Is atheism a religion?

[ProveYourFaith]

The Origin of this Greek, Latin, and French word(1640), does not predate Christianity(1 Century AD). This means that Christianity was here long before the word was even thought of. Since most dictionaries define Apologetics as a Christian discipline defending a religious doctrine, law, or belief, maybe you can give an example of what is a non-Christian, or non-Religious apologetic(not a non-apologists)? Other than Presuppositional, Classical, or Evidential, I don't know of any other examples outside of the Christian and Religious Belief systems. Or, is it only the definition you're trying to peddle? Maybe you should make another attempt at the etymology of the word "apologetics", before you make such a bold and incorrect comment. But since confirmation bias seems to be limiting your progress, let me help. apologetic | Origin and meaning of apologetic by Online Etymology Dictionary.

These are some of your silly comments,




You have purposely diluted the definitions to apply to anything you want. Therefore any act to defend anything is now an apologetic. Anyone who defends anything is now an apologists. Therefore, Atheists now become apologists, practicing apologetics. Just more equivocating gymnastics. But after these statements it is your maturity that needs to be questioned.



Although Apologists and Apologetics are related, they have different meanings. Apologist vs Apologetics - What's the difference?. We are talking about the current use of the word here(apologetics), which is defined as a Christian discipline defending a Christian or other religious doctrines. It is not necessary for me to manipulate parts of the definition to support my narrative. I will let your arrogance and unprovoked insults go this time.

Latin, French Word? It’s Ancient Greek. France and Rome didn’t exist! Ok I’ll try one more time Paul used the word Paul was around long before 1640. Im finished after this.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are believers reduced to manipulating the definitions of terms, to give their position the appearance of credibility? No amount of syntactical or semantic gymnastics, will absolve them of their burden of proof.

Believers have no burden of proof to prove to atheists that God exists. We are not asserting that God exists just because we believe or know that God exists. If atheists want to believe or know if God exists it is their own responsibility to determine that. Burden of proof only applies to courts of law but somehow atheists think they can extend it to religion. It does not apply to religion because no religion can be proven. There is evidence but that does not prove God exists. That is why it is a belief and not a fact. God created everyone with a brain and the capacity to recognize the Beauty of God. Otherwise, God could not hold anyone accountable for his failure.

If faith is the only support, then the entire construct will crumble under any critical scrutiny. Faith is not the best building material to use.

No, evidence is the best foundation for any belief.

Atheism is a view, a conclusion, a supposition, an opinion, an assumption, a level of certainty, a logical deduction, and the supposition that a God(s) does not exist. A conclusion based on the fact, that throughout all of human history, no empirical evidence can demonstrate that a God(s) has ever or does exist. This argument of faith vs. facts has been waging for centuries.

God either exists or not. God could exist and not provide any evidence of His existence, but that is not what God does, because that is unjust. Instead, God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence.

Empirical evidence does not bring God into existence. It is just what atheists want so they can believe in God. Then when we believers present empirical evidence, it is never good enough. The only empirical evidence for the existence of God are the Messengers of God.Creation could have come into being without a God so that is not proof or even evidence that God exists.

Atheists require just one piece of objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural, spiritual, mystical, or paranormal. A resurrection, a miracle, an answered prayer, a fulfilled prophecy, or even a confirmed paranormal activity would do. So far, zilch, nada. Believers need only faith, and the application of top-down logic to sustain their conviction.

That is not true that it is zilch, nada. There are many predictions Baha’u’llah made that have come to pass, events that nobody could have known would occur at the time He made the predictions. If it was just one prediction that might be a lucky guess, but the predictions He made that came to pass are numerous and some of them are very specific.

Theology is the study of the nature of God, or other religious beliefs. Atheism is not the study of either. Atheism is not a theological position on theology, it is a personal position about an aspect of theology. It is supported by the highest level of certainty. I think that Atheism is more of a choice than a position(religious or otherwise). You can choose to accept the evidence that suggests that a God(s) can't exist within our reality. Or, you can ignore/dismiss the evidence, and believe that a God(s) can exist without any need for empirical justification(faith). Atheist chose the former.

There is no evidence that God cannot exist and there is no evidence that God does not exist, so that is just a personal opinion based upon lack of the kind of evidence that atheists require. As you said, it is a choice. You choose to believe that God cannot exist, but there is no way you can know that with any level of certainty.

