Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

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.