(February 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm)chatpilot Wrote: tavarish said: "It's good that you see it for what it is, a beautifully written work of fiction."

I think that is the most inaccurate statement I have ever heard. You give the bible way too much credit, it is in fact a horrible and discordant work of fiction mixed with history and a mess of ancient plagiarized myths. That also includes all the bad editing and retelling of the same tales several times throughout usually in ways that contradict previous versions of it throughout the book itself. This is obviously due to the many authors involved and the attempt to transcribe tales that were originally oral traditions. Otherwise I agree with you on your entire post and your refutations of fr0d0s beliefs regarding the veracity of god.

I'm giving it the credit that it's due. It the most widely circulated book in history, and a very important piece of literature. Although many argue its internal validity, it does not change the fact that it's an important book, if only to illustrate the fact that we must progress from its ideals and beliefs.

It is not entirely cohesive, but to be honest, it IS a collection of 66 books translated and edited over a period of 2000 years. You'd be crazy not to expect some sort of internal contradiction. I have a problem with those that believe it is inerrant and should be taken literally, as they clearly don't understand the concept of logic.

(February 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm)tavarish Wrote: I clearly said it exists as a CONCEPT only, and does not reside in the reality. I can believe that there are invisible 70 foot green dragons flying around in space somewhere it would have just as much reality as your definition of God. A concept, whether it is true or not can have effects that manifest in reality through subjective experiences. This does not, in any way make them real, since we have methods to judge what we perceive to be reality.

Whilst my claim cannot be proven I don't agree that he isn't present in this reality. Likewise you cannot prove that he doesn't. Of course the effects are real... Christians acting on their belief will have a discern-able impact. But why does god have to fit 'real'? Temporal entities don't exactly fit into the category, which highlights the fallacial nature of your premise.

(February 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm)tavarish Wrote: I was illustrating the fact that religion held vast amounts of social and political power in the world for most of man's history. Don't for a second think that that's not their goal now. Every year we get lots of challenges to the separation of church and state, we as a country oppose gay marriage and abortion due to religious ideology, and have "In God We Trust'" on our money. It all stems from the need to control people's actions. Religion in itself is, at its core, another force to divide people and it does so quite efficiently.

You're repeating yourself. Let me reciprocate: Religion is abused for power... that isn't people acting in a Christ like manner; that's people being people and abusing power. Not only religion is marred by this; although religion is a prime target in that it's so easy to manipulate people using it. I'm not shying away from anything here... gross atrocities have been committed in it's name.

(February 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: All evangelical Christians accept it without exception. The Church of New Jerusalem isn't accepted as Christian. Well done tho' that's a far better effort than we usually get with Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses claimed to be mainstream Christian.

http://christianity.about.com/od/christi...ecreed.htm

"Some evangelical Christians, however, reject the Creed, specifically its recitation, not for its content, but simply because it is not found in the Bible."

http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Nicene_Creed

"However, other evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura reject the Creed (and especially the reciting of it), not necessarily because it contains objectionable content, but simply because it is not found in the Bible."

I never said JW and Mormonism was mainstream anything. They are denominations of Christianity, and the fact that they reject this creed creates a rift between the faiths.

Your sources are wrong.

Only in fairyland are Mormonism and JW denominations of Christianity. You seriously need to check your facts.

(February 13, 2010 at 12:16 am)tavarish Wrote: You haven't made any clear logical conclusions about anything we've discussed.

You say your God is real and in everything, then you say he's unverifiable, the bible is a metaphor, and the basis of Christianity is at best a nice story. I'm making the statement that if something is real, it exists in reality. Your god does not exist in reality, therefore he is NOT real. At best he is a concept in your mind. Can you understand that?

You're drawing illogical conclusions. God is everywhere and in everything in this universe.. that's standard theology. We cannot prove this transfer-ably and that is consistent with Gods' nature.The Bible isn't a metaphor - you keep repeating that and getting it denied... but it seems stuck in your head. God is transcendent ...his existence is irrelevant to this reality.

Read this and take it in this time:

Your insistence on empirical reasoning is in fact a logical fallacy. if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

(February 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

Fabulation never is.

Morphing metaphorical fabulation is the worst kind. It's like rubber bending in all possible ways prostituting itself on illogic again and again.

(February 13, 2010 at 2:46 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(February 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm)chatpilot Wrote: tavarish said: "It's good that you see it for what it is, a beautifully written work of fiction."

I think that is the most inaccurate statement I have ever heard. You give the bible way too much credit, it is in fact a horrible and discordant work of fiction mixed with history and a mess of ancient plagiarized myths. That also includes all the bad editing and retelling of the same tales several times throughout usually in ways that contradict previous versions of it throughout the book itself. This is obviously due to the many authors involved and the attempt to transcribe tales that were originally oral traditions. Otherwise I agree with you on your entire post and your refutations of fr0d0s beliefs regarding the veracity of god.

