A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[setarcos]

Impoverished due to their human rights violations and antagonism against democracy and freedom. Blame the Muslims running the theocracy.

Middle Eastern immigrants come to England and can manage, but you don't have the chops to immigrate to a Muslim theocracy?

You accuse the West as being too violent, but do you think Muslim theocracies are less violent? You avoid these questions.

Hello F.... Beautiful day here for once. Hopefully there as well?
Just wanted to pop in with my 2 cents here. I noticed you mentioned the harm religion has caused to humanity.
Because I know that you are quite intelligent but we all have to deal with the information we have perhaps you don't realize but the statistics - as best as humanity can derive - show that while religion or a believers ignorant behavior can be calculated to have caused thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of deaths ; the inquisitions, the crusades, etc....political and perverted humanist ideologies on the other hand have been shown to have caused deaths in the millions and tens of millions; ala Lennin, Mao, Hitler, the Roman empire etc. That's an order of magnitude larger.

Its a myth or at the very least extremely hypocritical to accuse religion of mankind's woes while the woe's created by mankind which have nothing to do with religion far exceed anything a religious organization has achieved.
Religion has its Aztec sacrifices, burning at the stakes, jones towns, and stoning's its true - much of which shows the ignorance of its adherents not of religion itself - but humanity in general - having nothing to do with religion - has its drug czars, gangs, politically motivated assassinations, politically motivated wars, psychopaths, and torture fanatics.
If we actually compare the numbers, religion has been shown to be terribly bad at killing multitudes of people in comparison the non - religiously motivated killings. It might even be argued that while some religions and religiously motivated people have harmed humanity, religion in general has kept humanity from extinguishing itself by now.

 

[Trailblazer]

True. The thing is, that's not all they say. They, well, *I* at least, will also explain why it's not valid evidence.
But conveniently you always ignore those parts.

I never ignore those parts. I tell you that you cannot have the kind of evidence you consider valid since it is logically impossible to have that kind of evidence for God or a Messenger of God.

Because valid evidence is demonstrable.

That's true, but that does not mean that there is not valid evidence that is not demonstrable.

What is the full meaning of valid?

: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful. a valid theory. : logically correct. a valid argument.
Valid Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

I understand why. Because you have nothing but hearsay. This is why you require faith.
Faith is what you need when you don't have demonstrable evidence.

It is true that faith is what you need when you don't have sufficient reasonable evidence,
That's why it requires faith to believe in God, since God can never be 'demonstrated' to exist.

But it is not true that all I have is hearsay. I have a Messenger and evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger.
I do not have proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but I have evidence.

I never said it is. What it does mean, is that there's no evidence based rational reason to believe it is true.
And that's what this conversation is about: the lack of sufficient reasonable evidence, which is why you require "faith" instead.
And your insistence that you have valid evidence, while now you seem to be admitting that you don't.

If you were rational AND you knew what God is, then you would know why faith is required to believe in God.
Only if God could be 'proven' to exist as a fact would faith be unnecessary.
That is never going to happen. The only way God could be proven to exist is if God came down to earth and proed He exists, but so powerful is the Light of God, that would destroy the earth, so that is one reason God would never do that. The other reason God would never prove He exists is because God wants our faith.

However, faith does not have to be blind faith, it can be reasoned faith, faith based upon sufficient reasonable evidence.

I am not admitting I don't have valid evidence, I only admitted I don't have demonstrable evidence.

It's what rational, reasonable people want. What skeptical thinkers want. What people want who actually think it is important to be rationally justified in what they accept as true or not.

No, it's not what rational, reasonable people want, it is what irrational unreasonable people want...

Verifiable evidence of God, NOTHING could be more irrational, since God can never be verified by humans.
If you think that is possible, tell me how you think it is possible.
If it is impossible then rational, reasonable people would not EXPECT to have such evidence.

People who "settle" for bad evidence are people who want to believe. Correct.

Lol, nothing could be more untrue. What people believe is unrelated to what they want to believe. I did not want to believe my husband had cancer but the evidence showed he had cancer so I had to believe it. It is the same with my religion. I have to believe it becaue of the evidence, not because I want to believe it.

Finally, we are getting somewhere. I don't "want" to believe. Instead, I want to be rationally justified in my beliefs.
Reality doesn't care what I "want" to be true. What I "want" to be true is irrelevant to what is actually true. It is irrelevant to being rationally justified in believing what is true.

I place very high value in rational justification for my beliefs.
That is my standard for belief.

It's likely also your standard for belief concerning most, if not all, subjects aside of your religion that you want to believe.

You should not believe because you want to believe since that could lead you to a false belief.
You should have a rational justification for your beliefs since God gave you a rational mind.

