The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Then I must also come to the conclusion that you misunderstand English. I asked for you to show proof of your statements. I did not ask you to post a book review that gives no proof of anything. You're clutching at straws now Tobi hey? What part of proof did you not understand? I have not complained, I have pointed out the glaringly obvious. You didn't post proof you posted opinion and from a source that copied and pasted it from another source. That is not in any way shape or form an academic thing to do. If you believe copying and pasting is a good academic method then I understand completely why you post the way you do.

Again, I have never posted that that specific article is a proof of anything. I posted (now several times)n that this article is a summary for a copyrighted work, which I can not post here for that exact reason: it is copyrighted.
The other two articles I gave you a link to are very well sourced, as you would expect from an scientific article, yet you dismiss them for the mere fact that they are posted on Wikipedia without even checking the sources.

You may think it describes it perfectly but when you think that you need to offer, which I asked for, proof of your theory. Unfortunately you didn't really offer proof.

I gave you common definitions of the word mythological and you added some more. According to at least some of the definitions the word mythological does not have to mean "made up".

BTW Russels tea pot is a silly arguement to use in this modern time, it may have worked ok when Russel was alive but since then NASA and other organisations have mapped space junk and it can be very well confirmed that Russel's teapot does not exist.

Come on, just replace the teapot with the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster.

When Russel, and others like yourself, want to shift the burden of proof onto others you should sit back and think about the so called proof you offer.

The burden of proof, as you already pointed out earlier, is on the person that makes a claim. So as long as I do not state that something does not exist (which I may have accidentally with the word mythological) I do not have a burden of proof and therefore does not have to shift it.

Plagerised book reviews that are not peered reviewed and offer no resource list or bibliography taken from Amazon and posted on Wikipedia are not a proof of anything except the person using it as proof really isn't up to any sort of academic discussion.

And again, I clearly stated that this article is the summary of a copyrighted book. The other Wikipedia articles I linked to are very well sourced, but yet you dismiss them as not worthy for your review or at least not to be considered a scientific work just because they are posted on Wikipedia. Doesn't look like a scientific approach either.

Problem here (besides being a public thread (Thx)) is that all theory\anything fall apart someday as infinity (never stopped or started cycling matter\life that spans infinitely) exists with or without gods!?. Our history will grow someday to be lost (and probably proves (or will) who the god$ are, again). Teach l♥ve n♥t hell!

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Again, I have never posted that that specific article is a proof of anything.

When you post that article in response to a request for proof you are posting it as proof of your theory. You even went further and made a big deal out of it. Furthermore you accused me of not reading it which I already had but was going to leave you alone because I thought you weren't worth the time debating this with considering you truly felt that was somethig that was worth posting as proof.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I posted (now several times)n that this article is a summary for a copyrighted work, which I can not post here for that exact reason: it is copyrighted.

Tobi, you posted after I called you on it. You didn't volunteer this you posted after you were caught out on it. What you actually posted, and hoped someone wouldn't pick up on, was a plagerised article. Good work there Tobi, well done

Originally Posted by TobiSGD The other two articles I gave you a link to are very well sourced, as you would expect from an scientific article, yet you dismiss them for the mere fact that they are posted on Wikipedia without even checking the sources.

I haven't dismissed them at all. I am pulling you apart on the fact that you think posting a plagerised article as proof of your theory is a good academic method. I have very little issue with the others so I see no need to comment on them. Is that ok with you? or do you really want me to pick your argument apart even further?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I gave you common definitions of the word mythological and you added some more. According to at least some of the definitions the word mythological does not have to mean "made up".

You didn't give me anything of the sort. They were posted before I spoke up. You kept on about it, you had to have the last laugh and even asked a stupid question about what part of it means not real, to which I replied the part that says "made up".

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Come on, just replace the teapot with the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster.

Come on, stop putting infantile things in after you have been shown to be wrong. Continuously trying to deflect your errors of judgement means nothing in the grand scheme of things, I can personally take it if you made a mistake and would think more of you if you said oops I made a mistake. However you don't say that and you then go further and use childish methods to deflect these mistakes. This shows you up badly.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD The burden of proof, as you already pointed out earlier, is on the person that makes a claim.

Yep that is why people go Yeti hunting.

Think about this for a minute ok. People like Blue believe they have proof because it is written or they believe it through personal experience. Who are you to say that they are wrong? If they really believe they have personal experience of this and say so that is their proof. The burden to disproove that is then up to you.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So as long as I do not state that something does not exist (which I may have accidentally with the word mythological) I do not have a burden of proof and therefore does not have to shift it.

But you did state that so the burden of proof does lay at your feet and you have still not provided any.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD And again, I clearly stated that this article is the summary of a copyrighted book. The other Wikipedia articles I linked to are very well sourced, but yet you dismiss them as not worthy for your review or at least not to be considered a scientific work just because they are posted on Wikipedia. Doesn't look like a scientific approach either.

Read my 2nd paragraph Tobi.

I do not feel the need to rehash things for you because it is obvious you don't understand the difference between blind faith and scientific reasoning. When you realise that Blue will always answer because "he believes" and because "it is written in God's word" then you may understand you putting the burden off proof on him will never get any other type of answer and you resorting to teapots and spaggheti monsters lowers your apparent academic/scientific reasoning skill to the level of a child.

