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

[stvdv]

That would be hard...if is a deity.

Yes, defining God is problematic, hence debates on God are too

 

[infrabenji]

Oh, you have a monopoly on reality as the basis for all logic? That's rich!

For starters, skepticism is proof that the universe is not entirely mechanical. But God is so obvious its blinding. A finite can neither prove nor disprove infinite God. But God is experienceable as a subjective reality for those who truly want to know him.

"Physical stability associated with biologic elasticity is present in nature only because of the well-nigh infinite wisdom possessed by the Master Architects of creation. Nothing less than transcendental wisdom could ever design units of matter which are at the same time so stable and so efficiently flexible." Urantia Book

I don't need a monopoly to show the fallacious reasoning in your arguments. This is day one stuff. We don't accept ad hominem statements. You're just poisoning the well. For starters you should read a dictionary. Skepticism has nothing to do with the mechanics of the universe except when applied to claims about the universe. Speaking of claims let's look at your first fallacy the argument from incredulity. Big walk back, now god is subjective. Guess you won't be able to provide evidence which is your next fallacy the argument from personal experience. Lastly your argument from design has had holes punched through it like and acme rocket since the days of Thomas Aquinas. It couldn't hold water if it tried. Do some research, drop the urantia, and google critical thinking, the laws of logic, and the scientific method. Then come back with something more substantial than I think god exists cuz tress are beautiful but you can't see any evidence cuz it's subjective. Definitely don't need a monopoly just a franchise will do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just to clarify you reject the premise that critical thinking and all that are the best tools we have for determining the truth of a claim? I can demonstrate with evidence that the methodologies I've listed are in fact the best methods we have. Very easily. Do you know of better ones. I'd love to know if you've some secret tools laying around I haven't heard of. That would be awesome. Secret knowledge or something? You have in fact made a claim. All I'm asking for is some proof or at least an explanation about this transcendent thing you claimed existed. You are on a religious debates forum. It probably goes that you would be asked to demonstrate in some way the truth of your beliefs. Of course the expectation is that if you cannot you reevaluate your beliefs and apply the same scrutiny I will if you're able to demonstrate to me that you are in fact, right and what you say proves to be true. I look forward to your response. Hopefully, I learn something new.

The tools you describe are very useful to you in all sorts of ways, I am sure. But they will not bring you closer to God, and they will avail you nothing in your search for a spiritual awakening, should you ever decide to embark on such a journey.

What you are doing here is handing me a box of carpenters tools, and asking me to produce a symphony. Carpenters tools are wonderful for making things out of wood; what you are asking for cannot be made from wood alone. As man does not live by bread alone.

Unless you are willing to set aside your expectations, forget everything you think you know, and abandon your old ways of thinking, no spiritual teacher (which, anyway, I am not) can teach you anything.

 

[infrabenji]

I agree, because most of them are.....and some are the product of pure human fantasy......but if there was a Creator God whose power is amply demonstrated in creation, then wouldn't its existence alone be proof enough, based on the law of cause and effect? Nothing comes from nothing......so what was before the Big Bang? Where else could a universe come from.....equipped with immutable laws that are so incredibly precise, you can pinpoint where a heavenly body will be in a thousand years from now?
How could these laws create themselves? These are the things that I considered myself when looking for answers.

And when it comes to the designs we see in nature, mirroring the things in the universe like these.....
Can you not see the same creative hand at work?

There is a sacred geometry seen in the heavens and on earth.....could that be just a series of fortunate coincidences? I could not see how that was possible.

I love what science tells me about God.....but everything in me balks when science tries to eliminate him.


Can you demonstrate what 'quality of evidence' gives you pause....?..just so I understand what you mean?

And what it is that you find hard to believe about God? Perhaps there is another avenue of thought, not yet explored?

