Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

It's you that is being arrogant here. The fact that you can't understand what is being told you is on you, not the chorus of skilled critical thinkers singing in unison that your reasoning is faulty.

You just demonstrated just how arrogant you are by identifying yourself as part of the “chorus of skilled critical thinkers.” NOTHING could be more arrogant than that.

Why would it matter even if everyone on this forum believed my reasoning is faulty?

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

That you think that they haven't demonstrated the fallacies in your comments is due to your being unprepared to evaluate statements critically.

No, it is due to the fact that nobody has actually shown – with evidence - how I have committed any logical fallacies. They just say I do.

Prosecutor: Mr. Smith killed his wife.
Judge: Where is the evidence?
Prosecutor: I don’t have any evidence. I am just saying that Mr. Smith killed his wife.

You should be more humble and consider the possibility that you might be wrong, especially in the face of so much evidence that you are coming from other posters. You can only be right if they are all wrong. To dismiss them all is arrogance.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

It is not arrogance, it is certitude of my beliefs. It is not dismissal, it is holding fast to my beliefs. It is not about ME, it is about my belief in Baha’u’llah. Why that bothers certain atheists is something they will have to figure out for themselves.

It is atheists who make it all about who is right and who is wrong. Why does it have to be about that? You disbelieve and I believe, it is as simple as that. It is only ego that makes it about right and wrong.

Just because I believe in God, that dos not make me arrogant, not anymore than atheists not believing in God makes them arrogant.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
https://www.google.com/search

So whenever you say that you are a ‘skilled critical thinker’ that is arrogance because it indicates an exaggerated sense of your ability to think.

If you were better at reasoning, you would see the fallacy in that comment. It's already been explained that there are more logical explanations for why we lack compelling evidence of a deity, but you keep dropping them from your list of candidate logical reasons for no reason. That is a logical error. Is this an example of an atheist being arrogant to you, telling you with certainty that you are wrong? How are you not arrogant then to say otherwise?

I did not drop anything from your list of logical reasons. I committed no logical error unless you can show that I committed logical fallacies.

An atheist telling me with certainty that I am wrong is an example of an atheist being arrogant unless that atheist had actual evidence that proves that I am wrong. I am not saying that atheists are wrong, I am only saying what I believe is true. I cannot prove that my beliefs are true so I cannot say I am right and atheists are wrong.

Again, you keep making this about who is right and who is wrong. I have a certain religious belief and you have a personal opinion which differs from my belief. It is as simple as that.

Forgive my arrogance here, but that is simply a logical fallacy. This is not just a personal opinion. It is a fact. Your reasoning is faulty.

This is no different than if you were to add a column of numbers incorrectly and come up with a wrong sum, and a dozen people who all were proficient adders, or perhaps using a digital device, told you you were wrong and what the correct sum was, and you ending with, "Don't be arrogant. That's just your opinion. Nobody has shown me where I'm wrong."

This is very different than if you were to add a column of numbers incorrectly and come up with a wrong sum because math is not the same as religion! The analogy does nt fly becaue it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

And the fact remains that nobody has shown me why my reasoning is faulty.

You don't seem to understand that critical thinking is constrained to certain pathways of reasoning and comes to identical sound conclusions when applied properly, just like with the adding of a column of numbers. Those that adhere to that same rules of interpreting evidence come to the same conclusions. Those that go off the rails can come to any conclusion. There is only one correct sum (sound conclusion), but many wrong ones.

It is the fallacy of false equivalence to compare adding a column of numbers and to coming to the same conclusion with looking at a religious belief and coming to the same conclusion. This is so illogical! It is also completely illogical to think that different people would come to the same conclusions (about anything that cannot be proven) just because they were critical thinkers, if there as even such a thing.

The same is true with all reasoning. There is only one path that takes one to correct beliefs.

That is so illogical that I can barely even breathe! If you cannot understand why I suggest you take some classes in how the brain functions and why humans reason differently.

But you are unaware of this. You don't seem to understand that there exists a form of thinking capable of generating empirically derived and confirmed truths.