That my dear friend is the entire problem with this type of discussion. Find some middle ground and you may actually get somewhere with Blue, without it you wont. Are you having fun yet?

Circular arguments about religion are always a waste of time.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 When you post that article in response to a request for proof you are posting it as proof of your theory. You even went further and made a big deal out of it. Furthermore you accused me of not reading it which I already had but was going to leave you alone because I thought you weren't worth the time debating this with considering you truly felt that was somethig that was worth posting as proof.

Damn it, it is an article about a book. What else should be the topic of the article as the book? And actually you yourself stated that those articles are not worth reading for you.

I tend not to read definitions made up by people who are biased and have a point to prove.

Which by the way is a statement that I have made up those things.

Tobi, you posted after I called you on it. You didn't volunteer this you posted after you were caught out on it. What you actually posted, and hoped someone wouldn't pick up on, was a plagerised article. Good work there Tobi, well done

I didn't even think about that I have to explain that an article about a book is an article about a book. You also insist that this article is a plagiarized work, please provide a proof, even if that in no way lowers the scientific work done in the book.

You didn't give me anything of the sort. They were posted before I spoke up. You kept on about it, you had to have the last laugh and even asked a stupid question about what part of it means not real, to which I replied the part that says "made up".

When I post in a thread you are participating in it is the same as giving it to you. Now you want to start playing word games? I posted which definitions of the word mythological are used when I say that all gods are mythological beings, but you decided to use different definitions, calling my definitions made up and simply wrong, so that my use of the word mythological being must be wrong.

Come on, stop putting infantile things in after you have been shown to be wrong.

Please proof to me that it is possible to show that Russel's teapot does not exist before stating that there is a proof that I am wrong. I can play that game as good as you, you made a claim, now deliver proof for it.

Continuously trying to deflect your errors of judgement means nothing in the grand scheme of things, I can personally take it if you made a mistake and would think more of you if you said oops I made a mistake. However you don't say that and you then go further and use childish methods to deflect these mistakes. This shows you up badly.

It simply seems to me that you have not grasped the concept that Russel tried to show with his teapot example, which is about shifting the burden of proof and the impossibility to deliver a proof for the non-existence of things.
Just because in your next paragraph you just shift the burden of proof:

Yep that is why people go Yeti hunting. Think about this for a minute ok. People like Blue believe they have proof because it is written or they believe it through personal experience. Who are you to say that they are wrong? If they really believe they have personal experience of this and say so that is their proof. The burden to disproove that is then up to you.

You are asking me for scientific proof that the personal experience of believers is not enough proof. That is not how it works, the people making the claim have to deliver a proof first and personal experience is not a proof. Otherwise we would have to proof that Aliens do not abduct people, just because there are thousands of people that state to have experienced just that.

I do not feel the need to rehash things for you because it is obvious you don't understand the difference between blind faith and scientific reasoning. When you realise that Blue will always answer because "he believes" and because "it is written in God's word" then you may understand you putting the burden off proof on him will never get any other type of answer and you resorting to teapots and spaggheti monsters lowers your apparent academic/scientific reasoning skill to the level of a child.

You are right, just because bluegospel uses circular reasoning and blind faith we can't put the burden of proof on him. But wait, I don't have to, with making a claim he has already done this himself. Just because he is not able or willing to proof the correctness of his claims that does mean we should not ask for a proof?
Oh, and you are right, referring to the teapot analogy of one of the greatest thinkers of the last centuries makes me of course look childish.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Damn it, it is an article about a book. What else should be the topic of the article as the book? And actually you yourself stated that those articles are not worth reading for you.

The article is not proof Tobi, what part of that do you not understand? And the articles aren't worth reading because I have read material like that many times and not in wikipedia. I can point you to a few blogs if you want that talk about how the judeo-christian god is derived from ancient african systems but I can also tell you that some of teh people writing this material can't tell east from west and swear blind that they are correct even though geographical evidence shows they are not.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I didn't even think about that I have to explain that an article about a book is an article about a book. You also insist that this article is a plagiarized work, please provide a proof, even if that in no way lowers the scientific work done in the book.

Look it up ok, the original book review is in Amazon, the article you claimed as proof you are right is in Wikipedia. It is word for word and nothing there says persmission was granted to use it word for word. By definition it is plagerised, if you don't believe me look up a definition of plagerism.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD When I post in a thread you are participating in it is the same as giving it to you. Now you want to start playing word games? I posted which definitions of the word mythological are used when I say that all gods are mythological beings, but you decided to use different definitions, calling my definitions made up and simply wrong, so that my use of the word mythological being must be wrong.

When I have very little, if any, interaction in the thread before you post this material it is not for me. You believe I am playing word game? Lets think about this for a minute. You say something is mythical, you don't believe it exists, you provide definitions that practically say mythical means it doesn't exist, you read my definitions and then ask what part of them say's it doesn't exist, you then say

Originally Posted by TobiSGD as long as I do not state that something does not exist (which I may have accidentally with the word mythological)]

So the evidence here in front of everyone is you acknowledge that god does not exist and you used the word mythological to make the point. I have no problem if you believe god exists or not, that is up to you, it is your personal belief and you are entitled to it. However when you make statements like you have made the burden of proof is upon you to prove it just like you believe it is upon Blue to prove god his statements. You cannot have it both ways Tobi, if you want it your way you are showing you are biased.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Please proof to me that it is possible to show that Russel's teapot does not exist before stating that there is a proof that I am wrong. I can play that game as good as you, you made a claim, now deliver proof for it.

