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

[samtonga43]

Sorry, but when one is playing games, there is no point to your request, I do not like to play along.

Sorry, but no games are being played on my part. I asked you a simple question. You speak of all these 'tests' you always see from theists. I am asking for just one. Why? Because I am interested in what you consider to be an example.

However, you have become as stubborn as a child in the school yard; you are now making all kinds of excuses to get out of responding as a grown-up would.

I'm getting used to your get-out-clauses, SZ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but no games are being played on my part. I asked you a simple question. You speak of all these 'tests' you always see from theists. I am asking for just one. Why? Because I am interested in what you consider to be an example.

However, you have become as stubborn as a child in the school yard; you are now making all kinds of excuses to get out of responding as a grown-up would.

I'm getting used to your get-out-clauses, SZ.

Sorry, but that is exactly what you have been doing. You could not even deny that you yourself showed that some arguments are poor. Giving you examples of poor arguments does nothing.

But then your personal shtick has been exposed. I cannot recall you supporting your beliefs.

I have never made a claim that needs to be supported and have not supported it. You can't claim the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

It depends upon the individual theistic claim. For example it is child's play to refute the "God" of Flat Earthers. Many Flat Earthers base their Flat Earth beliefs on the Bible, or even the Quran. They will claim that people trying to prove them wrong are trying to refute God. Of course that is not the case. Only their personal version has been refuted not all of them. If a person can define his God accurately enough it should be able to test the existence of that God.

And reality refers to the universe that we live in. It is constantly being tested. Not to prove its existence but to learn more about it.

To your third question: Reliable evidence does not depend on the source or the person observing it. As long as a person can be honest it will support the same ideas. Getting people to be honest can be challenging.

And to your last question: Honesty. That and a genuine interest in learning the truth. One thing that I have learned in debating creationists is that very very few have a genuine interest in the truth. They are only looking for excuses to believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

It depends upon the individual theistic claim. For example it is child's play to refute the "God" of Flat Earthers. Many Flat Earthers base their Flat Earth beliefs on the Bible, or even the Quran. They will claim that people trying to prove them wrong are trying to refute God. Of course that is not the case. Only their personal version has been refuted not all of them.

My question (a) was not referring to refuting theistic beliefs.

You said that if theist beliefs are based upon reality, we should be able to eliminate people viewing the evidence for theistic beliefs differently. In (a) What I was asking is how we could eliminate people viewing the evidence for theistic beliefs differently.

If a person can define his God accurately enough it should be able to test the existence of that God.

I can post a definition of God according to the Baha'i Faith but if you saw the definition you would quickly realize that there is no way that the existence of that God could ever be tested.

And reality refers to the universe that we live in. It is constantly being tested. Not to prove its existence but to
learn more about it.

I can agree with that definition although I believe there is more to reality than the physical reality.

Reality:
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+means

To your third question: Reliable evidence does not depend on the source or the person observing it. As long as a person can be honest it will support the same ideas. Getting people to be honest can be challenging.

I agree that reliable evidence does not depend on the person observing it but I think it does depend upon the source.
I do not know what you mean by "As long as a person can be honest it will support the same ideas."
In (c) I was asking if theistic beliefs were based on reality why would everyone view the evidence the same way?

And to your last question: Honesty. That and a genuine interest in learning the truth. One thing that I have learned in debating creationists is that very very few have a genuine interest in the truth. They are only looking for excuses to believe.

I agree that people should be honest and have a genuine interest in learning the truth but that did not answer my question.
In (d) I was asking (d) Why is it necessary for everyone to view the evidence for theistic beliefs the same way?

My main question is why would everyone view the evidence for a religion in the same way? A lot of interpretation is involved when looking at a religion and I see no reason why everyone would come to the same conclusions about any given religion.

 

[Tiberius]

I think it simply means that people view objective facts differently so they have differing opinions, not just religion, but since you view things differently than me, you will probably never be able to see it from my perspective.

But if you get a bunch of people who have different opinions about the speed of light, then some of them are just plain wrong. I don't see why religion should be seen as being different just because it's religion. The only reason religion gets away with that at all is because its unfalsifiable, and that alone makes it worthless.

I thought your main point was that if a religion was objectively true, then we'd see the vast majority of people agreeing on it. Was that not your reason for giving the example of how people agree on scientific subjects?

My point was that people will agree on OBJECTIVE subjects, at least, in an ideal world. We see there is a great deal of agreement about science because it is as close to purely objective as we can get. We do not see this with religion because religion is not objective. And if religion is not objective, it is worthless as an explanation for reality.

I wish you would knock it off with the fallacies. I will if you will. Religion works differently because religion is DIFFERENT from science. I think most atheists would agree about that.