I do understand that there exists a form of thinking capable of generating empirically derived and confirmed truths about what can be KNOWN that exists in the material world. What you do not understand that there is no way to generating empirically derived and confirmed truths about God or spiritual matters.

To you, evolution is just somebody's opinion, no better than any other.

That is a straw man. When did I ever say that? I believe that evolution theory is correct since that is a Baha’i belief.

You are locked into forever being wrong if you never learn what reason really looks like, and fail to recognize it when you see it, which is why you keep repeating that nobody has proved anything to you or shown where you are wrong. That's all you. You aren't prepared to critically evaluate what is written to you, because you've never learned the rules of logic.

All you have is a biased personal opinion, no facts in evidence. I could say the same about you. You are locked into forever being wrong about God if you never learn what reason really looks like, and fail to recognize it when you see it, which is why you keep repeating that nobody has proved anything to you or shown where you are wrong. That's all you. You aren't prepared to critically evaluate what is written to you, because you've never learned the rules of logic.

And there it is. It's not just his personal opinion. It's the opinion of at least a half dozen other people writing to you in this thread. Could it be that they know something you don't? How arrogant of them to think that your reasoning is flawed, but not arrogant of you to believe that.

The difference between me and atheists is that whenever I say an atheist’s reason is flawed I point out the logical fallacy and how it was committed. You just committed another logical fallacy. You are saying that because half a dozen atheists on thread believe my reasoning is flawed that must mean that my reasoning is flawed.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

If there were half a dozen Baha’is on this thread that believe the atheists’ reasoning is flawed would that prove it is true that their reasoning is flawed? Could it be that the Baha’is know something you don’t? Just because I am the only Baha’i on this thread proves nothing except what I already know; the other Bahais have no interest in engaging in discussions with atheists because they never lead anywhere.

No, it's also flawed. You are assuming the existence of a deity. I've already given you the result of critical thinking applied to the fact that there exists no compelling evidence for a deity.

I do not assume the existence of a deity I believe a deity exists. There is nothing illogical about it, especially since there is so much evidence that a deity exists.

You've forgotten all but one, and disregard that one without ruling it out. That is not critical thinking.

I did not disregard atheism without ruling it out with critical thinking. I ruled it out because via critical thinking I determined that Baha’u’llah is evidence for the deity, and I need no other evidence because that is the best evidence that has ever existed for a deity. That is what I believe, my personal opinion. You have a different personal opinion which you are welcome to.

Let me help you again - either this deity doesn't exist (you remembered that one), exists and communicates through messengers that don't convince most people either because it can't do better or chooses to not do better, or there is a deity that either doesn't know we exist or is indifferent to us. Maybe others can add to that list of logical possibilities, none of which can logically be ruled in or out. That's what critical thought looks like.

Yes, those are the logical possibilities. I have chosen one of them and you have chosen another one. Why is it necessary for you to beat this to death?

There is no logical reason to believe what you do, and skilled critical thinkers just won't follow you into the world of unjustified belief. They know better than that.

That is nothing more than personal opinion. I could just as easily say that there is no logical reason to believe what you do, that no deity exists, and skilled critical thinkers just won't follow you into the world of unjustified disbelief. They know better than that.

If you still cannot understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander than you really are arrogant.

Atheists have no evidence that there is no God but believers have evidence that there is a God. That is the hundred-dollar difference between believers and atheists.

Why not just agree to disagree? I see no reason to continue this contentious dialogue because it will never lead anywhere. I have conversations with atheists that lead somewhere but this is not one of them. It is all about how I am wrong and you are right because I believe differently than you do.

 

[F1fan]

You just demonstrated just how arrogant you are by identifying yourself as part of the “chorus of skilled critical thinkers.” NOTHING could be more arrogant than that.

Why would it matter even if everyone on this forum believed my reasoning is faulty?

