Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Trailblazer]

I suggest you are a bigger threat to your religion than any of the critics.

How could I be a threat? I don't have the power to derail a firmly established world religion.

 

[F1fan]

No, you cannot know my standards because you run what I say through your own filters and thus you misunderstand what I mean by what I say.

Your standards are low by accepted norms. You yourself have rejected the accepted norms of evidence. You've admitted your standards are for you alone, so you have no motivation to use the accepted high standard. There's no need for me to filter any of this.

Just as you know your own standards better than anyone else can ever know them, I know my own standards better than anyone else can ever know them.

I use the accepted norms. They are very high. I suggest you upgrade.

You do not know what my 'thinking process' is, only I know what it is.

You really want to be a mystery. But we know what you are.

If you want to know what someone is thinking it is best to ask them and then believe them when they answer.

So you believe atheists when they tell you they think your claims are flawed?

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't offer reasons, you just repeated the dilemma and conflict. I'm asking you to explain what there is to see objectively, and what is the real, actual impediment to those who can't "see" it, who are also quite skilled and objective thinkers. What will solve the impediment that you assert must be there to rational thinkers?

I did offer a reason. I said: We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.

The real, actual impediment to those who can't "see" it is confirmation bias, which makes it impossible to see it since you have already made up your mind that it cannot be true before you ever give it a serious chance.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Ego also makes it impossible to see it, because if one thinks they 'already know' there is nothing to see (no lamp in the next room) then they will never be open to seeing what is there. It is a test sent by God. Some pass and some fail.

“This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

So the difference is because you and your fellow believers are "seeing" these people as messengers. That is the condition you are placing on your thinking, and you offer no fact that they are actually, truly messengers of God. This is why we reject your claims. you offer no fact of any messenger, it's just up to you believers to decide they are. And you could be mistaken.

I have offered the evidence that can be researched so people can determine for themselves whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not. Such a claim can never be proven as a fact that will be universally accepted as true, but it can be proven to ourselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are making claims that have blatant and obvious logical errors. You are corrected, yet you continue with the fallacies. And to boot you are accusing others of fallacies when they are not.

Talk is cheap. Go ahead, point them out. I will show you why I did not commit them, again.

I have pointed out the logical errors of atheists and I explain why I think they are logical errors. No atheist has ever been able to come back with a counter argument.

What we do to point out your errors is no more personal than a teacher marking 7 wrong answers on your test.
The teacher isn't disagreeing with your answer, you got it wrong.

Wrong according to who?

"We" point out.... who is we? You are not like the teacher with the right answer, you just believe you are.

The rules of logic give us a way to argue correctly, and you violate many of these rules because you have decided your beliefs and claims are true. It's as obvious as a lamp in the other room.

Obvious to who? A couple of atheists with confirmation bias?

Show me how I violated any rules of logic or stop accusing me. Are you afraid you cannot prove your assertions are true? Stand up or back down. That is what is expected when you are in a debate.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: No, I do not have to prove anything is true because I am not presenting a logical argument.

So you have no problem when we aren't convinced what you believe is true. It's odd that you are behaving like a person who is trying to present arguments.

I have absolutely no problem because I am not trying to convince anyone that my beliefs are true.
No, I am not behaving like someone who is trying to convince anyone when I say it is not my job to convince anybody of what I believe OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Trailblazer said:I already explained that religious beliefs are not subject to being proven with logical arguments since they can never be proven to be true.

Then they are false since that is the binary default. No one show treat religious concepts are true since you admit they can't be proven, so quite dubious for meaning in life.

No, false is not the binary default. My beliefs are not false just because they cannot be proven to be true. That is the argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Truthseeker]

No, I really don't think that's why people argue. I think it's all about the ego's need to constantly defend the delusion of one's own righteousness, no matter how right or wrong that delusion is. Most of these arguments are wildly irrational and illogical, and yet they go on post after post, with no hope or even desire of mutual understanding. It's ALL auto-defense. Blind, stupid, insane, auto-defense.

