Originally Posted by Zotis
I did feel like we were having a decent discussion for a while. But the last couple responses made me feel like everything I said fell on deaf ears. I don't want to debate endlessly, and I don't want to debate about just anything. I like focusing on important issues and making progress in the discussion, but I think you like finding discrepencies in minor points and going off on tangents.
I can totally understand that concern. However I would suggest you share a bit of the credit you asked of me; if your beliefs hinge on details such as this, then they're important. And if they're important they're worth discussing.
Originally Posted by Zotis
If I give an illustration to make a point you find a fault in my illustration and make no mention of the point I was trying to get at. It's like you don't really absorb the conversation.
I believe you've brought up your aversion to my multi-quoting. The purpose of dissecting arguments into pieces is to address them individually and ensure that each bit is an impervious statement and/or a solid argument in and of itself.
If I ask questions about the details of something greater you said and you can adequately defend or justify those points then I can accept the general argument at large. The larger argument is fallible if it's individual parts are vulnerable to counterarguments.
Originally Posted by Zotis
Another thing that bothers me is that you seem to loose track of the conversation and forget what you previously said. Sometimes when I refer to things you previously said you deny it, and when I quote it you still don't address it or return to what we were talking about now that I've authenticated it. Debating with you feels like a pointless exercise in futility.
Are you referring to the claim that I'm an atheist? You won't find any post of mine that confirms your suspicion and whether it's true or not is beside the point which I've been trying to get across: You may feel more comfortable making big picture arguments against atheism, however that wasn't and isn't my position. My current position is:
that there may be an undue value placed on answering certain questions about the universe, it's origins, and our roles in it.
The main line of argument so far has been thus:
Originally Posted by Zotis
I'm trying to illustrate a principle, that you have to take life seriously and ask questions and figure it out before you die. Ignorance is the cause of many deaths.
Originally Posted by Omnizoa
Fair enough, but where's the risk to my life if I don't solve the origins of the universe?
Originally Posted by Zotis
You don't have to solve the origins of the universe. You just have to believe in the truth, turn away from evil and do good, and love and obey God because he made you.
Originally Posted by Omnizoa
That assumes the conclusion.
Your original analogy posited myself and numerous other individuals waking up and discovering, identically, that we were trapped in a room. You encouraged the search for the answers to the mystery for the sake of self-preservation, which I haven't disagreed with.
What I question is why the answer I should be content with is specifically, "You just have to believe in the truth, turn away from evil and do good, and love and obey God because he made you."
You've suggested that this is the sort of thing my fellow roommates would come up with and suggest AND I SHOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO. This was part of the lead-up to your point here, yes?:
Originally Posted by Zotis
If you just do whatever you want, or nothing at all, and don't take the situation seriously and scoff at other people's ideas, you might end up dead pretty quickly.
Who's to say someone in that room doesn't come up with a different equally convincing explanation? If there's only the one answer that you gave then you're assuming the conclusion.
How do you resolve this?