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

This is not a credible reply. He was making an observation about a group of people, that there is a chorus of skilled thinkers whose skill at reasoning prevails over your claims/beliefs. He wasn't making an argument that a fallacy would apply to. You seem to be confusing that a chorus of skilled thinkers are the same as a group who believe in some dogma, which means the dogma is true because so many believe it. He didn't say all the criticisms are true because we are many and you are one.

No, the chorus of critics are making their own observations, assessments, and and criticisms, there is no unified belief. You can't even accuse the chorus as being atheists because there are at least two Christians.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not a credible reply. He was making an observation about a group of people, that there is a chorus of skilled thinkers whose skill at reasoning prevails over your claims/beliefs. He wasn't making an argument that a fallacy would apply to. You seem to be confusing that a chorus of skilled thinkers are the same as a group who believe in some dogma, which means the dogma is true because so many believe it. He didn't say all the criticisms are true because we are many and you are one.

No, the chorus of critics are making their own observations, assessments, and and criticisms, there is no unified belief. You can't even accuse the chorus as being atheists because there are at least two Christians.

He did say all the criticisms are true because you atheists are many and I am one.

I see you are still in denial of committing the fallacy. Oh, but that fallacy does not apply to me!
As I pointed out to @It Aint Necessarily So it would equally apply to a bunch of Baha'is if they all agreed with me.

If there were half a dozen Baha’is on this thread that believe the atheists’ reasoning is flawed would that prove it is true that atheists' reasoning is flawed? No, of course it would not prove that.

You are not going to win any arguments until you stop committing logical fallacies.

It is amazing that such skilled critical thinkers cannot even understand such a simple fallacy.
Must I post it yet again?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

If the Baha'i Faith is true, it is supposed to be convincing us of the truth, that God is one, religion is one and humanity is one. But no, because Baha'is are only people, they find ways to muck up God's message.

You might want to consider what that means for the fallible nature of most religious texts, purported to be from a deity.

All I was saying that the Baha'i message is simple, yet Baha'is find ways to screw it up.

But I agree with you the religious texts aren't the inerrant, infallible words of a God. Because Baha'u'llah wrote or dictated his own stuff, Baha'is believe it is the accurate and true words from God. Yet, lots of us are finding things that he said that, to us, aren't true. Baha'is, of course, think whatever Baha'u'llah said is true and we are the ones that have the problem.

So, all we have is yet another religion that thinks whatever their Holy Books say is true, no matter what anyone else thinks and says. I like some of stuff in the Baha'i teachings but not all of it. And that's one of the problems with this type of a religion, a person is expected to believe it all.

 

[ppp]

The fact that you can't understand what is being told you is on you

@Trailblazer No matter who is right or wrong that is still the case.

 

[F1fan]

I have rebutted my critics numerous times, you simply reject my assessments.

You go though the motions of rebuttal, but you seldom have true and accurate positions. For example look at my previous post. You completely misunderstood what you were responding to, it was not a logical fallacy at all. So there was no rebuttal to what you were responding to. All you could do is agree with what he said since most of it was observations.

It is irrelevant that you are atheists, but it is also irrelevant that you disagree with me.
If everyone on this forum criticized my claims/beliefs, what would that prove, logically speaking?

When we find problems with clams and beliefs made in debate then we can challenge them. That is what we, the chorus of critics, are doing. That is what this forum is about. And our comments both ways are completely because we disagree about something.

Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true or that they're wrong because all the rest do otherwise.

• Billions believe in my religious belief.
• Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.
• Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
• Everyone's doing it.
• In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.
• Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.
• Millions of people agree with my viewpoint, therefore it must be right.
• The majority of this country voted for this President, therefore this president must be the right choice.
• My family or tribe holds this as a truth, and everyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
• No one else has ever complained about this.

I have no idea why you posted this. You apply it to what? This is a classic fallacy committed by theists, as they typically adopt a set of beliefs and dogma that is popular among others in society. While Baha'i is not massively popular you have decided to value the texts. And you have decided they are valuable as evidence that the writer was telling the truth, and was influenced by God. And you think this demonstrates a God exists. You waffle from saying you believe in God to claiming you know God exists. You even then admit the text doesn't;t prove anything. So your judgment is pretty fluid and not well thought out, so likely influenced by other theists existing in the world. Your beliefs are obviously not reasoned to a sound conclusion via evidence.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
That's right, and I have pointed out the numerous logical fallacies committed by atheists.