That's why there is this obsession with the 'battle of beliefs' instead of any real curiosity about what the other person thinks is true, and why they think so. Our egos do not care what anyone else thinks is truth. All our egos care about is maintaining the delusion of our own truthfulness at all cost. Everyone else's view of truth is the 'enemy', and must be defeated by any means available.

I agree pretty much with your analysis of debate. I don't like to debate, but sometimes I do anyway to prove myself right. I don't completely agree. There is an element of trying to convince because of a belief that it will do the other person some good. Mostly, though, it is ego. It is better to find points of agreement, to find an element of unity. It is better to consult, in the sense of putting one's own ego aside, and throwing your idea out there without being attached to whether your idea will be accepted. If it is not accepted, search for points of agreement. That is the ideal. However, in a forum like this where debate is rife it is hard to not debate. The environment affects me.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree pretty much with your analysis of debate. I don't like to debate, but sometimes I do anyway to prove myself right. I don't completely agree. There is an element of trying to convince because of a belief that it will do the other person some good. Mostly, though, it is ego. It is better to find points of agreement, to find an element of unity. It is better to consult, in the sense of putting one's own ego aside, and throwing your idea out there without being attached to whether your idea will be accepted. If it is not accepted, search for points of agreement. That is the ideal. However, in a forum like this where debate is rife it is hard to not debate. The environment affects me.

You know a lot of what is asked of Baha'is is more about getting answers. Some Baha'is, I won't mention any names, seem to want to argue. All that I, and hopefully some of the others here are honest answers. Like how does anyone "prove" that there is a God? So let's start with that and it's not up for debate... Why do you believe in God and that Baha'u'llah is a messenger/manifestation of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: No, you cannot know my standards because you run what I say through your own filters and thus you misunderstand what I mean by what I say.

Your standards are low by accepted norms. You yourself have rejected the accepted norms of evidence. You've admitted your standards are for you alone, so you have no motivation to use the accepted high standard. There's no need for me to filter any of this.

Accepted norms? What are the accepted norms of evidence for religious beliefs?

Accepted high standard, what is that? Is there a standard of evidence for religious beliefs? If there is please present it.

Please don’t bother presenting standards for evidence in a court of law or for science because that is the fallacy of false equivalence since religion is not equivalent to law or science so the evidence will not be of the same kind. That is a fallacy that atheists routinely commit, expecting the evidence to be the same for religion as it is for law and science. That is drop dead illogical.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

No, I never said that my standards are for me alone. I said that I can only prove my beliefs are true to myself.

Trailblazer said: Just as you know your own standards better than anyone else can ever know them, I know my own standards better than anyone else can ever know them.

I use the accepted norms. They are very high. I suggest you upgrade.

I suggest you come forward with the “norms for religious evidence” or you are just all talk and no action. Do you really want to keep digging your grave deeper because this is actually starting to be entertaining for me and God knows I could use a little entertainment.

Trailblazer said: You do not know what my 'thinking process' is, only I know what it is.

You really want to be a mystery. But we know what you are.

I am an open book, you just don’t know how to read the book.

“We know what you are…” I cannot say I have ever heard anything quite that arrogant.

Thank God I have a religious belief that has 'standards' to live by.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

Trailblazer said: If you want to know what someone is thinking it is best to ask them and then believe them when they answer.

So you believe atheists when they tell you they think your claims are flawed?

What I said completely flew completely over your head. What does what I said have to do with my claims being flawed?

Why would I believe what atheists say about my claims being flawed when they do not even present ANY evidence that shows that my claims are flawed?

Now explain why my claims are flawed or admit you have nothing to bring to the table except the ability to type the words claims and flawed.

All you have is a bald assertion unless you have something to back up your assertion that my claims are flawed.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

I have to admit I am having fun pointing out all your logical fallacies and showing how you have committed them. I have not have this much fun in a long time. I guess God knew I needed to have fun.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why do you believe in God and that Baha'u'llah is a messenger/manifestation of God?