But when you present both as the same thing - an explanation of how reality works - then you have a problem. One of them works very well to explain how reality works, the other does not. And for the one that does not, a lot of excuses need to be made to explain away the failures.

Religious facts mean different things to different people because they can be interpreted differently whereas scientific facts mean the same thing because they can't be interpreted differently. For example all the measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum give the same result. The objective facts about Baha'u'llah will not give the same result because they won't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, some people will view the facts that surround Baha'u'llah's earthly mission as no big deal, just a man traveling around, whereas other people will view them as evidence that He was a Messenger of God because they will realize He was both divine and human.

No, the objective facts about Mr B mean the same to me as for any other person. That he existed. That he went to particular places. That he said particular things. These are objective.

But concluding that because he said a particular thing that he is a messenger from God, that is NOT an objective fact.

I did not say that you did, I said "if you ever say..."

Why would I ever use the argument from popularity? The only time I would even come close is if someone uses it themselves, and I will say, "If you think the argument from popularity is a valid argument, then here's how it disproves your claim." I have never and will never believe that a particular position is true simply because a lot of people hold it to be true.

I would prefer you just explain why you think I am wrong in what I said and not call out fallacies because that just creates defensiveness.

But the reason why I think you are wrong is because you have used a logical fallacy. How am I supposed to explain that without mentioning the logical fallacy?

It does not MATTER if you think that religion should not be bound by different rules, religion IS bound by different rules because of its very nature of being precise and measurable and provable. Religion is not any of those things and you cannot make it what it isn't, not anymore than you can make science become supernatural.

But the fact that it isn't any of those things is what makes it worthless as an explanation. But since there are lots of people who want to make it an explanation, they need to change the rules to keep it in the running. These rule changes they insist on are purely there to keep their beliefs in the running, not because it gives their explanatory method any validity.

There is no objective evidence of Baha'u'llah speaking to God or of God speaking to Baha'u'llah and that is why I said such a claim can never be proven. However, there is objective evidence that supports the belief that Baha'u'llah received messages from God, making Him a Messenger of God.

As I said before, there is objective evidence for the things that he did, but concluding from that objective evidence that he spoke to God is a subjective opinion.

God wants us to have OUR OWN OPINION about the evidence, not someone else's opinion. An opinion is not a bias, you need to get that idea out of your head.

When did I say that opinions and biases were the same thing?

Science is n accurate account of the physical reality whereas religion is about morality and spiritual reality.

Given that religion has resulted in many wildly different conclusions about spirituality and morality, I'd say that it can't be called "accurate."

Religion does not have a benefit over science, they are both as necessary as the other but they each have their own scopes.

But the instant you claim that religious belief describes reality in any way, then their scopes overlap. And if they do not agree, then at least one of them must be wrong.

Always or usually, you are evading the point I was making by splitting hairs. How is it UNFAIR for me to prefer my religion over Christianity or any other religion?

You miss my point.

I said the definition was "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

The fact it uses the word "USUALLY" means that it isn't always unfair. The definition does not say that bias is ALWAYS unfair.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My question (a) was not referring to refuting theistic beliefs.

You said that if theist beliefs are based upon reality, we should be able to eliminate people viewing the evidence for theistic beliefs differently. In (a) What I was asking is how we could eliminate people viewing the evidence for theistic beliefs differently.

That is probably impossible for all people. I know from experience that many cannot reason rationally when their deeply ingrained beliefs are challenged. I gave the qualifications necessary. People must be willing to be honest and have a genuine desire to learn. I am pretty sure that is going to be a minority.

I can post a definition of God according to the Baha'i Faith but if you saw the definition you would quickly realize that there is no way that the existence of that God could ever be tested.

Then it sounds like by that definition a belief in that God would be irrational. It would be like believing in Russell's Teapot. Testing is key to having evidence for an idea. People often mistake confirmation bias for evidence.

I can agree with that definition although I believe there is more to reality than the physical reality.

Reality:
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+means

You can believe all that you want but no one has seemed to find any reliable evidence to the contrary.

I agree that reliable evidence does not depend on the person observing it but I think it does depend upon the source.
I do not know what you mean by "As long as a person can be honest it will support the same ideas."
In (c) I was asking if theistic beliefs were based on reality why would everyone view the evidence the same way?

Reliable evidence tends to support only one side of the story. And I do not know of any theistic beliefs based upon reality. You would have to find one and demonstrate that that was the case.

I agree that people should be honest and have a genuine interest in learning the truth but that did not answer my question.
In (d) I was asking (d) Why is it necessary for everyone to view the evidence for theistic beliefs the same way?

It is not "necessary" It would be a result.

My main question is why would everyone view the evidence for a religion in the same way? A lot of interpretation is involved when looking at a religion and I see no reason why everyone would come to the same conclusions about any given religion.

