A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[muhammad_isa]

Not really a matter of belief though.... rather a matter of fact.
Facts don't require your "belief" to be facts. Nor are they dependent on your opinion.

Oh, not this again .. hiding behind "facts".
What about the facts that we can't be sure of?
..just pretend they do not exist?

You do not know with any certainty, about where you came from,
and where you are going to .. you just assume .. as do I.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religious beliefs of gods and creators is baseless. So in the 21st century why do believers still think it's valid to believe?

It doesn't matter what century it is !
God is Eternal, so is still God in the 100th century.

Less personal responsibility?

Yeah .. tell that to the King of UK.

 

[F1fan]

It is not an accusation, it is a statement, and it is not false.

Of course it's an accusation, you are accusing atheists of being blind to your questionable evidence. It's evidence you can't show is factual. That makes it a false accusation. Get facts, then come back and make a true statement.

The other believers are blind to who Baha'u'llah was, but they are not blind to the existence of God. Atheists are blind to the existence of God.

Now you are making broader accusations, and none of it factual.

As I noted in post 307:

It's like Jim claims he's the sexiest man alive and Dave asks him how he knows, and Jim says his grandmother says so. Dave will be blind and not accept the evidence of grandmother's say so. Obviously something is wrong with Dave, he won't accept the evidence even though Jim sees it.

Baha'u'llah is on par with grandma.

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.
Why are we will doing this?

Because it's weak and insufficient evidence. It's been explained to you over and over again, and it doesn't sink in.

No one cares what you believe for yourself, you are biased. You're not seeking truth, you are seeking justification for a comfortable ideology. It doesn't matter to debate that you are comfortable in your ideology. Evidence in debate get presented to sway OTHERS. You fail to offer evidence that critical thinkers value. Notice your evidence doesn't even convince other believers, so how good can it be?

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.
My late husband could testify to this is he was still alive, since I told him I wish I could become an atheist.
I believe God exists because of Baha'u'llah, period. That doesn't mean I want to believe in God but I cannot not believe what I know exists.

This is confused thinking, not critical thinking. This isn't a coherent line of thought.

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.

To "figure out that God exists" would require proof and you admit there is none, so why throw this statement out since not even you can "figure out God exists"? Not sincere.

Critical thinkers tend to be atheists because they follow the rules of reasoning. There is no adequate evidence than any supernatual concepts are true, or even likely true, so they are rejected.

 

[F1fan]

It doesn't matter what century it is !

That's what a peron in the 21st century would say when they want to believe in obsolete 7th century ideas.

God is Eternal, so is still God in the 100th century.

This is a claim that is not supported by evidence, so we throw it out.

No evidence? Don't bother making claims.

Yeah .. tell that to the King of UK.

Another obsolete 11th century tradition that cost the British taxpayer 100 million pounds. Fewer people support this stuff as the planet moves into the future. Many folks are attached to tradtion and ego so like these old traditions that date back before the age of reason. But these traditions are dying.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course it's an accusation, you are accusing atheists of being blind to your questionable evidence. It's evidence you can't show is factual. That makes it a false accusation. Get facts, then come back and make a true statement.

It is not an accusation at all, since I never said you did something illegal or wrong.

Accusation
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

accusation meaning - Google Search

It is only an observation. I only said you are blind. It would be the same as my observing a man on a street corner who is blind, except he is physically blind and you are spiritually blind, according to scriptures.

Now you are making broader accusations, and none of it factual.

None of these are accusations and I never said they are factual. They are matters of opinion.

Because it's weak and insufficient evidence. It's been explained to you over and over again, and it doesn't sink in.

Because it's strong and sufficient evidence. It's been explained to you over and over again, and it doesn't sink in.

No one cares what you believe for yourself, you are biased. You're not seeking truth, you are seeking justification for a comfortable ideology. It doesn't matter to debate that you are comfortable in your ideology.

No one cares what you disbelieve for yourself, you are biased. You're not seeking truth, you are seeking justification for a comfortable ideology.
It doesn't matter to debate that you are comfortable in your ideology.

Why would believers be seeking the truth when we have already found the truth?

