Note to self: Never piss Purple Rabbit off...the man knows how to debate...and rant...at the same time!

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Sorry, that's not what I claimed. I have repeated my claim several times now and I will repeat it again and again till you show some reading skills. Please take your time in reading my claim, here it is again:

Quote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

Please register the following:
(1) I do not claim to know if the proof that the theologians brought forward played any role in their personal belief. I only claim that they "through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god". That's what I claim, nothing more, nothing less.
(2) I think it is possible though that these theologians believed in the validity of their proofs. If you think that they didn't believe in the validity of their own proofs, you imply that they were frauds. Quite possible. They wouldn't be the first religious frauds known in history. Quite possible indeed. But you cannot know this for sure because you cannot look inside their heads, can you? Especially the deed ones offer a serious problem in that respect. If you assert that you know they did not believe their own proofs, I would simply not believe you on your word alone. I would require evidence. And so the circle closes.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I was assuming that you were referring to real proof and not proof to a person in their own mind. I apologise. I consider it a pointless assertion of yours in that case. Of no validity at all to the discussion.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In essence you plea that belief never requires justification.

No

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You imply that personal beliefs never need to be challenged in any way, because that's the nature of beliefs, believe it or not.

Your summation of implication are consistently wild and wide of the mark.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In this way the road is open to create your own solipsistic bubble build on unprovable, undeniable, untouchable personal beliefs. And you are completely entitled to have that bubble, a place where your personal truths are safely locked away from doubts and external scrutiny.

That produces this completely ridiculous assumption

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I prefer to expose my personal truths every now and gain to criticism of others. Often debate is a consequence of that and I have experienced considerable advantages in receiving these critiques on my stances. Indeed, much of what I think of religion nowadays has been formed through debate in past years. So we walk different roads.

I know your road very well. It's a tram line of rhetoric.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Of course in your personal bubble of undeniable and unprovable beliefs, you don't have to believe me. Hell, you don't have to believe even that there is something as quantum phyics at all. It would require no evidence at all for you, only your believe, to believe that QM is pure jibberish.

Is it possible for you to be any more arrogant? You don't clearly don't understand. You really are a waste of thinking time.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

We're finally on to something here. Here you assert that belief requires no scientific proof. Earlier you asserted that because belief is unsubstantiated in nature it requires no proof. But why stop there? If the nature of belief is that it needs no substantiating then it does not require justification of any sort. Is there some law of nature I don't know of that states that beliefs specifically do not require SCIENTIFIC proof, because science is fouled up by some nasty beast from the 23rd dmension, playing tricks on a certain rabbit? Please elaborate.

Because taking it further would be illogical. All we're talking about is surmounting the first hurdle. Yeah sure you'd like to swerve into the realms of the ridiculous, but I'm just interested in rational reasoning. This is the point we've reached in discussing this topic: that science does not accept, because it proves that science isn't all encompassing as purists need to justify their stances, that belief IS unique and the 'special pleading' is in fact relevant and admissible. You would like to re-write (/burn) all dictionaries to make the world fit your view.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: how many truths are there in your reality? Is there also koranic truth and Vishnu truth?

1. Lots. 2. Absolutely

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives.

I can inform you that secular moral values like the individual's right on moral independence is very fulfilling indeed. So if biblical 'truths' indeed give any fulfillment, it certainly is not a unique feature of biblical moral.

Indeed. I agree.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure.

In general, all kinds of moral values mould social structures. That is true for tribes who almost have no contact with the western world, it is true for the religious morals of monks in tibet, and it is true for explicitly non-biblical moral values like the moral value that separation of state an church is a good thing. So this again is no special feature of biblical truths.