Once again, reliable evidence tends to support only one idea. It is why it is useful. And it usually is based upon the ability to test an idea. I really do not know of any that does not have that basis. And as always, the burden of proof, which in this case includes testing one's ideas, originally lies with the person making a positive claim.


Most atheists do not deny the existence of God. Like Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Russell's Teapot, they simple do not believe in those ideas until evidence is presented for them.

 

[Tiberius]

Please try to be a little more polite. I cannot read every post on this thread as I can barely keep up with the posts that are posted directly to me. If I am not planning on having a conversation about a subject I do not have time to read all the source links. I do not care about prayer studies because I don't think they prove anything, I already told you that.

I would like to think that you do at least read the posts that are part of the direct conversations you are having.

Studies might show how many prayers were answered but that is not the only reason people pray, to get something from God. Studies do not prove the efficacy of prayer as that is a subjective thing and cannot be measured objectively.

I've already explained how we can indeed measure them.

 

[Tiberius]

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

I will stop accusing you of committing logical fallacies when I see that you have stopped using them. If I see you use one, I will point it out.

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

Then what were you using?

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.

So it's an assumption on your part. You have no idea if your assumption reflects reality in any way.

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.

And my point was that most people who drop out of a religion are those who are born into it and later become fall out of it because they start thinking about it and decide it's not for them.

When it comes to Baha'i, there are few people who are born into it, so the number of people who drop out of it is of course going to be very low. And any people who join it are likely to be those who have studied various different religions to try to find one that fits them well. They're not likely to be people who just try a bunch of different religions hoping to stumble across one that suits them, since Baha'i isn't that well know compared to other religions like Buddhism, or Islam.

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.

There are plenty of Christians who hold those things to be non-literal. It's not, as you seem to be suggesting here, a case of, "Either you believe it literally or get out of Christianity."

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?

I once asked you to provide the solutions that Baha'i offers for the problems and issues that are facing humanity today, such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation of unborn children, etc, and you were unable to show that Baha'i had such solutions.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is probably impossible for all people. I know from experience that many cannot reason rationally when their deeply ingrained beliefs are challenged. I gave the qualifications necessary. People must be willing to be honest and have a genuine desire to learn. I am pretty sure that is going to be a minority.

It is true that if people want to learn about a religion or anything else they must be willing to be honest and have a genuine desire to learn. Do you have a desire to learn about a new religion?

My point was that people are going to view the evidence for a religion differently. How can that be avoided?

Then it sounds like by that definition a belief in that God would be irrational. It would be like believing in Russell's Teapot. Testing is key to having evidence for an idea. People often mistake confirmation bias for evidence.

Obviously we are talking two different languages. God is not an idea, God is God and that is not contingent upon a belief. God is what God is and God is not testable because God is unreachable for testiing.

You can believe all that you want but no one has seemed to find any reliable evidence to the contrary.

Evidence is not what makes anything exist, evidence is just what people want in order to know that something exists. There is evidence for a spiritual reality in the scriptures of every religion.

Reliable evidence tends to support only one side of the story. And I do not know of any theistic beliefs based upon reality. You would have to find one and demonstrate that that was the case.

When you say reliable evidence you are referring to evidence for the material world reality. I believe that most religious beliefs are based upon reality, spiritual reality, although some religious beliefs are more realistic than others.

It is not "necessary" It would be a result.

Why would everyone ever view the evidence for theistic beliefs the same way? People are all very different an think about things differently. People think about everything differently so why would religion be the exception?

Once again, reliable evidence tends to support only one idea. It is why it is useful. And it usually is based upon the ability to test an idea. I really do not know of any that does not have that basis. And as always, the burden of proof, which in this case includes testing one's ideas, originally lies with the person making a positive claim.

It does not matter if reliable evidence only supports one religious belief. Even if the evidence is reliable that is no guarantee that people are going believe what it supports. Moreover, no two people are going to view the evidence in exactly the same way, no matter how reliable it is.

You keep talking about testing an idea but I don't know what you mean. How would one test a religious belief?

Most atheists do not deny the existence of God. Like Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Russell's Teapot, they simple do not believe in those ideas until evidence is presented for them.

From what I have seen most if not all atheists say "that's not evidence" what the only evidence that God exists is presented to them, so there is no way they will ever know that God exists. You cannot order up evidence line a burger in a restaurant, God decides what evidence he will provide. From time immemorial God has sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, and God is not going to do anything different just because atheists do not like that kind of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is true that if people want to learn about a religion or anything else they must be willing to be honest and have a genuine desire to learn. Do you have a desire to learn about a new religion?

My point was that people are going to view the evidence for a religion differently. How can that be avoided?

