The test would only disprove testable supernatural entities. Such as "This is a magic crystal skull!!" or "I can see the future!". An invisible God who desires to be worshipped through faith cannot be proven. The JREF challenge cannot disprove Christianity.

Then Christianity, which claims to be true, is a fraud.

Or it does not need to be "disproven," because it is obvious that it is not true anyway.

JB

The point is, Spider, if you believe Christianity is true, even if it cannot be proven does that mean it is a fraud?

If you say no then the same holds true with the supernatural.

The lack of proof of the supernatural does not prove fraud.
The lack of proof of God (or Jesus) does not prove fraud.

It is just lack of proof. It is not proof of anything.



JB

Christianity cannot be tested. There is no scientific way to prove or disprove Christianity.

There are simple scientific tests to prove / disprove fortune telling, spoonbending and other claimed paranormal powers.

Since Christianity can't be proven or disproven, it's up to a matter of faith.

Since claims of paranormal powers CAN be tested, those who refuse to allow their "powers" to be tested are frauds.

No proof or testing is available to prove the existance of God.

Simple tests exist to prove supernatural powers.

The difference is incredibly stark, it must be obvious to you. Why do you refuse to see the difference?

all religion is a fraud, if every religion and the people tied to it were as self righteous as they act they wouldnt care what other religions do, becuase they would believe their goin to heaven and the rest would just reap what they sow (always wanted to say that)
so why fight about it, have war about it, & i swear how self conscious do u have to be to pick a ****ing fight with a childrens book THE FIRST one to actually get kids to read on a massive level

This is where your problem is Spider.

All that can be proven is that some people are frauds. People who try to win prize money by claiming they can do things they can’t.

So from that you extrapolate, quite incorrectly that all supernatural claims are then fraud.

Whether you like it or not, your reasoning here automatically leads to the conclusion that all religious claims of supernatural intervention is also bogus. It naturally follows form the fact that no one who has ever claimed a miracle could ever prove it scientifically. Thus according to you they are necessarily frauds.

This is your reasoning Spider.

All Jeanniebean and I are trying to tell you is that if your reasoning were correct (which we aren’t even agreeing with), then by your reasoning all unproven faith-based claims are necessarily fraud.

You refuse to see this because every time it comes to your own personal faith-based religion you jump across the imaginary fence to the thing that you are imagining to exist. You start talking about the thing rather than you’re claim that the thing exists. And you claim that the thing itself (in this case a God) cannot be proved or disproved. But that’s because you’ve already jumped over the fenced.

All you have claimed to have proven by your million-dollar-offer argument is that people who claim to have evidence for the supernatural, and are willing to try to win a million dollar for their knowledge, are frauds. But that would include all religious people.

So your argument that this proves that supernatural events can’t be true is a faulty argument. It wouldn’t even stand up in a court of law much less as a scientific proof.

All you are suggesting it that people who make these claims are frauds because they can’t produce evidence. But that would have to necessarily also apply to any and all supernatural claims including religious ones.

You’re suggesting that everyone else is closed-minded and full of drivel when the truth of the matter is that your are the one who is guilty of these things.

You’re arguments is faulty. It doesn’t prove anything about the supernatural. If anything, all it proves is that some people are frauds. That’s all it can prove. And to that extent if can also prove the same thing for supernatural religion beliefs. Especially for people who claim to have logical or evidential reasons to believe in supernatural religious. They too can be shown to be frauds in that they have no such thing.

People who openly admit that their religion is nothing more than pure faith would have nothing to prove. But such people would be utterly foolish to try to convince other people to believe as they to using any kind of logical or rational arguments because by their very own admission they merely believe it merely because they want to. That’s what it means to have pure faith. Believing in something for no reason. Simple because you want to.

But then of someone else says they don’t want to believe it. A person of pure faith would accept that and walk always. It’s only those who claim to have reasons to believe who are the proselytizers. But as soon as you claim to have reasons then those reasons can be debunked.

But they don’t like to have their reasons debunked. They claim that it is religion bashing and they start throwing temper tantrums like little children kicking and screaming to distract from the fact that their empty unwarranted reasons are being debunked.

So if you want to claim that your believe in a religion is entirely faith-based then you must also confess that you have no reason to believe it. As soon as you claim to have a reason then you’ll find yourself standing in line with the spoon-benders waiting to have your reasons scientifically debunked just like all the other frauds.

In short, Spider, you have to chose. Are you going to try to claim that there are scientific and logical reasons to support your faith? If you claim that, then stand in line to have those claims debunked.

On the other hand, if you wish to claim that your religion it entirely faith-based and has no reasonable evidence. Then accept that and don’t be preaching to other people that they should also believe an unreasonable faith-based ideal.

