Atheists: If God existed would God……

[wandering peacefully]

I agree with all of the arrogant critical thinkers on this thread on all points of logical reasoning and objective, verifiable evidence, of course.

I also agree that flaws in critical evidence evaluation is the most serious and detrimental issue facing humanity, all life, and the ecosystems of this planet.

I continue to agree that whenever, and wherever this lack of reason is displayed in public as being a beneficial or viable way to gain valuable and useful knowledge, it should be called out by those who understand that is not the case and explanations given as to why it is not.

However, we still need to remain compassionate and understand there are those who are unable, for a variety of reasons due to genetics or psychological factors, whom cannot at any point in their existence, understand those other viewpoints. When does our humanity kick in to give those individuals a pass?

Everyone on every forum knows that Trailblazer is one of those humans. She has garnished more posts, more traffic for multiple forums and more responses than anyone in the history of religious forum debates.

She obviously lives for these exchanges and often calls various online posters her friends. When a person has little else to bring them comfort or companionship in life, or suffers from emotional discomfort, they often look to outside sources to give them that blanket.

My honest guess is that she has never cared one iota about being a Baha'i or practicing the silly rules or lavishing in the ridiculous and childish writings of that religion's prophet.

No, what she gets out of claiming this one of another 50,000 religions, the constant change in ideas, the declaration that she is right, the IQ to be able to keep the diversion and circulation going, is the attention and companionship she receives through these conversations.

I think everyone including her, believes this is all great fun because it is the best show in town. And it is. But after too much of actually pointing out the actual errors of the faith based and non logical thinking, it could actually be counter productive to why she has been at this for 8 years.

Let's face it, everyone who does these forums knows who she is and what she is on about. It's great fun up to a point. But compassion needs to be considered in the background and passes passed out when needed.

(My two cents on taking a break from too much correction directed at someone who does not care about that and is not going to change anything ever in their thinking or methods. It's good to show on lookers and teach them and other participants about these things, but let's not get too harsh on the actual person.)

 

[F1fan]

There you go again .. genuine .. proper ..
That is your get-out clause.

Anything other than "show me G-d in the flesh" becomes inadmissable.

If that is not the case, then please show me what sort of evidence is "proper or genuine" according to you.

You don't sound very confident in your evidence. If it is excellent then why would you care if heathens are impressed or not? You're not even giving us the chance.

It sounds as if YOU aren't impressed with your evidence enough to share it.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with all of the arrogant critical thinkers on this thread on all points of logical reasoning and objective, verifiable evidence, of course.

I also agree that flaws in critical evidence evaluation is the most serious and detrimental issue facing humanity, all life, and the ecosystems of this planet.

I continue to agree that whenever, and wherever this lack of reason is displayed in public as being a beneficial or viable way to gain valuable and useful knowledge, it should be called out by those who understand that is not the case and explanations given as to why it is not.

Prepare yourself for the wrath of Trailblazer.

However, we still need to remain compassionate and understand there are those who are unable, for a variety of reasons due to genetics or psychological factors, whom cannot at any point in their existence, understand those other viewpoints. When does our humanity kick in to give those individuals a pass?

I understand your concern. It has occurred to me too. Some critics have bowed out for various reasons. I think we have to allow each person to assess their own participation, and learn from it if they are willing. I think that many smart folks are giving her the trust to take care of her own mental state. If we bowed out for her mental health THAT might be more condemning.

Everyone on every forum knows that Trailblazer is one of those humans. She has garnished more posts, more traffic for multiple forums and more responses than anyone in the history of religious forum debates.

She obviously lives for these exchanges and often calls various online posters her friends. When a person has little else to bring them comfort or companionship in life, or suffers from emotional discomfort, they often look to outside sources to give them that blanket.

My honest guess is that she has never cared one iota about being a Baha'i or practicing the silly rules or lavishing in the ridiculous and childish writings of that religion's prophet.

No, what she gets out of claiming this one of another 50,000 religions, the constant change in ideas, the declaration that she is right, the IQ to be able to keep the diversion and circulation going, is the attention and companionship she receives through these conversations.

I think everyone including her, believes this is all great fun because it is the best show in town. And it is. But after too much of actually pointing out the actual errors of the faith based and non logical thinking, it could actually be counter productive to why she has been at this for 8 years.

