but the fact is that there's a dictionary definition of eonian that has a secondary meaning that disagrees with your premise. Now, your job is to provide a reason for why your chosen definition is the one that should be used. You haven't done that, but Surtr was able to mount a fairly convincing case for why it shouldn't be so.

As to your first piece of bolding... it's kind of a figure of speech thing, not evidence of some vast indecision in the guy's point. Unless you're really reaching to find something wrong with it, which... well, anything to avoid supporting your own case, huh catfish?

And your second... well, yes. I'd say at most that's merely a useless tangent that means nothing. Once again, if that statement was the only thing Surtr was using to support his argument, I'd be on your side. But the definition remains the same, even if you take that away. It stands on its own.

Also... well, where do souls go after hell, if its not eternal? The bible makes no mention of this, and you'd think it would at some stage, assuming a non-permanent stay in hell was what the original authors had in mind. And how do you account for the idea that souls will be cast back into hell in Revelations?

You see, this is what we call "supporting evidence." It shows that your claim doesn't mesh with what's written in the bible. Maybe it's not completely conclusive evidence, but since you have yet to display even a shred of counter evidence, it's really all we've got. Certainly, it's much more credible than saying nothing at all.

I'm not even going to ask again, as I'm now convinced you have no support for your claim at all.

[catfish]

"Maybe it's not completely conclusive evidence"

Fucking wishy-washy fundie fucktard atheist appologist!



Have fun, you can fuck off now.
.

[Esquilax]

"Maybe it's not completely conclusive evidence"

Fucking wishy-washy fundie fucktard atheist appologist!



Have fun, you can fuck off now.
.

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a buffoon. I feel bad for wasting so much time talking to you.

Hey moron? Yeah, I said it's not entirely convincing evidence, and you know why? Because I was being fucking intellectually honest! Maybe it's a foreign concept to you, but to me it's worth something. Was Surtr's position completely, one hundred percent proven? No, but he made a good start. And I also left provisions in case you ever decided to join the argument by providing proof of your position, because, well, maybe you did have some case to argue, and just weren't, for some unfathomable reason.

Instead, you decide to mock me for not having the same level of brash, pig-ignorant confidence in everything I say. Sorry, but my positions are contingent on the facts, and being true to reality and honest with myself is more important than appearing to be right all the time. Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to have the same belief.

Until then, and until you decide to argue your case, I wash my hands of you, you arrogant turd. I should have done so many posts ago, because this kind of victory for my position by default is entirely unfulfilling.

[catfish]

I just want to set the record straight. I did NOT mock you for not being confident. I mocked you for being one of the pig-ignorant, stupid, fundie fucktard appologist sheeple.

Perhaps your cognitive dissonance caused you to overlook the key flaw in your argument.
Surtr said: "I know eonian does not mean eternal." He did however admit his uncertainty (which is what being intellectually honest really is. not misrepresenting someone else's position like you did).

And for the record, I love a whiny rant (sung to the tune of "I love a Rainy Night")... Carry on...
.