Atheists: If God existed would God……

[muhammad_isa]

You claimed that you were fortunate to have been given an education with a heavy religious bias.

No. I was fortunate enough to have a good education in Christianity, which is very important as it's the root of our recent civilisation.
Political correctness "teaches" that all religions are the same, and ends up with being "master of none".
..which suits atheists of course. They want to suppress religious knowledge on any ground they can think of.

 

[Sheldon]

Such as?
Do you think that if I asked G-d for £1000 and told nobody else, and I found £1000 under my pillow in the morning, I would have good reason to believe?

I'd have to say NO, since all you would have is an inexplicable event, so assuming divine intervention sounds like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to me. Besides we know humans exist, and that they are capable of deception, so why would one assume something we have no objective evidence for is a more likely cause, or even a possible one, and based on a known logical fallacy at that, rather than an explanation we know is possible, but that we as yet don't fully understand?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

The Bible holds no moral authority with me. I am the only moral authority in my life. What I consider moral and immoral are derived from my own application of reason to a primal moral intuition, what Christians call the Golden Rule. When applied to societies, it means creating societies that enable others to pursue happiness as they understand it. To accomplish this, we promote freedom, equality, human development, and economic and social opportunity for the most people possible. If you look at the Affirmations of Humanism, you will see a series of beliefs that have that purpose in common.

I should mention that I also don't consider that a moral authority. I happen to share those values, probably because I came to them using the same process of rational ethics, that inevitably leads to ideas like:

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

What do all of these have in common? They promote human development, and economic and social opportunity for the most people possible. Golden Rule writ large. Also called utilitarian ethics: "the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number."

The Bible can't compete with that. Rational ethics has come a long way since its scriptures were written. You know about the deficiencies in denouncing slavery (des that practice respect the Golden Rule) and promoting misogyny and homophobia. It also considers faith a virtue, whereas humanism does not. Reason is the virtue, not faith.

And there is so much missing from scripture. Where is the praise of democracy, which is another manifestation of the Golden Rule and the enabling of people to have a say in their own affairs? Where is the part about protecting the earth? These are pretty major issues.

Unlike you, I respect them for their faith.

Why? Faith is a choice to believe without sufficient support. Where is the virtue there? Faith, by definition, is unexamined, making it among the shallowest of experiences.

God either exists or not. What atheists believe about God does not have any bearing on that. This is the logic that atheists do not understand, yet they call themselves logical.

Most atheists don't claim that gods don't exist. They say that they have no reason to believe that they do. The former is illogical, the latter sound.

What is idiotic is atheists expecting God to hop to and meet the bar they set and provide proof of His existence.

Another straw man. We don't expect gods to do anything. We don't expect anybody including a deity to provide even evidence of a deity, much less proof.

Regarding the bar skeptics set, I addressed that issue with another poster recently, who was also bemoaning the standards for belief of critical thinking, and the theist's inability to clear them:

"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."

Look at how easy it is for actual things to clear that bar, but impossible for the nonexistent. That's by design.

it does not matter if a religious belief cannot be shown to be true to everyone, because it is logically impossible for that to ever be the case.

You can convince a critical thinker that any belief is correct if it is. You just need evidence and a valid argument. That works every time, and nothing else does.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, what was it in the Quran that made you think "Aha! This version of god actually exists".

You just trivialise religion.
It is nothing to do with "versions of gods".
It has everything to do with truth and education.
There is only One G-d.

If you think there might be "a family of gods" that are hiding somewhere, having sexual intercourse with each other, and asking each other what the time is .. then carry on with your beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

Why should eating pig-meat suddenly become acceptable after G-d called it an abomination in the Qur'an, for example.

Why on earth would anyone believe something so arbitrary anyway? Pig meat is perfectly nutritious, the misconceptions about pigs are based on archaic human ignorance, and this is easily demonstrated now. Ah but that would mean an infallible law from an infallible deity was nothing of the sort, and it would be hard to accept that fact, then carry on believing blindly.

 

[Sheldon]

There is only One G-d.

Zeus, Apollo, no Thor, I like Macuilcozcacuauhtli, it's no less credible than any of the other thousands of deities humans have imagined are real, despite your hilarious claim there is only one.

 

[F1fan]

No, just something that you do not want to hear, so you call it hysteria.

I want you to acknowledge your logical errors when they are pointed out. Your denial and refusal is observed by skilled thinkers.

You are as transparent as the window glass right after the window washer has come.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[F1fan]

That's not true.
..not the jig-saw I refer to.

Anyone can come along and claim the law is cancelled.

Or even acknowledge their own authority to declare the Bible and Quran irrelevant. Right? Many dismiss these books deliberately, and even more do do because their religious tradition relies on other sources.

Why should eating pig-meat suddenly become acceptable after G-d called it an abomination in the Qur'an, for example.

Well we see believer interpret the Bible and Quran in all sorts of ways that disagree, so it looks like humans dice what God wants. All believers can't be right when they disagree, right?

This is the jig-saw I refer to. The Bible and Qur'an can't just be totally abrogated, because a Roman or Iranian says so, as far as I'm concerned.

Or else, what? Believers do what they want, and atheists reject it all, and what are the consequences?

That's mankind for you. They have likes and dislikes. They often incline towards something for the wrong reasons.
eg. left and right wing ideologies

This is what happens when a God is absent.

 

[F1fan]

No, I don't.
Unlike you, I respect them for their faith.

Even if they eat pork? So you respect their rejecting of God's prohibition?

Do you respect the thinking of atheists who aren't convinced by religious claims as well?

 

[F1fan]

No. I was fortunate enough to have a good education in Christianity, which is very important as it's the root of our recent civilisation.

Whose civilization are you referring to specifically?