Evidence in debate get presented to sway OTHERS. You fail to offer evidence that critical thinkers value. Notice your evidence doesn't even convince other believers, so how good can it be?

How many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true. That is a logical error.
When are you going to finally understand this?????

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

This is confused thinking, not critical thinking. This isn't a coherent line of thought.

That is correct. I was confused at the time, but I am not confused anymore.

Critical thinkers tend to be atheists because they follow the rules of reasoning. There is no adequate evidence than any supernatual concepts are true, or even likely true, so they are rejected.

That might be true that critical thinkers tend to be atheists, but that doesn't mean that religious believers lack critical thinking skills or don't apply them.

Is being religious a sign of lack of critical thinking?

Answer (1 of 29): Sometimes, but often not. Many people possess critical thinking abilities, but, for various reasons, don’t apply these abilities to thinking critically about religion. And, some people who have critical thinking skills, and apply critical thinking to religion remain religious. ...

www.quora.com

Most religions are fraught with superstition, so most believers are not critical thinkers, since they believe all that. However, Baha'is are critical thinkers, and that is why they don't believe all those superstitious beliefs like Adam and Eve being real people who lived in the Garden of Eden and Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Fewer people support this stuff as the planet moves into the future. Many folks are attached to tradtion and ego so like these old traditions that date back before the age of reason. But these traditions are dying.

It's not just tradition that is dying..
..so is the wildlife .. you can keep your "brave new world" !

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Or when you grow up in a Christian home and you learn early on in life to never question God, the Bible, or any other Christian-related beliefs that you were taught, or else it will upset your parents, your extended family, your Christian friends, your pastor, and the rest of the church congregation.

Agree. That's the other path, and it can lead to much suffering as in your case. Imagine if all gay people felt free to be themselves rather than marry people of the opposite sex because they've been taught and uncritically accepted that it's God's way, which is unfair to both the gay person and the straight one they marry and then later leave due to no fault in the spouse.

Or how about the people with no real desire to have or raise kids, but do so because the Bible says to procreate. Much of Christianity is designed to reinforce that. Look at how the word family means having minor kids at home for so many.

I understand that there are many people who experience great joy and purpose in parenting, and many will have children even if they feel free not to, but my wife and I are examples of people who wanted a different life, one of frequent travelling, of frequent dining out, of frequent concerts, of playing in a band on weekends, and being surrounded by breakable art. If we had gone down the religion road and had children because it was expected, none of that would have happened as frequently. Instead, it's braces, soccer lessons, and continual noise and disarray. I'm good with dogs. I love how they don't talk.

And that brings me to Pascal's Wager - what have you got to lose if you guess wrong?

It makes me feel like not talking to them, and I don't, but most Baha'is are not that insensitive.

I understand. Sorry about that.

The believer knows what sufficient evidence to justify belief looks like because they have it. That is why they are believers.

But he uses his own rules of inference and thus his own definition of sufficient.

Says who? You think only atheists can think critically but that is laughable.

That was in response to, "that [God] belief was not arrived at critically." No, I think only people that have learned the rules of inference used in academia are critical thinkers. Maybe you don't really understand the term. It doesn't refer to smart people or contemplative people or serious people or well-read people or however you view yourself. It refers only to those who have learned this method of analysis, and for obvious reasons, only those who have can recognize others who have and others who have not.

This is not negotiable: If you have concluded that there exists a god, you didn't do so critically, because there is no sound argument that ends ,"therefore God." Object if you like, but to no avail. If you are using your own rules, your conclusions are useless to the critical thinker. This is from yesterday, in reference to a person who insists that their private way of reasoning deserves to be considered equal to the academic rule of reason:

"This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly."

This is how the person who reasons fallaciously, doesn't know it, and demands validation anyway is seen.

How do you know that?

Also in response to my claim reproduced immediately above. Let me illustrate:

Faith-based thinker (who has never mastered the rules of inference in addition): My Bible tells me 117+235=87
Competent arithmetician: You aren't doing it right.
FBT: Says who? How do you know that?

I see that lots of people believe in the Bible and Qur'an, and I also see that there is a good reason to believe.

This is some of that private "reasoning." Critical thinkers disagree with you. You may have pragmatic reasons to believe, such as an irresistible or comforting intuitions, but not sound ones.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is some of that private "reasoning." Critical thinkers disagree with you.