NASA and other organisations have mapped and are tracking space junk. There are spanners, belts, bits and pieces of various Space Shuttles, rockets and satellites. http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...g28Apr09-1.pdf

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It simply seems to me that you have not grasped the concept that Russel tried to show with his teapot example, which is about shifting the burden of proof and the impossibility to deliver a proof for the non-existence of things.

I know what Russel's point was, and before about 1990 the example you chose was probably a valid thing to use in a discussion like this but it is not valid now and just because you decided to throw it into this discussion does not bring back its lost validity.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Just because in your next paragraph you just shift the burden of proof:You are asking me for scientific proof that the personal experience of believers is not enough proof.

No I am asking you for proof that what you believe is true. Just like you demand people like Blue offer proof of what they say and just like I asked Blue to explain what he believes which I then pulled apart using the book he himself claims as proof. I am treating both of you the same but I am using different logic, because I understand the positions you both hold onto, to refute both your arguments.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD That is not how it works, the people making the claim have to deliver a proof first

Therefor your claim that "god" does not have monotheistic origins needs to be proved, don't provide opinion or a plagerised book review provide proof. My question to you now is when will you provide proof just like you expect Blue to provide proof of his beliefs.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD and personal experience is not a proof.

But reading a plagerised book review come article is? I think you have that all wrong. I have said you are asking someone like Blue to provide proof for something he can't except to say something like "because it is written" or "I believe". How is that any different to you posting a link to an article that was originally a book review, as though it was proof of your beliefs, any different? It isn't. You claim higher ground based on what? Your reading ability that helped you find this article that you didn't even know, or if you did you neglected to say until recently, was a plagerised book review.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Otherwise we would have to proof that Aliens do not abduct people, just because there are thousands of people that state to have experienced just that.

Tobi if you were in a discussion on that topic with people who believe in that or are sympathetic to the idea that people are allowed their beliefs without someone like you hounding them for proof, then yes I dare say someone would ask you to prove it doesn't happen. There is a scientific method for this type of discussion to you know. Forensic science has been used for years to delve into subject matter like this.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD You are right, just because bluegospel uses circular reasoning and blind faith we can't put the burden of proof on him.

I never said that at all and as for circular reasoning you are doing a realy good job of that yourself.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD But wait, I don't have to, with making a claim he has already done this himself. Just because he is not able or willing to proof the correctness of his claims that does mean we should not ask for a proof?

Ask him for proof but don't get your underwear all knotted when he says what he always says. Also be very prepared to answer questions from people when you make claims, it is afterall only fair that you are subject to the exact same rigourous debate that you subject others like Blue to.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Oh, and you are right, referring to the teapot analogy of one of the greatest thinkers of the last centuries makes me of course look childish.

Yes it does when you use that and claim that it can't be proven when indeed it can because NASA and other organisations are tracking space junk. I have a great respect for the thoughts of people like Russel. I may not agree with various things but for his time he was an excellent thought provoker. However, technology changes and he as much as anyone else would adjust his discussion to keep up with that. You however think it is still appropriate even when technology can and does refute it.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 The article is not proof Tobi, what part of that do you not understand? And the articles aren't worth reading because I have read material like that many times and not in wikipedia. I can point you to a few blogs if you want that talk about how the judeo-christian god is derived from ancient african systems but I can also tell you that some of teh people writing this material can't tell east from west and swear blind that they are correct even though geographical evidence shows they are not. Look it up ok, the original book review is in Amazon, the article you claimed as proof you are right is in Wikipedia. It is word for word and nothing there says persmission was granted to use it word for word. By definition it is plagerised, if you don't believe me look up a definition of plagerism.

1. It still is an article about a book, a summary, with posted links to the parts of the books that are the base for the statements there, since I am still not allowed to post copyrighted material here this must be good enough.
2. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of plagiarizing is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

The fun part about that is that according to that definition the Wikipedia article is clearly not plagiarized, since it credits the Amazon review as it's source. Even if there would be no link to the source you still would have to proof that the author of the Wikipedia article and the book review are not the same person.

When I have very little, if any, interaction in the thread before you post this material it is not for me. You believe I am playing word game? Lets think about this for a minute. You say something is mythical, you don't believe it exists, you provide definitions that practically say mythical means it doesn't exist,

Wrong. The definition that I presented clearly stated

The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans.[5][6][7] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion or spirituality.[5] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.[5][6][8][9] In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative, "true stories" or myths, and "false stories" or fables.[10] Creation myths generally take place in a primordial age, when the world had not yet achieved its current form,[5] and explain how the world gained its current form[2][11] and how customs, institutions and taboos were established.[5][11]

Post #179, emphasis by me.

So the evidence here in front of everyone is you acknowledge that god does not exist and you used the word mythological to make the point

I have only acknowledged that there are definitions of the word mythological that are different from the one I used (and i clearly stated which one I have used) and that that my have lead to an accidental claim that a god of any kind does not exist. It is no secret from my posts in this and other threads that I don't believe in any god, but I have not said that it is true that they don't exist, nor do the definitions I provided of the word mythological.