The biggest difference between Atheists and Theists, is that, it would only take one objective, observable, verifiable, and falsifiable bit of evidence to change the mind of any Atheist.

No, that is absolutely untrue. There is verifiable evidence that indicates that a Messenger of God is more than just an ordinary man. That is a starting point.

But God Himself couldn't change the mind of a Theist. As one poster stated, "You can bet your bottom dollar on that. Likewise, you can show me 1,000 false prophets but I will still know that there can be a true prophet. This has absolutely nothing to do with my *need to believe*. It is logic 101 stuff, because it is the fallacy of hasty generalization...

There are two logical possibilities:

A = false prophet
B = true Prophet

The fact that some or even most prophets were false does not prove all prophets were false. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to assume that there are no true prophets, unless and until one has actually looked at the evidence.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. prophet a was a false prophet
2. prophet b was a false prophet
3. prophet c was a false prophet
4. prophet d was a false prophet
5. Therefore, prophet e was a false prophet

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there have never been any Prophets who spoke for God.

What he fails to understand, and ignore, is that the evidence and results are predictable, unbiased and justified(scientific). Therefore, not a hasty generalization fallacy. If one hundred pigs are push off a tall building to see if pigs can fly. If all 100 pigs fail to fly, is this still a case of hasty generalization? Will you still believe that eventually one pig will fly? As you can see, cognitive dissonance is a very powerful at controlling our beliefs, attitudes, and behavior.

That is true. Science has determined that no pigs can fly so it is not a hasty generalization to say that no pigs can fly. However, science has not proven that there is no true Prophet of God, so it is a hasty generalization to say that there can be no true Prophet of God. If one could prove that there has never been a true Prophet then it would not be a hasty generalization to assume that there are no true Prophets.

 

[Trailblazer]

@ ecco

ecco said: On the other hand, mediums purporting to call on spirits have repeatedly been shown to be frauds.

Trailblazer said: That is true, but that is not evidence that all mediums are frauds.

ecco said:

• It is true that all mediums that have been tested have been shown to be frauds.
• Many mediums refuse to be tested.
• By carefully observing mediums, I can often see where they are using fraudulent practices.

I did watch that video you posted. Obviously that woman is not on the up and up. I doubt she contacted any dead people. She was just preying on peoples’ emotions, which is easy to do when someone has lost a loved one and they are desperate. This is immoral. I cannot understand how people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of scheme, but people can be desperate when they are grieving. That is not to say that there are no mediums who can contact departed spirits, but they are not the ones you see on TV. They are ones who do individual readings.

Let me make something clear. I have not been talking about the TV psychics or even other mediums who do individual readings and contact departed spirits. I am talking about spiritualists, which is a completely different vocation. Cheating does not apply to their work since they are not trying to convince anyone of anything. They are not trying to prove they really communicated with a spirit in order to drum up business; that is not their motive for their work. Their motive is to obtain information about the spiritual world, what happens after we die.

The new thread I am preparing will have a lot of information about the afterlife. I hope you read it and take it seriously because eternity is a long time. Think about it. People think about and prepare for retirement for years, but they only live 20 or 30 years after they retire. Eternity is forever. Therefore a rational person would think about it and prepare for it. Actually the primary purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife. There are certain things we have to know and do in this life in order to *be prepared.*

ecco: I anxiously await your new thread. I hope I don't miss it,

Trailblazer: Don’t worry, I will let you know as soon as it goes to press.

 

[Trailblazer]

@ ecco

Trailblazer before: That is a joke because I have a mind so I can differentiate between scammers and fakes and real mediums. I am not hoping for anything but I know there is a spiritual world and an afterlife. I do not need a medium to tell me that. I know that because Baha’u’llah wrote it.

ecco: I don't understand your response. Did you or did you not watch the video?

Yes, I watched the video. Please refer to my previous post #503 where I commented on the video.

ecco: More nonsense. If you are shown fifty instances of frauds, you will still say "but that does not mean all of them are." because your need to believe outweighs the evidence.

As I said in the post I referred you to, I do not believe TV psychics.

Trailblazer before: All mediums are not created equal. It would cost more than $25.

ecco: So, are you saying that real mediums charge more money than fake mediums? Sylvia Browne was one of the highest priced mediums. She was a fraud.