Let's start with the second thing first. Nothing from Nothing? What is nothing? We have no examples of comparison as there has always been something. We don't know what happened before the singularity. That is the only honest answer. A man tried to address this with the cosmological argument which dates back a thousand years. Again a thousand years, doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny anymore. The universe exists, I see the world as beautiful, therefore god exists. Arguments from design as I told the last gentleman have been around for hundreds of years and though they've changed ever so slightly are still fallacious. I could give you the 20 incongruencies in the argument but I think you trust me. Plus, it's nothing a quick google search won't tell you. Arguments from personal incredulity aren't much better. Just because something seems impossible to us doesn't get us anywhere near god did it. Science is a methodology. The fact that science hasn't uncovered a method for testing the supernatural isn't a fault of science or science trying to eliminate god. Science isn't static. It changes when new information is processed through the methodology of science and found to be fact. It's more of testament that we should withhold belief until such time as the evidence warrants it. As there is currently no evidence for the supernatural or any mechanism by which we can test it. Not sure about the quality of evidence thing as I can't see my original post. What I find hard to believe about any god or gods is the lack of testable evidence. We don't have anything to go off of but arguments from personal experience. Anecdotal evidence, Tired and worn apologetics from by gone era's. Do you know it's been about 600 years last time I checked since an original argument for the existence of god was put to paper. Doesn't that give you pause? Inserting god arbitrarily or after the fact or in place of a simple I don't know isn't necessary and in my experience always leads to flawed reasoning and participation in logical fallacies. Does it give you pause that every single argument for the existence of god for hundreds of years has failed to meet the burden of proof?

 

[infrabenji]

Skepticism is proof that not all minds see things the same way even though those minds are all made of the same material substance. No dictionary needed, common sense will due. For that matter reality IS subjective.

All Atheist start from the same place, they know that spiritual experiences are subjective so they demand objective proofs. They come to religious forums to jerk off their egos all dressed up as some sincere dialogue.

Critical thinking from a place of ignorance isn't proof of anything. Man's conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

Individuality is proof not all minds see things the same way. Skepticism has its own definition that has nothing to do with people seeing things in different ways. It's literally doubt. Stating that spiritual experiences are subjective is how religious people shuck the burden of having to meet even the most basic evidentiary standards using the methodologies of science. The best tool known for determining physical reality. Just as the laws of logic and logical fallacies are the best tools at determining the truth value of claims being made. You can huff and puff and poison the well all you want. But you couldn't even provide subjective evidence without engaging in fallacious reasoning if you tried.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Part of subjective evidence is does it appear to you that the Writings of my Faith appear reasonable to you, which does have a subjective basis. Do the Writings inspire you? From what you can determine from the life of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha did they live holy lives? Of course you would have to investigate the above not just here from what I present you. My opinion on any of this should be taken with a grain of salt.

They are not at all reasonable starting with the belief in One God. Why One God? Or why not more Gods and Goddesses? I would feel myself to be very foolish to have belief in your taketh, giveth, presenteth, hath, eateth, sleepeth, worketh, etc. It seems very silly. And then calling notes written by your leaders as tablets. Seems you have not progressed beyond the Akkadians and Sumerians. Bab and Bahaollah are not a new phenomena in Iranian Shia Islam, where every one tries to be an imam or Mahdi or as Bahaollah labelled himself, a manifestation.
* Note: No one tries to be a messenger (Nabi) like Mohammad, because that will be a death warrant in Islamic countries. The fakes understand that very clearly.

Wikipedia tells me: "According to seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, more than 3,000 Mahdi claimants were in prison in Iran in 2012." List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia

"The term "messiah complex" is not addressed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), as it is not a clinical term nor diagnosable disorder. However, the symptoms as a proposed disorder closely resemble those found in individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur or that they have grandiose self-images that veer towards the delusional." Messiah complex - Wikipedia

Also see God complex - Wikipedia, Religious delusion - Wikipedia, Jerusalem syndrome - Wikipedia

What in essence Balaollah says is accept my religion, become a Bahai, come under my banner, rever me and pay your tithes regularly, and then we would talk about peace and brotherhood, and not untill then. I do not know what is inspiring in this.
How can anyone know the personal lives of people long dead? What we get is the history written by their followers who will always be showering glowing praise. They might have paid professional writers to do the job. Even Jesus has been associated with Mary Magdalene.
Of course, I take your opinion with a kilogram of salt since you are a Bahai.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They come to religious forums to jerk off their egos all dressed up as some sincere dialogue.

That is for what you too come here. And this forum is not just for theists.

 

[infrabenji]

The tools you describe are very useful to you in all sorts of ways, I am sure. But they will not bring you closer to God, and they will avail you nothing in your search for a spiritual awakening, should you ever decide to embark on such a journey.

What you are doing here is handing me a box of carpenters tools, and asking me to produce a symphony. Carpenters tools are wonderful for making things out of wood; what you are asking for cannot be made from wood alone. As man does not live by bread alone.

Unless you are willing to set aside your expectations, forget everything you think you know, and abandon your old ways of thinking, no spiritual teacher (which, anyway, I am not) can teach you anything.