By 'Biblical truth' I wasn't meaning specifically Biblical but identical truth found anywhere. It isn't a special feature, no.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:You seek to attribute things that are against biblical truth to biblical truth. A logical nonsense. Religious truths. no matter what the source (as you pathetically try to dismiss them on exact lineage) hold true. Christianity in particular is in essence an anti slavery religion. That's what it was born out of. That's the thrust of it's ethos. You can misinterpret to your hearts desire, the facts simply don't support that.
I never said that the sole idea of anti slavery is Christian. A personal windmill of yours? Wilberforce was simply a prominent mover, who also had Christian motives..

This is typical cherry picking from statements in the bible. Please identify for me the statements in the bible that are nonsense and should be discarded up front and the statements that constitute genuine biblical truth. And please reveal on which divine source you base this distinction. Are there any addendums or errata to the bible that were forgotten in the original publication (whatever that is)? Is the following (just one out of many examples) on your errata list?

It isn't cherry picking at all. You'd have to want to read it in an extremely biased manner, which I know you are, to state that. I know your position extremely well and I'd thank you not to bore me with it once again. Of course if you have any original take I'd love to know it.
I take the whole bible as 100% spiritual truth, without exception. I cite no other/ external source.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

BORING! I can't even be bothered to refute it, it's so pathetic.

(July 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Sorry, that's not what I claimed. I have repeated my claim several times now and I will repeat it again and again till you show some reading skills. Please take your time in reading my claim, here it is again:

Quote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

Please register the following:
(1) I do not claim to know if the proof that the theologians brought forward played any role in their personal belief. I only claim that they "through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god". That's what I claim, nothing more, nothing less.
(2) I think it is possible though that these theologians believed in the validity of their proofs. If you think that they didn't believe in the validity of their own proofs, you imply that they were frauds. Quite possible. They wouldn't be the first religious frauds known in history. Quite possible indeed. But you cannot know this for sure because you cannot look inside their heads, can you? Especially the deed ones offer a serious problem in that respect. If you assert that you know they did not believe their own proofs, I would simply not believe you on your word alone. I would require evidence. And so the circle closes.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I was assuming that you were referring to real proof and not proof to a person in their own mind. I apologise. I consider it a pointless assertion of yours in that case. Of no validity at all to the discussion.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In essence you plea that belief never requires justification.

No

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You imply that personal beliefs never need to be challenged in any way, because that's the nature of beliefs, believe it or not.

Your summation of implication are consistently wild and wide of the mark.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In this way the road is open to create your own solipsistic bubble build on unprovable, undeniable, untouchable personal beliefs. And you are completely entitled to have that bubble, a place where your personal truths are safely locked away from doubts and external scrutiny.

That produces this completely ridiculous assumption

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I prefer to expose my personal truths every now and gain to criticism of others. Often debate is a consequence of that and I have experienced considerable advantages in receiving these critiques on my stances. Indeed, much of what I think of religion nowadays has been formed through debate in past years. So we walk different roads.

I know your road very well. It's a tram line of rhetoric.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Of course in your personal bubble of undeniable and unprovable beliefs, you don't have to believe me. Hell, you don't have to believe even that there is something as quantum phyics at all. It would require no evidence at all for you, only your believe, to believe that QM is pure jibberish.

Is it possible for you to be any more arrogant? You don't clearly don't understand. You really are a waste of thinking time.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

We're finally on to something here. Here you assert that belief requires no scientific proof. Earlier you asserted that because belief is unsubstantiated in nature it requires no proof. But why stop there? If the nature of belief is that it needs no substantiating then it does not require justification of any sort. Is there some law of nature I don't know of that states that beliefs specifically do not require SCIENTIFIC proof, because science is fouled up by some nasty beast from the 23rd dmension, playing tricks on a certain rabbit? Please elaborate.

Because taking it further would be illogical. All we're talking about is surmounting the first hurdle. Yeah sure you'd like to swerve into the realms of the ridiculous, but I'm just interested in rational reasoning. This is the point we've reached in discussing this topic: that science does not accept, because it proves that science isn't all encompassing as purists need to justify their stances, that belief IS unique and the 'special pleading' is in fact relevant and admissible. You would like to re-write (/burn) all dictionaries to make the world fit your view.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: how many truths are there in your reality? Is there also koranic truth and Vishnu truth?