I do not believe because I want to believe. My late husband and I used to have the same conversation over and over since I did not love God like I was supposed to, according to my religion, and I did not want to believe in God. He would always tell me I should become and atheist and I would always reply the same way -- "I cannot become an atheist because I believe God exists and I believe that God exists because of Baha'u'llah."

Since that time I have made some peace with God but I still don't believe because I want to believe. I believe because of the evidence.
Admittedly, I also believe because I want the rewards in Heaven, although my religion tells us not to believe for those rewards.

It has. As you have just acknowledged in the rest of your post.

Let's focus on this part - evidence for what I am trying to prove.
There can never be any demonstrable evidence for what I am trying to prove.
I have evidence for what I am trying to prove.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thousands of mutually exclusive religion.
Even more denominations between them.

All of which claim to have "exceptional evidence". None of which agree with each other.

You can't all be right.
But you can all be wrong.
And considering the common baseline of appeal to such "exceptional evidence", without any cross agreement, it seems incredibly likely that in fact you are all wrong.

I said: "That is not to mention that according to religious believers the evidence that is presented is exceptional, and that is why we believe what we do."

Then you went off on a tangent, which is not related to the evidence that we have.
Nevertheless, let's look at what you said, since there is a logical explanation for all of it, none of which has ANYTHING to do with the evidence.

Thousands of mutually exclusive religions.
There are not thousands of revealed religions, only a numbered few.
They are not mutually exclusive although they are different. The Messengers sent by God reveal what is necessary for the ages in which people are living at the time of revelation. Religions are different because they were revealed to different people in different ages, and humans and the world they live in have different requirements in different ages.

Even more denominations between them.
The reason for that is because there was never a Covenant made between the Prophet founders of these religions and the followers. As a result, the religions split off into many sects (denominations), since there was no agreement on what the scriptures meant.

All of which claim to have "exceptional evidence". None of which agree with each other.
Why would the people of different religions agree with each other given that their religions are different?

You can't all be right.
But you can all be wrong.
We can all be right about some things and wrong about others.
The reasons that they can all be right is because all religions teach the same eternal spiritual verities.
The reason that the older religions are wrong about some things is because thsoe religions were corrupted by man over the course of time.

And considering the common baseline of appeal to such "exceptional evidence", without any cross agreement, it seems incredibly likely that in fact you are all wrong.
Considering that all the true religions of God were revealed by Messengers of God, they were all right at the time of revelation, until they became corrupted by man.

You all suffer from the same reasoning error.

No, we all suffer from having Messengers of God who revealed our religions.
The only reasoning error that exists is the error in reasoning of the believers in the older religions who believe that their religion is the only true religion.

Yes, as said: the religious claims never fail for the followers of that particular religion, yet fail for everyone else - including followers of other religions.

If you had logical abilities AND if you understood anything about human nature (psychology) AND if you removed your biases (which is always necessary to discover the truth) then you would easily understand why religious claims never fail for the followers of that particular religion, yet fail for everyone else. It is easy to understand why this is the case, but you have to use your rational mind and think about why, rather than jumping to conclusions, which is fallacious.

Conversely, claims of relativistic effects in GPS satellites, fail for nobody

I'll let you decide which is the better standard for reaching accurate answers to questions.

It is completely irrelevant which standard is better, because the standard for science can never be the same as the standard for religion.
Religion is not science and we are trying to prove very different things, so the same standard cannot be used to prove things in religion as is used in science. Logic 101.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's more bluffing. She admits to having insufficient evidence for critical thinkers, and then given that fact she stamps an "exceptional" label on it as if that suddenly improves the weak evidence.

The evidence that is exceptional is the Messengers that God sends. Nothing God does is anything short of exceptional.

What astounds me is why believe in a religion at all if it doesn't improve the self's thinking, balance, maturity, openness, compassion, wisdom, stability, etc.? When religious belief becomes little more than an empty shell for the ego then we see poor character traits emerge.

What astounds me is why be an atheist if it doesn't improve the self's thinking, balance, maturity, openness, compassion, wisdom, stability, etc.? When atheism becomes little more than an empty shell for the ego then we see poor character traits emerge.

These can demand the person sacrifice virtues and self-reliance to a degree that believers are little more than compliant zombies.

We are reliant on God rather than self. This has worked really well for me. By contrast, when I used to rely upon myself my life was a train wreck. God always knows best because God is all-knowing.

The arguments against religion are the believers themselves. I think the more in-tune and wise avoid the forums. Those who are comfortable in their faith don't need to argue for its validity to others.

The arguments against atheism are some (but not all) of the atheists themselves. I think the more in-tune and wise atheists avoid the forums. Those atheists are comfortable in their non-belief don't need to argue for its validity to others.

 

[Orbit]

If your religion comforts you, that's fine. You don't need to justify it to anyone.

