A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[Nimos]

Do you really believe those verses in Revelation 21:1-8 are to be interpreted literally? I sure don't. I believe they are figurative.
Baha'is believe that the new heaven and the new earth is the new world order Baha'u'llah wrote about.

I have no clue.

It starts with this:

Revelation 1:1-3
1 - The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2 - who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 - Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that it should be understood literally, but given what is known about the power of God, one could ask why it shouldn't be? because it could be possible.

Yes, it certainly would, but there is no reason to think that God wants to get rid of any people, let alone in a lake of fire.
There is no lake of fire and that is one reason we know this is figurative, not literal.

Even if there is no lake of fire, how would you interpret its meaning then?

Revelation 21:8
8 - But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

What is the second death? in a place where there is not supposed to be death? And why do you think only certain "traits" are referred to as going to experience this?

Yes, it could just as well be that.

Do you think that is a satisfying answer? or do you just accept it? Remember what I wrote about those claiming to have authority yet, unable to answer questions? If I recall correctly you agreed that it was not acceptable, but does that also apply to Baha'u'llah?

TBH, I do not think that God made them, I think they were written by humans. Humans wrote the Old Testament, not God.

But God did not intervene, if we are to believe that he communicated with messengers, then Moses or Jesus ought to have intervened. Yet Moses is assumed to be the one that received them from God. And Jesus is assumed to have said that the law should not be changed before the new Earth, whether you believe that is the new order or an actual new Earth.

Do you think that the bible is so corrupted, that we can't trust anything about Moses or Jesus that is said in it?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you were really a critical thinker you would know why more people are not becoming Baha'is. I am a critical thinker so I figured that out and made a list a long time ago. The reason more theists are not becoming Baha'is is covered under # 4. Anyone who has critical thinking skills would have figured that out a long time ago.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet.
None of them have anything to do with lack of evidence for Baha'u'llah. All of them are related to human behavior.

1. Many people have never heard of Baha’u’llah, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about Baha’u’llah, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if He was a Messenger of God or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion” or a new Messenger of God.

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

Please tell, what is the ultimate message? In other words if you have one or two sentences, what would your message be as a Baha'i?

 

[F1fan]

Human beings identify and define things in comparative relation to other things. Say we have our first experience of a ball. We identify the balls unique characteristics in comparison to what is not a ball through that experience.

In theory we may define what a perfect ball would be like but only in comparison to what theoretically characteristics we conceive of that ball would have to meet in order to be considered as such in differentiation to what we consider not to have ball like characteristics.

So human beings can have imperfect experiences and imperfectly theorize about what would make that experience perfect. Our theorizing cannot actualize in reality that perfection though.

It is arguable that a finite being could not recognize the experience of perfection let alone properly define it since it may very well take a perfect being to recognize perfection.
That is why we can theorize about Gods qualities but never recognize the experience of its perfection and may only imperfectly define that perfection.

I would argue that the imperfection of human experience is a good reason to avoid assuming any gods exist. We should use the reliable tools we have to understand what is real and true, and avoid the emotional temptation of ideas like gods.

Our conception of God however defines his being as such that its "thoughts" is reality.

Exactly, gods are not described things that exist, they are ideas humans have conjured from tradition. How the ancients came up with gods we can't know, but we know humans are quite inventive and creative.

Next we should understand that perfection must have the quality of possibility in reality since any theoretically impossible thing would lack a quality of possible realistic perfection. Impossibility renders perfection non existent.

Not really, as "perfect" is a status humans assign things to whatever standard that we're capable of measuring. There's no perfect god because 1. gods aren't known to exist, and 2. why ponder such a thing as a perfect version of some imaginary being?

Humans may conceive of a creation which lacks those characteristics of what we would consider as "evil", such as misery, heartache, pain, loneliness, cancer, basically any kind of suffering - mental or physical, and perhaps a lack of dying would be included in our conception of a perfect creation -immortality. But why stop there, we could go beyond what makes us human and make perfect intelligence, omnipresence, and omnipotence as well for ourselves in our quest for a perfect creation...just like we conceive of Gods qualities.