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.

And they are atheists because that is the most reasonable position to take given the lack of evidence for any Gods, including what you think God is.

Despite your efforts you've failed to present a rational and coherent explanation of what you think is evidence, and why it is reasonable to conclude a God exists. You don't do the very thing that would help you prevail against atheists.

Why should I accept your criticisms?

Because we make excellent observations and assessments about your posts that expose them as being flawed thinking.

You have no basis for your criticisms except your own egos.

False. We aren't making emotional remarks or insults. For the most part we offer very good objective assessments and explain why your thinking is faulty. Oddly, the only reason a person would deny criticism is due to pride stinging the ego.

That red quote shows how atheists are biased against me, NOT how I am biased against atheists. Atheists do not believe I am correct because they disagree with my beliefs.

So do you think the numerous theists are NOT biased? You failed to mention them for some reason even though they are also criticizing your thinking. Explain.

Show me where I ever said that atheists are incorrect.

You consistently bringing up that many of us are atheists is what indicates your bias and hostility. Does this suggest you agree with our position? Your bias is notable because you ignore the theists who criticize you.

Me saying I believe that God exists is a statement of personal belief, it is not an attack on atheists. It is the atheists who attack me constantly and tell me I am wrong, but they cannot prove I am wrong anymore than I can prove I am right.

No, your ad hominem attacks on atheists as a class IS the attack. You have evaded questions ONLY because it was an atheist asking you. That is an ad hominem because you are saying since the person is an atheist their question isn't relevant or worthy. You go after the person instead of just answering the questions to the best of your ability.

 

[CG Didymus]

You tell me?
What have you found?
What is your intention in discussing religion?
Are you truly looking for G-d, or is it just a pastime?

Each one of those three negates the others. A Christian "knows" Jesus and "knows" that Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are false prophets. A Muslim doesn't believe that Christians interpret their Scriptures correctly and deny the Baha'u'llah is a prophet. The Baha'is say both Christians and Muslims have misinterpreted their Scriptures, and both fail to see the truth of the Baha'i Faith. I'm listening and watching. Right now, there's is no reason to believe any of these religions is totally true. They all have true things they teach. But they also have things that I don't believe are true.

Islam works for you. And you have your reasons to believe it. Great, but so do Christians and Baha'is.

 

[F1fan]

No .. by everyone.
Do you ever go into a library?
..perhaps you didn't know that the Bible isn't in the fiction section.

Nor are any other religious texts. Does that mean they are equal to the Bible?

Would you reclassify it, and put it next to the Lord of the Rings?

Religion and spirituality has it's own category.

You know very well that it doesn't make sense.
The Lord of the Rings isn't claimed to be divine truth by its author.

If it did would it need a place bnext to the Bible on that alone?

You claim that it is fiction [made up by people].
How can it NOT be some kind of conspiracy, if that were true?

If you mean why is the Bible considered to be divine at face value versus fiction? Well that is the tradition from more primitive times. The Age of Reason didn't begin until the 18th century, and only then dod humans begin to question the traditions and assumptions. People assumed the Bible was correct, until science began to find a more accurate truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

As if believing in the God in one religion is the same as that in another. What kind of God would we believe in if all we had was the Bible? Wrathful, vengeful, but at least he showed up once in a while and let people know who's running things. He spoke. He wrote. He appeared as a pillar of smoke. Sent manna. Yeah, we know a lot of things about God from the Bible. Then the Baha'is tell us that none of that was real. It was all symbolic.

 

[F1fan]

He did say all the criticisms are true because you atheists are many and I am one.

He wrote no such thing.

You might be feeling this, but feeling is not thinking, and especially not skilled thinking.