I don't know. This seems like the beginning of a debate. On the other hand it might not be depending on your response. I was about to call it a night. Could I answer this tomorrow? An answer would take some time, and I think really you should not put much weight on why I believe in Baha'i. You need to find your own answers. Independent investigation and all that.

 

[HonestJoe]

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

As I said previously, none of these points are evidence that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God (and your God specifically).

Someone can have good character, complete an important mission and produce meaningful writings (in at least someone's opinion) without actually being a Messenger of God. Loads of people could be said to have met this criteria, some claimed to be associated with different divine sources and some not associated with anything divine at all.

Fulfilling prophecies after the fact isn't especially difficult and, as is pretty much always the case with prophecy, is full of fuzzy definitions, questionable interpretations and selective reading. Even then, that wouldn't be direct evidence that he was a Messenger of God

Future predictions are similar, open to interpretation and selection bias. And again, the ability to predict the future wouldn't be in itself evidence that he was a Messenger of God.

The only reason you say these things are evidence that he was a Messenger of God is because he said they were evidence for that. Without that claim, there is no reason to assume all these things are the work of your specific God rather than any of the literally infinite range of other possibilities, mundane, magical or divine.

Please bear in mind that such a claim can never be proven, except to oneself.

What is that even meant to mean? You're basically trying to make up entirely fictional and fraudulent rules of logic. If you can't prove it, you can't prove it. Claiming you have proof but that it can't be demonstrated to anyone else is just a lie. If you keep lying to us (and yourself), you will quickly loose any respect anyone here has for you.

If you could just own your faith and accept that lots of other people simply don't share it we'd both be happier. Of course, that would also make it harder for you to proselytise and try to spread your religion.

 

[Dropship]

..I reject the claims made by christians that their dogma is true and factual.

We could say the same thing about your Buddhism..
Personally I think Buddha was a great truthseeker 500 years before Jesus, and he might even have been one of the "righteous men" who Jesus spoke to the disciples about-
"Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them" (Matt 13:17)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Kids today are being indoctrinated by the education system into thinking that nothing is a clear-cut well-defined issue and that everything must be looked at from every possible angle and discussed and debated at length.
As a result many kids grow up unsure of themselves, slightly neurotic and easily-controlled, which is exactly what the Establishment wants.
Jesus said:- "The world wants you to dance to its tune......God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...to release the oppressed" (Matt 11:16/17,Luke 4:18 ),
which is why the Estab and its lackeys hate him and all Christians.

View attachment 56149

So you would prefer to be born in a country where Islam was the norm - as to being fed to children?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of COURSE the corrupt Estab wants us to think immig is a good thing, it's what they DO, so that report is meaningless..
There's a shortage of homes, the NHS is creaking and underpaid, taxes are going into immigs pockets as welfare, so it's time to say Britain is full up..
Jesus said so too-
"It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs....do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" (Matt 15:26,Matt 7:6)

With any luck Africa is running on fumes by now..

View attachment 56300

Which is a bit ironic - about the NHS being underfunded - given that the Tories, which you seem to support, have been in power for how long?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, you should have compelling evidence before believing, but why do you think that theists are responsible for convincing atheists?

I don't think that.

I stated that theists can't convince a skeptical empiricist without compelling evidence. The discussion is often framed as atheists coming to theists for answers as if they were looking for a god and wanting to be shown something.

But I don't see that. I see discussions like these which are begun with theists making claims that skeptics evaluate of logical rigor. I see it as the theist saying, "Look at this," and the skeptic saying why he doesn't interpret it in the same manner.

It's clear to me that if there is a god, it is a non-interventionalist god that plays no role in my life and can't be known, so I'm not expecting to ever be shown evidence of such a thing. This is why I don't expect theists to ever be able to produce anything that demonstrates a god, and I don't ask them to. When they try, I might tell them why I wasn't convinced as was the case with you and me. You started a thread about evidence that would convince an atheist, then offered what you considered evidence of a god, and many atheists told you that the words of Baha'u'llah are not the evidence of a god to them that you say it is for you. That's not atheists holding theists responsible to convince them as you suggest. That's atheists telling theists who have suggested evidence for a god that the evidence doesn't suggest the existence of a god to them.