More human flawed thinking. This all goes away when we accept that we humans are animals like any other, and not special beings in the universe, or even on the planet. The arrogance of religious belief causes problems because the arrogant assumptions conflict with the real world. Science answers questions. Religious tradition causes confusion.

I'm sure we could keep adding but when would we finally have a perfect creation? When could we finally say - this is a perfect creation. We'd have to be a perfect being to know wouldn't we? Not just a perfect human but beyond human perfection since human perfection does not entail being omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient.
We'd have to be God wouldn't we.

Why think this way at all?

If we are so flawed in such thinking how seriously can believer take their assumption that a God exists? I suggest this is why a perfect heaven was invented, so our stained, sinning life experience suffers there is a perfect afterlife. Just a pipe dream that appeals to minds afraid of death. Why allow a flawed mind to fall into such a trap? The irony is that it expoits a sort of greed, yet another sin that makes life that much worse with shame.

So how is it that human beings can so readily conceptualize what a perfect creation would be like? They can't. They can only imperfectly conceive of an imperfect creation which they can't recognize as imperfect. Its imperfection is not so readily apparent since humans can't actualize their conceptions. Actualizing in reality and conceiving are not synonymous in humans. So theorizing perfection and the possibility of that perfection actualizing in reality are not so easily recognized by humans.

No, they just have to imagine a better circumstance than what they live in. That's easy.

Remember, possibility is a necessary component of perfection.

You seem to easily imagine this. Well done.

Remember God's - as defined- conceiving and its actualization in reality are synonymous. Unlike in humans. What God conceives is reality and is why God cannot conceive of perfection without the possibility of imperfection. Good without evil. The one defines the reality of the other.
Even God is constrained by what is possible and not contradictory. God cannot create other Gods. God cannot un-create itself. God cannot lie. God cannot create the impossible. God in essence cannot actualize in reality, and consequently in its will, contradiction.
Why does cancer exist? Because, in a perfectly just creation it must be a possibility.
Why is God still good when evil exists in creation? Because God enables that perfect justice out of inevitably possible evil actualizations.

None of this is factual. It's all a product of your imagination.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The eighth reason you added is that not many people are convinced about the Baha'i Faith?
How many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true.

Agreed, but we weren't discussing what is true, but rather, "reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet." You gave seven and I added an eighth. Now, you've moved the goalpost from why the religion is still small to whether the messenger's message is true.

And you called my addition to the list an ad populum fallacy. If you understood what that was - and cutting-and-pasting definitions isn't evidence that you do - you would understand why you're incorrect.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sorry Trailblazer but if you believe that all the religious scriptures except Baha'u'llah's (or maybe his too I don't know) are figurative, you can come up with any conclusion you want in prophecy, God, the afterlife, etc.

I did not say that I believe that all the religious scriptures except Baha'u'llah's are figurative. I was only referring to those verses in Revelation.

A practicing Christian typically believes the Bible is literal. And pretty much every other religion's scripture, according to that religion, is not meant to be taken figuratively. I could say that I take Harry Potter figuratively too. Does that change anything? Not really.

It is not true that all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Christians interpret the Bible in many ways and thus believe many different things.
Liberal Christians do not interpret everything in the Bible literally. For example:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events.

(For some reason the link to that page did not work, but I got this off of the Religious Tolerance website several years ago)

 

[Trailblazer]

Agreed, but we weren't discussing what is true, but rather, "reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet." You gave seven and I added an eighth. Now, you've moved the goalpost from why the religion is still small to whether the messenger's message is true.

And you called my addition to the list an ad populum fallacy. If you understood what that was - and cutting-and-pasting definitions isn't evidence that you do - you would understand why you're incorrect.

Is this your eighth reason the religion is still small?

You left out the most important one. Baha'u'llah's claim of being a messenger of a deity doesn't convince many. #388

Well, that is a given.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please tell, what is the ultimate message? In other words if you have one or two sentences, what would your message be as a Baha'i?

In 1863, he began openly teaching the Baha'i Faith, with its revolutionary messages of the oneness of humanity, the oneness of religion, the equality of men and women, the agreement of science and religion, and the establishment of a global system of governance.