Political correctness "teaches" that all religions are the same, and ends up with being "master of none".

Religious wars don't resolve with winners. So tolerance has been the best approach for the diversity of religions on the planet. If one God exists then it should have guided all human civilizations through history with a single theological truth. It didn't. It is this God's fault for the diversity we see.

..which suits atheists of course. They want to suppress religious knowledge on any ground they can think of.

It suits all religions, because all other "true" religions can exist in their own geographical areas without worrying about some other religion trying to fight a war.

Do you support Hindus in their beliefs? Would you oppress Hindus if you were in charge of India?

 

[F1fan]

Children are innocent .. they are in a better position than adults to make such decisions.

You didn't respond, perhaps you missed my questions:

So children should be allowed to vote and adults banned. Children should decide civil rights and the law, yes?

Do you suspend your own decision making and defer to children to guide your thinking? If not, perhaps your claim above wasn't thought out very well? Could a child do better?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whose civilization are you referring to specifically?

I'm from the UK.

Religious wars don't resolve with winners. So tolerance has been the best approach for the diversity of religions on the planet.

Yes. Education of all religions is important, I agree.
I'm just pointing out that I was fortunate to be able to go into more detail of the Divine, due to the school I attended, and its syllabus.

Do you support Hindus in their beliefs?

It's not a universal religion. It's more of a culture, and has different beliefs and non-divine practices and so on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You didn't respond, perhaps you missed my questions:

So children should be allowed to vote and adults banned?

I tend to ignore stupid questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Our opinions seem to matter a lot to you.

Why would you think that? No, they do not matter at all. As soon as people start criticizing other people directly or indirectly their opinions cease to matter to me because I lose all respect for them even if they have good points to make.
If people cannot talk to me respectfully, I am not going to respond to their posts.

They / we do point out your errors. Constantly

You only point out that you believe I make errors.
Anyone can SAY "We have pointed out your errors" but I have yet to see anyone step up to bat and explain exactly what those errors are and how I made them.

We are pointing out your faults in the logical reasoning process.

You only SAY I have faults in my logical reasoning process but you have yet to explain what is wrong with my logical reasoning process. What is the evidence?
A prosecutor does not come into court to convict a defendant with no evidence.

You continually correct us when we seem to you to be committing a logical fallacy. Is it a one-way thing? If you think it is, why do you think so?

But I explain how the logical fallacy was committed. I don't just say people are illogical with nothing to back that up. All I ask is for people to be fair and back up their assertions. If I committed a fallacy it is only fair to explain how I committed it.

Maybe better to refrain from being so adamant about something you cannot possibly know... ?

I will be adamant about whatever I want to be adamant about. People might want to ask themselves why that bothers them, if it bothers them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Straw man.

I said: "So you think that plenty of people recognize that their beliefs are irrational because they cannot be demonstrated yet they still hold beliefs that they think are irrational?"

That was a question so it cannot be a straw man.
I suggest you bone up on your logical fallacies.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence that you have provided in these four years is what Bahaollah himself wrote. There is nothing to confirm it with, except his saying that he had a vision of a 'heavenly maiden'.

That is a straw man because I have told people on this forum repeatedly that the evidence is not what Baha'u'llah wrote.

 

[Trailblazer]

Though is also seems incongruous to demand atheists seek objective evidence for a deity that theists fail to demonstrate, then decry them for seeking it.

The hundred-dollar question is why theists should present any evidence of a deity to atheists.
If atheists have any interest in knowing if a deity exists then it is their job to look for the evidence.

Why is it the job of theists to present evidence to atheists?

Don't say it is because we claim that a deity exists. We do not claim it, we believe it, and unless we are trying to prove it we have no burden of proof. Atheists just want to put the burden on believers so they won't have to do their own homework.

But if atheists do not care if a deity exists why keep asking for evidence? That seems like an utter waste of time to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most atheists don't claim that gods don't exist. They say that they have no reason to believe that they do. The former is illogical, the latter sound.

Believers believe that God exists. They say that they have a reason to believe because there is evidence. There is nothing illogical about believing on evidence. There is also nothing illogical about not believing because you see no evidence. Belief is not a matter of logic.

Another straw man. We don't expect gods to do anything. We don't expect anybody including a deity to provide even evidence of a deity, much less proof.

You do not speak for all atheists. There are atheists who expect the deity to prove it exists and they say that if the deity does not do that it is the deity's fault that they do not believe in him.
One such atheist was the instigator of this thread and many of my threads to atheists on this forum.

 

[Trailblazer]

I want you to acknowledge your logical errors when they are pointed out. Your denial and refusal is observed by skilled thinkers.

You not only have to say I committed logical errors, you have to explain what they are and how I committed them.
In a court of law the prosecutor does not just say Mr. Smith murdered his wife. He has to explain how the crime was committed and present evidence of its commission.

What is the logical error and what is the evidence that I have committed the logical error?

"Skilled critical thinkers." So you are skilled and I am not skilled?
What makes you skilled, just because you say you are skilled?
If I say I am skilled why am I not also skilled?

 

[night912]

Your observations are mere opinions. I see that you continually refer to your cronies and you cannot just speak for yourself. That you need support for your position is very telling.
Do you see any other Baha'is on this thread?

So basically what you're saying is that you need your cronies (other baha'is), to support your position. Got it.

Why are you compelled to point out the errors in MY thinking?

There's nothing wrong with pointing out errors. Sorry, but you getting mad because of being wrong is not a good reason for others to not point out that you are wrong.

Baha'u'llah knew why people do that and that is how I know why.

I thought that part of hos teaching was to not accept what he says just because he said it. You don't follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah and yet, you claimed to be a baha'i. I wonder what Baha'u'llah would say about this.