A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[TagliatelliMonster]

The existence of God is common knowledge to everyone but atheists and agnostics

It's a common belief.

, who comprise a very small percentage of the world population.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).​

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia​

Thus it seems to me that the atheists and agnostics are just unable to understand what evidence for God looks like.

Classic argument ad populum

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theists have presented the evidence over and over and over and over and over again...

And every time, their "evidence" turns out to be nothing but the piling on of more claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's rather a matter of atheists confusing claims with evidence.

There's no such thing.
Claims are never evidence.
Claims require evidence.

A claim is not evidence of anything at all except that someone can make a claim...

Exactly.

Evidence is what supports the claim.

Indeed. Got any?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I can interject. @Trailblazer has a type of evidence that she believes. She believes in the claim of the evidence of the words of her prophet, Baha'u'llah. @joelr doesn't believe this evidence is evident enough for him, therefore, he does not believe it is evidence. The truth is, however, it is evidence, but Joelr doesn't believe it's valid evidence, whereas Trailblazer does believe the evidence is valid enough to believe. So, ultimately, I disagree with Joelr when he says that there is no evidence, but I do agree with him that Baha'u'llah's scriptures and written word isn't valid evidence enough to blindly believe all of it. I find Baha'u'llah's God too restrictive and limiting, making Baha'u'llah's evidence invalid to me.

I do believe that Baha'u'llah was special. He created a religion that more than five million people now believe, long after he died, but the evidence he provides isn't entirely valid to me. He, just like all people, understands God in certain ways, because something conditioned him to believe it in that way. He was highly influenced by Islam, and the Baha'i Faith is indeed very similar to that religion. But instead of believing it or not, I try to understand what is true about what he said, which is different, because while reality is of but one, the way to interpret that reality is shaded by a variety of colorful beliefs and opinions.

When evidence is invalid, it's not actually evidence.
When I talk about evidence, I'm implying that it is valid evidence.

What makes the "evidence" described above "invalid" is the fact that it is not evidence, but just more claiming piling on. Claims that are in need of (valid) evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is because you dismiss the evidence .. and then call it a "claim".

No. It's because what they offer are more claims instead of evidence.

A person who accepts the evidence does not dismiss it.

You ignore why it is being dismissed.
And I understand why you do that. It's to protect your own beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It doesn't have to convince anybody.

The whole point of evidence, is to make the claims they are supposed to support convincing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. our beliefs are not ONLY dependent on whether there is strong or weak evidence..

Exactly.
You hit the nail on the head.
Your (religious) beliefs are not dependent on evidence (weak OR strong).

I actively try to make my beliefs in line with the evidence.
Whenever I believe something that isn't dependent on evidence, I invite people to point it out. So that I can stop believing it.

This is the difference between us.
I actually think it is important that my beliefs are reflective of reality.

A sense of belonging is also important, along with other factors.

Not to me. Reality isn't dependent on my beliefs feeling comfortable or conforming to cultural consensus or what-not.
What you describe is not a pathway to truth. It is a pathway to inevitably end up with false beliefs, sooner rather then later.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It makes no sense.

Yes, it makes no sense, and so do the prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No there isn't.
What you call evidence are in fact just claims.

i'm not going over this again with you

You will though. Endlessly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You will though. Endlessly.

You are probably correct.

 

[joelr]

Baha'u'llah did not make anything up. He did not need the Bible because He received a revelation from God.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

So you post another claim?
"and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow."

Then WHERE IS IT???????? He says NOTHING NEW. No new philosophy, no new new age wisdom, no new science, no new math, no new theology of note. You think a God talked to a human to tell him NOTHING but a bunch of re-hashed Quran and Bible talk. Except without the high level writing that Mark was capable of? Didn't bother to expand our knowledge of the universe which was coming along by the 1800's. So was physics. And medical science. He didn't think talking about penicillin might be helpful. It would have saved 15% or more of the millions of casualties in the coming wars alone. Never mind injured children.

Yes, he made it up. If you feel that accepting God claims based on zero evidence is a good way to live your life then have at it. I prefer using a methodology of rational skepticism so I am not taken in by every claim that can easily be debunked.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The whole point of evidence, is to make the claims they are supposed to support convincing.

..you don't say..
..so you do not believe what the Bible and Qur'an teach .. so you dismiss it
as evidence of G-d.

You do not have to believe .. you can imagine that it is all made up, and part of
a giant conspiracy.
I do not dismiss them in that fashion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your (religious) beliefs are not dependent on evidence (weak OR strong).

..not entirely dependent on evidence, no.
Belief requires the co-operation of our inner-beings .. and is dependent on our thoughts and deeds,
for example.

This is the difference between us.
I actually think it is important that my beliefs are reflective of reality.

..your reality is dependent on a number of things .. perception is not just about
what is in a book.