Baha'i Faith - Beliefs, Teachings & History - BahaiTeachings.org​

BahaiTeachings.org
https://bahaiteachings.org › bahai-faith

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no clue.

It starts with this:

Revelation 1:1-3
1 - The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2 - who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 - Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that it should be understood literally, but given what is known about the power of God, one could ask why it shouldn't be? because it could be possible.

I did not say that none of the Book of Revelation should be understood literally, I was only referring to Revelation 21.
Revelation 1 and maybe other chapters can be interpreted literally.

Even if there is no lake of fire, how would you interpret its meaning then?

Revelation 21:8
8 - But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

What is the second death? in a place where there is not supposed to be death? And why do you think only certain "traits" are referred to as going to experience this?

The Baha'i interpretation of the second death is explained in this article:

The Prophet the Book of Revelation Promised

For centuries scholars, theologians and clerics have tried to understand the enigmatic and cryptic prophecies in the Bible’s Book of Revelation. As just one example, Chapter 20 of the Book...

bahaiteachings.org

Here is an excerpt from the article:​

​

"In the same way the Baha’i teachings point out that the “sea” (Revelation 20:13) is a common scriptural symbol of multitudes and of the totality of existence, and “the dead” (Revelation 20:12–13) refers to “the spiritually dead.”​

​

The “second death” mentioned in Revelation describes spiritual death, rather than physical death, which is as constant a law of the physical universe as is gravity. No matter how much we might wish that somehow physical immortality might be possible, it is quite impossible, even though some Christians and Muslims who interpret the Bible and the Qur’an literally generally believe otherwise in looking forward to a physical resurrection. Since death is a fact of life, there is no choice but to accept the inevitability of physical death. That said, our attention should shift to the quality of the afterlife, which is greatly conditioned by the spiritual quality of our earthly life."​

You might also be interested in this article:

The Book of Revelation, Chapter 20: A Baha’i Interpretation

Since the Book of Revelation offers a prophetic look into the future, its fulfillment is also prophetic. Because the “Apocalypse of St. John the Divine”—an alternative name for the Book...

bahaiteachings.org

Do you think that is a satisfying answer? or do you just accept it? Remember what I wrote about those claiming to have authority yet, unable to answer questions? If I recall correctly you agreed that it was not acceptable, but does that also apply to Baha'u'llah?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.

is an acceptable answer for me. That was written by Abdu'l-Baha who had been given authority by Baha'u'llah to interpret of the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

What it means is that in the afterlife God will show great bounty and compassion towards these infants. We cannot know what that bounty and compassion will consist of, only God knows that.

But God did not intervene, if we are to believe that he communicated with messengers, then Moses or Jesus ought to have intervened. Yet Moses is assumed to be the one that received them from God. And Jesus is assumed to have said that the law should not be changed before the new Earth, whether you believe that is the new order or an actual new Earth.

Moses is assumed to be the one that received the laws from God, but the problem with the Old Testament is that it was not written by Moses. We have the same problem with the New Testament, since it was not written by Jesus. We are supposed to believe that the men who wrote these scriptures were divinely inspired but I have my reservations about that.

Do you think that the bible is so corrupted, that we can't trust anything about Moses or Jesus that is said in it?

No, I do not believe that the Bible is so corrupted that we can't trust anything about Moses or Jesus that is said in it.
In the following passage Baha'u'llah addressed to the Muslms who had claimed that the Bible had been corrupted.

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89​

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I did not say that I believe that all the religious scriptures except Baha'u'llah's are figurative. I was only referring to those verses in Revelation.

It is not true that all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Christians interpret the Bible in many ways and thus believe many different things.
Liberal Christians do not interpret everything in the Bible literally. For example:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events.

(For some reason the link to that page did not work, but I got this off of the Religious Tolerance website several years ago)

Very good. You’re learning what is true about something rather than defining it either entirely true, entirely false, or only true in a figurative sense. What you said is true. I think most people, even the ardent atheist, would say there is truth in at least a few scriptures throughout the Bible. For example, the Skeptics Annotated Bible has a section just for “the good stuff” they agree with. And it’s quite extensive. I’m a believer, not a skeptic, don’t get me wrong, but I’d argue that each newer religion takes the older religions more figuratively or metaphorically than the religions that claim to have an extensive history.