I am saying that there are legitimate mediums and they cost more than $25. They might charge something like $100 an hour but some charge more than that.

Yes, she was a fraud. How stupid do I look? (don’t answer that... )

The question isn’t why I would believe her, the question is why so many other people are duped. The answer is that people are desperate and/or naïve and they don’t do their homework.

ecco: You just said, "anything that contradicts science is mere superstition". Before that, you were defending mediums talking to spirits. Make up your mind.

Trailblazer before: I was waiting for that. Communication with spirits does not contradict science; it is simply outside the purview of science.

ecco: And I was waiting for that. Anything supernatural contradicts science. If it's "out of the purview" it contradicts. If you want to take that approach, the following are all equally possible.

Contradict: deny the truth of (a statement), especially by asserting the opposite.https://www.google.com/search

Scientists can deny the truth of mediums talking to spirits, but science cannot prove that is a bogus claim since the spiritual world is outside of the scope of science.

ecco: Allah is the only true god.
Everything was created Last Thursday.
The Universe and the earth were created 6000 years ago.

So, the words of a mortal human messenger have more truth for you than the words of an eternal God(s). Interesting.

Are you implying that what you just posted above are the words of an eternal God (s)? Sorry but no.

Trailblazer before: The words of Messengers of God are the same as the words of God because they perfectly represent the will of God.

ecco: The big problem with that is there is NO way to KNOW who is a true messenger and who is delusional or who is a con man. Many people considered David Koresh to be a true messenger.

There sure as hell is a way to know who the real Messenger of God is. You just have to do your homework as assigned by God.

There is also a way to know who the con men are and who the true Prophets are... Jesus explained how we know a true prophet from a false prophet...

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Trailblazer]

"You never miss an opportunity to sermonize, editorialize, and proselytize your faith, do you?" Is this what you call a personal attack on you? What is the personal statement that I am contradicting? This comment by me is not an attack on your character. It is a reasoned valid conclusion based on an inordinate amount of time I've spent arguing with you, and other members of your faith. My statement is based entirely on that experience. Why do you keep quoting from a book, that is not considered objective or a proven authority? Let's look at more example of why I would feel this way.

I did not say it was a personal attack on me... I Said “Below is what I consider personal. I did not say it was a personal attack. I said it was critical and derogatory and it is directed at my person, it is not about my beliefs per se.” However, it is critical and derogatory to say that I “look” for opportunities to sermonize, editorialize, and proselytize my faith, as if I have some kind of devious motive or “plan.” I have no such motives. I am not looking for any opportunities. Those are negative things you think I am doing so it is an attack on my character. Moreover, you are doing it again, speaking for me as if you know my motives. You cannot KNOW what I am looking for; all you can know is what I post. You can have an opinion about why but you cannot know why.

No, it is not a reasoned valid conclusion based on an inordinate amount of time you have spent arguing with me, and other members of my faith. It is just your personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less. There is no sermonizing because no Baha’is are preaching at you and telling you what to believe, quite the opposite. There is no proselytizing because no Baha’is are trying to convince you of what you believe. In fact, you are the one who is asking us to convince you and we have declined, since that is not our responsibility. I have no idea what you mean by editorializing.

You say that you don't have a problem with people asking you questions. Then you claim that you only have a problem with people not accepting the evidence/answers that you provide them. You then claim that you do have a problem with people asking for further evidence, or claiming that you are just obfuscating or avoiding the question. Finally , you claim that if the evidence you present is not accepted, then the conversation is over. Does this sound logical, or intellectually honest to you?

It is as honest as the day is long. Let’s look at why this is honest. You ask me a question about evidence, I give you an answer. I tell you that is all the evidence I have (honest). I tell you that you do not have to *accept* my evidence (in the sense of believing it is good evidence) but I cannot give you anything else because that is all the evidence I have (honest). Yes, I have a problem with you asking me for some kind of objective evidence I cannot provide because I don’t have any such evidence and I have already told you that, yet you keep asking. I am not obfuscating or avoiding the question. I am just honestly telling you I don’t have any more evidence. To be clear, I never said that you have to *accept* my evidence as good evidence for you. I said you have to *accept* that is all the evidence I can provide because I don’t have anything else. If a man holds me up in a dark alley and I give him my wallet and my jewelry because that is all I have, hopefully he would accept that because he can see that is all I have to give him. It would be unfair for him to expect me to give him something I do not have.

