Dualism

[fr0d0]

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

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

Yeah right. You mean you have no idea what direction and guidance is offered by Christianity. How convenient. How gob smackingly unbelievable you've lived life in ignorant bliss of these facts. But then of course you're not being genuine. I'm supposed to wait with baited breath on your cynical misinterpretations. Lets not waste each others time ok?

I see you are really getting into the substantiating mode here... Is it so hard to say even one small positive thing about the direction you and your christian friends have plotted for the entire human race? Mind your PR (no purple rabbit hides in there) my friend. I'm afraid that when you continue on this road the big chief from the sky will have to come down for some old testamential plagues to flog us happy with the plan we never asked for.

I have no wish to prostelytise in your general direction PR. You're going to do all the leg work on that particular quest using your own cute li'l feet. Goad all you like. I will not rise.

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

I cannot prove that 5 = 6. Can you? Lo and behold, it is the mark of the lord, the mathmatical god has revealed himself through the numbers! His ways are mysterious indeed. Never heard such bullshit in my life, lmao.

We know 5 does not = 6. We can prove 5 = 5. We cannot prove God does not exist. Are you saying what you say is bullshit?

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Sorry, I'm not a literalist. Genesis 1 is not provably a literal account. It's many other things. Sometimes incredibly complex poetry, sometimes allegorical.

Somehow expected you not to be a literalist. But what the hack do you mean that Genesis 1 (we are not going through all Genesis paragraphs on by one, are we, my rash is already beyond treatment right now) is not provably a literal account? That it is not provable, that it is not an account, that its literal meaning is not provable but true? Make up your mind, boy.

I'm merely discussing your subject. Playing with words again? I only say I understand it to be non literal.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

You are misreading here. I am not exclusively comparing science to religion here. I didn't add the equal rights and the slavery thing for nothing.

I thought you were being sloppy, sorry. Do you not know of William Wilberforce?

Corrupt people; Societies with differing standards to our own... sure have done the opposite of Christ's stated aims. Christianity isn't at fault here. I'm sure the same is true for other religions too. Your sloppyness would have to be pretty thorough to blind yourself to the facts so completely.

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p