I see you are still in denial of committing the fallacy. Oh, but that fallacy does not apply to me!
As I pointed out to @It Aint Necessarily So it would equally apply to a bunch of Baha'is if they all agreed with me.

Yet the critics are pointing out your flawed thinking in detail, not just merely disagreeing with you. You largely ignore the explanations. And you failed to explain how I committed any fallacy, and you misrepresented what @It Aint Necessarily So has been saying. Above, he wrote no such thing.

If there were half a dozen Baha’is on this thread that believe the atheists’ reasoning is flawed would that prove it is true that atheists' reasoning is flawed? No, of course it would not prove that.

This is a victim mentality. It's not about belief. It is about knowing the proper construction of true statements and how they are logical and reasonable. We skilled thinkers can recognize flawed claims and bad arguments. There are plenty of Baha'i on this site who could offer their criticism of any of us in this discussion, but they don't. And ONLY if they could could point out others using flawed thinking would they be able to do it. Skilled thinkers are skilled. Feel free to invite others. If the arguments of critics are flawed anyone is freee to point it out, but they have to be accurate and correct.

You are not going to win any arguments until you stop committing logical fallacies.

Irony.

It is amazing that such skilled critical thinkers cannot even understand such a simple fallacy.
Must I post it yet again?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

What you failed to do is explain how this fallacy applies. Just cutting from a website doesn't mean you are correct. So I challenge you to finish your thought.

 

[ppp]

He did say all the criticisms are true because you atheists are many and I am one.

Balderdash.

 

[F1fan]

As if believing in the God in one religion is the same as that in another. What kind of God would we believe in if all we had was the Bible? Wrathful, vengeful, but at least he showed up once in a while and let people know who's running things. He spoke. He wrote. He appeared as a pillar of smoke. Sent manna. Yeah, we know a lot of things about God from the Bible. Then the Baha'is tell us that none of that was real. It was all symbolic.

I have heard cases of believers insisting their belief is unique because they grew up in a religion they didn't like, and found something else, so it is more valid. These folks never consider NOT being a believer. They are driven to believe in some God and they look and look until they find something in the religion buffet that is tasty.

 

[CG Didymus]

I like to use a process of elimination.
If it is not the Bible, then it cannot be the Quran or the Baha'i writings, since 1) both those writings are much much later, and 2) both claim to stem from what is actually recorded in the Bible.
So, if the Bible is the source of truth, then either 1) the Quran or the Baha'i writings are a replacement of the Bible, or 2) a support of the Bible, or 3) a deviation, and twisting of the truth.

We can try to eliminate further, by asking, does the Quran or the Baha'i writings 1) support the Bible? Or, 2) deviate from, and contradict it?

I think this is a good way to investigate.
What are your thoughts on that?

I don't take the Bible literally. Do you? Moses' cane turning into a snake? Elijah being carried off in a fiery chariot?

Then if we take the NT separately, is that literally true? Did Jesus walk on water, physically rise from the dead and ascend into the clouds? People coming out of their graves in Jerusalem?

What I don't like about the Baha'i Faith is that they make all those Bible stories symbolic. Although, I don't believe they really happened, I believe that they were written with the intention to be believed literally.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have heard cases of believers insisting their belief is unique because they grew up in a religion they didn't like, and found something else, so it is more valid. These folks never consider NOT being a believer. They are driven to believe in some God and they look and look until they find something in the religion buffet that is tasty.

And what a buffet it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no idea why you posted this. You apply it to what?

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

F1fan said: If this was true you would be able and willing to rebut the many critics who are pointing out flaws in your thinking. You don't. You just reject their assessments, which are often sound and true.

You are implying that there are flaws in my thinking because many critics SAY that there are flaws in my thinking. That is the fallacy of ad populum. If many critics 'believe' there are flaws in my thinking it is so.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

If you want to retract that claim now is your chance. All you have to do is say there are no flaws in my thinking just because many critics believe that is so. However, then you will have to come up with an ACTUAL REASON why there are flaws in my thinking, and I doubt you can do that.

