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

[Truthseeker]

@Trailblazer, I have an important appeal to you in out personal conversation.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be at least some kind of evidence that the religion works. If its own people lived up to its teachings. Unfortunately, like most all religions with a lot of rules, from what I've seen, most of its members don't follow them. Things like being loving, respectful , humble and all that good stuff.

That would be evidence that the religion works but it would not be evidence that the religion is true.

You said that from what I've seen, most of its members don't follow the rules, things like being loving, respectful, and humble How much of the Baha'i world community have you seen? Even if you have seen some Baha'is that don't live up to the teachings what would that prove? To say that Baha'is do not generally live up to the teachings based upon a few Baha'is you have known personally or heard about would be the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and the fallacy of hasty generalization and is thus illogical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be evidence that the religion works but it would not be evidence that the religion is true.

You said that from what I've seen, most of its members don't follow the rules, things like being loving, respectful, and humble How much of the Baha'i world community have you seen? Even if you have seen some Bahais that don't live up to the teachings what would that prove? To say that Baha'is do not generally live up to the teachings based upon a few Baha'is you have known personally or heard about would be the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and the fallacy of hasty generalization and is thus illogical.

I would not say that is "evidence". But it could show that one religion is superior to others if its moral teachings were superior. In other words if one religion led to more harm to others and another one led to less harm to others I would have to go with the second religion as being superior.

 

[Trailblazer]

God and God's supposed "manifestations", until proven, can't be called true and factual. So sure people believe in them, but are they being superstitious in their beliefs? Because those things can't be proven to be true and factual? And, isn't it right that some people would expect that of a religion... to prove its claims? Like with the resurrection of Jesus, Lazarus and others... Why don't you believe those things? I would hope it's more than, "because the Baha'i Faith says so." I would hope it is because it goes against scientific knowledge. And therefore, Baha'is make those stories metaphorical. Well, God can't be proven. He's unknowable and all that. What if God is metaphorical?

God and God's supposed "manifestations" cannot ever be proven to be true or factual, so all we can do is believe in them.

No, it is not right for people to expect believers to prove that their beliefs are true, not unless they are claiming they are true on a debate forum.

I don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus because there is no real evidence that it ever happened, but also because it goes against scientific knowledge, and also because it serves no useful purpose, and also because it is totally unrelated to the actual mission of Jesus, and for that reason alone I believe it is a made up story.

I also don't believe it because the Baha'i Faith teaches that it never happened but that is the least of the reasons I don't believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've mentioned it before, I've communed with God and had visions. Only problem was... I was believing different things about who and what God was each time. I told you how my brother "felt" the hand of God pushing on his back and keeping him from falling off a mountain. Your Baha'i reality has its beliefs, but other religions have theirs. A Christian might "know" that Jesus is alive and lives in his heart. They can feel the power of the Holy Spirit guiding them. They pray and know that God the Father hears them. But you and I don't believe that stuff is true and real. So what is it that they are feeling and think they know?

Logically speaking I do not believe that personal God experience are not proof of God. They are just experiences and they might be something that came form God - or not.

If the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians He is sure guiding them in all different directions. Does this make sense to you? I cannot believe in things that make no sense to me. Figuratively speaking I can believe tat Jesus lives inside his heart, but there are Christians who actually believe that Jesus lives inside of them! years ago I met an atheist (ex-Christian) on a forum who said that his Christian wife believed that Jesus literally lived inside of her and he had stopped having sex with his wife because he could not have sex with her believing Jesus was inside her body. This is the damage that false beliefs can cause to people.

I believe that God hears every prayer because that is a Baha'i belief but I don't believe that God is "doing" all the things that Christians believe God is doing in their lives. I sure wish I could believe that but unfortunately I see no evidence for it so I have to write it off as wishful thinking. It is possible I am wrong though and I wish I was wrong because I need all the help I can get! I have to agree with Christians that I cannot do it all alone because that is congruent with Baha'i beliefs and also because it makes sense since humans are quite powerless.

This is related to a BahaiTeachings.org article that came in a few days ago:

Relying on God Instead of Ourselves — With Peter Murphy

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, with the resurrection, you could use science and say that people that have been dead for three days can't come back to life. And with Satan, have you ever felt a dark, evil energy surrounding you? I wonder if that's testable?

Well yeah, that's what I'm getting at. How do you explain it? Do you use scientific facts.

What I would say all depends upon the Christian I am talking to, what they believe and why they believe it. I try to understand people and approach people where they are at. I would probably not try to use scientific facts, I might try to use the Bible and the real mission of Jesus and ask them how the resurrection fits in, because it doesn't fit in, it is an addition that came much later and it is superfluous to the mission of Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer, I have an important appeal to you in out personal conversation.