I'm pretty sure that if theists didn't mention God, neither would atheists. Think about the religions that we rarely or never hear from, whose points of view we rarely see, like Wicca, or Druidry. You don't see too much interest from the atheists in what these people believe or why for that reason. If suddenly there were a surge in the popularity and presence of one of these, and their representatives were seen on the Internet and the TV discussing their religious beliefs, then we would likely engage them in discussion as well. The point is, we don't seek them. We rebut them when we encounter their arguments.

Most theists have little to teach others.

Agreed.

I was just at another online site, where there was yet another a discussion of whether science and religion are antithetical or compatible. I didn't participate, simply read along. Several people claimed that the two are compatible, and each has something different to teach, each possesses a different kind of knowledge - science how, religion why - and each can learn from the other. My thoughts were the same as yours: religion teach what?

There was a mention that the myths in the Christian Bible were not historical or scientific accounts, but a different kind of teaching, a teaching of eternal truths. When I've encountered that claim in the past here and elsewhere, I have at times asked for an example of the wisdom one can extract from say the flood story, or the garden story, or the Job story, or the Exodus, and if I get response, it is trivial. They are described like Aesop's fables would be, with a mortal to the story. The difference is, the moral of the Aesop's fable is good advice, and not offered as divine wisdom. Don't cry wolf. It is likely to backfire. Steady wins the race. Sour grapes? It's human nature to hate what you can't have.

What do the biblical myths teach? Basically, to obey God. Eat the apple? Bang. Look back when told not to? You're salt. Pharaoh won't let the people go? Locust! Man sins. Global flood. These stories teach nothing an unbeliever can use, and only teach believers to submit. Obey God or else. There's the life lesson.

So when we hear that religion explores a realm unavailable to science and offers great truths not available to empiricism, and that each side has much to learn from the other, if you ask what great truths religion has uncovered, what wisdom it has to impart, you get some pretty thin answers.

 

[PureX]

I interpret what I think their experience actually is when I don't believe their report. When they tell me that they experience a God, I translate that into they have a psychological state that projects a god onto the universe. What they are experiencing is their own minds, and misinterpreting the experience.

This is the problem with believing things: the belief becomes a bias in order to maintain itself, because the truth is that we can't really know that what we 'believe in' is true.

If 9 out of 10 people told me there was a gigantic ancient wall in China hundreds of miles long, built by giants, but none of them could show me any physical proof of it, I could choose to 'believe' that they are all wrong because all they have to offer is their personal experience of it and I reject personal experiences as evidence. After all, the likelihood of such a thing existing is very slim. But that doesn't mean the wall isn't there, or that giants didn't build it. It just means that my bias in favor of 'objectivity' has caused me to reject the evidence that's available. A bias that's being fueled and maintained by my 'belief' in the necessity of objective proof. A belief that is not logical, as 'objective' evidence is not a necessary requisite of the truth of things.

And why do I think that? Because I had that experience and misinterpreted it as the presence of God. I have made important decisions based in faith that worked out pretty badly. Too bad I didn't understand what was happening better until years later.

"I used to believe in racial equality, then I met several mean black men and they were mean to me, so now I no longer believe in racial equality because I believe that all (or most) black men are mean." (Just as an example.)

So you accept YOUR personal experiences as evidence, just not anyone else's. And you 'believe in' YOUR interpretation of those experiences, but not anyone else's. Are you beginning to see how illogical all this is? And how "believing in" stuff creates biases that blind us to our own irrationality?

It was never necessary for you to "believe in" God in the first place, causing you to put demands on God because of that belief that reality couldn't meet. Nor is it necessary now for you to "disbelieve in" God because your believing in it failed you in the past. It was your 'belief' that failed you, not God.