 

[CG Didymus]

If your religion comforts you, that's fine. You don't need to justify it to anyone.

It's when they start preaching about it and telling people it is necessary for them too.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's when they start preaching about it and telling people it is necessary for them too.

What do you mean by "it is necessary".
Lots of things in life are necessary. eg. if we don't eat, we die

 

[F1fan]

The evidence that is exceptional is the Messengers that God sends.

No it isn't, and you admit there isn't proof that your messenger is genuine. And no gods are known to exist.

Nothing God does is anything short of exceptional.

No gods are known to exist, so you can't know any attributes.

What astounds me is why be an atheist if it doesn't improve the self's thinking, balance, maturity, openness, compassion, wisdom, stability, etc.? When atheism becomes little more than an empty shell for the ego then we see poor character traits emerge.

Back to your mimicking.

We are reliant on God rather than self.

No gods are known to exist, so what is it you really rely on at the end of the day?

This has worked really well for me. By contrast, when I used to rely upon myself my life was a train wreck. God always knows best because God is all-knowing.

I'm sure you feel comfort beliving a god exists.

The arguments against atheism are some (but not all) of the atheists themselves. I think the more in-tune and wise atheists avoid the forums. Those atheists are comfortable in their non-belief don't need to argue for its validity to others.

More mimicking, as if you can't debate from your own thinking. Maybe just accept that atheists exist, and we will keep asking for you to demonstrate your beliefs are rational and based on facts.

 

[F1fan]

Hello F.... Beautiful day here for once. Hopefully there as well?

Yeah, sunny and 79, with just a few clouds. Just a 5% chance of rain. Overnight a cool 59 degrees with light breeze from the SW. And now 327 straight hours of smooth jazz for your listening pleasure.

Just wanted to pop in with my 2 cents here. I noticed you mentioned the harm religion has caused to humanity.
Because I know that you are quite intelligent but we all have to deal with the information we have perhaps you don't realize but the statistics - as best as humanity can derive - show that while religion or a believers ignorant behavior can be calculated to have caused thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of deaths ; the inquisitions, the crusades, etc....political and perverted humanist ideologies on the other hand have been shown to have caused deaths in the millions and tens of millions; ala Lennin, Mao, Hitler, the Roman empire etc. That's an order of magnitude larger.

Well your accounting is way off. The Christian led witch trials of the 17th century murdered about 30,000 people in that alone, which would be about 420,000 people today if you adjust in proportion to population.

And although Hitler had no overt religious beliefs once in power he was an altar boy in his Catholic church. The Nazis that murdered the Jews were mostly Lutheran and Catholics. Rome even helped the Nazis in some ways despite knowing about the Holocaust.

Look at Manifest Destiny in the USA where Christians had little problem killing the indigenous people of North America. More Christians killed the indigenous people of South America.

The number of deaths by religious people should be very low, but it isn't.

As for the Communists (BTW, Stalin was studying in a seminary with the Russian Revolution started) and Romans, well they acted through their own authority as dictated by ideological belief. The Romans did have their own form of divinity and gods they used as symbols. The banners the Romans carried into battle were copied by the Nazis in their marches and rallies. Ideology and symbols has a way of occupying minds and if the dogma is immoral it will influence people negatively, religion is no exception.

Its a myth or at the very least extremely hypocritical to accuse religion of mankind's woes while the woe's created by mankind which have nothing to do with religion far exceed anything a religious organization has achieved.

Religion has served a useful purpose for early humans, as it was the major type of social organization and law. In modernity with secular governments becming the norm religion is less useful, but still very cultural as a tradition. Theocracies do pose a threat to many more progressive societies. Some religions are hostile towards science. The Christian right has taken over the republican party, and driving draconian laws that ban abortion in ways that is threatening the lives of pregnant women. So now in the 21st century how is religion an advantage for societies everywhere? Sure there are still religious charities doing good work, but aren't they supposed to? The question is if religion is to be the very best in humanity why is religion causing ANY harm?

Religion has its Aztec sacrifices, burning at the stakes, jones towns, and stoning's its true - much of which shows the ignorance of its adherents not of religion itself - but humanity in general - having nothing to do with religion - has its drug czars, gangs, politically motivated assassinations, politically motivated wars, psychopaths, and torture fanatics.

Religion at work. Where is the God keeping these people in line? Absent as usual.

If we actually compare the numbers, religion has been shown to be terribly bad at killing multitudes of people in comparison the non - religiously motivated killings. It might even be argued that while some religions and religiously motivated people have harmed humanity, religion in general has kept humanity from extinguishing itself by now.

