Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[samtonga43]

Then let me qualify it, I have yet to see one theist willing to do so.

OK. You have now learned that the qualification is necessary. You indulge in this fallacy (rash generalization) a lot.

The tests that I always see proposed by theists only lead to confirmation bias at best. They try to form a test that they know that they will pass. Or one that they can at least try to claim that they passed. Ideas often are testable in a manner that would show if they were wrong.

Do you have an example of the tests you always see proposed by theists?
***
An afterthought:
A couple of years ago I read and enjoyed Feynman’s book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. I remember being struck by what he said after he explained. how the theory of quantum electrodynamics came about. I looked it up:
"What I have just outlined is what I call a “physicist’s history of physics,” which is never correct. What I am telling you is a sort of conventionalized myth-story that the physicists tell to their students, and those students tell to their students, and is not necessarily related to the actual historical development which I do not really know!"

 

[samtonga43]

I never once said that my religion is objectively true, all I ever said is that there is objective evidence.

There is objective evidence, but you can't say that your
religion is objectively true.
Why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. You have now learned that the qualification is necessary. You indulge in this fallacy (rash generalization) a lot.

Do you have an example of the tests you always see proposed by theists?
***
An afterthought:
A couple of years ago I read and enjoyed Feynman’s book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. I remember being struck by what he said after he explained. how the theory of quantum electrodynamics came about. I looked it up:
"What I have just outlined is what I call a “physicist’s history of physics,” which is never correct. What I am telling you is a sort of conventionalized myth-story that the physicists tell to their students, and those students tell to their students, and is not necessarily related to the actual historical development which I do not really know!"

Please, you are blaming others for not being able to follow a conversation. You nitpick items out of context in an attempt to ignore the point of the post. We may need to go back to the beginning.

 

[samtonga43]

I am not only posting it for YOU to read. When I am making a point I like to back it up with the definition but please note that I did not accuse you of committing the fallacy, I said to be careful not to. By contrast you accuse me of committing fallacies just because you believe I did.
...
And this is why I will continue to point out the fallacies, because you won't stop pointing them out, but at least I explain why you may have committed them whereas you just accuse me without explaining why.
How the hell is this special pleading? You should not accuse me of fallacies unless you are willing to explain why.....

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading
But we don't have to remove our biases when it come to religion and that is impossible. By comparing science with religion you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence, since science is not equivalent to religion.

Have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?

 

[samtonga43]

Please, you are blaming others for not being able to follow a conversation. You nitpick items out of context in an attempt to ignore the point of the post. We may need to go back to the beginning.

You don't have an example of the tests you always see proposed by theists? Oh well, never mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have an example of the tests you always see proposed by theists? Oh well, never mind.

I don't need one. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. I don't make a record of foolish arguments. My general statements that you dislike so much are a challenge. It is up to theists to form a proper test. It is not up to me to remember all of their failures.

You are abusing logical fallacies so that you can duck your burden of proof.

 

[samtonga43]

I don't need one. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. I don't make a record of foolish arguments. My general statements that you dislike so much are a challenge. It is up to theists to form a proper test. It is not up to me to remember all of their failures.You are abusing logical fallacies so that you can duck your burden of proof.

Your positive claim is that you always see foolish tests proposed by theists. Don't duck the burden!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your positive claim is that you always see foolish tests proposed by theists. Don't duck the burden!

There is no need to duck. This thread is full of them. You yourself have pointed some of them out. If you need me too I can link this thread for you. Though what is the point in that.

You do not seem to understand the concept of an informal challenge. When I point out that no good arguments have been made for something it does no good at all for me to bring up endless failed arguments. It is up to the person that disagrees with me to find an argument that does not quickly fall on its face. If you want I could state my claim formally. The burden of proof will still be upon you.

Now if I make a claim of something existing then the burden of proof lands squarely on me. But I have not made that error here.

 

[samtonga43]

What does it matter what others think? What does that prove? Now can we knock off accusing each other of logical fallacies?

No, I was not using statistics to make my point, but never mind, it doesn't matter.

I brought it up because we were talking about how some people drop out of religions and become atheists..

I do not really know but many people on this forum have changed religions and some have changed more than once, but I don't know if this forum is representative of society at large.

No, I never said that makes Baha'i better. My point was that Baha'is researched the Baha'i Faith and made a conscious choice to join. It was not a passive choice, they were actively involved. Having put that much effort into research and investigation and having left the religion they were raised in order to join the Baha'i Faith, they are not likely to drop out and become atheists. Also, Baha'is do not lose faith in God the way many Christians who become atheists do.

No, that is still not what I meant. Flaws is not the right word to use. What commonly happens with Christians who drop out and become atheists is that they can no longer believe what they were taught in Sunday School Bible studies, all the Bible stories that are taught to be literally true, including Noah's Arc, Moses parting the Red Sea, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and that people will rise from the dead when Jesus returns, as well as the teaching that Jesus is literally God in the flesh.

The Baha'i Faith has no such superstitious beliefs and promotes science so in that sense it is more acceptable to a rational thinker. In addition to that the Baha'i Faith actually offers solutions to the real world problems that humanity is facing in the present age whereas Christianity has no solutions since it was not revealed for the present age, it was revealed for people living 2000 years ago. Need I go on?

Christianity is for every age. This is why Mr.B. and his writings (expressed in 17th Century language )
are superfluous.

 

[samtonga43]

There is no need to duck. This thread is full of them. You yourself have pointed some of them out. If you need me too I can link this thread for you. Though what is the point in that.

You do not seem to understand the concept of an informal challenge. When I point out that no good arguments have been made for something it does no good at all for me to bring up endless failed arguments.

