Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

OMG. Look up the law of non-contradiction. Fast!!

There is no contradiction.
Religious belief is not logical or illogical since it is not subject to logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which makes them indistinguishable from fiction.

No, it only means that religious beliefs cannot be verified or falsified.
They can still be true even if they cannot be proven true since proof does not make anything true.

e.g. If Mr. Smith murdered his wife that is true even if it cannot be proven true.
Likewise 'God exists' can be true even if it cannot be proven true.

 

[F1fan]

There is no contradiction.

You wrote "never said it was logical, I said it is not illogical."

As a statement this is absurd. Here's why.

The "il" in latin means "not".

What does il mean in Latin?
"); display: inline-block; height: 24px; width: 24px; margin-top: -1px; transform: rotateZ(-180deg);">

word-forming element meaning "not, opposite of, without" (also im-, il-, ir- by assimilation of -n- with following consonant, a tendency which began in later Latin), from Latin in- "not," cognate with Greek.​

Not illogical means logical. It is a binary which means there are no other options. Illogical means not logical. Not illogical means logical.

Religious belief is not logical

This is correct.

or illogical since it is not subject to logic.

Says who? The religious? Of course they don't want their beliefs subject to critical thought. It can't win.

Yet you stand by your religious belief, and want to avoid critique.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who says?

Religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable.

However, a religious belief can be logical if one comes to the belief by means of clear, sound reasoning.

 

[F1fan]

Religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable.

That religious beliefs can't withstand skilled criticism does not mean it is off limits.

I asked, who says it is off limits? You?

However, a religious belief can be logical if one comes to the belief by means of clear, sound reasoning.

That hasn't happened. If it could be then you wouldn't be trying to exempt if from rational scrutiny. You'd be showcasing the religions that COULD show sound reasoning. There is none, and you offer none. You offer a decree that asserts religious belief off limits. You do so with no authority.

 

[ppp]

No, it only means that religious beliefs cannot be verified or falsified.

I know. That is what makes it in distinguishable from fiction.

e.g. If Mr. Smith murdered his wife that is true even if it cannot be proven true.

What Mr. Smith? Where? In your story? Why should I believe that Mr. Smith even exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

Not illogical means logical. It is a binary which means there are no other options. Illogical means not logical. Not illogical means logical.

That's correct. It is a binary.

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
illogical means - Google Search

Logical: characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
logical means - Google Search

This is correct.

That is not correct. It is just your personal opinion. We all have those.

Says who? The religious? Of course they don't want their beliefs subject to critical thought. It can't win.

Says who? The atheists? Of course they don't want their non-beliefs subject to critical thought.

Yet you stand by your religious belief, and want to avoid critique.

I avoid nothing. Critique my religion all you want to.

 

[Trailblazer]

That religious beliefs can't withstand skilled criticism does not mean it is off limits.

I asked, who says it is off limits? You?

I did not say religious beliefs are off limits. I said religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable..

That hasn't happened.

It has happened. I came to my religious belief by means of clear, sound reasoning.

If it could be then you wouldn't be trying to exempt if from rational scrutiny. You'd be showcasing the religions that COULD show sound reasoning. There is none, and you offer none. You offer a decree that asserts religious belief off limits. You do so with no authority.

I am not trying to exempt my religious beliefs from scrutiny. Fire away, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know. That is what makes it in distinguishable from fiction.

Religious beliefs can be verified by individuals in which case they are distinguishable..

What Mr. Smith? Where? In your story? Why should I believe that Mr. Smith even exists?

That was an analogy. If Mr. Smith murdered his wife that is true even if it cannot be proven true.
Likewise if God exists is true it is true even if it cannot be proven true.

 

[F1fan]

That is not correct. It is just your personal opinion. We all have those.

Uh, I was agreeing with your assertion that "Religious belief is not logical". So my agreement with you is wrong all of a sudden?

Says who? The atheists? Of course they don't want their non-beliefs subject to critical thought.

You still avoid answering who says that "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable".

So you made this claims without being able to cite who has authority over logic and reason?

I avoid nothing. Critique my religion all you want to.

