Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Indeed, but that is not what you said, you said that EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Not that some people deny objective facts. So which is it?

It is both.
EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings or opinions but some people like the flat earthers and people who believe that Trump won the 2020 election deny objective facts.

 

[ppp]

I do not assume it, I believe it.

I said, Statement, not you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I said, Statement, not you.

Trailblazer said: God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

You said: Begging the question: Statement assumes the conclusion. That God exists.

That refers back to MY statement.
God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

That is if God exists. Can you think of any other reason why an Omnipotent God would not be able to be proven/make Himself known as an objective fact, other than He does not want to be proven/known that way?
I am all ears.

 

[Trailblazer]

So there is a pantheon of Hindu, Meso-American, Norse, Roman and Greek gods, but there is also only one god.
Not sure how that is going to work.

It won't work until everyone realizes that there is only one true God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You claimed that faith only comes from the self, so why are you constantly quoting other people on the issue?

What other people have I quoted?
Faith has to be in something and it is not in the self, so of course I quote the Messengers I have faith in.

 

[ppp]

That refers back to MY statement.

You are not relevant to a statement that you don't claim to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or IOW, the other religions are wrong and yours is right.

That is not what I said. I said my religion is the religion that is suited for the present age since it alone has the remedy that humanity needs in the present age. The older religions had the remedies that were needed for those ages so they were right for those ages and for the peoples they were revealed to.

So, do you believe that anyone who worships any god(s) will go to heaven?

That is a loaded question. I don't really know, only God knows.
I only know that if one wants the guarantee they have to follow the instructions God has laid out.
One might still get to heaven, but only by the bounty and mercy of God.

Mind you, Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, but a Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

 

[Trailblazer]

You are not relevant to a statement that you don't claim to be true.

But I believe it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the problem here is that you do not understand what an analogy is.

I do know what an analogy is but all analogies are not valid.
Any analogy that compares God to a human and expects God to act like a human does not work because God is not a human.

Most religions contain stories of god(s) using superhuman powers to intervene in the physical world.

So what? Stories about God(s) are just stories about God(s).

So you are saying that Christianity is wrong.

I don't do black and white thinking. I believe some of it is right and some of it is wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: How do you know that God sending Messengers is not is the best use of resources or abilities?

Because it doesn't stop the violent conflict, suffering of innocents, etc. In fact, some of god's messengers have increased it.

Unless of course, gods wants there to be violent conflict, suffering of innocents, etc. In which case, he's doing an excellent job.

The Messengers did not cause any of these things or increase them, people who did not follow the teachings and laws of the Messengers caused and increased these things.

 

[Sheldon]

You said all evidence is subjective, do I need to quote you?

Please do. After all, if you are going to make an assertion you need to produce some evidence.

Well, since you asked so politely.

Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: The correct method is to look at the evidence for yourself but not everyone will come to the same conclusions... Why would they?

If the evidence is conclusive, yes they should. It's how science works! It's why you have the computer or smartphone you are using now.

But religion is not science so religion does not work like science.
Evidence for science is conclusive because scientific facts can be proven true, but that is not the case for religious beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

That's true, and I never denied that.

Fine so your belief is nothing more than subjective opinions, again glad to see you admit it.

Likewise your non-belief in the atheism you have chosen is influenced by personal feelings and opinions.

I didn't choose atheism, I was born without the belief. I need no subjective feelings or opinions in order to continue to disbelieve theistic claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, since you asked so politely.

Trailblazer said: ↑
Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Trailblazer said: ↑
EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings

That is not me saying that all evidence is subjective. It is me saying that what people think of the evidence is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Evidence can either be subjective or objective. Subjective evidence is really a misnomer because it is not really evidence.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

 

[Trailblazer]

Fine so your belief is nothing more than subjective opinions, again glad to see you admit it

And that is also all you have, a subjective opinion, because you cannot prove that God does not exist.

I didn't choose atheism, I was born without the belief. I need no subjective feelings or opinions in order to continue to disbelieve theistic claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

But you HAVE subjective feelings and opinions because that is what you USE in order to continue to disbelieve theistic claims. All you can have is an opinion since you have no proof that no God exists.

 

[Sheldon]

scientific facts can be proven true,

Nope. science doesn't prove things, it gathers evidence and tests hypothesis. The more objective evidence that can be verified using the methods of science, the more sure we can can be a conclusion is justified.

Proofs are for logic and mathematics, not science.

 

[Sheldon]

Trailblazer said: ↑
Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Trailblazer said: ↑
EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings

That is not me saying that all evidence is subjective.

Subjective
adjective

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

[F1fan]

@It Aint Necessarily So Thank you for your words. And I whole-heartedly agree with you on the value of these discussions. But when my interlocutor digs in to a point where they will say anything just to be adversarial it gets tiresome. And when they are part of community that practices shunning or other social coersions it is often an indicator of lock up from terror and panic. Discussion of that point is useless. And maybe a little bit like beating on a panicked bunny.

I started responding to other critics when they made an interesting observation and expand on that thinking. It's more interesting to see rational rebuttals to the mundane repeating of belief.

 

[ppp]

But I believe it is true.

,[shrug]

 

[F1fan]

But I believe it is true.

But your reasoning skill is poor.