This is a classic fallacy committed by theists, as they typically adopt a set of beliefs and dogma that is popular among others in society.

But we theists do not say "If many believe so, it is so" so we are not committing the fallacy.

While Baha'i is not massively popular you have decided to value the texts. And you have decided they are valuable as evidence that the writer was telling the truth, and was influenced by God. And you think this demonstrates a God exists.

It demonstrates that God exists to me and to other Baha'is. I never said that it should demonstrate that God exists to anyone else. Apparently you cannot just accept that you are a separate person. I have a right to my beliefs and you have a right to your lack of belief.

Why this obsession with me and what I believe? I am just one believer of many millions of believers.

And they are atheists because that is the most reasonable position to take given the lack of evidence for any Gods, including what you think God is.

I can just as easily say that we are believers because that is the most reasonable position to take given the evidence for God, but I do not say that because I realize that everyone does not think the same way I do and there is no reason why they should. I don't think I am smarter or better just because I am a believer. I just became a believer because of my particular background and life experiences and my way of thinking about God and religion.

Because we make excellent observations and assessments about your posts that expose them as being flawed thinking.

No, you don't do that.. All you do is SAY my thinking is flawed but you give no REASON or evidence. That would be like a prosecutor coming to court with no evidence.

You have an opinion that my thinking is flawed because I am a believer, but that is not evidence of flawed thinking.

So do you think the numerous theists are NOT biased? You failed to mention them for some reason even though they are also criticizing your thinking. Explain.

I never said that theists are not biased. Of course theists have a biased towards theism just like atheists have a bias towards atheism.

You consistently bringing up that many of us are atheists is what indicates your bias and hostility. Does this suggest you agree with our position? Your bias is notable because you ignore the theists who criticize you.

I have a bias towards theism because I am a theist. I have no hostility towards atheists. Maybe you are projecting your hostility towards theists onto me.

Which theists do I ignore?

No, your ad hominem attacks on atheists as a class IS the attack.

I have not attacked any atheists so that means you are projecting and/or imagining things.

You have evaded questions ONLY because it was an atheist asking you.

What questions were those? I do my best to answer all questions people ask but I am only one person trying to keep up with a barrage of posts.

If it is about evidence for God or Baha'u'llah I have already answered that dozens of times so I see no reason to repeat myself.

That is an ad hominem because you are saying since the person is an atheist their question isn't relevant or worthy. You go after the person instead of just answering the questions to the best of your ability.

Please show me where I ever went after anybody. I might point out errors in logic but it is not personal.
Please show me any questions I ignored.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you failed to do is explain how this fallacy applies. Just cutting from a website doesn't mean you are correct. So I challenge you to finish your thought.

I explained it in detail in my previous post to you.
You are implying that there are flaws in my thinking because many critics SAY that there are flaws in my thinking. That is the fallacy of ad populum. If many critics 'believe' there are flaws in my thinking it is so.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: He did say all the criticisms are true because you atheists are many and I am one.

He wrote no such thing.
You might be feeling this, but feeling is not thinking, and especially not skilled thinking.

He certainly did imply that my thinking is flawed because a chorus of critical thinkers say so.
You are in luck because I save all my longer posts in Word documents.

It's you that is being arrogant here. The fact that you can't understand what is being told you is on you, not the chorus of skilled critical thinkers singing in unison that your reasoning is faulty.

He calls me arrogant and then he turns right around and arrogantly identifies himself as part of a chorus of skilled critical thinkers... Oh the irony! That is called being too arrogant to see hw arrogant one is.

Yet the critics are pointing out your flawed thinking in detail, not just merely disagreeing with you. You largely ignore the explanations. And you failed to explain how I committed any fallacy, and you misrepresented what @It Aint Necessarily So has been saying. Above, he wrote no such thing.

There are no explanations, just deflections and obfuscation when I ask for explanations as to why my thinking is flawed, according to you.
He did write exactly what I said he wrote and I provided the evidence above.