I got it and will deal with it as soon as I get caught up on posts here.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would not do any good. The denial is too deep to overcome.

That is just deflection you use because you have no evidence. I don't need my MA on psychology to figure that out, only one course in introductory psychology....

And in a court of law the prosecutor would say that he is not going to present any evidence that the defendant murdered his wife because the denial would be just too deep to overcome. That would realy be justice wouldn't it?

 

[CG Didymus]

I try to understand people and approach people where they are at

I like that. And, since this thread is about trying to convince an Atheist about your religion being true, what might be a better approach? This thread is going around in circles way too much. Whether it's a "belief" a "claim" or whatever is not getting anywhere. Is the Baha'i Faith the truth from God for this age? Does it have the teachings that can heal the world and bring about peace and unity? A Baha'is should answer "yes" to this. Then, if asked by an Atheist to try and convince them that the Baha'i Faith is true, what could or should a Baha'i say? I think you're right about trying to understand them and approach them where they are at, but with Atheists... Where they're at is no where near God, manifestations or prophets of God, so what do you do? What ever you come up with has got to be better than what's been going on.

 

[Trailblazer]

I like that. And, since this thread is about trying to convince an Atheist about your religion being true, what might be a better approach? This thread is going around in circles way too much. Whether it's a "belief" a "claim" or whatever is not getting anywhere. Is the Baha'i Faith the truth from God for this age? Does it have the teachings that can heal the world and bring about peace and unity? A Baha'is should answer "yes" to this. Then, if asked by an Atheist to try and convince them that the Baha'i Faith is true, what could or should a Baha'i say? I think you're right about trying to understand them and approach them where they are at, but with Atheists... Where they're at is no where near God, manifestations or prophets of God, so what do you do? What ever you come up with has got to be better than what's been going on.

Originally this thread was about believers trying to convince an Atheist about their religion being true, but the poster who posted that is long gone and this thread has turned into a thread for Atheists to say "that's not evidence" or my thinking is flawed or illogical. As you said, whether it's a "belief" a "claim" or whatever is not getting anywhere. This kind of bantering serves no useful purpose as I think you know.

On the thread I started a month ago Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence? I got a useful post from @It Aint Necessarily So and I plan to answer that post as soon as I have time.

#1951 It Aint Necessarily So, Today at 1:29 PM

 

[Tiberius]

I have not presented anything as a fact. I only present it as a belief.

You present it as an accurate account of reality. Stop trying to hide behind definitions.

I have no premises or conclusions because I am not making a logical argument.

That's for sure.

No, it is not the same. I see we are making no progress.

Yes it is exactly the same. We are both saying, "There is no testable or verifiable evidence for X, but that does not mean we should conclude that X is not real."

The logic remains the same, the only difference is what we are saying X is. If it is silly when I say it with X being the magic that allows me to turn into an eagle, then it is also silly when you say it with X being God.

Been there, done that... I see we are making no progress.

We are making no progress because you refuse to see that the logic is the same in both cases. You refuse to judge something on the validity of its logic. So you claim that it's valid when it supports your position, but invalid when I use it to support mine.

Been there, done that... I see we are making no progress.

You said there was evidence. I'm just asking you to present it. Why do you refuse?

I was not presenting my belief as the truth about how the universe works.

Sure seemed like it.

I see no point discussing this knowing your bias.

What bias is that? The fact I am biased towards things that can actually be shown via testable evidence? Do you think that's a bad thing?

No they do not. They only hear God speak through the Holy Spirit in a way that we cannot understand.

Okay, so let's measure the Holy Spirit then.

You have pointed out no fallacies that I have committed. I am not using circular reasoning to try to prove anything so that's out of the running. What else is there?

Your inability to recognise that you have committed logical fallacies does not mean that you haven't made any. I'm not the only person who has pointed out the logical fallacies you have made.

As far as evidence goes, you already know what I have and I cannot produce something I don't have so why keep asking for it?

Maybe you should stop calling it "evidence" when it isn't.

I guess you did not understand what I was saying. I was saying that just because I am mad at God that does not affect my belief in God. I believe God exists for certain but I am mad at God. My husband thinks that my being mad is a reason for me to become an atheist but I told him I cannot do that because I believe God exists.

You literally said you would become an atheists over having issues with God. "If I was going to become an atheist ... it would be because I have issues with God."

By definition, an atheist lacks belief in God.