NASA and other organisations have mapped and are tracking space junk. There are spanners, belts, bits and pieces of various Space Shuttles, rockets and satellites. http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...g28Apr09-1.pdf

And a map of space debris revolving the earth counts as evidence for the non-existence of a teapot revolving the sun in which way? Even if it would be revolving the earth instead, it would have needed a size of 5m or higher to be tracked, if it revolves in in a geosynchronous orbit.

I know what Russel's point was, and before about 1990 the example you chose was probably a valid thing to use in a discussion like this but it is not valid now and just because you decided to throw it into this discussion does not bring back its lost validity.

Please provide the proof that the statement is not valid. I have still not seen one.

No I am asking you for proof that what you believe is true.

Which is impossible, if I had a proof it wouldn't be a believe, it would be knowledge.

Therefor your claim that "god" does not have monotheistic origins needs to be proved, don't provide opinion or a plagerised book review provide proof. My question to you now is when will you provide proof just like you expect Blue to provide proof of his beliefs.

Let the allegedly plagiarized (see above) Wikipedia article stand aside and actually read the book. Or the two other articles I linked to. Why are you so fixated about that one thing I posted and totally leave out the other articles?

But reading a plagerised book review come article is?

This is the umpteenth time you claim that that article is plagiarized. Provide a proof for that. And as I stated before, that article is a summary and its origin is in no way an indication for the validity of the book it is based on. (Fallacy #9, Damning the source, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm)

You claim higher ground based on what? Your reading ability that helped you find this article that you didn't even know, or if you did you neglected to say until recently, was a plagerised book review.

And again "plagiarized", with no proof for it. I don't have to say something that is clearly stated in an article I link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God

A History of God is a best-selling book by Karen Armstrong.

The very first sentence, it should be clear by now that this is an article about a book. And the source of the article is also clearly stated:

Sources Hudson, Gail. Amazon Reviews

Proof for plagiarizing, please?

Also be very prepared to answer questions from people when you make claims, it is afterall only fair that you are subject to the exact same rigourous debate that you subject others like Blue to.

Which is now, after you have made your claims, also expected from you, but I have not seen proof for the claims you made.

Yes it does when you use that and claim that it can't be proven when indeed it can because NASA and other organisations are tracking space junk. I have a great respect for the thoughts of people like Russel. I may not agree with various things but for his time he was an excellent thought provoker. However, technology changes and he as much as anyone else would adjust his discussion to keep up with that. You however think it is still appropriate even when technology can and does refute it.

So your claims are:
1. The Wikipedia article about the book "A History of God" from Karen Armstrong is plagiarized.
2. It is possible to provide evidence that clearly disproves the existence of a teapot revolving the sun (which by the way wasn't the point at all of Russel's analogy).

Originally Posted by TobiSGD 1. It still is an article about a book, a summary, with posted links to the parts of the books that are the base for the statements there, since I am still not allowed to post copyrighted material here this must be good enough.

That is a cop out Tobi. No one ahs asked you to post an entire book. You can post sections of material that you have and you can give multiple sources. Doing so is using the academic method of writing. Some articles in wikipedia use this method and because of this I don't pick them apart. Problem is you chose an article that does not use this method and you offered it as proof when asked for proof which you hound people for when you find something you think needs it. I wonder if Blue said to you "the work is copyrighted I can't give you anything so it must be good enough" would you drop it like you expect me to?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD 2. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of plagiarizing is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizingThe fun part about that is that according to that definition the Wikipedia article is clearly not plagiarized, since it credits the Amazon review as it's source. Even if there would be no link to the source you still would have to proof that the author of the Wikipedia article and the book review are not the same person.

I don't have to prove anything Tobi, you offered it up as proof so it is you who needs to prove its veracity. The problem is you can't so you are, again, showing bias because you expect others to offer proof of their comments when you can't prove yours. It is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Wrong. The definition that I presented clearly stated Post #179, emphasis by me.

Hmmmmm a definition by a man who and I quote[/quote]

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade Early in his life, Eliade was a noted journalist and essayist, a disciple of Romanian far right philosopher and journalist Nae Ionescu, and member of the literary society Criterion. He also served as cultural attaché to the United Kingdom and Portugal. Several times during the late 1930s, Eliade publicly expressed his support for the Iron Guard, a fascist and antisemitic political organization. His political involvement at the time, as well as his other far right connections, were the frequent topic of criticism after World War II.

Does this mean that being anti-semetic is also correct? I would think that this indicates this man is hardly a reliable source. Do you think there may be some bias in this mans reasoning skills?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I have only acknowledged that there are definitions of the word mythological that are different from the one I used (and i clearly stated which one I have used) and that that my have lead to an accidental claim that a god of any kind does not exist. It is no secret from my posts in this and other threads that I don't believe in any god, but I have not said that it is true that they don't exist, nor do the definitions I provided of the word mythological.