Ridiculous!
In your version of "critical thinking", religion is just a whim, and meaningless.
You paint all believers as non-intelligent dreamers.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not negotiable: If you have concluded that there exists a god, you didn't do so critically, because there is no sound argument that ends ,"therefore God." Object if you like, but to no avail. If you are using your own rules, your conclusions are useless to the critical thinker. This is from yesterday, in reference to a person who insists that their private way of reasoning deserves to be considered equal to the academic rule of reason:

That is nothing more than a personal opinion, we all have those.

While it is true that more atheists than believers are critical thinkers, the evidence actually shows that some believers are critical thinkers, so if you are claiming that nobody can believe in God and be a critical thinker, you actually have no leg to stand upon.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ridiculous!
In your version of "critical thinking", religion is just a whim, and meaningless.
You paint all believers as non-intelligent dreamers.

What he really means is: "I disagree with you."
He talks as if he speaks for all the critical thinkers in the world but of course that is logically impossible.
And that is critical thinking?

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course it's an accusation, you are accusing atheists of being blind to your questionable evidence. It's evidence you can't show is factual. That makes it a false accusation. Get facts, then come back and make a true statement.

Amazing, saying you are "blind" to recognizing the Baha'i prophet and the Baha'i version of God is not an accusation? Then what is it?

Because it's weak and insufficient evidence. It's been explained to you over and over again, and it doesn't sink in.

No one cares what you believe for yourself, you are biased. You're not seeking truth, you are seeking justification for a comfortable ideology.

But are you and me and others "blind" or have we examined the evidence and determined that the "evidence", his character, his mission, his writings and whatever else, doesn't prove a thing. And if it doesn't prove that he is sent from God then why should we believe it. Are we really "blind" for not seeing what a Baha'i sees in it or are they just seeing what they want to see in it?

Baha'is want to believe their religion based on what it tells them... Fine, but if they go and post controversial statements about God and their prophet, they've got to back up those statements. And we know and they know they can't. All they can do is say, "I believe it" and tell us why they believe it. If we disagree and question the truth of their statements and beliefs, and we tell them why, what more do they expect from us? To "blindly" follow and agree?

This is confused thinking, not critical thinking. This isn't a coherent line of thought.

That's the strangest thing I've ever heard. To believe in God because she believes in the Baha'i writings, but she doesn't want to believe in God? I don't want to believe in the trinitarian Christian God, so I don't.

To "figure out that God exists" would require proof and you admit there is none, so why throw this statement out since not even you can "figure out God exists"? Not sincere.

Yeah, how does taking things on "faith" go with critical thinking?

 

[F1fan]

It is not an accusation at all, since I never said you did something illegal or wrong.

Accusation
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

accusation meaning - Google Search

It is only an observation. I only said you are blind. It would be the same as my observing a man on a street corner who is blind, except he is physically blind and you are spiritually blind, according to scriptures.

You wrote:

No, believers believe in God because of the evidence that atheists are too blind to see.​

I'm an atheist and you accused me of being blind to see your special evidence. Except we atheists have seen your evidence and it is not adequate for critial thinkers. Your accusation is that we are wrong in some way for not "seeing" as you you. What you do that we don't do is make basic religious assumptions to justify belief in baha'i concepts. That isn't being blind, it is being skilled as a thinker.

None of these are accusations and I never said they are factual. They are matters of opinion.

Biased and baseless opinions.

Because it's strong and sufficient evidence. It's been explained to you over and over again, and it doesn't sink in.

Assumptions don't sink in to critical thinker's minds. That is how dogma works, sinking dogma into vulnerable minds.

No one cares what you disbelieve for yourself, you are biased. You're not seeking truth, you are seeking justification for a comfortable ideology.
It doesn't matter to debate that you are comfortable in your ideology.

Why would believers be seeking the truth when we have already found the truth?

How many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true. That is a logical error.
When are you going to finally understand this?????

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

That is correct. I was confused at the time, but I am not confused anymore.

That might be true that critical thinkers tend to be atheists, but that doesn't mean that religious believers lack critical thinking skills or don't apply them.