The conversation about evidence is over if I gave you all the evidence I have and you don’t like it, just as the holdup in the dark alley is over after I have given the robber everything I have to give him. He can either *accept* what I gave him and walk away with the wallet and jewelry (logical choice) or he can shoot me dead because he wanted something from me I did not have (illogical choice).

This would allow me to claimed that I own an invisible polka dot ribbit, with invisible droppings, in an invisible house. I could assert that any evidence that I provide, should be sufficient to satisfy your non-belief.

Bzzzt! You just created a straw man. I never said that my evidence should satisfy your non-belief. I only ever said that it is all I have.

If it doesn't, then the conversation is over. Do you at least see a problem here?

If my evidence does not satisfy you non-belief, but that is all the evidence I have, it is logical to conclude that the conversation is over because there is nothing more to be said.

If you don’t like my evidence the logical thing to do is say so and either (a) look somewhere else for evidence, or (b) forget about evidence altogether and just accept that you are a confirmed atheist.

Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence. Are you at all cognizant of the significance, and importance of your incredible claims? Do you think that "I'm not here to convince anyone of anything...", or "The evidence is sufficient enough for me to believe", or "It is irrational to expect objective evidence, about anything outside of science", should be taken as an informed and enlightened response?

I do not think you are aware of what you are saying, I think you are just confused. I have told you myriad times that (a) I just have a certain belief and that (b) I am not trying to convince anyone of that belief, because that is not my responsibility. Yes, I realize it is extraordinary to *say* that Baha’u’llah spoke for God, but nevertheless I can only provide you with the evidence I have that demonstrates why *I believe that.* Moreover, and this is important: I am not the one who made the claim to speak for God, so I am not the one on whom the onus lies to prove the claim. It is Baha’u’llah who was responsible to prove that, if he wanted people to believe in Him.

It is irrational to expect any evidence other than the evidence that Baha’u’llah provided of the Truth of His mission and station. Where else would we get evidence, and how reliable would that evidence be? Sure, we can look at evidence that comes from other sources but it is not the best evidence because it is further from the original source, which is Baha’u’llah Himself. Then after we look at the evidence Baha’u’llah provided we can try to verify its accuracy by looking at other sources. This is the logical way to proceed when investigating religious Truth.

Every truth/knowledge assertion you make hinges on the evidence that you can provide. If you have none that can stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, then that evidence is not very reliable is it?

Bzzzt! The problem with what you just said is that what stands up to scrutiny is not the same for everyone. My evidence stands up to MY scrutiny but it does not stand up to YOUR scrutiny. It is reliable to ME because it stands up to my scrutiny, but it is not reliable to YOU because it does not stand up to your scrutiny.

If all you can deposit are approved cites, quotes, or sites, then you are sermonizing, editorializing, and proselytizing. What you are not doing, is providing independent evidence to support your claims.

I have presented some of the evidence that supports what I believe, but I really should not even be doing that because everyone should do their own research. I have told you that time and again. I can lead you to the evidence room but I cannot look at the evidence and assess it for you. Any assessment of the evidence I might come up with is only good for my belief, it is no good for your belief because it is not YOUR assessment.

Why is your fall-back position always, "Its my belief, and I'm not here to convince anyone about my belief"? Why do I now know a thousands times more about the Baha'i faith, then before? Look, if you only believe that your claims are true, then you have the right to believe in anything you want. But if you claim to know that your claims are true, then please demonstrate exactly how you know this.

I can explain why I believe in Baha’u’llah, what evidence led me to believe, but I cannot demonstrate how *I know* my belief about Baha’u’llah is true because that is an inner knowing.

I really think that after 33 years of marriage, your husband may knows more about you then you think he does. There are many other ways of knowing a person, without being able to read their mind. I believe that our understanding of ourselves is confirmed through our interaction with others. The only way you could know yourself, is to develop an objective perspective from outside of yourselves. Of course this is impossible. For example, if you took an adult dog, and threw him in with a pack of other dogs, he would quickly learn his position within the pack. Why do you think that is? Do you think it has something to do with his knowing himself, more that the other dogs do?