You don't understand. I have not asked for endless failed argument (strawman on your part?). I asked for ONE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't understand. I have not asked for endless failed argument (strawman on your part?). I asked for ONE.

And I can't be bothered. Your request is pointless since you know that they exist. You are ducking the burden of proof.

 

[samtonga43]

And I can't be bothered. Your request is pointless since you know that they exist. You are ducking the burden of proof.

And here we go again! SZ is unable to provide ONE example of these numerous tests he speaks of. Why? Because he can’t be bothered.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but it's not objective evidence for the existence of any god or the truth of your faith. Hence introducing it as such, is misleading. When people ask you for objective evidence to back up your religious claims, they are not asking for objective evidence for something else entirely that you have a subjective opinion about that would connect it to the question if, and only if, said subjective opinion is true.

I know, atheists want objective evidence of God, but there can never be any such thing because nobody has ever seen God, not even the Messengers of God. Baha'u'llah claimed to have heard the Voice of God through the Holy Spirit, but that is all. He wrote that the Essence of God is completely unknowable, that all we can know are some of the Attributes of God and God's message for any given age, which is revealed by the Messengers of God in every age.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

The only way to know anything about God is though the Messengers since God set it up that way, so all we can do is look at the Messengers and determine if we believe their claims are valid. The way we do that is buy looking at the objective evidence (see below).

I don't have a particular opinion about him, I just observe that you have no more objective evidence to back up his religious claims than anybody else does for theirs.

The Baha'i Faith does have more objective evidence than other religious people have for the older religions since the older religions do not have any objective evidence at all. There is no direct objective evidence for any of the previous Messengers of God such as Jesus and Moses. All we have is oral tradition and what men wrote down about them many years after they lived and walked the earth, claiming it was what they had said, and the men who wrote the scriptures never even knew Moses or Jesus or any of the other Messengers of God.

By stark contrast, the Baha'i Faith is a contemporary religion so we have a well-documented history, and men who actually knew Baha'u'llah wrote much of the history. As such we can know the character of Baha'u'llah, his life history, and what He did on His mission from God. We also have the original writings of Baha'u'llah penned in his own hand or dictated to His secretary, all of which were stamped with his official seal, and these writings have been authenticated by modern methods. No other religion has any original writings from the Messenger.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

 

[ratiocinator]

I know, atheists want objective evidence of God, but there can never be any such thing because nobody has ever seen God...

Then stop dressing going on about objective evidence, then - not that seeing something is the only objective evidence possible and it wouldn't even be objective evidence if it was just a few eyewitnesses - they are notoriously unreliable.

The Baha'i Faith does have more objective evidence than other religious people have for the older religions since the older religions do not have any objective evidence at all.

The Baha'i faith has exactly zero objective evidence too. You've already admitted that. For what seems like about the 10,000th time: evidence of the person, his writings, and the history of the faith is NOT evidence of the truth of the faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here we go again! SZ is unable to provide ONE example of these numerous tests he speaks of. Why? Because he can’t be bothered.

Sorry, but when one is playing games, there is no point to your request, I do not like to play along. It is quite obvious that you are merely avoiding the burden of proof. In fact I do not remember you ever supporting a positive claim. Is denial all that you have? I will support claims when they need to be. Since you have pointed out the poor arguments of others you know that these arguments exist. It is like demanding that someone show you that 2 + 2 = 3 has been refuted when that person did so himself. It does not get the conversation to go anywhere and appears to be used only to avoid the burden of proof for one's own beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then stop dressing going on about objective evidence, then - not that seeing something is the only objective evidence possible and it wouldn't even be objective evidence if it was just a few eyewitnesses - they are notoriously unreliable.

The Baha'i faith has exactly zero objective evidence too. You've already admitted that. For what seems like about the 10,000th time: evidence of the person, his writings, and the history of the faith is NOT evidence of the truth of the faith.

Evidence of the person, his writings, and the history of the faith is NOT proof of the truth of the faith.

For what seems like about the 10,000th time: evidence of the person, his writings, and the history of the faith is evidence that *indicates* whether the claims of Baha'u'llah were valid thus they *indicate* whether the faith is true or false.

Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[ratiocinator]

For what seems like about the 10,000th time: evidence of the person, his writings, and the history of the faith is evidence that *indicates* whether the claims of Baha'u'llah were valid thus they *indicate* whether the faith is true or false.

Only in your entirely subjective opinion. You've already admitted this.

There is no objective link between your criteria (which you can claim to have evidence for) and the truth of the god claims. The chain of objectivity is broken completely at the link between your criteria and the truth of the god claims. There is no objective link whatsoever, not even the merest hint, let alone any suggestion of an 'indication'.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only in your entirely subjective opinion. You've already admitted this.

There is no objective link between your criteria (which you can claim to have evidence for) and the truth of the god claims. The chain of objectivity is broken completely at the link between your criteria and the truth of the god claims. There is no objective link whatsoever, not even the merest hint, let alone any suggestion of an 'indication'.

There can never be an objective link because how people view the evidence will always be subjective.
You want what you can never have.

Case closed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There can never be an objective link because how people view the evidence will always be subjective.
You want what you can never have.

Case closed.

Only partially true. People view evidence differently. In the sciences there is a standard that does eliminate that. One should be able to eliminate that for theistic beliefs if they are based upon reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only partially true. People view evidence differently. In the sciences there is a standard that does eliminate that. One should be able to eliminate that for theistic beliefs if they are based upon reality.

I know that is possible in the sciences. Now please answer these questions:

(a) How do you think it could be done for theistic beliefs?
(b) What do you mean by reality?
(c) If theistic beliefs were based on reality, why would everyone view the evidence the same way?
(d) Why is it necessary for everyone to view the evidence for theistic beliefs the same way?