There is no "may have lead to an accidental claim" Tobi, you are smarter than that. Your words throughout this topic are vey precise you know exactly what you are saying but you cannot prove your point in the same way you expect Blue to prove his point so now you are trying to deflect this and put it onto others. If your understanding of definitions is that lacking then maybe you shouldn't go offering up definitions from wikipedia derived from works of facist anti-semetics.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD And a map of space debris revolving the earth counts as evidence for the non-existence of a teapot revolving the sun in which way? Even if it would be revolving the earth instead, it would have needed a size of 5m or higher to be tracked, if it revolves in in a geosynchronous orbit.

Page 6/14 says they track items as small as 5cm. The issue here isn't that the PDF is about earths orbit the issue is technology has come so far they can track items. No one is searching for a teapot Tobi because we all know it is not out there, but some people do search for "god" and believe they find "god". You pestering them about their beliefs and using an analogy about a teapot doesn't help your side of the argument one iota.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Please provide the proof that the statement is not valid. I have still not seen one.

You have actually but you just wont acknowledge it.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Which is impossible, if I had a proof it wouldn't be a believe, it would be knowledge.

So when someone like Blue has a personal experience, this is first hand knowledge it is not a belief. Just because you don't believe what someone like Blue says because they can't offer up an explanation to you that you are happy with doesn't mean what he says is not reality. You see you discount things people like Blue say because you don't believe and want proof. He offers the proof he has yet you think it is not good enough. You will therefor never be happy with his explanation and because of that topic like this will always go around in circles.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Let the allegedly plagiarized (see above) Wikipedia article stand aside and actually read the book. Or the two other articles I linked to. Why are you so fixated about that one thing I posted and totally leave out the other articles?

As I have already explained to you but you seem to be hard of reading. I will explain further in a, probably futile attempt, to help you understand. I have no issue with the other articles as they are. I do not have to agree with them but they are not badly written and make reasonable sense, they are also reasonably well sourced which indicates that the authors of those articles have read more widely than the author of the book review. Do you understand that now?

If you want to use something in a discussion like this and demand proof of others, as you do, then you must be prepared to offer up reasonable proof and sources of your own for the statements you make. Unfortunately a plagerised, and yes Tobi it is plagerised until proven otherwise, book review that has no references of any sort to back up the claims you make offered up as proof remains no more than a plagerised article. The review is neither a scholarly source nor peer reviewed. The other two pages you link to at least have decent resource lists that can be checked easily.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD This is the umpteenth time you claim that that article is plagiarized. Provide a proof for that. And as I stated before, that article is a summary and its origin is in no way an indication for the validity of the book it is based on. (Fallacy #9, Damning the source, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm)

In the last paragraph you want me to put it aside now you want to drag it back up again. Ok here is a definition of plagerism for you. According to the

Originally Posted by http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own to use (another's production) without crediting the source to commit literary theft to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

The issue with this article is in the list of contributors. There are many anons, when writing so called peer reviewed academic articles, which this is not and therefor should never have been offered as proof of your beliefs which is what was specificaly asked for, you can't be anonymous. You either stand by your work or you don't. This book review is not proof of anything that you were asked to provide because you demand it from people like Blue, it is opinion and should have been stated as such at the very first instance.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD And again "plagiarized", with no proof for it. I don't have to say something that is clearly stated in an article I link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_GodThe very first sentence, it should be clear by now that this is an article about a book. And the source of the article is also clearly stated:Proof for plagiarizing, please?

Already given Tobi, I can't help it that you are uncomfortable because you posted something as fact when asked for proof about your beliefs whn it isn't fact but only just opinion.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Which is now, after you have made your claims, also expected from you, but I have not seen proof for the claims you made.

Lol, this is so funny. You demand proof but give book reviews, that are only opinion, as proof.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So your claims are: 1. The Wikipedia article about the book "A History of God" from Karen Armstrong is plagiarized. 2. It is possible to provide evidence that clearly disproves the existence of a teapot revolving the sun (which by the way wasn't the point at all of Russel's analogy).

Tobi, Russel has nothing to do with you using that analogy, you used it becasue you said it was impossible to prove there isn't a teapot out in space. Unfortunately for you it is possible so your usage of that analogy, as already stated in my last post, is useless and someone like Russel who, if he as still alive and not senile, would agree that technology has come along to an extent that the analogy is rather infantile.

So are you going to put things aside like you expect me to put things aside or are you going to bring them back up again after asking me to put them aside?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 That is a cop out Tobi. No one ahs asked you to post an entire book. You can post sections of material that you have and you can give multiple sources. Doing so is using the academic method of writing. Some articles in wikipedia use this method and because of this I don't pick them apart. Problem is you chose an article that does not use this method and you offered it as proof when asked for proof which you hound people for when you find something you think needs it. I wonder if Blue said to you "the work is copyrighted I can't give you anything so it must be good enough" would you drop it like you expect me to?

I would have no problem with that. I would just look at that specific book, instead of dismissing it because an article is a review.
Fallacy #9, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm.

I don't have to prove anything Tobi, you offered it up as proof so it is you who needs to prove its veracity. The problem is you can't so you are, again, showing bias because you expect others to offer proof of their comments when you can't prove yours. It is as simple as that.

Nope, you have claimed that it is plagiarized, so you have to proof that it is. You can't just shift the burden as proof as you like. It is simple as that: You made a claim, you have to deliver evidences that validate your claim. That is the same thing you demand from me. Only that I have at least provided two sources for my claim that you count as good enough, but you have not.