You avoided my question above, twice now.

 

[ppp]

Religious beliefs can be verified by individuals in which case they are distinguishable..

Not yet.

That was an analogy.

I know that was your intent, but it is a broken analogy. You are trying to use the presumed existence of Mr. Smith to piggyback the existence of God upon. If you want a proper analogy, don't start with the assumption that Mr. Smith exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why don't you list your bulletpoints of evidence that convinced you as a skilled thinker. All of it.

What initially convinced me was what I wrote below:

Why I became a Baha'i initially had little to do with what Baha'u'llah wrote. I read mostly what Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote and what other Baha'is wrote about the Baha'i Faith. I am an idealist so I was attracted to the primary message of Baha'u'llah, the oneness of mankind, the oneness of religion, world unity, and world peace.

Later, after I had been a Baha’i for many years my belief was confirmed by all the other evidence I found.
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

OK, that all sounds good. But what about this suggests it is evidence of a supernatural existing?

There is no evidence that demonstrates that anything supernatural exists. We either believe the claims of the Messengers or not.

So all those believers are correct in their beliefs about those different texts that make conflicting claims? How is that not illogical? Look up the law of non-contradiction.

The religious texts are all different but they are not conflicting. It is what the religious believers believe the texts mean that is conflicting.

I never said that all those believers are correct in their beliefs. It is a sorry mess.

False. Like above you say you believe your text just as other believers believe their texts, but these texts contradict each other, so someone is wrong. This is you being illogical. Not all believers can be correct here. I suggest all are wrong.

It is black and white thinking to say that everything in the major religions is either right or wrong. Some of what all the major religions teach is right but some of it has been altered and misinterpreted by man and that is why it is wrong.

 

[F1fan]

Religious beliefs can be verified by individuals in which case they are distinguishable..

Give us verified examples of individuals doing this that others can recognize as valid.

Or do you mean whatever the individuals wants to believe is true, they can, as long as they keep it to themselves it IS true?

 

[Trailblazer]

I know that was your intent, but it is a broken analogy. You are trying to use the presumed existence of Mr. Smith to piggyback the existence of God upon. If you want a proper analogy, don't start with the assumption that Mr. Smith exists.

You still did not understand. I do not presume the existence of Mr. Smith. Let's try this again.

If a man murdered his wife even if that cannot be proven that man is still guilty of murdering his wife.
If God exists even if that cannot be proven God is still guilty of existing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Uh, I was agreeing with your assertion that "Religious belief is not logical". So my agreement with you is wrong all of a sudden?

I did not say that religious belief is illogical. I said it is not subject to logical proofs.

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
illogical means - Google Search

You still avoid answering who says that "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable".

I say that. Religious beliefs cannot be proven true or false so they are not subject to logical proofs. If they could be proven true they would be facts, not beliefs.

 

[rational experiences]

To analyse. I think says just the human. I will analyse my thinking.

I don't have any God earth dusts to resource.

I only have pretend now.

Pretend where the biological thinks as not a solid.

Where images are.

What he isn't the image.

His story.

Once a volcanic erection I compared to my man's penis. Said a theist.

Analysis volcano is not a man's penis. Don't use that thesis says man's analysis.

As science means sepArate to self.

I learnt that science advice as a lesson. Theist baby man a son...less of the son.

Said the analyst self. Human men.

But I wont consider not preaching science in healing spiritual meditative ceremonies.

Even after I separated the branches of learning.

Church. Resonating by music chanting bells or singing. Healing.

Known.

So he then says volcanic gas dispersed as a God sex act went into an immaculate womb. Cold. Clean. Empty.

It was dense. It cooled clear. No clouds in other words.

God earths natural history as known to man.

Okay. So the sun cold mass itself burst. It ejected also. Did it have sex with heavens and God?

Two bodies. Error ummmm better not infer sex to God then. But you don't stop preaching falsehoods.

Science says cold sun mass particles followed by burning gas caused clouds to reform above us. From star saviour.

Don't change anything on the earth ground he advised. From analysis.

Yet holes mining resources is the inventive scientists want. Resources for machines not life.

