Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Only insofar as critical thinkers recognize no facts or compelling reason to consider the writings of messengers to be adequate that a God exists. In that sense the evidence is assessed objectively and it falls short of being factual and convincing.

Believers recognize a compelling reason to consider the writings of Messengers to be adequate that a God exists, along with everything else that can be known about the Messengers. This evidence is assessed objectively and it succeeds. Believers realize that Messengers are the only evidence that God provides so we accept the evidence. This is an example of critical thinking.

This doesn't mean you are citing facts about a God,

There are no facts about a God because God cannot be proven as a fact so that means we cannot ever know any characteristics of God as a fact. That is another example of critical thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

And your explanations do not follow a pattern that is not consistent with reason. It is typical of faith in religion. Your being convinced by weak evidence and the fantastic claims of religious texts that do not convince critical thinkers is the biggest proof of this. The thinkers are explaining why the texts are poor evidence and not convincing. You offer no reason to believe except that you do, as if your endorsement is enough.

My explanations follow a pattern that is consistent with reason. It is typical of others who belong to my religion. We were all convinced by the good evidence because we are critical thinkers so we are able to evaluate the evidence.

Most atheists do not even bother to think, and you call them thinkers. They just discard the only evidence that God has provided out of hand because they don't like the idea of Messengers of God. They offer no logical reason to disbelieve except that they do, as if their endorsement is enough.

 

[F1fan]

My explanations follow a pattern that is consistent with reason.

That is what you want to believe, but critical thinkers explain to you daily how you are incorrect.

It is typical of others who belong to my religion. We were all convinced by the good evidence because we are critical thinkers so we are able to evaluate the evidence.

Our course it's good evidence to your tribe. That what tribes do, they are biased to their tribe. Objective thinkers are not and can assess the Baha'i texts accurately and without preferential bias, as you do.

Most atheists do not even bother to think, and you call them thinkers. They just discard the only evidence that God has provided ....

Hahahahaha.

Seriously, atheists are wrong because they discard the evidence a God they aren't convinced exists provides? The evidence is weak, as we explain. You haven't demonstrated any God exists. the texts are terrible evidence.

...out of hand because they don't like the idea of Messengers of God.

False. The rejection of your beliefs/claims is not personal. It is because the texts you cite are not very good as evidence. for a God. Period.

They offer no logical reason to disbelieve except that they do, as if their endorsement is enough.

We explain that in logic we approach claims as if they are false and await adequate evidence that demonstrates the claims true. You fail at this, but it isn't your fault. It's because the texts are not good evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Believers recognize a compelling reason to consider the writings of Messengers to be adequate that a God exists, along with everything else that can be known about the Messengers. This evidence is assessed objectively and it succeeds. Believers realize that Messengers are the only evidence that God provides so we accept the evidence. This is an example of critical thinking.

Believers are biased and eager to believe in something. They will use anything as justification for their belief. That is not objective.

There are no facts about a God because God cannot be proven as a fact so that means we cannot ever know any characteristics of God as a fact. That is another example of critical thinking.

So how can you criticize atheists for not accepting your texts as evidence of a God? Even you acknowledge your God isn't factual. We need facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is what you want to believe, but critical thinkers explain to you daily how you are incorrect.

You mean atheists explain to me daily how they BELIEVE I am incorrect.
Of course atheists BELIEVE I am incorrect, they are atheists.

Any critical thinker could figure out WHY atheists believe I am incorrect in two seconds flat, but that does not prove a thing. Critical thinkers who are Baha'is would think that atheists are incorrect. So what?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's because the texts are not good evidence.

It is not good evidence only in your opinion and that is what flies completely over your head.

Can you prove what is good evidence and what is not good evidence?
If not it is only your personal opinion. We all have those.

 

[Trailblazer]

So how can you criticize atheists for not accepting your texts as evidence of a God?

I did not criticize atheists, I only stated my position. Criticizing others is not my style.
I certainly never expected anyone to accept any evidence just because it is evidence to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Believers are biased and eager to believe in something. They will use anything as justification for their belief. That is not objective.

Yet more of your personal opinions. Believers are not biased and eager to believe in something. Believers are no more biased than atheists. Believer are not eager to believe, we just see the evidence.

You have to knock down believers in order to look smarter than them. It does not take a degree in psychology to figure that out.