Let's face it, everyone who does these forums knows who she is and what she is on about. It's great fun up to a point. But compassion needs to be considered in the background and passes passed out when needed.

(My two cents on taking a break from too much correction directed at someone who does not care about that and is not going to change anything ever in their thinking or methods. It's good to show on lookers and teach them and other participants about these things, but let's not get too harsh on the actual person.)

Well, good assessment. There is no ideal state of being for the human condition, and some will struggle and learn, and others will be in a constatnt state of instability and struggle. Not everyone is capable of an "enlightenment", or willing to accept that state if they are. Many find meaning g in the mere struggle of life, and the more wise will see the folly in that. But the wise need to acknowledge that not all can attain the wisdom that come a bit easier for the self.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no way to know anything about fairies

That's not true. We have messengers, like Disney for Tinkerbell and Shakespeare for Oberon.

We have the evidence that supports the claims of these Prophets. The evidence is nit just the scriptures and it is not what believers say about the Prophets. It is what the Prophets actually did on their missions and who they were as people.

Likewise with fairies. It's not just Peter Pan and A Midsummer's Night Dream, but the lives of the messengers. Disney is perhaps the most celebrated animator in history, his mission, not to mention his theme parks, and his record setting 22 Academy Awards. Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer of all time, his mission. It's what these people accomplished in their missions that serves as evidence for fairies.

Here's a message from Shakespeare on fairies:

If you see a fairy ring
In a field of grass,
Very lightly step around,
Tiptoe as you pass;
Last night fairies frolicked there,
And they're sleeping somewhere near.

That's pretty convincing evidence of fairies, I'd say - as good as for any deity. The difference is that fairies exist. We can see that through the words and missions of their messengers.

Just because there is no DIRECT objective evidence for a deity that does not mean all I have is a personal opinion.

Of course.

And just because I have no objective evidence of fairies doesn't make my claim personal opinion. Fairies can be known, but not as fact. It's a belief, but not a claim. That's because I don't assume it, I believe it. Fairies don't want to be known as an objective fact or they would be. We know that because we know they exist, yet left no objective evidence. They want to be known through messengers.

You might say that fairies could do better than that, but that's just you telling fairies what they need to do to be better known, which is illogical.

I think you'd agree that both Disney and Shakespeare were much better messengers than Baha'u'llah. What fraction of people do you think have heard of each of them? 99%, 99%, and 1% respectively (I hadn't even heard of the last one until I was in my sixties)?

Keep in mind that this is not an argument that fairies exist. It's only a conclusion derived from the application of reason to evidence, such as the success of the missions of the fairy messengers. The difference between my position and yours - and the only difference, since they have exactly the same form - is that fairies exist and gods don't. We know that from the evidence, even if it is not objective evidence. We know that from the words of the fairy messengers, and the success of their missions in raising fairy awareness.

 

[KWED]

There you go again .. genuine .. proper ..
That is your get-out clause.

It's not a "get out clause". For evidence to be genuine it needs to be independently verifiable and stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise it is just a claim.

Anything other than "show me G-d in the flesh" becomes inadmissable.

We weren't talking about the existence or god.

If that is not the case, then please show me what sort of evidence is "proper or genuine" according to you.

You claimed that there is evidence to support the magical claims made about Jesus and Muhammad.
I asked you what that evidence was.
You have spent several posts avoiding presenting your evidence.
Therefore the reasonable conclusion is that you do not have any such evidence.
If you do, then present it.
If you don't present it we can all conclude that there is no evidence.

If you are worried that the evidence will not stand up to scrutiny then you have already realised that it is not proper evidence.

 

[HonestJoe]

I would accept any information that questions the existence of God if it made sense to me.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. I think your instinctive statement that you will only accept information you believe came from God is the truth, so any information suggesting God doesn't exist would be dismissed out of hand.

For many years I even hated God.

I'm not surprised. It is my observation that the most fervent and committed believers/non-believers can swing from one extreme to the other while moderates remain moderate even if their beliefs change.

God cannot be encapsulated by human logic, that is what I was trying to say before.

Yes, you keep making assertions like that in our discussion but you repeatedly ignore all the times I've asked you to explain how that is possible. If you can't explain, just admit it.

You are correct in saying that omnipotence and omniscience elevates a being beyond the concepts of past and future but humans live in this time-based world so what God desires (wants) for us applies to our life in this world.

