Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

But your reasoning skill is poor.

Only in your opinion but opinions are a dime a dozen.

I will take that as a criticism, which is really more a reflection on you than it is on me, would you but know it.
I am so glad to be a Baha'i because I have teachings to live by.

“The most hateful characteristic of man is fault-finding.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Star of the West, Vol. IV, No.11, p. 192)

“Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy . . . Beware, beware that any one rebuke or reproach a soul, though he may be an ill-wisher and an ill-doer.”
(Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of Abdu’l-Bahá v1, p. 44)

“All religions teach that we should love one another; that we should seek out our own shortcomings before we presume to condemn the faults of others, that we must not consider ourselves superior to our neighbours! We must be careful not to exalt ourselves lest we be humiliated.”
(Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 147)

 

[F1fan]

Only in your opinion but opinions are a dime a dozen.

No, not my opinion. You demonstrate poor reasoning skills. I point it out. Others point it out. We explain n your errors in detail. You deny them.

 

[Truthseeker]

I have been posting to atheists day in day out for about eight years so I certainly understand that what I am calling evidence of a deity is not evidence to you.

I believe that the Baha’i Faith is true and Christianity is also true, but that Christianity has some false doctrines associated with it which reduced its truth value.

I have yet to see anyone point out any fallacious thinking on my part and give me examples of it. You cannot make a case without evidence. You tell me my thinking is fallacious with only a personal opinion and no evidence to back that up. That is unjust and it would only work to convince people who agree with you on a forum; it would never work in a court of law.

I am not going to admit I am wrong because I do not believe that I am wrong, but that does not mean you have to believe I am right. As adults should be mature enough to have boundaries and agree to disagree.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, not my opinion. You demonstrate poor reasoning skills. I point it out. Others point it out. We explain in your errors in detail. You deny them.

It is only your opinion and the opinion of the others who point it out.
Why would it matter if others who agree with you point it out? That does not prove anything, except that they share your personal opinion.

Nobody explains my errors at all, let alone in detail.

Ask yourself why you have to point out what you believe are my errors. What are you gaining by this?
Maybe I have to be wrong in your mind so you can believe you are right.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[KWED]

What's "proper"?

Still not presenting your "evidence", I see.
Starting to suspect there isn't any.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Still not presenting your "evidence", I see.

No point .. you'll only claim that it isn't, whatever I say.

 

[KWED]

Atheists would not see the evidence for God it it hit them square in the face.
I mean it is staring them in the face and they still do not see it.

Ooh! This is a moment of global importance!
We are about to see the evidence for god that mankind has been searching for for millennia.

*deep breath*
I'm ready...

 

[KWED]

No point .. you'll only claim that it isn't, whatever I say.

If it is genuine evidence that stands up to scrutiny, I won't be able to present a rational argument against it. That's how it works.

So, what is your evidence for the claims of magical abilities of Jesus and Muhammad?

 

[KWED]

It won't work until everyone realizes that there is only one true God.

Okay. So you are now admitting that polytheist religions are wrong, despite earlier claiming that all religions are right.
There is no consistency or cohesion to your arguments.

 

[KWED]

What other people have I quoted?
Faith has to be in something and it is not in the self, so of course I quote the Messengers I have faith in.

So your faith comes, at least in part, from other people.
But you earlier said that faith must come from the self (ironically, quoting someone else!)

 

[KWED]

I do know what an analogy is .
Any analogy that compares God to a human and expects God to act like a human does not work because God is not a human.

So you don't understand how analogies work.

So what? Stories about God(s) are just stories about God(s).

So we're back to you claiming that only your version of god is right and the others are wrong, which you have also denied.

I don't do black and white thinking. I believe some of it is right and some of it is wrong.

Either Jesus was a human manifestation of god, or he wasn't. It really is a black and white issue. Where do you stand? Yes or no?

 

[samtonga43]

It is only your opinion and the opinion of the others who point it out. Why would it matter if others who agree with you point it out? That does not prove anything, except that they share your personal opinion.

Yes, it proves that many (most?) of us share this opinion. I'm interested in why you seem to dismiss these opinions. Do YOU know why you dismiss them?

Ask yourself why you have to point out what you believe are my errors. What are you gaining by this?
Maybe I have to be wrong in your mind so you can believe you are right.

Or maybe we point out what we believe are your errors because that's what one does in the course of a discussion. Is it your opinion that you ought to be exempt from this ancient practice of exchange of views?

 

[KWED]

The Messengers did not cause any of these things or increase them, people who did not follow the teachings and laws of the Messengers caused and increased these things.