If you were an atheist because you had issues with God, you would literally be saying, "I have issues with a being I don't believe exists in reality."

No, that is not what I did. I recognized the evidence that shows the Baha'i Faith is true and then became a Baha'i.

You've said repeatedly that there can never be any evidence for the supernatural claims made by the Baha'i faith, or any other faith.

 

[Tiberius]

I can't think of any but how is that related to what you are responding to?

Even if there are no specific facts that can only be explained by the existence of God that would not mean that God does not exist. I hope you understand why saying that would be illogical. I recognized it immediately.

But it WOULD mean that there's no reason to believe in God. Occam's razor and all that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just deflection you use because you have no evidence. I don't need my MA on psychology to figure that out, only one course in introductory psychology....

And in a court of law the prosecutor would say that he is not going to present any evidence that the defendant murdered his wife because the denial would be just too deep to overcome. That would realy be justice wouldn't it?

No, it is not. Your errors have been pointed out to you countless times and you only deny them. You can do your own homework this time.

 

[Trailblazer]

You present it as an accurate account of reality. Stop trying to hide behind definitions.

I believe it is an accurate account of reality.

Yes it is exactly the same. We are both saying, "There is no testable or verifiable evidence for X, but that does not mean we should conclude that X is not real."

The logic remains the same, the only difference is what we are saying X is. If it is silly when I say it with X being the magic that allows me to turn into an eagle, then it is also silly when you say it with X being God.

I see we are making no progress.

We are making no progress because you refuse to see that the logic is the same in both cases. You refuse to judge something on the validity of its logic. So you claim that it's valid when it supports your position, but invalid when I use it to support mine.

We are making no progress because you insist there should be testable or verifiable evidence for God, when such is impossible. That would be like me expecting to take a flight out to Jupiter just because I want to go to Jupiter.... It's unrealistic.

You said there was evidence. I'm just asking you to present it. Why do you refuse?

I have presented the only evidence I have over and over and over and over and over again... Why would I present it again?

What bias is that? The fact I am biased towards things that can actually be shown via testable evidence? Do you think that's a bad thing?

Homeopathic medicines have been tested but i don't want to get into a discussion about which kind of medicine is best. Conventional medicine and homeopathic medicine each have their place.

Okay, so let's measure the Holy Spirit then.

I said that how God communicate through the Holy Spirit is not something we can ever understand and it certainly cannot be measured.

Your inability to recognise that you have committed logical fallacies does not mean that you haven't made any. I'm not the only person who has pointed out the logical fallacies you have made.

Your inability to recognize that you have committed logical fallacies does not mean that you haven't made any. I might be the only person who has pointed out the logical fallacies you have made because I am the only believer who likes logic. And when I point them out I explain precisely why you committed them, unlike you.

Maybe you should stop calling it "evidence" when it isn't.

Maybe you should stop saying "that's not evidence" when it is evidence.

You literally said you would become an atheists over having issues with God. "If I was going to become an atheist ... it would be because I have issues with God."

By definition, an atheist lacks belief in God.

If you were an atheist because you had issues with God, you would literally be saying, "I have issues with a being I don't believe exists in reality."

I said: "If I was going to become an atheist it would be because I have issues with God." And then I said that I cannot become an atheist even though I have issues with God because I believe that God exists.

You've said repeatedly that there can never be any evidence for the supernatural claims made by the Baha'i faith, or any other faith.

No, I never said that. I said that there can never be any proof for the supernatural claims made by the Baha'i faith, or any other faith. I recognized the evidence that shows the Baha'i Faith is true and then became a Baha'i. I did not need proof for the supernatural claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it is not. Your errors have been pointed out to you countless times and you only deny them. You can do your own homework this time.

That is just deflection you use because you have no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just deflection you use because you have no evidence.

Incorrect. It is the only logical response to a denier.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it WOULD mean that there's no reason to believe in God. Occam's razor and all that.

There would not be any reason to believe in God if there was no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Incorrect. It is the only logical response to a denier.

No, it is deflection. As atheists like to say if you can't show it you don't know it.
I always show and explain how know when I see atheists commit logical fallacies.

 

[night912]

Incorrect. It is the only logical response to a denier.

And all this time Trailblazer has been preaching about one has to do their own investigation in order to find the truth, but now she refuses to do her own investigation. Apparently, what she really goes by is, do your own investigation on the things that you want to be true, and don't do it on the things don't want to be true.

 

[night912]

No, it is deflection. As atheists like to say if you can't show it you don't know it.
I always show and explain how know when I see atheists commit logical fallacies.

Hahahaha.
Funny joke.