Hmmmmm a definition by a man who and I quote Quote: Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade Early in his life, Eliade was a noted journalist and essayist, a disciple of Romanian far right philosopher and journalist Nae Ionescu, and member of the literary society Criterion. He also served as cultural attaché to the United Kingdom and Portugal. Several times during the late 1930s, Eliade publicly expressed his support for the Iron Guard, a fascist and antisemitic political organization. His political involvement at the time, as well as his other far right connections, were the frequent topic of criticism after World War II. Does this mean that being anti-semetic is also correct? I would think that this indicates this man is hardly a reliable source. Do you think there may be some bias in this mans reasoning skills?

Again, fallacy #9. Nothing more to say.

There is no "may have lead to an accidental claim" Tobi, you are smarter than that. Your words throughout this topic are vey precise you know exactly what you are saying but you cannot prove your point in the same way you expect Blue to prove his point so now you are trying to deflect this and put it onto others. If your understanding of definitions is that lacking then maybe you shouldn't go offering up definitions from wikipedia derived from works of facist anti-semetics.

Yeah, more of fallacy #9. Also fallacy #8, #21.

Page 6/14 says they track items as small as 5cm. The issue here isn't that the PDF is about earths orbit the issue is technology has come so far they can track items. No one is searching for a teapot Tobi because we all know it is not out there, but some people do search for "god" and believe they find "god". You pestering them about their beliefs and using an analogy about a teapot doesn't help your side of the argument one iota.

Page 6 says that they are able to track items as small as 5cm in low earth orbit (<2000km). In geosynchronous orbit (~36,000km) they track items as small as 5m. This says enough about the technical abilities to track a teapod revolving the sun.
So again, you made the claim that this analogy (man, this is a thought experiment, the teapod was never and will never be the point of it) is invalid, but fail to deliver a proof.

So when someone like Blue has a personal experience, this is first hand knowledge it is not a belief.

It never became first hand knowledge, it is personal experience. One of the main pillars of scientific research is that evidences must be reproducible. Personal experience that is not reproducible and can be interpreted with other reasonable explanations don't count as knowledge.
It is funny that you on the one side demand scientific methods, but on the other side totally dismiss them.

Just because you don't believe what someone like Blue says because they can't offer up an explanation to you that you are happy with doesn't mean what he says is not reality.

It doesn't matter if I am happy with his explanation or not. What matters is the same thing I stated already in the paragraph above. But I find it funny that you bring this up, isn't that what accuse me to do the same as saying: "Well, this statement was made by a person with anti-semitic believes, so I can't believe it to be valid, because I am not anti-semitic."?

As I have already explained to you but you seem to be hard of reading. I will explain further in a, probably futile attempt, to help you understand. I have no issue with the other articles as they are. I do not have to agree with them but they are not badly written and make reasonable sense, they are also reasonably well sourced which indicates that the authors of those articles have read more widely than the author of the book review. Do you understand that now?

I understand. Your point is that one article is a book review and therefore does not cite other sources than the reviewed book (which would be missing the point of a book review).

If you want to use something in a discussion like this and demand proof of others, as you do, then you must be prepared to offer up reasonable proof and sources of your own for the statements you make.

That is the same thing I now demand from you, but you yourself aren't able to do that with your claims. I have given the sources, you dismissed one of them. Does that automatically make the statement invalid, even if you admit that the other sources are good enough for you?

Unfortunately a plagerised, and yes Tobi it is plagerised until proven otherwise, book review that has no references of any sort to back up the claims you make offered up as proof remains no more than a plagerised article.

You still have to proof that, you made the claim, you deliver a proof, that is the way it works.

In the last paragraph you want me to put it aside now you want to drag it back up again.

Yes, because you make that claim again and again, but still have not delivered any proof. So let us go through your definition, point for point:

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

The source is cited, so that article is not stolen and passed of as own words.

to use (another's production) without crediting the source

The source is given.

to commit literary theft

Literary theft with crediting the source is hardly possible.

to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

When the source is credited this can hardly count as presented as new or original.

None of those definitions fit the article, so it is, according to the definitions you gave, not plagiarized.

The issue with this article is in the list of contributors. There are many anons, when writing so called peer reviewed academic articles, which this is not and therefor should never have been offered as proof of your beliefs which is what was specificaly asked for, you can't be anonymous. You either stand by your work or you don't. This book review is not proof of anything that you were asked to provide because you demand it from people like Blue, it is opinion and should have been stated as such at the very first instance.

So now your problem with that article is that it is not peer reviewed (when it short time before only was plagiarized). You demand from me that I deliver peer reviewed articles, but for bluegospel personal, not falsifiable and not peer reviewed, experience is enough to even count as knowledge.

The rest of your post is just a repetition of what you said earlier, no need for me to answer that again.

This is why I stated earlier that a discussion with you is pointless:
1. You make claims and immediately shift the burden of proof for those claims to others.
2. You demand scientific evidence, are not able to deliver it yourself, but accept personal, unprovable, not reproducible experience as good enough.
3. You come up with standards for others that you are not able (or willing) to fulfill yourself.