You make a good point, that we learn about ourselves through interactions with other people, but that is not the only way we learn about ourselves. We can also come to know ourselves through introspection. I do not believe that the only way I can know myself is to develop an objective perspective from outside of myself, and in fact it is treading on dangerous ground to form an opinion about myself according to what others think about me. Other people can never know as much about me as I can know, all they can have are opinions about me. Some of those opinions might be true and helpful, but some may be false and destructive.

For example, as a child growing up my mother said things to me that were very negative and thus she caused me to feel guilty of things I was not guilty of. As an adult, I carried those feelings but through much therapy and introspection I have come to realize I am not the person she made me out to be. Through observation of and interaction with other people, as well as introspection, I have come to realize in my mind that the guilt I have is inappropriate, but I still feel guilty a lot of the time because I was damaged as a child. I just have to try to override the feeling with rational thoughts.

Comparing humans to dogs is not a valid comparison because humans have a soul and can therefore think in the abstract and make free will decisions, whereas other animals are led by instinct. There is no limit to what humans can learn, and how much they can grow and change, but animals have a limited capacity. This is why animals are predictable and humans are not.

I am sure my husband knows things about me that I am unaware of, but I know myself better than he knows me and he knows himself better than I know him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which ones are real?

One can find real ones if they do their homework and look for them, checking them out carefully.

 

[PureX]

Believers have no burden of proof to prove to atheists that God exists. We are not asserting that God exists just because we believe or know that God exists. If atheists want to believe or know if God exists it is their own responsibility to determine that. Burden of proof only applies to courts of law but somehow atheists think they can extend it to religion. It does not apply to religion because no religion can be proven. There is evidence but that does not prove God exists

How about when religionists want to use their society's system of laws to force their religious beliefs and ideals on everyone else? Do you think they should uphold the burden of proof, then? Or is their faith a free pass to subjugate others. I ask because it appears to me that most religionists think their faith is a free pass to subjugate everyone else. That's certainly how they are voting in the voting booths.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One can find real ones if they do their homework and look for them, checking them out carefully.

I did. I found that every so-called medium I've looked into is fake.

Apparently, you have a different method of deciding this than I do. Who does your method say is genuine?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Believers have no burden of proof to prove to atheists that God exists. We are not asserting that God exists just because we believe or know that God exists. If atheists want to believe or know if God exists it is their own responsibility to determine that. Burden of proof only applies to courts of law but somehow atheists think they can extend it to religion. It does not apply to religion because no religion can be proven. There is evidence but that does not prove God exists. That is why it is a belief and not a fact. God created everyone with a brain and the capacity to recognize the Beauty of God. Otherwise, God could not hold anyone accountable for his failure.

No, evidence is the best foundation for any belief.

God either exists or not. God could exist and not provide any evidence of His existence, but that is not what God does, because that is unjust. Instead, God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence.

Empirical evidence does not bring God into existence. It is just what atheists want so they can believe in God. Then when we believers present empirical evidence, it is never good enough. The only empirical evidence for the existence of God are the Messengers of God.Creation could have come into being without a God so that is not proof or even evidence that God exists.

That is not true that it is zilch, nada. There are many predictions Baha’u’llah made that have come to pass, events that nobody could have known would occur at the time He made the predictions. If it was just one prediction that might be a lucky guess, but the predictions He made that came to pass are numerous and some of them are very specific.

There is no evidence that God cannot exist and there is no evidence that God does not exist, so that is just a personal opinion based upon lack of the kind of evidence that atheists require. As you said, it is a choice. You choose to believe that God cannot exist, but there is no way you can know that with any level of certainty.

No, that is absolutely untrue. There is verifiable evidence that indicates that a Messenger of God is more than just an ordinary man. That is a starting point.

There are two logical possibilities:

A = false prophet
B = true Prophet

The fact that some or even most prophets were false does not prove all prophets were false. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to assume that there are no true prophets, unless and until one has actually looked at the evidence.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. prophet a was a false prophet
2. prophet b was a false prophet
3. prophet c was a false prophet
4. prophet d was a false prophet
5. Therefore, prophet e was a false prophet

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there have never been any Prophets who spoke for God.