Not to me. Reality isn't dependent on my beliefs feeling comfortable or conforming to cultural consensus or what-not..

OK .. so you are "faultless" .. or so you claim

 

[joelr]

There is evidence, you are just too blind to see it.

That's an oldie but goodie, a religious person calling those not in the religion "blind". I'm just not easily fooled because I have rational standards to empirical proof. Unusual claims require evidence. This group are scammers. Trying to use a garden they built on a hill called Mt Carmel and then passing it off as the prophecy that clearly means all evil is defeated and peace covers the entire Earth. No illness either....is a scam.

But please, tell me what is the one best piece of evidence?
I have explained a large sum of evidence, it isn't evidence. I explained why.

Let's look at just one piece of this "evidence"........

PREDICTION -"Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape."

This is a big fail, REALLY BIG. We ended up finding dozens of intermediate Hominid species. Heidelbergensis is out direct ancestor.

So where am I blind here? They made a claim. It DID NOT HAPPEN???????


Everything he claims turns out to be wrong or something a news outlet would also predict?


1) First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.


There is a new religion with a large number of members. So yeah, this isn't evidence. Every religion is a person claiming a deity is speaking to them. Except they had proof in all sorts of supernatural events, which are of course only in stories and not real. This man has zero of those and very average scripture. How you could think this wasn't anything other than evidence of a person who writes a lot and read the Bible, Quran and Hindu scriptures I have no idea?

2)Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies,

That's weird because all of those prophecies play out with a huge cosmic battle and everyone resurrecting and a pardise on Earth.


This guy just botched a bunch of science facts and said everyone should get along.

3) More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character),
A writer. Clearly read the Quran/Bible. Radically changing theology to allow him to show no miracles, supernatural events. Not philosophically minded at all. Please, why would this be evidence?

4)His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history)
Incorrect science. No philosophy. Endless praise language. Nothing here is even outstanding? Please, like to a writing that sounds like only a God could have dictated.

5)Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies
But he didn't. Revelation did not happen. The Mt Carmel prophecy was a literal facade, a scam. That prophecy says the Earth will ALL be a paradise, like a garden of Eden. They built a garden on a hill named Mt Carmel and announced the prophecy was fulfilled. Seriously, that was the prophecy coming true.

No prophecies other came true. That is a scam.

6)Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass
he didn't. He predicted a war when the political climate was that a war was inevitable.

7)Prophecy 2: The defeat of Germany in two bloody wars, resulting in the 'lamentations of Berlin'.

Except he didn't say that when he was talking about Germany, he warned a universal war was imminent and everyone was worried about this.


After their defeat people saw the unrest and political issues brewing and then predicted another war.

 

[joelr]

No, not all Christians want that but the JWs want that. Check your sources.

Geez, it's like you like being wrong.

You are responding to this post I made -
"
2)Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies,


That's weird because all of those prophecies play out with a huge cosmic battle and everyone resurrecting and a pardise on Earth.
This guy just botched a bunch of science facts and said everyone should get along."



You first mistakenly thought I was talking about Eden. This is apocalyptic mythology where God fights the devil and everyone resurrects and lives in a paradise on Earth.
So I said Christians are not trying to get to Eden, it's the Revelation myth.

JW are also expecting an apocalyptic event where everyone else goes to hell and they live the Revelation myth. Earth will be "like Eden"

"A central teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the current world era, or "system of things", entered the "last days" in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably.[203] They consider all other present-day religions to be false, identifying them with "Babylon the Great", or the "harlot", of Revelation 17,[204] and believe that they will soon be destroyed by the United Nations, which they believe is represented in scripture by the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation chapter 17. This development will mark the beginning of the "great tribulation".[205][206]

Satan will subsequently use world governments to attack Jehovah's Witnesses, an action that will prompt God to begin the war of Armageddon, during which all forms of government and all people not counted as Christ's "sheep" will be destroyed. After Armageddon, God will extend his heavenly kingdom to include earth, which will be transformed into a paradise similar to the Garden of Eden.[207] Most of those who had died before God's intervention will gradually be resurrected during the thousand year "judgment day".[208][209]"

• Penton, M. James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-7973-2.
  • Penton, professor emeritus of history at University of Lethbridge and a former member of the group, examines the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, and their doctrines.

In Judaism Eden was thought of by 2 camps. One that it was a place on Earth, the other camp thought it was a place in the celestial realm.
Neither thought it was the entire Earth.
The judgment day myth will make Earth a paradise similar to Eden, not Eden.

I would say check your sources but that isn't your thing. I don't need snide remarks, I have facts.