Yes, I know there are liberal Christians who don’t take the Bible literally. Even certain revered Catholics don’t, such as Teilhard. I was referring to the fundamentalists before, although even they have different ways of interpreting the same scripture, depending on the denomination.

I wonder, if there was a percent of the Bible you’d argue is literally true, figuratively true or completely false, what would all three of those percents would be. And if you would be okay if I told you that I take Baha’u’llah’s figuratively myself, yet very much agree with many of the ideas and values of your religion. In fact, in many ways, I believe I am the religion past the Baha’i Faith, and I have a clearer understanding of God than even your prophet, but if I claim a post-Baha’i religion, I don’t want to be viewed a covenant breaker, a heretic, or even worse.

You know already I understand God better than any Baha’i can explain it to you. And sometimes I shoot myself in the foot by agreeing too far in one side or the other, and I need you to edify me in the meantime, but if I were more agreeable, more charismatic, more personable, I know I could get others to follow my lead. My mind is like water, flowing rather being steady. I came to understand what I know now as a teenager.

Whether there is a God or not is still hot in debate, but something nobody can deny is reality. If you can prove that there is reality, I’m convinced you can deconstruct it into God. Many have done this already, but atheism is just easier to understand than Whitehead or Teilhard. Some people just don’t care about God. But in my contempulative thinking, I’ve come to realize that I can understand reality fundamentally easier when I destruct it into the parts of God that I’ve come to already understand. I have a theology, I have an eschatology, but unfortunately I have no way of explaining or expressing myself in a way that most people can understand, because there’s even parts of the great mystery I either don’t fully understand or I change my mind in ways most people can’t understand.

Spinoza, Einstein, Jung, Whitehead, Teilhard and others have expressed the same phenomena I have come to awaken to. There are no shortage of religions that practice my beliefs, yet their numbers are so small that I end up attending Christian services just to find the community I lack when I decide to be myself.

If I were a stronger person I’d be autoreligious. Instead there is the Ethan that the Mennonites know, and the Exaltist Ethan RF knows, and the son my mother knows. Everyone wants me to agree with them. I’m me, I’m Ethan Reilly, and I don’t need to be anyone else to be accepted here as part of this community. I am not a Christian, either in the literal or figurative sense. And I’m not a Baha’i either. I practice a variant of Earthseed I call Exaltism. It’s in my name. It’s who I am. And if I could practice Nietzsche’s Ubermensch idea, along with being autoreligious, I wouldn’t need anyone and could satisfy my own spiritual desires by myself. That’s ultimately what I’ve always wanted anyways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It makes no difference whether you think it is a good or bad assumption..

It makes all the difference.
My "assumptions" (as you like to call it) are actually fully in line with the evidence of reality.
Yours aren't.

My "assumptions" are derived from the facts.
Yours are derived from faith based beliefs found in ancient superstitious books, with no grounding in the evidence of commonly observable reality AT ALL.

I'm sorry you don't see the difference.

It is still an assumption, and not a fact.

If you insist on calling it that.
In that case, it is an extremely reasonable assumption which is fully in line with ALL commonly observable reality.

It's your assumption that requires the accepting of things that aren't in evidence at all.


PS: I note you didn't answer @ImmortalFlame 's question regarding the jar of jelly beans. Is there any particular reason you didn't do so? Because I assure you that it would clear up a lot of your reasoning mistakes. Or perhaps that is exactly what you are trying to avoid, off course.......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the conclusion is contested then it remains a claim.
Why are you so averse to calling it a claim?

Because it's not a claim.
The actual claim is from theists who say that there IS evidence.

Failing to then produce the evidence means that the evidence they claim is there, isn't actually there.

Suppose I claim I have a Bugatti in my garage. You then ask me to show it to you.
I open my garage and what you see is a Volkswagen Polo instead of a Bugatti, while I keep claiming it is a Bugatti.
Is it then a "claim" if you walk away saying "you don't own a Bugatti... what you own is a Polo"?

