Atheists: If God existed would God……

[F1fan]

I just love how you speak for me as if you know my intent. That is arrogant.

No, I'm using your literal words in a way that counters what you are saying with your words. Your words say one thing, your actions say another.

But I am not trying to convince anyone. I firmly believe in free will and the right to choose.

The issue isn't a right to believe, but WHY we believe. This includes the reasons that are hidden from consciousness. The superficial reasons feel good to the believer. the subconscious reasons suggest a lack of control and insight. That can be scary.

There is nothing odd about it. I am just responding to posts I receive.

And you often respond inconsistently, and without objectivity and reason, even though you insist you do. It's interesting to observe.

Why do certain people have an obsession with me and what I am doing? I am not that intereting, really.

It's not about you. It's about someone we don't know who will say things that are contrary to reason while claiming it is reasonable. You could be anyone else we know and it is interesting to try to find out why you heave as you do. I have friends that behave as you do, who make irrational claims that they insist are rational, but there is no way I could ask them questions like we ask you. They wouldn't stand for it for long. I suspect others might be interested if there is a point where we reach the person absorbed in an irrational framework of belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

It does seem like you are two or three different people sometimes.

Are multiple people using the Trailblazer account?

That's okay, my counselor says the same thing. I am multi-faceted. I have to be to survive the life I have.

 

[ppp]

That's okay, my counselor says the same thing. I am multi-faceted. I have to be to survive the life I have.

That's not an answer to my question. Who'd've thunk it?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I'm using your literal words in a way that counters what you are saying with your words. Your words say one thing, your actions say another.

All you can see is my words and you do not know my actions or my motives.
You told me your motives and I believed you but you don't believe what I say. You imagine motives I do not have. What you are doing is projecting what you believe my motives are onto me.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not an answer to my question. Who'd've thunk it?

Oh sorry... I only slept one hour last night so I missed that question.
No, I have only one account on RF although I have three bank accounts.

 

[F1fan]

People have faith in many things that cannot be proven every day, not just in God.

God and religion is a specific set of concepts that are not related to the everyday assumptions and trusts that we have to extend. We have to drive and have faith in (trust) other drivers. We don't have to have faith in religious ideas to navigate our daily duties. These are issues that a person uses to help manage their own identity, anxieties, and fears. Not all have these issues, so no need for religion.

Reason and faith can coexist.

Reason and religious faith cannot.

To say otherwise is the fallacy of black and white thinking - either faith or reason. That is illogical.

You are moving the goalposts. As I noted faith in others in society as we navigate life is vastly different than religious faith. The two are not the same. That is YOUR black and white thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not about you. It's about someone we don't know who will say things that are contrary to reason while claiming it is reasonable.

You do not define what is reasonable.
What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another person.
I guess you don't know much about psychology and how people reason.

 

[Trailblazer]

Reason and religious faith cannot.

Says who? Who are you to declare what can coexist?
You have NOTHING but a personal opinion and you assert it as a fact.

 

[F1fan]

All you can see is my words and you do not know my actions or my motives.

Over thousands of posts we can see patterns and inconsistencies. Policy wonders if there are others using your profile.

You told me your motives and I believed you but you don't believe what I say.

I see you having superficial motives, but are acting through subconscious motives that you largely ignore and are unaware. That you keep your mind busy with this threat indicates you need a distraction from your more inner reflection.

You imagine motives I do not have.

Of course you don't think you have them. That would cast doubt on your superficial motives, and thus, inner conflict, even more confusion, no truth, doubts, stress, anxiety, fear. The busy mind keeps you distracted.

What you are doing is projecting what you believe my motives are onto me.

No, just assessment and posting.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are moving the goalposts. As I noted faith in others in society as we navigate life is vastly different than religious faith. The two are not the same. That is YOUR black and white thinking.

No, that is not what black and white thinking is. That there are two kinds of faith has nothing to do with black and white thinking because I never said there is only one kind; I said there are many kinds!

 

[Trailblazer]

Over thousands of posts we can see patterns and inconsistencies.

No, they are just complexities that you cannot grasp.

 

[F1fan]

You do not define what is reasonable.

Correct. Reasonable follows a set of rules of thinking, logic.

What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another person.

False, reasonable follows facts, data, and a disciplined order of thinking to sound conclusions.

I guess you don't know much about psychology and how people reason.

Correct, you are guessing and guessing wrong.

 

[lukethethird]

No, I have evidence but I have never tried to convince myself, I became convinced.