Obviously we are talking two different languages. God is not an idea, God is God and that is not contingent upon a belief. God is what God is and God is not testable because God is unreachable for testiing.

Evidence is not what makes anything exist, evidence is just what people want in order to know that something exists. There is evidence for a spiritual reality in the scriptures of every religion.

When you say reliable evidence you are referring to evidence for the material world reality. I believe that most religious beliefs are based upon reality, spiritual reality, although some religious beliefs are more realistic than others.

Why would everyone ever view the evidence for theistic beliefs the same way? People are all very different an think about things differently. People think about everything differently so why would religion be the exception?

It does not matter if reliable evidence only supports one religious belief. Even if the evidence is reliable that is no guarantee that people are going believe what it supports. Moreover, no two people are going to view the evidence in exactly the same way, no matter how reliable it is.

You keep talking about testing an idea but I don't know what you mean. How would one test a religious belief?

From what I have seen most if not all atheists say "that's not evidence" what the only evidence that God exists is presented to them, so there is no way they will ever know that God exists. You cannot order up evidence line a burger in a restaurant, God decides what evidence he will provide. From time immemorial God has sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, and God is not going to do anything different just because atheists do not like that kind of evidence.

I already said that most probably would never change. It is hard to get people to see their errors when it involves a concept near and dear to them.

And perhaps what you were supplying was not evidence. It was almost certainly not reliable evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already said that most probably would never change. It is hard to get people to see their errors when it involves a concept near and dear to them.

No, most people probably won't change. It is hard to get people to see their errors when it involves a concept near and dear to them.

I think you should listen to @eyes to See. He is very wise and he knows how God operates. #33 Eyes to See, Today at 9:31 PM

And perhaps what you were supplying was not evidence. It was almost certainly not reliable evidence.

It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, most people probably won't change. It is hard to get people to see their errors when it involves a concept near and dear to them.

I think you should listen to @eyes to See. He is very wise and he knows how God operates. #33 Eyes to See, Today at 9:31 PM

It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

No, the "evidence" that you have is no better than that of any other religion. It is of low quality and clearly is insufficient.

 

[ratiocinator]

There can never be an objective link because how people view the evidence will always be subjective.

So there's no objective evidence for the truth of your faith and the reality of your god (as I've been saying all along). It's not about how we view the evidence it's about what it is evidence for.

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, but that is exactly what you have been doing. You could not even deny that you yourself showed that some arguments are poor. Giving you examples of poor arguments does nothing.

I did not ask for an example of a poor argument. I asked for ONE example of these numerous tests you spoke about.

But then your personal shtick has been exposed. I cannot recall you supporting your beliefs.

Deflection.

I have never made a claim that needs to be supported and have not supported it. You can't claim the same.

Deflection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not ask for an example of a poor argument. I asked for ONE example of these numerous tests you spoke about.

Deflection.

Deflection.

You did ask for a poor test. A person that reasons logically would have understood this.

And please, I can't take you at all seriously if you make false claims about me.

Try again.

 

[samtonga43]

You did ask for a poor test.

Correct. I asked for one example of the numerous tests you spoke about. Is there something about this request you fail to understand?

And please, I can't take you at all seriously if you make false claims about me.

Please show me an example of a false claim I have made about you.

Try again.

To do what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. I asked for one example of the numerous tests you spoke about. Is there something about this request you fail to understand?

Please show me an example of a false claim I have made about you.

To do what?

And I made it abundantly clear why that was a bogus request and that I would not be fulfilling it.

Your claims of deflection were false. You made a bogus request. It was explained to you. You acted like a spoiled child that was denied candy and started making false claims.

 

[Muffled]

It has been offered that if you look at the life of Jesus and the Bab, then you can see there would be no way of seperating them as being the Lamb given in prophecy. All that Jesus faced, so did the Bab, but for twice the time. From declaration to death Jesus faced 3 years of persecution and the Bab 6 years.

The execution of Jesus and the Bab both tell us in different ways, that you can no Kill the Spirit that God has given to humanity. Which is also what the Quran has offered.

Regards Tony

I don't believe a suffering Muslim equates to a Jewish Passover lamb. He most likely did not celebrate Passover.

 

[Muffled]

So you say it was God because MrB said it was God?

I believe anyone can say it but can they back it up by rising from the dead?

 

[Muffled]

Sorry but no? And then you say, "just because Baha'u'llah has fulfilled the prophecies of the older religions that does not connect it to the older religions?" Hmmm? You had to throw that last line in didn't you. You've set yourself up. So again, what were those prophecies? You know the ones about Kalki, Maitreya, and when and how Jesus would return and all those that are found in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible? How are they fulfilled?

I believe they are not but they will provide smoke and mirrors to answer that question.