Because that is exactly what is happening here.

But again, call it a claim if that makes you feel better.
As evidence in support of that "claim", I then submit the innumerable amount of times theists failed to provide evidence for god while claiming they have evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is absolutely NOT an argumentum ad populum.
Absolutely NOT. You are taking what I actually said and creating a straw man.

I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God, so it IS NOT ad populum.

the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Dude, did you even read my response before you as-good-as copy pasted your post?

I didn't say you said "god exists because..."
What I actually said, is that you made the argument that the evidence is valid "because a majority believes it is valid".

You didn't argue that the evidence is valid by showing how it is actually valid. Instead, all you offered was "atheists are a minority".

Again: classic ad populum.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It makes all the difference.
My "assumptions" (as you like to call it) are actually fully in line with the evidence of reality.
Yours aren't.

You are saying that your perception of reality is superior to mine.
That is not fact, either.

My "assumptions" are derived from the facts.
Yours are derived from faith based beliefs

No. There are no facts about the nature of being dead. There can only be assumptions.
You can claim that your assumptions are superior to mine .. but that does not make them true.

It's your assumption that requires the accepting of things that aren't in evidence at all.

Well that is the whole point .. how can there be physical evidence of something that is not within the
earthly realm .. such as life after death?
I have no good reason to believe that I might not find myself aware in 10,000 years time..
..it's happened at least once [now], and could happen again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are saying that your perception of reality is superior to mine.
That is not fact, either.

No. I'm saying that my "assumptions" are in line with the facts and don't require the invention of additional unsupportable entities.

No. There are no facts about the nature of being dead. There can only be assumptions.
You can claim that your assumptions are superior to mine .. but that does not make them true.

They are superior as they are in line with the facts and don't require the invention of additional unsupportable entities.

Well that is the whole point .. how can there be physical evidence of something that is not within the
earthly realm .. such as life after death?

Right, so you acknowledge that your assumptions require the invention of additional unsupportable entities.
Mine don't.

That makes them more reasonable, supportable and "superior".

I have no good reason to believe that I might not find myself aware in 10,000 years time..

You mean, besides the fact that human life averages only a couple decades and that there is exactly zero evidence of additional unsupportable immaterial entities?

..it's happened at least once [now], and could happen again.

What has happened "at least once"?



PS: why do you categorically refuse to address @ImmortalFlame 's post about the jar of jelly beans? You are even blatantly ignoring my question about why you are ignoring it.. It's very telling, tbh

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are saying that your perception of reality is superior to mine.

I think he's saying that his worldview is more evidence-based, and I agree, but is that superior to one that includes entities like gods not in evidence? That's going to depend on what best means to you. For me, the worldview that informs my choices such that they lead to desirable outcomes is superior, but even if you agree, what you consider desirable might differ.

You want to get to a particular deity's afterlife if exists. I suppose that you have a better chance of doing that than a nonbeliever if heaven is a real thing, unless maybe you would prefer the religious life even if it ended with death and the permanent extinction of consciousness. If all of that is the case, then maybe your view is more comforting to you than atheistic views, although I would add that it is undesirable that one be comforted by thought, since it comes at a price those comfortable without gods and religions needn't pay.

Well that is the whole point .. how can there be physical evidence of something that is not within the earthly realm .. such as life after death?

But that's not the whole point. Why believe something for which there is insufficient evidence to justify holding that belief? Because it's comforting? Because the thought of no god or heaven gives one angst? It's understandable that people do that, but is that the best (most superior) way to be? And if one is that way, how did it happen?

I say because he didn't mature outside of religious belief, which is when some others outgrow those needs and cease fearing death and the thought of extinction, for example. Instead, clergy have maintained him in this dependent, juvenile state like a selfish mother raising a son to never mature and find a wife because she wants to maintain control over his life.

I have no good reason to believe that I might not find myself aware in 10,000 years time..