Is religion just another club that has a slightly lower murder rate? Most of the non-religious killing you cite are from wars in the 20th century, well into the era of secular governments, so your math really doesn't work. Most of the murders in the name of God came at a time when religions were the government, and there were vastly fewer people on the planet. Notice I adjusted the number of people murdered for witchcraft from the 17th century number of approximately 30,000 to 420,000 today? That illustrates my point about your biased math.

In any event if religions are actually spiritual paths and guided by God and divinity, why are there any murders in the name of God?

No wonder a Christian will become a non-believer.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it isn't, and you admit there isn't proof that your messenger is genuine.

Imo, the Messengers are all exceptional evidence for the existence of God.
Of course I hold that opinion because I believe they were sent by God, and I believe that everything God does is exceptional.

genuine: truly what something is said to be; authentic.

genuine means - Google Search

www.google.com

No, there is not proof that they are authentic, but there is evidence.
Proof is not what makes a Messenger genuine, He either is or He isn't genuine
Proof is only what people want in order to know that He is genuine, but if they want to know if He is genuine or not, they will have to settle for evidence, since there is no proof.

No gods are known to exist, so you can't know any attributes.

No, I cannot know that God has those attributes as a fact, since it can never be proven that God has those attributes, since it can never be proven that God exists,

No gods are known to exist, so what is it you really rely on at the end of the day?

God is not known to exist by everyone, but I know God exists, and I can rely on God at the beginning, middle, and end of the day

I'm sure you feel comfort beliving a god exists.

So what if I feel comfort? That doesn't prove anything at all, although it may well be 'evidence' that God exists, since that is one of God's promises that ae found in the Bible and the Baha'i Writings..

Maybe just accept that atheists exist, and we will keep asking for you to demonstrate your beliefs are rational and based on facts.

If you want to keep asking the same questions over and over again and getting the same answers that are never satisfactory for you that is your choice, but it certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, sunny and 79, with just a few clouds. Just a 5% chance of rain.

You can have the sunny and 79 weather because I don't like it. 70 is my limit. It has been unseasonably hot up here in the Pacific NW for about a week.
It got up to 89 for a few days and I thought I had died and gone to hell. It was only 79 today but that is still too hot for me.

Overnight a cool 59 degrees with light breeze from the SW.

I can live with that. I only wish it would stay at 59 degrees during the day.

 

[CG Didymus]

What do you mean by "it is necessary".
Lots of things in life are necessary. eg. if we don't eat, we die

When certain Christians come to your door and tell you the "good news" about their beliefs. Why do they do it? They have found this "truth" and are taught that they must go out and share it with others. And they believe it is a necessary thing to save you from being a lost sinner that is destined for hell.

Baha'is have their version of that. They are told to go out and "teach" and share the news that the "promised one" has come. Islam doesn't have something like that? And feels that is necessary to go out and convert people?

 

[CG Didymus]

Religion has served a useful purpose for early humans, as it was the major type of social organization and law. In modernity with secular governments becming the norm religion is less useful, but still very cultural as a tradition. Theocracies do pose a threat to many more progressive societies.

Yes, if any of the Abrahamic religions had absolute power, even the Baha'is, the laws and moral codes would be much stricter than what people could put up with and live by... even the religious leader would probably be breaking some of them. And, as we know, forget gay rights. All of them would have a ban on homosexuality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm sure you feel comfort beliving a god exists..

I'm sure you feel comfort, thinking that God does NOT exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They have found this "truth" and are taught that they must go out and share it with others..

What's wrong with that?
Do you think that people should hide truth from other people, so as to have
a worldly advantage against others?

There should be no obligation for you to accept what anybody believes .. it's your choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure you feel comfort, thinking that God does NOT exist.

I'm not so sure of that. I mean if @F1fan was so comfortable without God, why would he talking to so many believers about God?

 

[F1fan]

I'm sure you feel comfort, thinking that God does NOT exist.

There is no comfort in any idea related to any of the many gods humans believe all over the planet. I work to avoid needing illusions to hide from life's real challenges, and face them without any emotional crutch.

The question is why you need a crutch, and can't think through your own moral attitudes and defer to what some religion says. Ultimately it's you deciding the religion is correct, so you might as well abandon the religion and think for yourself without using God to hide behind.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not so sure of that. I mean if @F1fan was so comfortable without God, why would he talking to so many believers about God?

My real comfort comes when I get in my feather bed to sleep. Ideas of God? Might as well find comfort in Santa thinking I'm a good boy.

 

[Trailblazer]

My real comfort comes when I get in my feather bed to sleep. Ideas of God? Might as well find comfort in Santa thinking I'm a good boy.

I am glad you have that feather bed to sleep in. I have been sleeping on the couch since my husband passed on last summer and I don't know if I will ever sleep in my California King log bed again, but I try to be detached about it, like my good Buddhist friend taught me to be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The question is why you need a crutch..

No .. the question is why you are against people believing in G-d.