Is being religious a sign of lack of critical thinking?

Answer (1 of 29): Sometimes, but often not. Many people possess critical thinking abilities, but, for various reasons, don’t apply these abilities to thinking critically about religion. And, some people who have critical thinking skills, and apply critical thinking to religion remain religious. ...

www.quora.com

Most religions are fraught with superstition, so most believers are not critical thinkers, since they believe all that. However, Baha'is are critical thinkers, and that is why they don't believe all those superstitious beliefs like Adam and Eve being real people who lived in the Garden of Eden and Jesus rising from the dead.

Lots of words and nothing that explains how your beliefs are true.

 

[F1fan]

Amazing, saying you are "blind" to recognizing the Baha'i prophet and the Baha'i version of God is not an accusation? Then what is it?

And guess what, the vast majority of theists are blind too. If the Baha'i evidence was so damn good why aren't more people joining?

But are you and me and others "blind" or have we examined the evidence and determined that the "evidence", his character, his mission, his writings and whatever else, doesn't prove a thing. And if it doesn't prove that he is sent from God then why should we believe it. Are we really "blind" for not seeing what a Baha'i sees in it or are they just seeing what they want to see in it?

We aren't blind to the anti-gay bigotry, and how that doesn't work in the 21st century morality.

Baha'is want to believe their religion based on what it tells them... Fine, but if they go and post controversial statements about God and their prophet, they've got to back up those statements. And we know and they know they can't. All they can do is say, "I believe it" and tell us why they believe it. If we disagree and question the truth of their statements and beliefs, and we tell them why, what more do they expect from us? To "blindly" follow and agree?

It's no different than any other religion that is built on concepts it can't back up.

That's the strangest thing I've ever heard. To believe in God because she believes in the Baha'i writings, but she doesn't want to believe in God? I don't want to believe in the trinitarian Christian God, so I don't.

Yeah, how does taking things on "faith" go with critical thinking?

It doesn't. The advantage of faith is that anything goes. Whatever feels good to believe, go for it. Reasoning imposes an ethical and intellectual standard on the self, and the self follows the standard due to having character. Faith is dangerous to integrity and self-worth.

 

[YoursTrue]

For several reasons, assuming that the bible has some truth to it. I know you are more sceptical about it than others might be, which is fine. But Jesus says that God is the only one that is good. Also if God is the creator of everything, including the idea of good and evil and he is all good, then we can measure against his will, as it must be purely good. Besides that, he is also the final judge with the authority of deciding good from evil. So ultimately it doesn't matter whether we think we did good or not if he disagrees.

So whatever God say or command must be good per definition. And that is what the will of God is.

Jesus said he learned from the Father. So that only God is good means in the ultimate sense that only God is good, not that Jesus was bad or the opposite of good, but that the reality is that only God his Father in heaven is good, not that everything else is not good. Thanks for mentioning that because it made me realize that truly Jesus learned what is good from the Father. Take care, have a good night.

 

[Trailblazer]

You wrote:

No, believers believe in God because of the evidence that atheists are too blind to see.​

I'm an atheist and you accused me of being blind to see your special evidence.

Accusation
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
accusation meaning - Google Search

I think you need to get a dictionary. I did not 'accuse' you of anything since I never said you were doing anything illegal or wrong.
I only made an observation, that you are blind, just like I would observe a man on a street corner who was blind.

 

[Trailblazer]

And guess what, the vast majority of theists are blind too. If the Baha'i evidence was so damn good why aren't more people joining?

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.

 

[CG Didymus]

And guess what, the vast majority of theists are blind too. If the Baha'i evidence was so damn good why aren't more people joining?

Yes, they reject the Baha'i Faith, because the "evidence" that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and every other major prophet is lacking. And some Baha'is have left their old religions or have rejected them because the "evidence" for their old religion was lacking.

I can see why people join these religions, because I, myself, joined a few... and was even around Baha'is and went to several of their meetings and "teaching" trips. But with each religion, it took an open and accepting attitude towards what they believed and what they taught. But, in many ways, with each new religious belief, I learned why not to believe in my previous belief.

