Conflicting statements in the bible

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You need to remember that we deem your version of whatever god it is you submit yourself to on equal footing to the tooth fairy or unicorns.

So you have no idea what god I believe in but feel qualified to weigh in with an opinion about it. No class, my friend, no class.

Apparently you feel qualified in all manner of social/political/theological paradigms to discuss them in the open to everyone on here. That's the nature of opinions, everyone has them, especially on an open forum where anyone can comment and critique the views too. You appear to have quite a few posts; I'm sorry I had to be the one to break this information to you.

For the record, despite the link from min (above ^^), I'm still not really clear what your god is, what it does, what it looks like, how it acts (and so on and so on).

Thus if, say, evidence were to be provided that said deity (indeed, whatever it is) actually existed, then perhaps a change in opinion on it (I am the ultimate pragmatist) would occur. But you are spot on; the fact that you believe in a god (again, whatever it is) does, I admit, automatically turn on my bias alert machine and relegate your beliefs to the 'un-evidenced, forgettable' pile, which unfortunately appears currently to be the largest there is .

And thank you, I do regard myself as someone with no class. I don't identify with the de facto working class background to which I was born into, neither with the so called middle class lifestyle to which I have now apparently become apart of thanks to my earnings and apparent lust for southern comfort on a weekday evening (the UK middle classes are just killers for their drink problems, which I thankfully don't have). How did you manage to guess that from my one post?

I'm thankful you didn't come to harm in the Punjab or were born to a family who resided in the Punjab either, because who knows what god you'd be praying too! Oh it must be fate!

[Statler Waldorf]

You have not made a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've written. You have demonstrated a complete inability to understand the difference between shit pulled from one's anus, and a claim worth ANALyzing. I'll await an intelligible thought, until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy defeating you in this debate Waldorf. Cheers to that!

Oh stop it, I made you look like a complete fool and you know it. You claimed all of those examples were falsifiable but then you made appeals to the truth of the very claim in question to try and verify/falsify that claim.

You appealed to your memory to try and prove you can trust your memory. You appealed to your senses to try and prove that you can trust your senses. You tried to appeal to your ability to reason to try and prove you cannot trust your ability to reason. You used an inductive argument to try and verify that inductive reasoning is valid. You tried to use a logical argument to try and demonstrate that the laws of logic discern truth- utterly small time sir!

Your brand of verificationism has been refuted time and time again, it’s completely self-refuting.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You have not made a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've written. You have demonstrated a complete inability to understand the difference between shit pulled from one's anus, and a claim worth ANALyzing. I'll await an intelligible thought, until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy defeating you in this debate Waldorf. Cheers to that!

Oh stop it, I made you look like a complete fool and you know it. You claimed all of those examples were falsifiable but then you made appeals to the truth of the very claim in question to try and verify/falsify that claim.

You appealed to your memory to try and prove you can trust your memory. You appealed to your senses to try and prove that you can trust your senses. You tried to appeal to your ability to reason to try and prove you cannot trust your ability to reason. You used an inductive argument to try and verify that inductive reasoning is valid. You tried to use a logical argument to try and demonstrate that the laws of logic discern truth- utterly small time sir!

Your brand of verificationism has been refuted time and time again, it’s completely self-refuting.

He he he...You so silly. Again...there is a difference between a hypothesis that has the potential to being confirmed or falsified, and one that lacks the substance of anything that correlates with reality or experience at all (I feel like a broken record). Everything you listed as examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses, correlates with reality, and therein has the potential to be falsified (you really don't get this eh?). The only similar hypotheses comparable to the one you defend, are examples such as the tooth fairy, santa, and other such myths. They all share the same properties and the same liklihood. You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the endless word of that which is possible, all the while ignoring the key difference in all of your supposed "unfalsifiable" examples. That shadow of probability that gives merit to any hypothesis. A hypothesis that is falsifiable is just as vulnerable to being confirmed as it is to being overturn. The subject of any "God" one (or tooth fairy, or santa, or unicorn...etc) do not have the substance necessary to be challenged. The validity of such claims rests souly on the belief-holder's persistance that they are true, and nothing more. They do not warrant any intelligible argument from that perspective, and to be frank, nothing you have said warrants an intelligible response as it has taken 4 or 5 pages of me attempting to illustrate this very simple concept, and you continue to practice the classic theist rebuttal technique that will soon be afforded to you again. So, thanks for reading more stuff that you probably don't understand. You may now go back to plugging your ears, while singing bible songs, stomping your feet and claiming victory while typing back more distortions of the things I say which illustrate perfectly that you don't understand them.