That is still irrelevant. If God is incapable of having desires, he is incapable of having desires for anything, including for humans. That would still be a desire held by God, from his point of view rather than ours. Your definition of God remains internally contradictory, which is why no hypothesis could be formed based on it.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you implying that I want to believe in God so I would not want to find something out that would refute my belief?

Essentially yes. It's perfectly normal human psychology and something we all do to some extent. It's just healthier if we're able to recognise it in ourselves too.

Do you really believe that you can prove that God does not exist with a hypothesis? How would you test that?

Because an internally consistent hypothesis for anything leads to predictable consequences and those predicted consequences could be tested for (in principle at least). If those consequences are shown to be, the hypothesis is supported but if those consequences are shown not to be, the hypothesis is countered. Note that would be in relation to one specifically defined god and so wouldn't be proof that no god (even a very similar god) exists. You would also typically need multiple hypotheses to properly study such a complex concept as the existence of a god.

I understand that is how atheists think but I am not an atheist.

Not just atheists. Plenty of people recognise that fact, even those who hold religious beliefs, accepting that their beliefs are irrational. Nothing I have said in any of this discussion is specific to atheists or atheism. The way you choose to frame it in that manner is one of the aspects I wanted to challenge.

I believe in the soul exists not only because of what my religion teaches but also because it makes logical sense to me. It also makes logical sense that it can never be proven to exist because it is a mystery of God.

Logic can't be unique to an individual, it is an objective concept. You're perfectly entitled to believe it, but calling it logical just because it makes sense to you is simple wrong.

The soul is synonymous with the human spirit. The human spirit and the mind are connected so the observable effect is on the mind.

Anything that has a material effect is within the scope of science. We may be limited in how much we can understand about it but there is no all-or-nothing anti-science barrier.

God is beyond the reach of science because God is beyond the reach of human observation and study. The same applies to the spiritual world, what Christians refer to as heaven.

Something doesn't need to be in the reach of human observation to be within the scope of science. Anyway, if (some) people go to heaven when they die, if must be observable by those people.

Hold on! The only reason I believe/know that God’s Essence is beyond human understanding is because Baha’u’llah wrote that it is beyond human understanding, and He explained why. God reveals His attributes and His will through the Messengers but God never reveals His Essence. Baha’u’llah also explained that not even the Messengers of God can ever understand the Essence of God. That is how hidden it is.

That is just more assertion, there is no explanation of how the logical contradictions I've described above can be resolved (simple asserting that "Gods essences if beyond logic!" still not being an explanation).

No disrespect, but I'm not interested in Baha’u’llah's words. We're discussing your belief, not his, and if you are so certain of your belief, you should be able to explain it in your own words (even if that is to admit that you can't explain it, in which case you can't expect anyone else to accept it in the first place).

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not a "get out clause". For evidence to be genuine it needs to be independently verifiable and stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise it is just a claim.

Oh well.
I must be stupid to believe that the Bible is real, and not just some people's idea of a joke.
As you were.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In this instance, the atheists are demanding proof as evidence.

Nope. Skeptics will accept any fact or finding that makes the existence of a deity more likely than that there is none as evidence for that deity, as with everything else. Have you or anybody else on these threads done ever offered that? Trailblazer is using a manuscript the existence of which does nothing to make a naturalistic world less likely as evidence of supernaturalism. What have you or others offered as evidence of a god that makes the existence of a god more likely? That will be good enough. Proof is not requested, much less demanded, despite your false claim to the contrary.

You rarely answer questions asked of you, but that's OK this time. It was a rhetorical question, and needs no answer.

the bar is being set so high that it's virtually impossible to meet.

It's the same bar as for any other existential claim. Everything believed to exist by a skeptic has cleared that bar. Why do we believe that Berlin is a city in Germany, rain comes from clouds, human beings need water to survive, the earth rotates on its axis between 365 and 366 times every orbit of the sun, food can spoil, cars exist and their tires can go flat, some men lose their hair as they age, normal human gestation is about nine months and not possible after a hysterectomy, Joe Biden is the American president, some medications are given intravenously, many birds and insects fly, water can freeze or evaporate, mountains exist and can be snow-capped, countries issue passports, white light contains a spectrum of colors separable with a prism or atmospheric moisture (rainbow), hurricanes often produce storm surges, airplanes can fly, glass can break, volcanoes exist and erupt, and a few more things. Maybe you can think of a few yourself - things you believe are true that have cleared that bar.