Interestingly (to me), that feeling was with me the first three years I was a Christian, and I interpreted it as the Holy Spirit, which I had been promised would fill me if I had faith. Those were my Army days, and my initial experience with Christianity. Then I was discharged, moved back to my home state, and went from congregation to congregation, but was unable to get the Holy Spirit back. That's when it dawned on me that I had had a very charismatic pastor, whose infectious happiness and talented sermonizing I had misinterpreted as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have gone with me back to California. That was the beginning of the end of Christianity and faith-based thinking altogether for me.

You hadn't learned to see it in yourself, which is unfortunate.

I was sitting in an AA meeting one morning listening to my fellow alcoholics sharing their experiences and difficulties with recovery, and marveling at their honesty, insight, and courage, and thinking about how fortunate I was to have these people around me, helping me to learn how to stay sober, and hopefully how to be happy some day without drinking. Then it came my turn to speak, and so I added my week's experiences and thoughts to the discussion. And as I saw the other folks sitting at the table watching me and listening to me so intently, it finally dawned on me that I was one of them. That I was one of those honest, courageous, insightful recovering alcoholics and that the other people there were gaining as much from me as I was gaining from them. And so from then on I was able to recognize what might be called a "holy spirit" both in the people round me, and in myself. I had to see it first in those AA meetings, and in others, but eventually I could see it anywhere in life, and in myself. Because people are often honest and wise and courageous, everywhere I go, if I look for it. And that makes it a lot easier for me to be that way, too.

The "holy spirit" isn't about gong to church, or following a religion, or being mesmerized by the exceptional charisma of any individual. It's that spirit of honesty, generosity, and wisdom, and courage that exists in us all. But we have to learn to look for it, and to appreciate it, to see it and gain value from it within ourselves. I experienced a lot of healing that morning in that AA meeting. And I left behind a lot of self-loathing that I had accumulated over years of being a selfish, stupid, drunk (because that's what addictions do to us). So when I tell people that I was healed by the holy spirit, I'm not making things up. I'm not talking about magic, or dreams, or things I have to convince myself of before they can be 'real'. I'm talking about a very real spirit of wisdom and courage and benevolence in some very real people in a very real room that had a very real healing effect on me. It wasn't "magic", and it wasn't self-delusion.

Are you still willing to dismiss my experiences as being evidence for the healing power of a "holy spirit"? Or is it just the label I give it that you object to? And what a shame it would be for you to close your mind and your life to such a spirit just because you're biased against the labels involved.

I married badly because one day, while sitting on the steps to the barracks with the person who first took me to that church, when crepuscular rays beamed down through clouds, and I experienced a frisson that I misinterpreted as God telling me to marry her. Turned out to be a pretty poor way to decide what is true about the world and how to make decisions.

I agree. But I don't understand how your mistake didn't remain your mistake, but somehow became an issue of God's existence.

During a particularly stressful time in my early recovery, I became addicted to the I-Ching. If you don't know, the I-Ching is a collection of enigmatic "responses" to be assigned and interpreted though an act of chance, that supposedly tells us of our future, and how to prepare for it. It is an ancient Chinese oracle, in effect. And because I was freaking out about how to live as a sober human being (I had no idea how) I began using this oracle to help me gain some sense of control. But being an addict, I immediately became addicted to it because it gave me a sense of control. I was convinced that the messages it was giving me were both coherent and responsive, as if I were actually communing with some sort of divine oracle.

This went on for some time (a month or two) until finally the oracle began to warn me to stop obsessing over it. Then it warned me about my not heeding it's warnings. Finally, it gave me the message that because I was not listening to it, it would refuse to answer me for a year. It literally called me a petulant child. And every time I tried to use it after that, the only message I would receive would be a reflection of myself in that moment. It became a mirror instead of an oracle. And finally I stopped using it because it wasn't giving me any sense of control.

A year later, just for the hell of it, I consulted the I-Ching one more time. And it gave me the single most favorable response in the whole book. Basically, it said congratulations, you no longer need me.