According to your religion you aren’t supposed to be doing that anyway. According to your religion you are only supposed to offer your faith-based ideals only to those who are interested in faith-based ideals. Then you won’t need to prove anything to them. That’s they idea behind it Spider.

As long as you continue to try to convince others of your faith-based beliefs you are open to the same debunking process that applies to everything else.

All you are trying to do in this thread is claim that all other supernatural ideas can be debunked except the one you favor! You’re just using a really feeble and incorrect arguments to try to claim that you faith-based idea cannot be disproved whilst claiming that all other faith-based ideas can be.

And then you have the audacity to tell other people that their comments are closed-minded and full of drivel. You wouldn’t last very long at all in a genuine debate with official referees. They’d call you out on this one and have you standing in the corner for it.

Strawman fallacy, I have not claimed that. I have said repeatedly..."Since claims of paranormal powers CAN be tested, those who refuse to allow their "powers" to be tested are frauds."

Try to stop using logical fallacies, okay? You are an adult, argue like an adult. Make arguments that are topical and address the statements others have actually made.

I fully understand what you are erroneously trying to claim Spider.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to understand why your claim doesn't hold water.

Instead all you do is sling mud, claiming that other people are full of drivel, or closed-minded, or not acting like adults, or that they something on their nose.

I stand by my previous explanation and hold that you either didn't understand it, or you are just trying to worm your way out of it. There are no logical fallacies in the argument I gave.

The bottom line is that at the very best all your argument can be used to claim is that some people are fraud. Period. That's the only thing that your feeble argument could be used to imply. Yet you want to suggest that it disproves the possibility of the supernatural events that the frauds were claiming. So your claims are totally unwarranted and erroneous. Period.

And this is true whether you have something on your nose or not.

I've got something for you that you aren't going to like but it is TRUE

You keep talking about religions as being faith-based, but actually this isn't true of the biblical-based religion. They aren't faith-based. They are doctrine-based.

And like your challenge to individual spoon-benders, the doctrine that that these religions are based on can indeed be debunked. And it fact it has been debunked.

The doctrine claims that the biblical God is all-loving.

But then the doctrine has the God telling people to stone their unruly children to death.

Would an all-loving God ask people to stone their children to death? Of course not. So the doctrine is a fraud.

And all-loving God would have taken the time to explain to parents how to raise children properly so that they don't become unruly.

The doctrine claims that the biblical God is all-powerful.

Yet, the biblical God is at war with a mere fallen angel that he can't control.

Clearly the God is not all-powerful then. So again the doctrine must be a fraud.

The doctrine claims that the biblical God is all-wise.

Yet the bible says that God allowed the entire human race to become evil. So much so that he had to pour water on them and drown them out. He didn't have enough wisdom to address the problem before it God out of hand. Even mere mortal humans know that it's best to nip things in the bud than to allow them to get so far out of control.

Clearly the biblical God cannot be all-wise. Again, the doctrine must be a fraud then because it's inconsistent with it's own claims.

The doctrine claims that God is unchanging.

Yet on time is has this God drowning out all of humanity, and the next minute it's sending it's only begotten son to have the world because it loves the world so much.