All of those things have cleared that bar and been accepted as true. It's a low bar for the existent, but an impossible obstacle for the nonexistent, and a safeguard against holding false beliefs in their existence.

there is no logical reason but their own silly egos that THEY should be the deciders of what is and is not "evidence".

This is how you reason? You think critical thinkers should not be the ones to decide what evidence means to them, and that if they do, they are silly and egotistical? It's pretty much required in critical thought. Why don't you know that?

But these 'kings of logic and open-mindedness' can't even recognize the absurdity of their own insanely biased and illogical positions.

Thanks for straightening every out about what is silly, absurd, insane, biased, and illogical. Certainly not you complaining about people deciding what evidence means. There's nothing absurd or illogical there, right? You would know if there was because you are a seasoned judge of such things and able decide what is illogical, right? You would see the folly of that if it were folly, right?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Ironically, so much of the things we know about that one God is made symbolic by the Baha'is... Which makes it not literal. Which means it is fictional. And that's one my biggest knocks against the Baha'is. I don't see how or why all the different writers that got their stories put into the Bible all wrote "symbolic" stories about God?

And that includes the NT also. God speaking from heaven, symbolic. Satan? Symbolic. Jesus rising from the dead? Symbolic. I'm good with those stories not being true, but I really do believe they were written as if they were true and not meant to be only "symbolically" true and not literally true as Baha'is claim. Oh, excuse me, not "claim" but "belief".

Then, conveniently, the only thing we can know about this invisible God is what Baha'u'llah has told us about him.

 

[CG Didymus]

In this instance, the atheists are demanding proof as evidence. Nothing less will be accepted. And the proof has to convince THEM, even though they are already convinced that no gods exist. So the bar is being set so high that it's virtually impossible to meet. Not to mention that there is no logical reason but their own silly egos that THEY should be the deciders of what is and is not "evidence".

But these 'kings of logic and open-mindedness' can't even recognize the absurdity of their own insanely biased and illogical positions. Go figure.

While let's switch this up. The claim is Baha'u'llah is a messenger/manifestation of God. Do you believe it? If so, what proof or evidence do you have to back that up? If not, why not? What proof and evidence would you need to convince you that Baha'u'llah is indeed a messenger from God? Either way, I would hope you had or expect some proof and evidence.

 

[F1fan]

In this instance, the atheists are demanding proof as evidence. Nothing less will be accepted. And the proof has to convince THEM, even though they are already convinced that no gods exist. So the bar is being set so high that it's virtually impossible to meet. Not to mention that there is no logical reason but their own silly egos that THEY should be the deciders of what is and is not "evidence".

But these 'kings of logic and open-mindedness' can't even recognize the absurdity of their own insanely biased and illogical positions. Go figure.

What strikes me as odd is how trumpian this sounds. Your comment here sounds like something trump would say to we skeptics if we questioned his claims of wealth and ethics.

What amazes me is how rational and aligned to evidence you can be when the topic is politics, but you seem completely incapable when it is religious belief. The book Emotional Intelligence actually examines this interesting phenomenon, and there have been studies done on how brains function in different ways depending on the subject and how the person arrived at the beliefs. Studies show believers in religious (and even political) ideas will process these concepts in a way that bypasses the frontal lobes. Quit literally the brain biases it's own function by virtue of the habit of thought. The brains actually learn how to process different ideas in different ways to help protect the more non-rational ideas from criticism. None of this is a conscious process, so the person doing it won't be aware. Conscious awareness is essentially along for the ride. You can write posts that reflect your thoughts but you won't be aware of how your actions are motivated. Denial works in this way as the fear response kicks in. There is a shadow awareness that these religious ideas are not reasoned nor have evidence, but the habit of thinking takes over and believers can write a response that is like the one above. If you notice how accusatory it is, the self is being defensive to both the irrational basis of the beliefs, but also to the person being responded to. The irrational ideas can't be the cause of the inner conflict, so it must be the person you're responding to, and that explains that irrational and untrue accusation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I understand your concern. It has occurred to me too. Some critics have bowed out for various reasons. I think we have to allow each person to assess their own participation, and learn from it if they are willing. I think that many smart folks are giving her the trust to take care of her own mental state. If we bowed out for her mental health THAT might be more condemning.