This brings me to the point where I have to make the decision that in future I will only post answers to your posts a) if moderation is needed, and b) to correct factual errors, if necessary.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I would have no problem with that. I would just look at that specific book, instead of dismissing it because an article is a review. Fallacy #9, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm.

The fallacy is that you passed it off as proof.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Nope, you have claimed that it is plagiarized, so you have to proof that it is. You can't just shift the burden as proof as you like. It is simple as that: You made a claim, you have to deliver evidences that validate your claim. That is the same thing you demand from me. Only that I have at least provided two sources for my claim that you count as good enough, but you have not.

And it is plaigersied. I ask you for proof because you demand it of everyone else. You don't like being subject to yuor own high standards The problem here is you wont follow the same standards you expect people who you don;t agree with to follow and when youa re asked to follow them you start making excuses like "I may have accidently".

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Again, fallacy #9. Nothing more to say.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Yeah, more of fallacy #9. Also fallacy #8, #21.

And you are guilty of Fallacy 3

3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization. example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost. example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!

You think that because you bring a teapot into a discussion that in your opinion can't be proved then the existance of "god" cannot be proved. The teapot is no representative at all. NASA, and other orgaisations tracks space junk, no one is looking for a teapot yet many peopel are looking for "god". your argument falls flat there.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Page 6 says that they are able to track items as small as 5cm in low earth orbit (<2000km). In geosynchronous orbit (~36,000km) they track items as small as 5m. This says enough about the technical abilities to track a teapod revolving the sun. So again, you made the claim that this analogy (man, this is a thought experiment, the teapod was never and will never be the point of it) is invalid, but fail to deliver a proof.

I am well aware it is a thought experiment, you are not however aware that for it to be valid to this discussion it needs to remain unprovable. It does not remain unprovable due to technology advancing to such a stage where space junk can be and is mapped and tracked. Because of this it not valid to this discussion.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It never became first hand knowledge, it is personal experience. One of the main pillars of scientific research is that evidences must be reproducible. Personal experience that is not reproducible and can be interpreted with other reasonable explanations don't count as knowledge.

An apple falls out of a tree and hits a guy no one sees it but he now has first hand knowledge of the effects of gravity. A believer has an experience they relate to "god" it is a life changing experience, they have first hand knowledge of "god". Whether or not you believe "god" exists or not they believe it happened and many others have similar experiences.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It is funny that you on the one side demand scientific methods, but on the other side totally dismiss them.

Lolololol, in one small sentence you have shown that you have totally missed the point of this exercise. It is you who demands things Tobi. You demand people do what you require yet you make statements and do not then follow through. Give me solid proof that the Judeo-Christian god is not of mono-theistic origins.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It doesn't matter if I am happy with his explanation or not. What matters is the same thing I stated already in the paragraph above. But I find it funny that you bring this up, isn't that what accuse me to do the same as saying: "Well, this statement was made by a person with anti-semitic believes, so I can't believe it to be valid, because I am not anti-semitic."?

The thing you fail to see here is the person that made this statement, which you pointed me to, had a bias and considering events in that persons lifetime that he took part in indicates that his bias had an effect on his thought processes and his reasoning skills. If the person who come up with this "idea" has faulty reasoning skills and an obvious bias does that not mean that his work should be questioned? Doesn't that mean that people who point to his work, and claim it as proof, need to look a little closer at what he thought and the reasons why he thought it?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I understand. Your point is that one article is a book review and therefore does not cite other sources than the reviewed book (which would be missing the point of a book review).

*sigh* Obviously you don't understand. The other articles in wikipedia were of a scholarly nature, they followed academic writing principles and were therefore a valid thing to post up as some sort of proof which is what I asked you for (which is what you demand of others). The book review is not proof and should never have been posted as such and you should have known this.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD That is the same thing I now demand from you, but you yourself aren't able to do that with your claims. I have given the sources, you dismissed one of them. Does that automatically make the statement invalid, even if you admit that the other sources are good enough for you?

Do you see how frustrating it is? You can demand all you want but until you behave in likewise manner you can never expect it.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD You still have to proof that, you made the claim, you deliver a proof, that is the way it works.

When you provide proof I will provide proof, but wait a minute I already have but you miss the point of it because you are so adamant that everyone else has to provide proof that you agree with yet you don't because you believe proof is in a book review which you happily post as evidence that the Judeo-Christian "god" was not mono-theistic.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Yes, because you make that claim again and again, but still have not delivered any proof. So let us go through your definition, point for point: The source is cited, so that article is not stolen and passed of as own words. The source is given. Literary theft with crediting the source is hardly possible. When the source is credited this can hardly count as presented as new or original. None of those definitions fit the article, so it is, according to the definitions you gave, not plagiarized.

Tobi you know that you cannot use an entire piece of work in a scholarly article, if you don't know that then I am sorry but it is true. That book review was posted by people and used in its entirety, no permission to do so. Amazon is copyrighted yet you sy you can't post copyrighted material.

Originally Posted by http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088 COPYRIGHT All content included in or made available through any Amazon Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations is the property of Amazon or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in or made available through any Amazon Service is the exclusive property of Amazon and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

It is theft Tobi, pure and simple. No permission is shown to be granted in that article.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So now your problem with that article is that it is not peer reviewed (when it short time before only was plagiarized). You demand from me that I deliver peer reviewed articles, but for bluegospel personal, not falsifiable and not peer reviewed, experience is enough to even count as knowledge.