1. Lots. 2. Absolutely

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives.

I can inform you that secular moral values like the individual's right on moral independence is very fulfilling indeed. So if biblical 'truths' indeed give any fulfillment, it certainly is not a unique feature of biblical moral.

Indeed. I agree.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure.

In general, all kinds of moral values mould social structures. That is true for tribes who almost have no contact with the western world, it is true for the religious morals of monks in tibet, and it is true for explicitly non-biblical moral values like the moral value that separation of state an church is a good thing. So this again is no special feature of biblical truths.

By 'Biblical truth' I wasn't meaning specifically Biblical but identical truth found anywhere. It isn't a special feature, no.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:You seek to attribute things that are against biblical truth to biblical truth. A logical nonsense. Religious truths. no matter what the source (as you pathetically try to dismiss them on exact lineage) hold true. Christianity in particular is in essence an anti slavery religion. That's what it was born out of. That's the thrust of it's ethos. You can misinterpret to your hearts desire, the facts simply don't support that.
I never said that the sole idea of anti slavery is Christian. A personal windmill of yours? Wilberforce was simply a prominent mover, who also had Christian motives..

This is typical cherry picking from statements in the bible. Please identify for me the statements in the bible that are nonsense and should be discarded up front and the statements that constitute genuine biblical truth. And please reveal on which divine source you base this distinction. Are there any addendums or errata to the bible that were forgotten in the original publication (whatever that is)? Is the following (just one out of many examples) on your errata list?

It isn't cherry picking at all. You'd have to want to read it in an extremely biased manner, which I know you are, to state that. I know your position extremely well and I'd thank you not to bore me with it once again. Of course if you have any original take I'd love to know it.
I take the whole bible as 100% spiritual truth, without exception. I cite no other/ external source.

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

BORING! I can't even be bothered to refute it, it's so pathetic.

Bubble CPU to itself:
Bubble secured....(I think, no I believe!)
All attacks on server prevented by pulling the plug out of any decent conversation method...
Breach of Main Bubble prevented with use of Diversion Module, Ignoring Argument Module and Ad Hominem Module
Battery of Refuting Module depleted...
Updates requested for all modules...
Log cleared for revisionistic purposes...
All faith restored..
All faith in faith restored...
All faith in faith in faith....wait a minute, I did that already!
Self Belief restored...
All biblical truths backed up...
Black list updated...
Ignore List updated...
Theistic Encrypter started...
Central Dogma Secured...
Aboard dialog

You mean you're bailing Rabbit?

Ah well. I suppose there's a limit to how many times and ways a person can say nothing at all.

(July 2, 2009 at 1:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You mean you're bailing Rabbit?

I that what you believe?

(July 1, 2009 at 3:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You're the one who said, "We cannot prove God does not exist" you moron ... of course it's your fucking argument.

Oops! Personal insult

And fully deserved ...

(July 1, 2009 at 3:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You mean you think my statement was moronic perhaps?

... what would you call someone who made repeated moronic statements? I know what I'd call them.

Kyu

(July 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 1, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

We're finally on to something here. Here you assert that belief requires no scientific proof. Earlier you asserted that because belief is unsubstantiated in nature it requires no proof. But why stop there? If the nature of belief is that it needs no substantiating then it does not require justification of any sort. Is there some law of nature I don't know of that states that beliefs specifically do not require SCIENTIFIC proof, because science is fouled up by some nasty beast from the 23rd dmension, playing tricks on a certain rabbit? Please elaborate.

Because taking it further would be illogical. All we're talking about is surmounting the first hurdle. Yeah sure you'd like to swerve into the realms of the ridiculous, but I'm just interested in rational reasoning. This is the point we've reached in discussing this topic: that science does not accept, because it proves that science isn't all encompassing as purists need to justify their stances, that belief IS unique and the 'special pleading' is in fact relevant and admissible. You would like to re-write (/burn) all dictionaries to make the world fit your view.