What's weird to me is supposedly the Return of Christ has already happened. It that's true, it is the most important thing in the world. The devil and all evil people are going to be cast into a burning abyss. God's kingdom is going to be set up on Earth and all that other stuff the NT says.

But no, the world is worse now than it was when Baha'u'llah came. It's hard to believe he's for real. If he's not for real, then what is he? The worst conman and deceiver the world has ever known? You'd think there would have been more proof and evidence that he was who he claimed to be. The Promised One of all the religions of the world. But no, it's way too vague.

I guess he made some prophecies that kind of came true. Well, what about what's happening now? Did he predict the USSR would collapse but then Russia is maybe going to invade Ukraine? And no good to find some vague scripture of his after the event happens. And what about China? What did Baha'u'llah predict about them?

Then there are the messengers of the messenger. Who does God send out to spread the word of Baha'u'llah? Here's a quote about those that teach the Baha'i Faith... which should be all Baha'is.

As to the fundamentals of teaching the Faith: know thou that delivering the Message can be accomplished only through goodly deeds and spiritual attributes, an utterance that is crystal clear and the happiness reflected from the face of that one who is expounding the Teachings. It is essential that the deeds of the teacher should attest the truth of his words.

'Abdu'l-Bahá
Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
​

I've known some pretty good Baha'is, but not that good. But my favorite Baha'is are the ones that do have a little bit of humility.

 

[CG Didymus]

I must be stupid to believe that the Bible is real,

Do you take it as literal as Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians? Or do you take it more like the Baha'is? That many of the stories are symbolic, including that Jesus did not rise from the dead and is not returning and that Satan is not real.

Then there are those other stories like the flood, a six-day creation, Nephilim etc. If you don't take it all literally, then you to have limits as to what you believe is true about the Bible. And I wouldn't blame you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you take it as literal as Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians?

I certainly don't consider it to be no different than 'the Lord of the Rings', which is what these atheists were saying.
i.e. it is pure fiction

I believe in G-d. I don't believe that the Bible is gibberish, and it's all made up.
As regards to precise details and creeds, that is another matter.

 

[F1fan]

I believe in G-d.

Do you think you have the choice to decide whether a God exists or not?

I don't believe that the Bible is gibberish, and it's all made up.

How did you hear about the Bible in the first place? What did people say about it?

 

[CG Didymus]

I certainly don't consider it to be no different than 'the Lord of the Rings', which is what these atheists were saying.
i.e. it is pure fiction

I believe in G-d. I don't believe that the Bible is gibberish, and it's all made up.
As regards to precise details and creeds, that is another matter.

Well, that's the thing... a lot of reasons why a belief in God is rejected is because some Christians take the Bible extremely literal. A person can look at the "love" and doing good kinds of things in the Bible and apply those to their lives and be great people. But even with a lot of them, they hold some doctrinal kinds of beliefs that you and Baha'is believe to be false. Like Jesus is God. And for Baha'is that he rose from the dead and that Satan is real. But apply your religion and, for Baha'is, apply theirs and Muslims and Baha'is can be nice, caring people. But go to the extreme in any religion and anything can happen. And not all of it good.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think you have the choice to decide whether a God exists or not?

Everybody does.

How did you hear about the Bible in the first place? What did people say about it?

I doubt whether many people haven't heard about it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, that's the thing... a lot of reasons why a belief in God is rejected is because some Christians take the Bible extremely literal..

Yes .. I get that.
..but I do think that many people use that as an excuse not to believe.
They find fault in it, in order to convince themselves and others, that it holds no moral authority, and it is OK to please themselves.

 

[F1fan]

Everybody does.

OK, when you say you believe in God did you arrive at that conclusion via facts and rational thought?

I doubt whether many people haven't heard about it.

I'm asking you how YOU heard about it, and what did those people say about it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, when you say you believe in God did you arrive at that conclusion via facts and rational thought?

Not initially, no.
I meditated as a child, and came to the conclusion that there must be something responsible for the "coincidence" of my existence.
I came into contact with the Bible, first through society .. other people .. churches, and then had a good education by a teacher who had a degree in theology from Cambridge University at my secondary school.
Praise G-d, I know I was fortunate.