So his brother says your want of machines is going to destroy life on earth.

As he says I channel mass through and because of holes. Holes I dig first as a man.

I want a space hole above me. I want star sun particles. As earth owns no more resources. I need the hot burning O wheel asteroids moving travelling channelling.

In cosmos the mass analysed a resource.

As they amass O in cooling when space dispersed them.

O is science causes.

So now he wants O the sun god. Yet the metal is cold. What isn't cosmic says analysis. It's only earths heavenly outcome.

No cold metal can enter a machine. Also made of cold metals.

He says no a cold UFO should pop itself into my new opened channel machine.

I want electricity. I should burn it in a hot gas mass. Inside machine first.

Our voiding vacuum cooling forms lightning in our heavens using half of natural life's water already.

So it wont enter as mass.

Idea thesis I will analyse lightning says natural ground receipt being the first body gets lightning. A reaction.

Analysis was the reaction only.

In gods acts.

He proved I'm not doing God. I want by theorising only lightning to be electricity.

To make force invent earths heavens to become colder. Lightning's mass reaction will change. Reactions beginnings. As he doesn't own the analysis first.

How he analyses advice.

Men with machines. The ground.

Thinks.

If Increase of the dust ground status..it begins with more holes mining. It is by men cause cold holes.

Then if I keep attacking life by nuclear fallout we should gain an earths nuclear winter. By heavens gas changes. Invented only by I want.

Based on AI star fall Russia hit analysis mind 1901.

So I'll preach increase nuclear plants as I want my new machine to work in a colder atmospheric ground gas state that I need. Machine analyst. For machines only about machine status not biological status.

Not a God theist.

Russia coldest winters. The advice communicated via history star particle mass attack.

 

[Trailblazer]

Give us verified examples of individuals doing this that others can recognize as valid.

Or do you mean whatever the individuals wants to believe is true, they can, as long as they keep it to themselves it IS true?

No, what I mean is whatever one determines is true is what they will believe is true.
Other people are not going to recognize that as valid unless they came to the same determination.

 

[F1fan]

What initially convinced me was what I wrote below:

Why I became a Baha'i initially had little to do with what Baha'u'llah wrote. I read mostly what Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote and what other Baha'is wrote about the Baha'i Faith. I am an idealist so I was attracted to the primary message of Baha'u'llah, the oneness of mankind, the oneness of religion, world unity, and world peace.

Later, after I had been a Baha’i for many years my belief was confirmed by all the other evidence I found.
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

OK, this is irrelevant to anyone else.

There is no evidence that demonstrates that anything supernatural exists. We either believe the claims of the Messengers or not.

So atheists are justified to not believe in any Gods since atheists need evidence to make decisions that some idea is true.

The religious texts are all different but they are not conflicting. It is what the religious believers believe the texts mean that is conflicting.

The New Testament says that Jesus is the savior of mankind, and the Quran says this isn't true. Huge discrepancy to Christians.

I never said that all those believers are correct in their beliefs. It is a sorry mess.

But you assert that "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable" so believers are neither correct nor incorrect to your approach. Anything goes in your approach. Whatever a believer believes they are exempt from critique.

It is black and white thinking to say that everything in the major religions is either right or wrong. Some of what all the major religions teach is right but some of it has been altered and misinterpreted by man and that is why it is wrong.

The rules of logic don't distinguish categories of claims. Ideas either have evidence which supports reason, or they don't. As a category religious beliefs/claims tend to fail more than they succeed in logic. That isn't bias, it isn't opinion, it isn't belief, it is an observation. It is a fact.

Even you advocate for "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable." That has to be because you know they can't win.

 

[F1fan]

No, what I mean is whatever one determines is true is what they will believe is true.

That worked for the 9-11 hijackers.

Other people are not going to recognize that as valid unless they came to the same determination.

And by what mental method is the most reliable?

 

[ppp]

If a man murdered his wife even if that cannot be proven that man is still guilty of murdering his wife.

Doesn't matter. You are trying to analogize the action (of your man) with the existence (of your god). No. I reject the validity of your analogy.