Dualism

[fr0d0]

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:

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.

In essence you plea that belief never requires justification.

No

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

how many truths are there in your reality? Is there also koranic truth and Vishnu truth?

1. Lots. 2. Absolutely

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.

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.

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.

"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.