Let's follow up the scarce ends in the discussion that are not totally polluted by attempts to derail argument.

The assertion that belief is unique does not lead to a special status for religious beliefs.

From your assertion that belief is unique and unprovable it follows that there is no special status for religious belief. Anyone can have unreligious beliefs made up of all sorts of unfalsifiable statements about the world without a god concept in it. These beliefs have the same status (in terms of truthfullnes) as religious believes. There's no a priori reason these unreligious believes can be denied truthfullnes when we shield them off from scientific falsification as you do with religious beliefs.

This means that belief does not have some special access to truth. From belief there's no conclusion on the existence of god, there's no conclusion on a specific god concept, there's no conclusion on specific features of reality. Everything goes. Everyone in the world can have a different belief bubble, and there's no reason to contemplate about a unified reality. This would be denial of reality in its most extreme form.

We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths. By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January. Play all the tricks you like with the concept because it will get you no-where as the evidence available to both of us is identical. It's not winnable.

To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

It's not a mistake to not treat God as a singular concept in particular - if it is yet to be shown why "God" should be treated any differently to any other phenomenon lacking evidence (if that's what you are suggesting...to address specifically "God" if we're gonna discuss about it? If I understand you correctly there fr0d0?).

Or...if it's a mistake...the question IOW is: how is it a mistake...because why is God an exception? How can you pick God out for your own personal preference when that's personal preference and not objective reasoning...and still claim to be rational in doing so; the cherry-pick this way -...so...why is God an exception?

EvF

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

I am not deliberately expanding your statements into something different. I am exploring their meaning. I am sincerely trying to understand you. This exploring of arguments and testing their consistency is to be expected in normal debate. They may be precise and evident to you, they are not to me. Please do not degrade yourself to simple ad hominem responding. You might ask me what I mean with my assertions and explorations of yours instead of trying to derail every attempt of me to clarify statements made. Do not interpret disagreement as offense by default. Now, what on earth do you mean with "By saying the singular is everything religious is off track."? Are you sure even that the grammar is right? It does not register over here. Please elaborate.

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January

Well, I haven't been around here for a while. If god is an obsession of anyone it is primarily the religious people, I should think. I have no special interests in a particular god (hindu, christian, nordic, egyptian or whatever). What interests me is the religious and the way they draw their religious conclusions. You offer an especially interesting example since you deny that belief should have some probability grounded in reality. Anyway that is what it looks like to me. And I wanna explore if this is so. If you need no scientific proof then what IS the basis to choose your christian god? If the only way you can address such a simple question is with hostility than you leave little room for me to label it not as closed-mindedness. Show me you're not and please answer the given questions or at least make clear why they cannot be answered or need not to be answered. This is debate and debate should be most enjoyable when opinions differ.

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Play all the tricks you like with the concept because it will get you no-where as the evidence available to both of us is identical. It's not winnable.

There you go again. You suppose that I am playing tricks. Where? What tricks? What made you think so? Why should I? I have nothing up my sleeves. I claim no absolutes. I am the one that shows interest in your stance with these protruding questions, right? These are simple open questions, please do not take offense.

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

You will have to explain this in further detail because I see no hard fact without science, without an alternative method of justification, only with personal beliefs. The hard fact to me is it is logically impossible to build a unified reality from ungrounded belief statements. It is illogical, it makes no sense whatsoever. Earlier you seemed to suggest a difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth. But that is not a clear distinction. Science makes extensive use of logic. And even the choice of logic is a choice. There is modal logic, predicate logic, quantum logic even. Which one are you gonna choose and why. It all seems a very fuzzy selection process to me always leading you to the christian god. Well, I must say I am almost done waiting for a real meaningfull reply that really
adressess the questions I have formulated now over and over. Amaze me.