Clearly the biblical God cannot be unchanging. So again the doctrine must be a fraud.

~~~

So you see Spider, religions that are doctrine-based are not faith-based at all. They are based on stories that can be shown to be logically inconstant with their every own tales, and thus exposed as being fraudulent stories.

So if you want to use arguments that things can be exposed as fraudulent that you have to accept that doctrine-based religions can, and have been, shown to be fraudulent in that that are logically inconsistent with their own lies.

I'm sure you'll have some new mud to sling. I'm anxiously awaiting what you come up with this time.

By the way, this is all right on track with what you've been claiming - that claims can be tested and shown to be fraudulent. Religious doctrines are claims that can be tested for their own consistencies of truth, and they can easily be shown to be fraudulent via the fact that they can't keep their stories straight. Their lies can easily be revealed via their own inconsistencies.

You can't hide a doctrine-based God. It's basically carved in stone for all intents and purposes. It's completely exposed for exactly what it is. Complete and utter logical inconsistencies, we commonly referred to logical inconsistencies as lies when they are associated with story-telling.

So your whole argument ultimately amounts to nothing more than an argument that states that specific claims can be debunked and shown to be fraudulent. Well religious documents make specific claims and then contradict them in their own stories. So by your reasoning those documents must be frauds. Sorry.

You just have to take your original argument to it's logical conclusion. You just want to stop after you feel that you've disproved only what you are out to disprove. But it doesn't work like that. Once you create an argument you have to apply it to everything that it can be applied to.

So there you go. A totally adult debunking of your supposed faith-based religion which is actually doctrine-based using your very own argument.

Abra...read what I'm posting now...PLEASE!!!!! PAY ATTENTION. I am saying that everyone who has come forward with a claim of supernatural powers TO DATE is a fraud. I'm not denying the supernatural exists. You just "lectured" me by explain what I have been saying all along. If you actually READ what I post, you would know that. You are not worth my time, seriously. You act like you are putting me in my place, by saying the exact thing that I just posted. You are just so incredibly lazy and arrogant that it boggles my mind. Read what the person you are "discussing" (I put that in quotes, because you simply post to kiss JBs ass and hear yourself talk, you have never tried to actually hold a conversation) writes.

But that's not what you claimed at all,... You said,...



Thus you are attempting to imply that because the offer has stood for decades that there must not exist anyone who can do these things.

That's a far cry from saying that everyone who has come forward has been debunked.

This precisely what I had stated earlier when you said I had something on my nose. I merely said that you can't say anything about anyone who hasn't stepped forward. All you have is a proof that a bunch of frauds were trying to get some quick money and couldn't pull it off.

There's a huge difference between showing that people who DO STEP FORWARD are frauds versus claiming that because no valid supernatural people stepped forward it proves they don't exist.

And that's all I ever implied. You argument seems to be fruitless and pointless.

The fact that everyone who tried to get the money failed to have supernatural powers only shows that those people are frauds.

Has it ever occurred to you that people who actually DO HAVE supernatural abilities may have no need for money???

You whole claim amounts to nothing more than suggesting that offering monetary awards to people who have supernatural abilities is not the correct incentive to get them to step forward.

Like Jeanniebean suggested, a million dollars is petty. Please, give people who have supernatural abilities a little more respect than thinking that they would be hard up for cash. That's an insult in itself.

Getting a little testy are we?

same reason we have a head but we do not have 5 heads
or an infinite number of heads.

I hope it's clear to everyone how dishonest Abracadabra is being. You can read what I've posted for yourselves, so that it will be clear: Abra is distorting what I posted. What should I do, continue arguing? Continue quoting myself and him and JB to show again and again that he's lying? What's the point? His mind is set in stone, he refuses to admit when he's wrong. Matthew 7:1-5. I'll stop giving pearls to the pig.

It's hard trying to talk to the dishonest. I hold myself to a higher standard than you are Abra are capable of imagining. My posts were clear, Abra is a liar. Period. He is lying about what I posted. Your character is made clear by the fact that you consort with an obvious and unrepentant liar.

You just can't make a post without including a personal insult can you?

It's actually "swine", not "pig" anyway.

Moreover, your erroneous argument was hardly a "pearl" to begin with.

Everything I stated was valid.

No need to get testy about it.

Hey Abra, did you hear that? I am consorting with you.

Hey, when are we going to meet in Reno to do some more consorting?

JB

And to think that Spider's objection is the idea that we are all part of or extensions of the same universe which is the body of God.

He is determined to separate himself from God. He is trying to disprove that we are all connected.

He wants to be disconnected from everyone, including God. He has set out to attempt to disprove the pantheistic idea in favor of his concept of God.

That is all he is doing.

JB

Of course, that's his agenda. Everyone who has been on these forums for the past year surely knows this.

The problem is that he's using faulty arguments and then calling other people all sorts of names, including "liar" just because they point out the errors in his claims.

He even stoops to using the bible as a weapon to insult people with,...



It actually read,... "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

And so if you take the biblical meaning of this then Spider is claiming that his argument is holy.

It's not even an appropriate verse to quote in this context since Spider's argument didn't come from the holy book in the first place.

I seriously doubt that Matthew intended it to be used as ammunition to insult people with in the first place. From my point of view quoting scripture for the sole purpose of insulting someone is an all-time low. Anyone doing such a thing should really reconsider their spirituality and motives.

It's like tossing out insults and pretending that God is behind it egging it on.

I think Spider gave up on his original approach that he could somehow prove the doctrine to be true, so now he's stepped back a bit to the position of trying to prove that everything else has to be false.

Maybe he's been watching Sherlock Holmes lately?

Actually I tend to use that method myself in my own personal philosophy. I knock out what can't be true and then examine what's left. But once I took that view the Bible was the first thing that got knocked out. And not because it was a target either. It basically knocked itself out via it's own self-inconsistencies.

I truly haven't found a reason to dispute the pantheistic picture yet. I should add though that pantheism is not dependent on being psychic or that anyone can see into the future. But they could potentially see visions that other have of what they plan to do in the future. That's a workable idea. But again, not one that would be need to be true for pantheism to be true.

Fanta suggested that I ask for forgiveness.

I did.

I think therein lies the answer to my questions about why people are attracted to religion.

Its all about being forgiven. Here is my epiphany:

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/127192

JB