I'd say that you very much want that to be true, which causes you to make life choices that cost you scarce resources like your time and your money for no guarantee (or even good reason to believe) that you will be rewarded for that. This all speaks to what an optimal worldview is. Yours contains a god, which informs your choices before death to make sacrifices that an atheist doesn't make.

Which of these is superior? It's going to depend on how reality actually works. Atheism is preferable to me under any circumstances short of the existence of the Abrahamic god, which I have ruled out, including godless afterlives and afterlives with brilliant and compassionate entities.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What has happened "at least once"?

..the feeling of being alive .. my existence .. what else!

PS: why do you categorically refuse to address @ImmortalFlame 's post about the jar of jelly beans?

..not being drawn into tangents .. stick to the issue.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But that's not the whole point. Why believe something for which there is insufficient evidence to justify holding that belief?

Insufficient evidence?
What you mean is, why not believe that this life is just a cosmic accident, with no consequence or higher meaning?
..because I don't consider it likely .. that's why.

I'd say that you very much want that to be true..

..and you'd be wrong.
What is wrong with "not knowing and ceasing to exist"?
Now, THAT is what I call "comforting" !

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..the feeling of being alive .. my existence .. what else!

Sheesh, that makes even less sense then I first thought.
So because you are alive today, that somehow makes it probable you could also be alive 10.000 years from now?

My ow my

..not being drawn into tangents .. stick to the issue.

It's not a tangent nor is it off topic.
That analogy in fact cuts right into the heart of your misunderstanding on the particular point it was addressing.

Remember? The issue there was when you were apparently unable to comprehend that
"I don't believe the claim that god exists" in no way implies that I make the claim "god does not exist".

Your refusal to address that post tells me that you actually realize your mistake, but don't wish to own up to it.
Oh well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Insufficient evidence?
What you mean is, why not believe that this life is just a cosmic accident, with no consequence or higher meaning?
..because I don't consider it likely .. that's why.

So you argue from a position of ignorance / incredulity?

The actual evidence makes it a lot more likely then unsupportable, undemonstrable entities "having dun it" which are indistinguishable from imagination.
Once again, we arrive at conclusions / worldviews where YOU have to invent additional unsupportable entities to make it work, while I don't have any need for such.

Can you say "occam's razor"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

not being drawn into tangents .. stick to the issue.

This is your answer to ignoring the jellybean matter. Do you think your reason is believed? You appear to have an aversion to answering, and very few possibilities come to mind to account for that, "not being drawn into tangents" not being among them.

In the philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric), ethos, refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like. You saw how that worked with the spousal rape thing. The message you sent was much different from the one you intended to send.

What do you suppose that your ethos/meta-message is now? One other poster has already suggested what he thinks motivates you to evade the question - fear of confronting your error. What else could it be? And if so, why? These are the kinds of speculations your choice to evade leads to. You can't control it beyond preventing it, and could have been done in this case by answering the question.

What you mean is, why not believe that this life is just a cosmic accident, with no consequence or higher meaning? ..because I don't consider it likely .. that's why.

No, that's not what I meant. I asked you why believe something absent sufficient evidence to justify that belief, and suggested that your reason was that the belief comforts you.

"Likely" has nothing to do with it. Likely only lets you order your logical possibilities, not eliminate the ones you deem unlikely. I don't consider an intelligent designer likely, but haven't eliminated it from my list of two possibilities - yes, and no. I just put it under the naturalistic one according to the principle of parsimony in hypothesis generation.

..and you'd be wrong. What is wrong with "not knowing and ceasing to exist"? Now, THAT is what I call "comforting" !

You seem to be saying that you would prefer eternal unconsciousness to the opposite. Me, too. If at death, I were offered the choice of one, but that the choice was irreversible, I certainly wouldn't commit myself to an eternity of who-knows-what when I could have guaranteed peace.

But if that's your view as well, then your religion has had an ill-effect on you if it convinced you that can't happen. The phrase, "with no consequence" is interesting. Do you want there to be postmortem consequences to your life choices? It sounds like the answer is no, yet you seem to believe that that is not likely. Pascal was wrong about wrong belief being free. When you choose to believe in these gods, there may well be a cost.