I'm giving it the credit that it's due. It the most widely circulated book in history, and a very important piece of literature. Although many argue its internal validity, it does not change the fact that it's an important book, if only to illustrate the fact that we must progress from its ideals and beliefs.

It is not entirely cohesive, but to be honest, it IS a collection of 66 books translated and edited over a period of 2000 years. You'd be crazy not to expect some sort of internal contradiction. I have a problem with those that believe it is inerrant and should be taken literally, as they clearly don't understand the concept of logic.

Widely circulated doesn't mean the bible's sought after for it's quality. Happy birthday is the most widely sung, heard song in the world and a lot like the bible, it's the culture which makes it prevalent. Most Christian's I've spoken with about the bible haven't even read it front to back.

Nice spin Rabbit. Let me know when you have any real argument.

Q yet another appeal to ridicule fallacy

After you have verified the unverifiable for me of course.

Darn wrong again.. so it was the begging question fallacy.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Darn wrong again.. so it was the begging question fallacy.

I think it is your middle name. But I still think you're a nice guy at heart.

Quote:I think it is your middle name. But I still think you're a nice guy at heart.

So do I actually. However, in real life I think I'd probably have the urge to kill him.---Pippy would not be safe in my company. I also think he's probably a nice guy and I would guess he's kind to cats and small children.

Me? Oh, I'm an intolerant old cunt.

(February 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Whilst my claim cannot be proven I don't agree that he isn't present in this reality. Likewise you cannot prove that he doesn't. Of course the effects are real... Christians acting on their belief will have a discern-able impact. But why does god have to fit 'real'? Temporal entities don't exactly fit into the category, which highlights the fallacial nature of your premise.

It's not a fallacy. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of existence for making such a claim. I can either accept or reject your claim based on the evidence provided. You say there can be no evidence, therefore I reject the claim. It's really rudimentary stuff, man.

There are no modified rules of logic for God. You say he is present in this reality, but he cannot be measured, tested, or observed. I call bullshit on your claim until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

You lose.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're repeating yourself. Let me reciprocate: Religion is abused for power... that isn't people acting in a Christ like manner; that's people being people and abusing power. Not only religion is marred by this; although religion is a prime target in that it's so easy to manipulate people using it. I'm not shying away from anything here... gross atrocities have been committed in it's name.

It's good that we're on the same page. I just wish that you understood the implications of supporting such a group.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Your sources are wrong.

Only in fairyland are Mormonism and JW denominations of Christianity. You seriously need to check your facts.

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses establish themselves firmly as believers of Jesus Christ. They call themselves a denomination of Christianity, although there has been opposition from Orthodox Christianity. Is that better?

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're drawing illogical conclusions. God is everywhere and in everything in this universe.. that's standard theology.

It's also a scientific question, in which the answer has no logical or factual basis. From this, I can conclude that no conclusion can be made either way, refuting your positive claim. This is not an illogical way of thinking.

Asserting that "God is everywhere and in everything" without having anything to back it up is purely and simply MAKING SHIT UP TO FIT A BELIEF. It's not hard to admit.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: We cannot prove this transfer-ably and that is consistent with Gods' nature.The Bible isn't a metaphor - you keep repeating that and getting it denied... but it seems stuck in your head.

Consistent with God's nature - a nature described in your Holy book? You said none of the bible should be taken literally. How else can you digest information in a book, if not figuratively and metaphorically? In what sense should the bible be taken?

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God is transcendent ...his existence is irrelevant to this reality.

How is it irrelevant if you believe he performs miracles and has the power to intervene? Seriously, sometimes your arguments just take a dive right off a cliff.

He's in everything and everywhere in the universe, but his existence is irrelevant, as there is no evidence to support such a claim. But he's totally real. And his son died for us two thousand years ago figuratively so we don't have to spend eternity in a place where we burn and scream and cry because the first woman metaphorically fucked us all.

...what??

(February 13, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Read this and take it in this time:

Your insistence on empirical reasoning is in fact a logical fallacy. if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

Exactly. By my standards, which is reality, we can assess that God, at least your interpretation of God, is not and CANNOT be real, since he resides outside of reality, and his existence would be irrelevant in any case. I thoroughly reject your claim using logic. I haven't begged the question, nor have I used any unreasonable standard of measuring what is REAL.

I'm not an idiot. I know you can't measure supernatural forces in the natural world. For that reason alone, I will conclude that we cannot make the claim that there are any supernatural forces in reality, much less forces that can intervene in the lived of people because there IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

I say good day to you, sir.

You lose.