 

[joelr]

If I can interject. @Trailblazer has a type of evidence that she believes. She believes in the claim of the evidence of the words of her prophet, Baha'u'llah. @joelr doesn't believe this evidence is evident enough for him, therefore, he does not believe it is evidence. The truth is, however, it is evidence, but Joelr doesn't believe it's valid evidence, whereas Trailblazer does believe the evidence is valid enough to believe. So, ultimately, I disagree with Joelr when he says that there is no evidence, but I do agree with him that Baha'u'llah's scriptures and written word isn't valid evidence enough to blindly believe all of it. I find Baha'u'llah's God too restrictive and limiting, making Baha'u'llah's evidence invalid to me.

I have stated several times that I am talking about good evidence, evidence that meets reasonable standards of rational skepticism and empirical evidence, related to the claim.
A claim is not good evidence. Muhammads claim of revelations from Gabrielle is not good evidence, a books claim of Krishna visiting Arjuna is not good evidence, Paul having a vision of Jesus is not good evidence.

I do believe that Baha'u'llah was special. He created a religion that more than five million people now believe, long after he died,

So did Joe Smith with Mormonism. Joe Smith was not special. This shows it does not take anything special to create a religion millions of people believe.

but the evidence he provides isn't entirely valid to me. He, just like all people, understands God in certain ways, because something conditioned him to believe it in that way. He was highly influenced by Islam, and the Baha'i Faith is indeed very similar to that religion. But instead of believing it or not, I try to understand what is true about what he said, which is different, because while reality is of but one, the way to interpret that reality is shaded by a variety of colorful beliefs and opinions.

I read his words. I find, he doesn't say ANYTHING about reality, physical or spiritual. He extends points, to the point of absurdity, to just praise a deity over and over and over.
There is very little psychology or metaphysics here. You would be better served reading Jung, Berkeley on materialism, even some Hinduism which takes a stab at defining the ultimate reality. I don't buy it but it's an interesting philosophy. Advaita Vedanta mainly.
The Secret is more compelling than the metaphysics here. It's crank but clever.
But if a man isn't philosophizing with his intellect, but rather claiming to be channeling a God, is he even trying or is he just trying to sound like he's channeling? He isn't well read beyond a few religions. This is not God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A claim is not good evidence. Muhammads claim of revelations from Gabrielle is not good evidence..

No .. not by itself, it isn't..
..but we have encyclopaedias of knowledge, and the Qur'an alongside.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..you don't say..
..so you do not believe what the Bible and Qur'an teach .. so you dismiss it
as evidence of G-d.

Because they are the claims. Claims that require evidence.
To say they are the evidence, is circular reasoning.

You do not have to believe .. you can imagine that it is all made up, and part of
a giant conspiracy.

False dichotomy.
Being a "conspiracy" is not the only alternative to the claims being accurate.

In fact, I have always said that, for the most part, I consider humans to be sincere when they express their beliefs.

Take alien abductees for example. I don't doubt their sincerity. Sure, there will certainly be those who are just attention seekers and thus deliberately lie. There are also those who honestly believe they were abducted. Just like there are those who honestly believe they have seen Elvis alive and well, who have seen bigfoot or the lochness monster.

A "conspiracy" is not the only alternative here.

I do not dismiss them in that fashion.

Neither do I.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Belief requires the co-operation of our inner-beings .. and is dependent on our thoughts and deeds,
for example.

I try to actively ignore those things when it comes to believing things about external reality.
My "inner-being" or "thoughts" or "deeds" are not helpful when it comes to what is actually true or not about objective reality.
In fact, they are more an obstacle then anything else.

..your reality is dependent on a number of things .. perception is not just about
what is in a book.

There's no such thing as "my" reality when it comes to actual reality.
The sun is the sun, regardless of what I believe or what I perceive as opposed to what you believe or you perceive.

What the sun is, and whether or not it exists, is independent of all of that.

Unless you mean to say that god only exists as a concept between your ears... To which I would be inclined to agree.

OK .. so you are "faultless" .. or so you claim

I didn't say that at all.
I didn't even use that word.

If I were to express it using that word, then I would say that I strive to be faultless. I would never say that I am, because I'm obviously not.

And when it comes to being accurate in my beliefs concerning actual reality, the best way to strive for being faultless, is obviously by only believing those things for which there is objective, independently verifiable evidence.

Having your emotions, intuition, "inner-being", cultural baggage,...and what-not influence your beliefs, is obviously not the way to hold faultless believes about actual reality.

 

[joelr]

No .. not by itself, it isn't..
..but we have encyclopaedias of knowledge, and the Qur'an alongside.

Right, Greek science. Now please tell me some knowledge not already in Greek philosophy, OT wisdom, and something a human could not divine himself, only a God could tell you.
The Quran is violent, angry, painful doom every page. Not impressive. What part requires a God?

Do not tell me it's "unique". So is Shakespeare, he doesn't need an angel. So is Kant, so is Plato.