Without the different messengers establishing different religions and sects, there would not be conflict based on those differences.
Think of it like this, without football there would be no football violence.

 

[KWED]

But religion is not science so religion does not work like science.
Evidence for science is conclusive because scientific facts can be proven true, but that is not the case for religious beliefs.

So you are not actually talking about "evidence" then. You are talking about "faith based claims".
Fair enough. That's what I suspected.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it is genuine evidence that stands up to scrutiny..

There you go again .. genuine .. proper ..
That is your get-out clause.

Anything other than "show me G-d in the flesh" becomes inadmissable.

If that is not the case, then please show me what sort of evidence is "proper or genuine" according to you.

 

[PureX]

Atheists would not see the evidence for God it it hit them square in the face.
I mean it is staring them in the face and they still do not see it.

In this instance, the atheists are demanding proof as evidence. Nothing less will be accepted. And the proof has to convince THEM, even though they are already convinced that no gods exist. So the bar is being set so high that it's virtually impossible to meet. Not to mention that there is no logical reason but their own silly egos that THEY should be the deciders of what is and is not "evidence".

But these 'kings of logic and open-mindedness' can't even recognize the absurdity of their own insanely biased and illogical positions. Go figure.

 

[Sheldon]

There you go again .. genuine .. proper ..
That is your get-out clause.

Anything other than "show me G-d in the flesh" becomes inadmissable.

If that is not the case, then please show me what sort of evidence is "proper or genuine" according to you.

This tired old canard, just post the best thing you have, how hard can that be. Why doesn't every claim for "evidence" involved the best they think they have straight away? Always this nonsense of claim after claim after claim, then nada, and it's always the person who disbelieves the claim's fault, hilarious really.

 

[Sheldon]

In this instance, the atheists are demanding proof as evidence. Nothing less will be accepted.

I've literally never ever claimed this, and I can't ever remember an atheist claiming it. Could you quote a post to support your claim?

 

[Sheldon]

So the bar is being set so high that it's virtually impossible to meet.

For an omniscient omnipotent deity, that seems a rather idiotic assertion, if theists can't provide any objective evidence at all, then hardly seems like my fault.

Not to mention that there is no logical reason but their own silly egos that THEY should be the deciders of what is and is not "evidence".

Yeah, what is it with people adhering to logic, and being so egotistical they won't just take your word for it. Why does my atheism so obviously bother you would be a more salient question? You are forever ranting about it, even though it doesn't remotely affect you, which is more than can be said for religious beliefs which wield massive influence, and is not always innocuous.

 

[F1fan]

It is only your opinion and the opinion of the others who point it out.

No, I am making observations of your posts and your thinking process and I identify your errors. This is no more an opinion than watching you ignore ingredients to a recipe that you are baking. The results are flawed because you didn't follow the rules. The same works with reasoning. There is a strict form of thinking that offers reliable results, just like in baking. If you ignore putting yeast in a loaf of bread you are baking it will be a solid block of wheat that can't be eaten. You are insisting it is fine, and it is just our opinion the loaf of bread is a solid block of wheat that can't be eaten. We can observe people messing up both baking as well as reasoning, and these observations are not opinions. Your thinking is consistently flawed because you ignore the rules of logic. You believe you put in yeast, but no one saw you put it in. Yes you keep insisting it's just our opinion that you didn't add yeast. No, we observed you avoid that crucial part. You want to ignore this observation and reduce it to bad opinion because you don't want to admit a flaw in your baking.

My opinion is limited to my personal belief about what we all observe you doing. My personal belief and opinion is that you are not concerned about truth, or being accurate in your thinking, but about getting attention you get from us. My criticisms about your thinking process is not opinion, it is explaining your flaws and errors.

Why would it matter if others who agree with you point it out? That does not prove anything, except that they share your personal opinion.

Again you make an error by misrepresenting observations as mere opinion. We critics, atheists and believers, point out the same observations of your errors of thinking.

Nobody explains my errors at all, let alone in detail.

Your denial is getting deeper. It's on Orwellian-level denial at this point.

Ask yourself why you have to point out what you believe are my errors. What are you gaining by this?

Fun. Entertainment.

One thing I've learned in debate is to be very considerate about what I assert as true, because there are many smart people who will challenge any errors I make. You don't have this concern, which is typical of extremely religious people.

Maybe I have to be wrong in your mind so you can believe you are right.

You don't seem self-aware enough to look at your own motives, and often work hard to switch the focus away from yourself. Oddly, you are making the claims here, yet you want to push away any criticisms to help deny they are valid.