That is true. Science has determined that no pigs can fly so it is not a hasty generalization to say that no pigs can fly. However, science has not proven that there is no true Prophet of God, so it is a hasty generalization to say that there can be no true Prophet of God. If one could prove that there has never been a true Prophet then it would not be a hasty generalization to assume that there are no true Prophets.

No, science hasn't proven that no pigs can fly, it can only prove that at least 100 pigs can't fly. Maybe there is one pig out there that can fly. But based on the evidence, pigs can't fly. So, if a thousand bogus prophets have been exposed, and not one true prophets found, true prophets don't exist. We are not talking about ordinary claims. We are talking about claims that defy the laws of reality itself, and deposit faith as the only evidence. In both cases the experiments are consistent with the expected outcome. Pigs don't fly, and prophets don't exists.

What is your evidence that confirms that you know that a God or a Messenger exists?
Do you think that people who make supernatural knowledge claims, should be able to demonstrate how they know?
Is your Belief based on evidence, or faith?
What is the empirical evidence for the existence of a Messenger for a God?
What specific prediction by Anyone has turned out to be true and specific? Like predicting the dates and times of the Kennedy Assassinations.

God either exists or not. God could exist and not provide any evidence of His existence, but that is not what God does, because that is unjust. Instead, God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence.

I'm afraid you can't create only premises that support your own conclusion. Perhaps God IS Unjust. Perhaps He doesn't exist at all. Perhaps it is us that is creating a false God. What is your objective evidence?

You choose to believe that God cannot exist, but there is no way you can know that with any level of certainty.

Atheism does not claim that God cannot exist. Atheist believe that God(s) does not exist, because of the lack of evidence. But maybe outside of our reality a God can Exist. I don't know. My personal opinion is that a God can't exist within my reality. If a God did, then all the laws of physics would collapse, and reality would end. Therefore, no God(s) have existed, does exist, or will exist. But that is just my opinion. What you mean to say is there is no absolute proof/evidence that a God(s) exists. But there is infinitely more than enough empirical evidence to suggest that a God does not exist. Now contrast this to absolutely zero objective evidence to even warrant a discussion on the existence of a God.

There are two logical possibilities:

A = false prophet
B = true Prophet

There is also, something that is neither A and B, something that is not A and not B, or I just don't know. This is just pseudo-sophistry, twisting logic to fit the claim. This is why you need independent, objective evidence to support any of these claims. We can certainly demonstrate that many claiming supernatural/paranormal abilities, really don't have them(A). But we have no experience with even one true prophets with true abilities. Do you know of any we can test? This story is not new. The need to believe in something greater than ourselves, far outweighs the why we need to believe this in the first place.

What you fail to understand is, what if you are right? What if there are Messengers from a God? What if each religion is right and culture specific? What if miracles can happen? What if the power of prayer does work. What if people can see into the future, and can make accurate predictions. What if all Gods, lesser Gods, deities, lesser deities, or demigods all exist? What if death is not the end, but the beginning of an everlasting state of awareness? What if there is a different reality outside of this one? Why would even an Atheist NOT want to know? Not simply believe. You make the assumption that Atheist simply want to disbelieve in the existence of a God? The truth is that there is zero evidence to even suggest that a God exists, except the evidence we create in our mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

How about when religionists want to use their society's system of laws to force their religious beliefs and ideals on everyone else? Do you think they should uphold the burden of proof, then? Or is their faith a free pass to subjugate others. I ask because it appears to me that most religionists think their faith is a free pass to subjugate everyone else. That's certainly how they are voting in the voting booths.

Religionists should never subjugate others to their religious beliefs and ideals. Faith is not a free pass to subjugate others. Religion should not be mixed with politics. However, in a democracy people have a right to vote for whoever they want.

 

[Trailblazer]

I did. I found that every so-called medium I've looked into is fake.

Apparently, you have a different method of deciding this than I do. Who does your method say is genuine?

Are you looking for a medium? If so, maybe I can give you some pointers, but it would depend upon what you want a medium for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you looking for a medium?

I'm looking to expose frauds and charlatans, so I guess you could say that I'm looking for fake mediums.

If so, maybe I can give you some pointers, but it would depend upon what you want a medium for.

I'm more interested in having a way to tell real mediums from fake ones than a medium for my own sake.

Mainly, if some are real, I won't denigrate them.... but so far, none seem real.