No, you're probably right. The more I understand the subtleties and nuances of the methodologies of logic and science the less convincing fallacious arguments for the existence of god become. My standards improve as to what I'm willing to call truth and strengthen my ability to admit I don't know the rest. You're literally making unfalsifiable claims presenting nothing but anecdotal evidence, the weakest kind, and accusing me of under equipping you. The methodology of science, the laws of logic and reason, critical thinking, and logical fallacies are a surgeons tools. With them you can dissect the claims people make, determine true from false, and as closely as possible model your reality after actual reality. If you want I can break down how each of these methodologies work and show you how to apply them. Certainly you apply critical thinking in your everyday life then abandon it later when it doesn't fit your narrative. This is referred to as cognitive dissonance. Why else do you not to turn left on a red light. Or blow yourself up in a mall. Or worship pagan gods or hindu gods? Are you afraid of muslim hell? No, of course not those things don't exist. But believing in a magical sky wizard who grants wishes is all the sudden totally reasonable.

 

[Colt]

Individuality is proof not all minds see things the same way. Skepticism has its own definition that has nothing to do with people seeing things in different ways. It's literally doubt. Stating that spiritual experiences are subjective is how religious people shuck the burden of having to meet even the most basic evidentiary standards using the methodologies of science. The best tool known for determining physical reality. Just as the laws of logic and logical fallacies are the best tools at determining the truth value of claims being made. You can huff and puff and poison the well all you want. But you couldn't even provide subjective evidence without engaging in fallacious reasoning if you tried.

Optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts.

Demanding proofs of the spiritual experiences of others is laziness on the part of the so-called Atheist who is afraid to search for God within himself. Atheist are "shucking responsibility" for fear that it might effect their separatist self-centered persona. The EGO self really fears being held by a strong religious movement.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably super-scientific.

"This profound experience of the reality of the divine indwelling forever transcends the crude materialistic technique of the physical sciences. You cannot put spiritual joy under a microscope; you cannot weigh love in a balance; you cannot measure moral values; neither can you estimate the quality of spiritual worship."

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is no God to whom you can get closer. That is a mirage.

Then I acknowledge the mirage, and meditate on what it's true nature might be.

 

[ratiocinator]

Demanding proofs of the spiritual experiences of others is laziness on the part of the so-called Atheist who is afraid to search for God within himself. Atheist are "shucking responsibility" for fear that it might effect their separatist self-centered persona. The EGO self really fears being held by a strong religious movement.

I'd ask for a refund from the mind-reading class. Why do some theists think they know what all atheists think and what motivates them?

I could say (for example) that theists are afraid of life without their imaginary friends, but that would be absurd. I can't and won't pretend that I know how all theists think or what their hopes and fears are.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, you're probably right. The more I understand the subtleties and nuances of the methodologies of logic and science the less convincing fallacious arguments for the existence of god become. My standards improve as to what I'm willing to call truth and strengthen my ability to admit I don't know the rest. You're literally making unfalsifiable claims presenting nothing but anecdotal evidence, the weakest kind, and accusing me of under equipping you. The methodology of science, the laws of logic and reason, critical thinking, and logical fallacies are a surgeons tools. With them you can dissect the claims people make, determine true from false, and as closely as possible model your reality after actual reality. If you want I can break down how each of these methodologies work and show you how to apply them. Certainly you apply critical thinking in your everyday life then abandon it later when it doesn't fit your narrative. This is referred to as cognitive dissonance. Why else do you not to turn left on a red light. Or blow yourself up in a mall. Or worship pagan gods or hindu gods? Are you afraid of muslim hell? No, of course not those things don't exist. But believing in a magical sky wizard who grants wishes is all the sudden totally reasonable.

I am glad your standards have improved. They certainly are not improving in the world today,
as my profile attests.
But the more I understand the subtleties and nuances of science the more I both love science
and understand its limitations. Science has nothing to say about religion - religion exists in a
different realm (or magisterium if you like.) Religion is about the 'why' of the universe, something
science cannot speak for. And religion is about something from nothing, and that's impossible
to science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, you're probably right. The more I understand the subtleties and nuances of the methodologies of logic and science the less convincing fallacious arguments for the existence of god become. My standards improve as to what I'm willing to call truth and strengthen my ability to admit I don't know the rest. You're literally making unfalsifiable claims presenting nothing but anecdotal evidence, the weakest kind, and accusing me of under equipping you. The methodology of science, the laws of logic and reason, critical thinking, and logical fallacies are a surgeons tools. With them you can dissect the claims people make, determine true from false, and as closely as possible model your reality after actual reality. If you want I can break down how each of these methodologies work and show you how to apply them. Certainly you apply critical thinking in your everyday life then abandon it later when it doesn't fit your narrative. This is referred to as cognitive dissonance. Why else do you not to turn left on a red light. Or blow yourself up in a mall. Or worship pagan gods or hindu gods? Are you afraid of muslim hell? No, of course not those things don't exist. But believing in a magical sky wizard who grants wishes is all the sudden totally reasonable.