 

[Trailblazer]

If god does not exist, it is absolutely certain that god was not involved in the formation of the universe.

Well obviously... A nonexistent God cannot do anything.

So basically... "My version is right and they are all wrong". Which is coincidentally what they all say about your version, with similar conviction.
And we're back to square one.

Go back and reread what I said. I did not say the other religions are all wrong and only mine is right. It is the other religions that believe all the other religions are wrong and only their religion is right. Baha'is believe that all the religions are true, and the spiritual teachings of all the religions are timeless, but the older religious messages and their social teachings and laws are outdated, so they are not what humanity needs in the present age.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to spend rather a lot of time here trying to convince people.

I am here a lot but I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.

So you do not refer to holy texts or the sayings of "messengers"?

I do, but what people think of them is entirely their choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

So IOW - "The claims made by my religion are true but the claims made by others are not".

Remember I said this was not an acceptable argument because every religion uses an exact copy, with the same conviction.
What makes your claim different to the others? (Remember, this needs to be more than simply "but my religion's claims are true!" You need something that is supported by more than just your own faith)

Go back and re-read what I posted. I did not say that the claims made by my religion are true but the claims made by others are not.

What makes my religion different is what I just explained in the previous post. Baha'is believe that all the religions are true, but the latest religion is the religion that is suited for the present age since it alone has the remedy that humanity needs in the present age.

 

[Trailblazer]

The analogy works because it is comparing like for like. Two groups with authority and ability to stop the fighting vs two groups without the authority or ability to stop the fighting.

The analogy does not work because God is not a human.

Really? Most peoples idea of god is precisely the superhuman being who can do anything. Religious texts are full of examples of god intervening in human affairs with miraculous acts.

You mean the Bible is full of that, but the Bible is an anthropomorphism of God and those are just allegorical stories, nothing that actually took place.

Many people got the wrong idea of God by reading the Bible and I consider it a travesty.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the police send Boy Scouts.
Neither is the best use of resources or abilities.

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

 

[F1fan]

You mean atheists explain to me daily how they BELIEVE I am incorrect.
Of course atheists BELIEVE I am incorrect, they are atheists.

Bias. Trying to discredit your critics is evasive and does not get you off the hook for your errors of thinking.

Any critical thinker could figure out WHY atheists believe I am incorrect in two seconds flat, but that does not prove a thing. Critical thinkers who are Baha'is would think that atheists are incorrect. So what?

You are evading the criticisms and going after people. Ad hominem.

 

[F1fan]

I did not criticize atheists, I only stated my position. Criticizing others is not my style.

You just belittled atheists. You reject their criticisms because they are atheists, not because you find error in their arguments. That is bias.

I certainly never expected anyone to accept any evidence just because it is evidence to me.

OK, you've done it. I guess you're done and have no reason to return and repeat what you've already said, yes?

 

[Trailblazer]

Bias. Trying to discredit your critics is evasive and does not get you off the hook for your errors of thinking.

You are evading the criticisms and going after people. Ad hominem.

I don't need to get off the hook because I have no errors in my thinking.

Going after people? No, only you and your ilk go after people so you are projecting.

I said......

You mean atheists explain to me daily how they BELIEVE I am incorrect.
Of course atheists BELIEVE I am incorrect, they are atheists.

How does that constitute "going after people?"
I think you are paranoid. Either that or you just could not respond with a reasoned answer.
You are so biased that you cannot even imagine you could be wrong about me.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just belittled atheists. You reject their criticisms because they are atheists, not because you find error in their arguments. That is bias.

You are making a straw man as I did not belittle atheists. Why do you take what I said and turn it into something else?
Please tell me how what I said below is "belittling atheists."

You mean atheists explain to me daily how they BELIEVE I am incorrect.
Of course atheists BELIEVE I am incorrect, they are atheists.

I can find errors in atheist arguments and I have, but belittling individual atheists is not my style.
Of course I have a bias and so do you, but you won't look at your own bias.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, you've done it. I guess you're done and have no reason to return and repeat what you've already said, yes?

I won't say it again unless I am prodded to do so, and maybe not even then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody has shown me why my statements are irrational.

Plenty of us have done exactly that.
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence

He asked you what this independent objective evidence is. He did not ask you to repeat for the upteenth time your claim that such evidence exists without sharing it.