[Minimalist]

Waldork thinks that all he has to do is invoke his vision of a sky-daddy and that trumps all reason.

Fools frequently think like that. It's why he isn't even amusing anymore.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Well don't I feel like a sucker! There is no reasoning with insanity.

[Ryantology]

I think it's cute how Waldorf constantly displays the emptiness of theist belief in his attempts to point out flaws in empiricism. The best he could ever hope to manage via this method is make us look as stupid as he is, but he seems to lack the awareness to realize that pointing out the flaws in empiricist thinking only magnifies the flaws of resorting to superstition.

[The Grand Nudger]

A common cretinist oversight.

[Minimalist]

I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

If I were to be, I could be paroled to the sandbox where I would have to spend the rest of my days with you, and sir that would be hell.

You'd love it, Asswipe. You might learn something!

[Statler Waldorf]

He he he...You so silly. Again...there is a difference between a hypothesis that has the potential to being confirmed or falsified, and one that lacks the substance of anything that correlates with reality or experience at all (I feel like a broken record).

You’re really in over your head now. You have yet to postulate a coherent definition of what corresponds with reality and what does not. Obviously falsifiable claims are not the only claims that correspond with reality.

Everything you listed as examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses, correlates with reality, and therein has the potential to be falsified (you really don't get this eh?).

You just committed the same embarrassing mistake! You cannot prove that any of those examples correspond with reality without first assuming they correspond with reality. Stop using circular arguments! There is no way for you to verify that your senses, your memory, your ability to reason, inductive reasoning, or deductive logic correspond with reality; and yet you believe they do. You do not follow your own verification standard. The reason you do not adhere to it is because it’s not a logically defensible standard.

The only similar hypotheses comparable to the one you defend, are examples such as the tooth fairy, santa, and other such myths.

Nope, God is the foundation for all knowledge and reasoning. Your total inability and rather embarrassing efforts to postulate a logically defensible autonomous theory of knowledge supports that fact.

So, thanks for reading more stuff that you probably don't understand. You may now go back to plugging your ears, while singing bible songs, stomping your feet and claiming victory while typing back more distortions of the things I say which illustrate perfectly that you don't understand them.

You couldn’t have misrepresented my approach anymore if you had tried. I have been more than willing to listen to your position. I have very patiently allowed you to rather arrogantly try and defend a very roughly stated and poorly thought out version of empiricism, even though as a theory of knowledge empiricism died a painful death nearly 300 years ago. I have demonstrated that without the God of scripture you cannot postulate a defensible view of reality; yet you are going to just stick your fingers in your ears and continue to adhere to a view of reality that is logically self-refuting and therefore false.

Waldork thinks that all he has to do is invoke his vision of a sky-daddy and that trumps all reason.

God doesn’t trump all reason; God is the foundation for all reason. As Texas Sailor has so eloquently demonstrated for all of us, a person cannot possess a logically defensible view of reality without believing God exists. Thank you Texas Sailor.

It's why he isn't even amusing anymore.

Yet I still find you quite amusing Min.

I think it's cute how Waldorf constantly displays the emptiness of theist belief in his attempts to point out flaws in empiricism. The best he could ever hope to manage via this method is make us look as stupid as he is, but he seems to lack the awareness to realize that pointing out the flaws in empiricist thinking only magnifies the flaws of resorting to superstition.

This couldn’t be more wrong. Christian epistemology does not possess any fatal flaws, so by pointing out the flaws in empiricism I am really magnifying the merits of my own view of reality.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Thanks Apohphenia (check spelling) this one is a gem.