Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which shows how plenty of it is incorrect and even plagiarized from ancient greeks (mistakes and everything, almost word for word)No .. not by itself, it isn't..
..but we have encyclopaedias of knowledge, and the Qur'an alongside.
..and that includes disbelief in God..
That would be one explanation..
Not quite sure what you are saying, but it seems you are making the classic mistake of misrepresenting what atheism is.
Not really a matter of belief though.... rather a matter of fact.
And here you go again with this false accusation. You accuse atheists of being blind but fail to show anyone that there is something to see. There's no evidence. Why target atheists? You don't accuse Muslims or Christians for being blind to what you think God is. They think God is something different, yet they aren't blind to your evidence? That strikes me as insincere. You either have some enlightened truth or you don't, and that would include other believers who don't agree with your take on "truth".
You offer no evidence for this either, so your claim is rejected. Haven't you learned by now your unsupported opinions mean nothing unless you can make a sound argument with adequate evidence? The arrogance of believers (I say so therefore it's true) is astounding, and it is another strike against you all saying you have some sort of divine truth that only you can see. And then accuse thinkers of being blind. The irony cup overfloweth.
Believers are motivated by their own desires and that makes them succeptible for confirmation bias. If believers really wanted a more tuned understanding of truth they would develop critical thinking skills and listen to critical thinkers. But religious truth isn't a rational process that seeks factual truth, it seeks some framework that makes the ego feel good and significant. This is why your evidence is inadequate for critical thinkers and why religions are not factually true. That's how the community of believers can have different versions of God than you, and no version can be understaood as true and valid.
And the "evidence" of religious claimants comes down to very liberal meaning assignment to texts and lore, not facts. It's inadequate for critical thinkers.
Of course you do, but for some reason you can't articulate it in a debate forum. So more self-serving comments from believers who can't explain why any non-believer should adopt their set of implausible concepts. How long will it take before believers will learn that you repeating your beliefs and unsupported claims doesn't do anything to advance your position? You look more desperate and emotional.
Religious beliefs of gods and creators is baseless. So in the 21st century why do believers still think it's valid to believe? Social influence and pressure? Because it is easier to conform to a religious framework to reduce stress of being an independent thinker? Less personal responsibility? Not capable of critical thinking so default to the ease of belief?
@Trailblazer doesn't either. She had a few select bits used to support what Baha'u'llah wrote. How do you feel that she rejects what the Quran teaches? Do you accept what Baha'u'llah wrote, and follow him as a messenger? If you are correct she is wrong just like atheists.
I suggest you are part of a passive, modern conspiracy of belief that you play both beneficiary and victim. You benefit because you have a shared framework of implausible concepts to conform to, but victim because you are not free to think beyond what you believe. This is how the human brain evolved and how religion/dogma evolved with it. It served a huge advantage to early humans as the tribalism motivated mutual commitment and cooperation. In modernity and better weapons it only helps keeps human populations under control. We have social philosophies and laws to maintail order, we don't tribalism to conform to group norms. So religion might be useful in small communities but is a liability in larger populations and globally. Look at Islamic terrorism and the global effects. "American exceptionalism" has been a bad influence as well, and that is a very tribal attitude driven in large part by Christian evangelicalism. I suggest it is wise to minimize attraction to tribal norms.
The evidence would be whether I use reasoning competently by following the rules, avoiding fallacies. Do you see any mistakes? If so feel free to point them out. Note that not believeing isn't a mistake.
That's a broad question. The ancient Greeks had vastly more sophisticated ideas than the Caananites, Hebrews, Christians, and Muslims. Even ancient Asian philosophies had excellent insights.
Like social contract theory via Locke and Rousseau. These are ethical alternatives to religious laws (which are historically immoral).Finally. Now I am going to leave you alone, unless you start doing social philosophies.
True
Not ad populum AT ALL, since I did not say God exists is true because many or most people believe it.
Claims are not evidence. I present the evidence that supports the claims.
*WINNER*
It is not an accusation, it is a statement, and it is not false.
I have offered the evidence over and over and over and over and over and over again and you have rejected it over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I cannot speak for other believers but I have no desire to believe in God so that just blew your claim right out of the water.
Atheists are not critical thinkers because if they were they would be able to figure out that God exists, considering all the evidence taht is out there.
I never said you did..
No .. it is not out of necessity .. it is your choice.