Trailblazer said: If there were half a dozen Baha’is on this thread that believe the atheists’ reasoning is flawed would that prove it is true that atheists' reasoning is flawed? No, of course it would not prove that.

This is a victim mentality. It's not about belief.

That completely flew over your head. There is no victim stance in what I said. I was trying to point out that if a half a dozen Baha'is believed that atheist reasoning is flawed that would not mean that atheists' thinking is flawed, because that would be the fallacy of ad populum.

It is about knowing the proper construction of true statements and how they are logical and reasonable. We skilled thinkers can recognize flawed claims and bad arguments. There are plenty of Baha'i on this site who could offer their criticism of any of us in this discussion, but they don't. And ONLY if they could could point out others using flawed thinking would they be able to do it. Skilled thinkers are skilled. Feel free to invite others. If the arguments of critics are flawed anyone is free to point it out, but they have to be accurate and correct.

Other Baha'is do not like to engage in this kind of discourse and they don't like to argue. I don't lie to argue either so I won't be doing it much longer.

"Skilled thinkers are skilled." I am not going to listen to this anymore not because I feel threatened but because it is the epitome of arrogance. So don't wonder why I don't answer any more of your posts.

As I said to @It Aint Necessarily So, you just demonstrated just how arrogant you are by identifying yourself as part of the “chorus of skilled critical thinkers.” NOTHING could be more arrogant than that.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
https://www.google.com/search

So whenever you say that you are a ‘skilled critical thinker’ that is arrogance because it indicates an exaggerated sense of your ability to think.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that what you are calling something evidence of a deity is not that to me.

I have been posting to atheists day in day out for about eight years so I certainly understand that what I am calling evidence of a deity is not evidence to you.

Well, I'm the one evaluating the evidence for myself, so of course it is about how things appear to me. And likewise for you.

I fully agree.

What I am saying is that these are not equal opinions, because we didn't both properly apply the rules of critical thought. We arrived at our ideas using alternate methods, so it's not surprising that they produced opposite results.

You do not know how I reasoned in order to come up with my beliefs. No two people reason the same way. We are different people and that is why we came up with different results. You cling to your rules of critical thought like a child would cling to a security blanket but you cannot see that because you are too close to it.

But that doesn't save your argument that what you call evidence of a deity is not that unless you can demonstrate that its existence makes your belief more likely, and I've explained what can and what cannot do that, and that what you offer as evidence for a deity is evidence for a man claiming to speak for one, nothing more.

I can explain why the evidence I have makes the existence of a deity more likely to me, but that will not make the existence of a deity more likely to you.

You have explained what would and what would not make the existence of a deity more likely to you, but that is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Trailblazer said: What logical alternative did I eliminate without ruling it out first?

That there is no deity attempting to communicate with mankind. You assume otherwise, which leads you to believe that there must be somebody out there. You also seem to assume that that deity wants to communicate with man, and uses messengers to do so. None of that is correct if this deity doesn't exist or isn't trying or able to reach man.

I do not assume anything, I believe it. I have ruled out the other alternatives just as you have ruled out what I believe, so is there any reason to discuss this any further?

I've explained to you that this belief is an unshared premise of yours, meaning that for those not sharing it, the argument is unsound. Your whole argument is that you believe that there is such a deity because the life and writings of a particular man convinced you of that with words and deeds others recognize as human. It is evidence of that to them, not of a deity.

I am not presenting a logical argument because I know I could never prove my premise and as such I cannot present a sound argument. It is a belief and as such it can never be proven as a fact. Logical arguments cannot be used to prove a religious belief is true. I have said this many times.

Nevertheless, if a deity exists and what I have is evidence of the deity, it is, whether people believe it or not. It would not matter if nobody believed it was evidence; it would still be evidence if it was the evidence the deity provided.

You seem to want to have your thinking respected. You defend it against those criticizing it, meaning that you believe that it is right and others who see things differently are wrong, unless you believe that these mutually exclusive opinions are equally valid.