I went from learning the Baha'i Faith and then to born-again Christianity. I learned why the Baha'i prophet was not the return of Christ. If it had been the other way around, I would have learned that the Bible and the NT can't be taken literally. I would have been taught to reject the concept of Satan and that people are born with a sin nature and require the sin debt paid by Jesus.

And that is a big reason why I reject the Baha'i Faith, because all the different religions have different, contradictory beliefs. And I don't accept the Baha'i explanation of why that is. And Atheists have made me aware of how much religious people just assume things and take them on "faith". Those things are foundational to the beliefs of religions like the Baha'i Faith and Christianity. But, for the believer, they have to believe those things.

To truly believe, a born-again Christian has to believe a certain way and to believe certain things... That God is real, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Father are all part of what makes up the one God. Believing the Bible stories literally, including that Satan is real.

For the Baha'i, they have to believe the Bab and Baha'u'llah are for real. And they must believe and follow everything that Baha'u'llah taught. But it continues and includes following and obeying the Baha'i Faith and its administrative order. They believe all the religions were revealed in a progression from one messenger to another. But, in reality, they don't believe the teachings and practices of any of the other religions... as they are believed in and taught today. They have their reasons and explain why, but it allows them to reject all the other religions and their teachings and offer their teachings as being the only ones that are true and, most important, necessary to fix the problems the world faces today.

Great, then what do they got? What new profound message do they have? Peace, love, unity... that all people are one. But then we learned this...

We aren't blind to the anti-gay bigotry, and how that doesn't work in the 21st century morality.

The peace and love and unity depend on all people following and obeying the Baha'is laws and moral codes. Can it work? I doubt it. Will it work? I doubt it. Has any religion ever been able to stop its people from foolin around? So, what are Baha'is going to do? Try to impose their laws on their people? That makes the problem worse. And usually, the leaders and enforcers are just as guilty of doing those same "forbidden" behaviors. If it fails at that level, how can it succeed at a higher level?

 

[Trailblazer]

The peace and love and unity depend on all people following and obeying the Baha'is laws and moral codes. Can it work? I doubt it. Will it work? I doubt it. Has any religion ever been able to stop its people from foolin around? So, what are Baha'is going to do?

The peace and love and unity does not depend on all people following and obeying the Baha'is laws and moral codes. Sadly, you were right. The Baha'i laws have not stopped some Baha'is from having sex out of wedlock. I consider that atrocious, as it tarnishes the fair name of the Baha'i Faith. I have no words for this flagrant breaking of the law, especially when Baha'is go on a public Baha'i forum and announce that they are doing it! It is really sad when sex is more important to people than God's laws, but the Baha'i institutions accept that and they don't intervene in anyone's private business. Only if people are flagrantly breaking the laws in public do they do anything and the worst that can happen is a Baha'i losing their voting rights.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

The peace and love and unity does not depend on all people following and obeying the Baha'is laws and moral codes. Sadly, you were right. The Baha'i laws have not stopped some Baha'is from having sex out of wedlock. I consider that atrocious, as it tarnishes the fair name of the Baha'i Faith. I have no words for this flagrant breaking of the law, especially when Baha'is go on a public Baha'i forum and announce that they are doing it! It is really sad when sex is more important to people than God's laws, but the Baha'i institutions accept that and they don't intervene in anyone's private business. Only if people are flagrantly breaking the laws in public do they do anything and the worst that can happen is a Baha'i losing their voting rights.

It's funny that if someone breaks the Baha'i laws they lose their voting rights, but if they even talk about a denomination of the Baha'i Faith that isn't centered in the orthodox Haifa tradition they're casted out and called a covenant breaker. Maybe those who break other Baha'i laws should be considered covenant breakers too, but if you did that, there would be a lot less Baha'is around. It's a fine line between being an established world religion and a heretical cult, isn't it?

 

[F1fan]

Accusation
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
accusation meaning - Google Search

I think you need to get a dictionary. I did not 'accuse' you of anything since I never said you were doing anything illegal or wrong.
I only made an observation, that you are blind, just like I would observe a man on a street corner who was blind.

You accused atheists of being blind to evidence you think is good. Your thinking is biased and flawed. I'm not sure why you get so defensive on these petty details.