This is showing me you don't read.

In post 195 I said it was not peer reviewed, it is not something new to this discussion Tobi as you are trying to make it out to be. It is no secret I believe wikipedia is not peer reviewed, I have stated that in a few threads so your attempt to make it look like this is a new thing for me is failing badly.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD The rest of your post is just a repetition of what you said earlier, no need for me to answer that again.

Another lol moment. You keep repeating yourself to Tobi, then you demand people put things aside but you bring them back up again, then you say what they said (which was never going to be any different because this discussion will always go around in circles) is repetition. Now that you are finally starting to recognise that this discussion of yours is circular and just keeps dragging people back to your points, because they reply to what you post about but with answwers you don't like. So you demand they post material that you do like and keep demanding until you get tired of what they keep posting when you then basically give up because you can't change their minds (hey isn't that just like Blue and didn't I say you were as bad as each other!)

Originally Posted by TobiSGD This is why I stated earlier that a discussion with you is pointless: 1. You make claims and immediately shift the burden of proof for those claims to others. 2. You demand scientific evidence, are not able to deliver it yourself, but accept personal, unprovable, not reproducible experience as good enough. 3. You come up with standards for others that you are not able (or willing) to fulfill yourself.

lolololololololol What hypocrisy sprouts forth from that simple segment.

1.You made claims that you can't prove. You then claim you may have accidentally made a mistake.
2.You demand proof on topics that will never be able to supply it yet cannot offer any of your own. (this was the whole point of my entering this discussion but you don't see that do you).
3. And what stadards have you been able to follow that you set Tobi? Burden of proof? You have not given any yet you made statements that need proving by your way of thinking.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD This brings me to the point where I have to make the decision that in future I will only post answers to your posts a) if moderation is needed, and b) to correct factual errors, if necessary.

Wow, I never ever thought you would give up without following your own, apparently high, standards of discussion. Thanks for proving me correct Tobi, you and Blue are as bad as each other.

Next time you say to someone something like "proof or it didn't happen"or any number of your favourite phrases be very prepared to have someone who is just like me pick you on it and demand from you the exact high standards, which you don't achieve, that you expect from people that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by bluegospel On the other hand, suppose 12 messengers come from a far away land, claiming to have a message from their singular king. Yet none of them consist with the others. Since you were expecting the message from that king, you'd best discover the one with merit.

No, I'd just consider all 12 of them to be liars, and then suspect their king of subterfuge. Because either his people couldn't be trusted (since 12 of his OWN MESSENGERS can't deliver a message of importance...from their king...correctly), or that the king can't be trusted, since he couldn't keep a message straight, that someone else was expecting.

If I was expecting a message from a king and was faced with that, I'd go to the king DIRECTLY, and confront him, and ask why he either tried to deceive me, or why his messengers lied.

Here is what I believe: (note) I've not read through the whole thread because I don't have the time; also I am going a little off track from what the discussion has been on the last page.

I believe that God created the world in 7 days by the word of his mouth. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. If evolution happened there should be a gradual shift from simple to complex organisms in the fossil layer; this doesn't exist. Instead, there is a immediate appearance in the fossil layer of advanced organisms. Darwin himself admitted that this was a problem with evolution. Also, most if not all of the "evolutionary sequences" invented by evolutionist have been disproved as fakes! Louis Pasteur proved that life can't form itself-this is called spontaneous generation: Pasteur proved that life can only be formed from life. Evolutionist believe that life formed itself, an impossibility! Of course, when God created the world, he made matter first, but then life; life comes from God, however, not from matter.

We can only know what our time limits (and environment)...(hypothetical) travel back a 1000 years and insist TV will exist, you will be executed..."God" exists personal-only and in a worldly uoıʇdǝɔɹǝd.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e We can only know what our time limits (and environment)...(hypothetical) travel back a 1000 years and insist TV will exist, you will be executed...

What does this have to do with anything?

"God" exists personal-only and in a worldly uoıʇdǝɔɹǝd.

God is a personal God; however, he is not just personal, he will judge the whole world, both those that believe in him and that don't believe in him. Those who believe and have accepted Christ as their saviour will go to heaven while those who don't believe at all will go to hell.

Also, you can't say that since you can't see a spirit that they don't exist; you may never have seen Australia, and yet, it exists. God is the same way, you may not be able to see him, yet he exists.

Originally Posted by Nbiser I believe that God created the world in 7 days by the word of his mouth. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. If evolution happened there should be a gradual shift from simple to complex organisms in the fossil layer; this doesn't exist. Instead, there is a immediate appearance in the fossil layer of advanced organisms. Darwin himself admitted that this was a problem with evolution. Also, most if not all of the "evolutionary sequences" invented by evolutionist have been disproved as fakes! Louis Pasteur proved that life can't form itself-this is called spontaneous generation: Pasteur proved that life can only be formed from life. Evolutionist believe that life formed itself, an impossibility! Of course, when God created the world, he made matter first, but then life; life comes from God, however, not from matter.

Just out of curiosity, how much of your understanding of this came from creationist sources? Reading mainstream scientists quoted in creationist sources still counts as reading creationist sources.