No, I do not care what anyone thinks of my beliefs and I do not think in terms of people being right and wrong, like you do. What I believe is my personal business. I believe it, but I don’t think that you are wrong because you do not believe it. I simply realize that we view the evidence differently because we are different people.

To a critical thinker, that's a red flag. It tells him that at least one those opinions is wrong. If that's how you think, you must believe that the skeptic is wrong if you believe that you are right. If that's not how you think, then you are well off the reasoning reservation.

I do not think in terms of right and wrong because that creates unnecessary conflict -- I am right and you are wrong. I think in terms of what is true and false. If a deity exists is true then no deity exists must be false, and the converse is also the case.

A religious belief cannot be both true and false but a religious belief can be true yet have some false beliefs associated with it. I believe that the Baha’i Faith is true and Christianity is also true, but that Christianity has some false doctrines associated with it which reduced its truth value.

And you and the skeptic cannot both be right when holding mutually exclusive opinions. If you agree with that, you ought to be looking for ways to rule one in or the other out to make your case. If you think that both ideas can be correct simply because people can believe or hold both even though they are mutually exclusive, then we have even less basis for discussion.

It is logic 101 that me and the skeptic cannot both be right when holding mutually exclusive opinions but since I have already made the case for my beliefs there is nothing to discuss.

Incidentally, this is also one way of ruling out the Christian deity, the one said to be perfect, and yet makes errors that it regrets and attempts to remedy. That's also off the reservation thinking. Perfect imperfect entities don't exist, just as married unmarried entities don't.

Incidentally, I do not believe that the deity ever made a mistake and this is one of the false beliefs of Christianity that the Bible promoted with OT verses that are anthropomorphisms. God does not have regrets because God cannot make mistakes because God is infallible. Of course this does not occur to Christians who believe that garbage because they do not think logically.

As I've explained before, you don't think according to the principles of critical thought, and you are apparently unaware of that and unable to see or consider it, so you post fallacious thinking and resist analysis of it.

I have yet to see anyone point out any fallacious thinking on my part and give me examples of it. You cannot make a case without evidence. You tell me my thinking is fallacious with only a personal opinion and no evidence to back that up. That is unjust and it would only work to convince people who agree with you on a forum; it would never work in a court of law.

I don't expect you to change your mind. I can see that that is not possible. It is closed to that possibility. What that means is that whether you are right or wrong, you are stuck in your present position. If it wrong, you will never see that or move past it.

The same applies to you, you could be wrong, but I don’t expect you to change your mind. You are stuck in your present position and if it is wrong, you will never see that or move past it.

I have been a Bahai for over 51 years and if I was going to “see the error of my ways” that would have happened by now. I have looked under every rock and I have found nothing that would contradict my beliefs; rather, all I keep finding is more evidence that confirms that my beliefs are true.

I am not going to admit I am wrong because I do not believe that I am wrong, but that does not mean you have to believe I am right. As adults should be mature enough to have boundaries and agree to disagree. I do not want to debate with you or anyone else. Look back at the two questions I asked in my OP. That is what I wanted to discuss and look how quickly this thread went off track and turned into a thread about my religious beliefs.

I mentioned earlier that I am confused by your arguing that your position is logical to people who tell you it is not, yet you consistently reject their evaluations. That would create cognizant dissonance in me if I believed that reason was the path to truth, as I do. I would be concerned that so many people that ought to know disagreed with me. That doesn't seem to matter to you at all.

I reject the evaluations because all they do is say I am not logical and they never present any actual evidence to back that up. That is called a bald assertion.

Why isn’t my position logical? That should not be difficult to answer. If you cannot answer it then I will assume that you have nothing but a nebulous personal opinion of me as an illogical person.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have shared it innumerable times, only to hear atheists say "that's not evidence!"
Why would I share it again?

So what was the reasoning for people to say that it wasn't proper evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Plenty of us? That is the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.

No.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Yes. But here, we aren't talking about a proposition.

It was a response to a statement of you that said "nobody has shown me how my statements are irrational". And I just replied that plenty of people have done exactly that.

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Sure. But that's not what is happening here.