These improving standards of yours, and this growing understanding of nuance; have they brought you much peace and contentment, thus far? All this knowledge you have acquired, what do you do with it?

 

[infrabenji]

Optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts.

Demanding proofs of the spiritual experiences of others is laziness on the part of the so-called Atheist who is afraid to search for God within himself. Atheist are "shucking responsibility" for fear that it might effect their separatist self-centered persona. The EGO self really fears being held by a strong religious movement.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably super-scientific.

"This profound experience of the reality of the divine indwelling forever transcends the crude materialistic technique of the physical sciences. You cannot put spiritual joy under a microscope; you cannot weigh love in a balance; you cannot measure moral values; neither can you estimate the quality of spiritual worship."

You need to understand what the burden of proof is cOLTER. You're making unfalsifiable claims, providing no evidence, and continuing to engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well. I am not static. My mind can be changed but that requires sufficient evidence of any kind. Unfortunately, we have heretofore been unable to find a mechanism to test the supernatural, if we had, it would simply be referred to as natural and fact. Philosophy isn't super scientific. It's still considered an art. When you have a bachelors in philosophy you have a bachelor of arts. I find all religious people have to fall back on is philosophical hyperbole because as you stated religion cannot be proven objectively. Who's fault is that? gods? Do you want to talk about the argument from divine hiddenness? No, philosophy used to be a valuable tool for the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. But religious people with little understanding of how to operate these mechanisms have bastardized them into nothing more than word soup. Circular reasoning that goes nowhere and polluted once great ideas with biased reasoning. As someone with a bachelors in theology, an associates in religion, an associates in philosophy, and a current student of law I've studied religions for over half my life and I have not heard anything new for a very long time. Maybe you'll be the first person in 600 years to come up with a brand new argument for the existence of god? Wouldn't that be cool. You may even win a debate with it someday.

 

[Colt]

I'd ask for a refund from the mind-reading class. Why do some theists think they know what all atheists think and what motivates them?

I could say (for example) that theists are afraid of life without their imaginary friends, but that would be absurd. I can't and won't pretend that I know how all theists think or what their hopes and fears are.

Its not mind reading, nonconformists are all alike. I notice that you all say the same thing. A real secure Atheist doesn't bother, they don't care, they live their short lives without joining religious forums to mock religious people.

 

[ratiocinator]

Its not mind reading...

Very true.

...nonconformists are all alike.

Sorry, but I just find these simplistic generalisations comical.

I notice that you all say the same thing.

Obviously false.

A real secure Atheist doesn't bother, they don't care, they live their short lives without joining religious forums to mock religious people.

You really do love making baseless assertions, don't you?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then I acknowledge the mirage, and meditate on what it's true nature might be.

Yeah, make your effort or get it from us enlightened people in a jiffy.

A real secure Atheist doesn't bother, they don't care, they live their short lives without joining religious forums to mock religious people.

A real theist also should not bother. I am a strong atheist but I am a;so a staunch Hindu. Same for Buddhists or Jains. They do not have a God. A religion does not always require a God. You are unaware of that otherwise you would not say such a thing.

 

[Marcion]

Optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts.

Demanding proofs of the spiritual experiences of others is laziness on the part of the so-called Atheist who is afraid to search for God within himself. Atheist are "shucking responsibility" for fear that it might effect their separatist self-centered persona. The EGO self really fears being held by a strong religious movement.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably super-scientific.

"This profound experience of the reality of the divine indwelling forever transcends the crude materialistic technique of the physical sciences. You cannot put spiritual joy under a microscope; you cannot weigh love in a balance; you cannot measure moral values; neither can you estimate the quality of spiritual worship."

That's why atheist resemble religious fundamentalists. They are not practical people, they are dogmatic believers that cling to an unconvincing ideology.

 

[Colt]

Very true.



Sorry, but I just find these simplistic generalisations comical.



Obviously false.



You really do love making baseless assertions, don't you?

"assertions", that's the first word Atheists learn at Atheism school.

 

[ratiocinator]

"assertions", that's the first word Atheists learn at Atheism school.

And there's another one....