You merely claim to have evidence and so take posters here to be fools which in and of itself shows a lack of character on your part because you also claim to be educated, or at least claim that you attended a university, so one would think that you would have learned what constitutes as actual evidence and what does not constitute as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see you having superficial motives, but are acting through subconscious motives that you largely ignore and are unaware. That you keep your mind busy with this threat indicates you need a distraction from your more inner reflection.

You do not know me or my psychological status. How arrogant you get, psychoanalyzing me as if you know me.

If you think I feel threatened by any atheists you are really off the mark. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Atheists like you are just for entertainment. Some atheists might really want to know the truth and I take them seriously.

I know God exists so why would atheists threaten me?

 

[Trailblazer]

You merely claim to have evidence and so take posters here to be fools which in itself shows a lack of character on your part because you also claim to be educated, or at least claim that you attended a university, so one would think that you would have learned what constitutes as actual evidence and what does not constitute as evidence.

Evidence for God is not learned in a university. I have a BA and two MA degrees but no university offers any courses in evidence for God.

 

[F1fan]

You do not know me or my psychological status. How arrogant you get, psychoanalyzing me as if you know me.

Why are you presuming I'm psychoanalyzing you? As I noted I'm observing your behavior in this forum. I'm assessing that behavior with what i have learned about the psychology of religion.

If you think I feel threatened by any atheists you are really off the mark.

Good thing I never mentioned this.

NOTHING could be further from the truth. Atheists like you are just for entertainment.

This is reactionary. So we get under your skin?

Some atheists might really want to know the truth and I take them seriously.

And you presume to know the truth they need or want?

I know God exists so why would atheists threaten me?

So it's not just belief in God, it is knowing a God exists, as a fact? You can't be mistaken? It is absolute? No chance of error on your part?

 

[F1fan]

Evidence for God is not learned in a university. I have a BA and two MA degrees but no university offers any courses in evidence for God.

That's a bad strike against evidence for God, as universities teach facts and knowledge.

 

[lukethethird]

Evidence for God is not learned in a university. I have a BA and two MA degrees but no university offers any courses in evidence for God.

Regardless of subject matter, you would have to know what constitutes as actual evidence and what does not constitute as evidence before you can claim to have evidence of something. One would have to know that in order to claim to have evidence. You, evidenced by the deceitful way that you claim to have evidence of something, goes to show that you must take posters here to be fools, and that shows a lack of character on your part.

 

[Truthseeker]

I can respect other religions, just not Bahais. They got the worse interpretation of Quran and play games with words, they think God is a deceiver. I can respect other religions who work with their own text, but not the way Bahais interpret Quran.

That always happens. Most believers of the former religion reject the religion of the following religion. Look at how the Christians rejected Islam. They may respect religions of the past, but usually not the religion that succeeds it. They feel threatened by it. But there is no harm intended.

We do work with our own text, and sometimes our text says things unlike the traditional interpretations of Qur'an. The previous texts cannot do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I know that nothing that could have been produced by a human being is evidence of more than that a human being wrote it. You also claim that the life of the messenger is such evidence. It is not, for the same reason.

As I have explained before, the Messengers of God are not ordinary human beings. They have a twofold nature, a physical nature and a spiritual nature. If they were ordinary human beings then there would be no reason to believe they were evidence for God.

God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a spiritual nature that other humans do not possess:

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

I did previously and again just now. Evidence for an idea is a fact or finding that makes that idea more likely to be correct. What you have offered is not that.

More likely to be correct according to you. The evidence I have makes my belief more likely to be correct according to me.

This is not that difficult and you make it more complicated than it has to be. What is evidence to me is not evidence to you but you insist I have no evidence because it is not evidence to you. This is what you cannot understand.

Again, to you. Nobody can explain it to you.

Conversely, nobody can explain to you what is wrong with your argument. In short, it is all about what is not evidence to you but I cannot make you see that.

Here's a fallacy now. You've been given a list of logically possible alternatives as to why we haven't received compelling evidence for a god.

The fact that the evidence is not compelling to you says nothing about the evidence. It is just your personal opinion that the evidence is not evidence because it is not compelling to you. This is all about you and you cannot see anything from my perspective and you do not even try to. There is nowhere to go with this. It is not a discussion.

And it is remarkable that you cannot see that. You can't see that your conclusion cannot be sound if you eliminated what you called a logical alternative without ruling it out first.

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