Edit: is there a reason why you're skirting my question?

 

[PureX]

Religionists should never subjugate others to their religious beliefs and ideals. Faith is not a free pass to subjugate others. Religion should not be mixed with politics. However, in a democracy people have a right to vote for whoever they want.

Right. And who the Christians want are the politicians and judges that they think will force their ideology on everyone else through governmental edict; like banning abortion and gay marriage while encouraging unfair trade practices and preaching religious dogma in public schools.

 

[ecco]

. . and you take an extreme 'no compromise' atheist position, and assume you are absolutely right like fundi Christians.

. . and you take an extreme 'no compromise' Bahai position and assume you are absolutely right like fundi Christians.

That's true for the other Bahai's on this forum as well.

More important, Christians and Jews worship a God. Muslims also worship a God but put a lot of reverence into the Messenger. Bahai's, on the other hand, put more reverence into the Messenger and his words than into the words of God(s?).

 

[ecco]

Im finished after this.

Oh, good.

 

[ecco]

No, evidence is the best foundation for any belief.

You really must be more careful with your punctuation and word usage. What you meant to say is:

No evidence is the foundation for religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

There are many predictions Baha’u’llah made that have come to pass, events that nobody could have known would occur at the time He made the predictions.

I should be easy for you to state just two predictions that Baha’u’llah made. Clear, concise, unambiguous predictions.

 

[shunyadragon]

. . and you take an extreme 'no compromise' Bahai position and assume you are absolutely right like fundi Christians.

Reality check. I have not cited the Baha'i Faith on anything in this thread . This my view based on the broader meaning of the words ;religious belief and 'religions' simply to encompass alll the possible beliefs of humanity. I have no problem with those who wish to define it differently. That is their problem.

It is the atheists who have presented an emotional one sided view on how the words should be defined and used, and do not allow for disagreement.

That's true for the other Bahai's on this forum as well.

Actually no, the other Baha'is have their own perspective on this and as far as I have seen they have not been involved with this thread concerning whether atheism is a religious belief, and whether there are atheist religions.. If they have it was not in reflection of a Baha'i belief, but on their own perspective. The thread has wandered to the question of Theism versus Atheism.

@Trailblazer has posted a lot on this thread, but for the most part in defense of Theism as the thread has wandered off topic.

 

[ecco]

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. prophet a was a false prophet
2. prophet b was a false prophet
3. prophet c was a false prophet
4. prophet d was a false prophet
5. Therefore, prophet e was a false prophet

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there have never been any Prophets who spoke for God.

Repeated analysis has shown this pattern:
1. prophet aaaaa was a false prophet
2. prophet aaaab was a false prophet
8497. prophet csttw was a false prophet
9246. prophet etrvd was a false prophet
Therefore, it is highly likely that prophet 10,658 fueht is also a false prophet.


Additionally, no prophet has ever been shown to be a true prophet. Therefore, concluding that all prophets are false prophets, is neither hasty nor a generalization. It is a reasoned conclusion.

 

[ecco]

...

ecco said: On the other hand, mediums purporting to call on spirits have repeatedly been shown to be frauds.
ecco said:

• It is true that all mediums that have been tested have been shown to be frauds.
• Many mediums refuse to be tested.
• By carefully observing mediums, I can often see where they are using fraudulent practices.

Trailblazer:
I did watch that video you posted. Obviously that woman is not on the up and up. I doubt she contacted any dead people. She was just preying on peoples’ emotions, which is easy to do when someone has lost a loved one and they are desperate. This is immoral. I cannot understand how people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of scheme,...

ecco:
So far, so good.



That is not to say that there are no mediums who can contact departed spirits, but they are not the ones you see on TV. They are ones who do individual readings.

Oh no. Just when you were doing so well. I cannot understand how people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of scheme (your words).

Let me make something clear. I have not been talking about the TV psychics or even other mediums who do individual readings and contact departed spirits.

Would you please read your last two comments (above). See if you can make sense of them.




The new thread I am preparing will have a lot of information about the afterlife. ...

ecco: I anxiously await your new thread. I'm sure it will be laden with evidence. I hope I don't miss it,

Don’t worry, I will let you know as soon as it goes to press.


It seems you are making the same basic argument for psychics and prophets: Most are phony but mine (Trailblazer) are the real deal.