Now, keep in mind this whole oracle thing is based on our interpreting these somewhat enigmatic written responses. So the real "oracle" is actually ourselves. We are creating the messages by how we interpret the enigmatic responses in the text. But that didn't make the thing any less effective. And I was truly surprised by it's final response. And in the many years since then, I have no longer consulted it looking for some sense of control over myself or my future. I felt no need to.

So I guess my question to you is: would you reject the I-Ching as not being a "real oracle" just because you figured out how it works, psychologically, and that there is no "divine magic" involved? Because to me, it IS an example of "divine magic". Not because I don't know how it works. But because of how it worked for me in spite of myself. And for many other people for literally thousands of years!

I will leave you with this, today. Keep in mind this man was a Rhodes Scholar, a helicopter pilot in the military, a multi-Grammy winning song-writer, and an Oscar winning actor. He's had a very full and varied life. He is a man of the world by anyone's measure, and he is NOT known for pandering to anyone about anything.

I am not a fan of religion. But I cannot honestly dismiss it for anyone else.

 

[F1fan]

I did offer a reason. I said: We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.

And what your metaphor means is that some interpret religious beliefs with bias, especially when they are theists and have a position, their identity, their fervor, etc. to defend. The more critical and skilled thinker can assess religious ideas and understand the lack of underlying facts, and that to believe these ideas requires many assumptions, like a supernatural existing, and a God existing, and any number of related concepts that have no evidence. These ideas are seldom even plausible given what we do know of reality.

So the reasons why theists believe should account for the unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions made that are necessary to believe and be confident. You didn't do that. You just stated the obvious: that different people see religious belief in a different way.

The real, actual impediment to those who can't "see" it is confirmation bias, which makes it impossible to see it since you have already made up your mind that it cannot be true before you ever give it a serious chance.

False. This is turned around. At least some critical thinkers are open minded enough to "see" what theists present IF there was some actual phenomenon to been "seen". But this never happens.

What is evident is that theists (many different types with a variety of different assumptions, beliefs, and rituals) are claiming to believe and know things that have no factual basis. There is no explanation that suggests these varieties of people have some sort of special ability, or extra sensory perception, that allows them to have access to some special evidence. Experiments in science demonstrate that religious belief processes in the emotion centers, not the frontal lobes. Experiments like the God Helmet demonstrate that altered brain states can create experiences that people think are spiritual.

So it is disingenuous to say critical thinkers don't give theists a chance to make their cases. There is every chance given. It's just that the arguments require assumptions that violate the rules of logic. There are NO facts of a supernatural. NO facts of gods existing outside of human imagination. NO arguments that rest solely on facts and evidence that can be verified by an objective mind.

Confirmation bias

, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias: when you really, really want to believe your beliefs are true despite there being a lack of evidence, and no coherent argument. And when your evidence is good enough for you, but for no one else.

Ego also makes it impossible to see it, because if one thinks they 'already know' there is nothing to see (no lamp in the next room) then they will never be open to seeing what is there. It is a test sent by God. Some pass and some fail.

This only works if there is actually a lamp in the other room. When you throw out the challenge to "see" your version of God then there had better be objective evidence that doesn't require an assumption. We won't assume there is a lamp in the other room, we will want you to show us. At best you show us blueprints of a house with several rooms and you insist it exists and there's a lamp in one of the rooms. There's no actual house. there are no rooms to occupy. And that means no lamp can be found. This isn't good enough for critical thinkers. The bluffing doesn't work.

I have offered the evidence that can be researched so people can determine for themselves whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not.

You've had ample time to present evidence that is of high quality and acceptable to critical minds, and that don't require interpretation. You've fallen short. Your weak case is not our collective problem.

Such a claim can never be proven as a fact that will be universally accepted as true, but it can be proven to ourselves.

Then why are you arguing for it? Why are you pretending to have knowledge? Why do you insist we critical thinkers are to blame for not coming to a rational conclusion WHEN you clearly state it can't be proven? To say "proven to ourselves" implies confirmation bias. It suggests some other reason to believe that isn't fact, evidence, and logic.

If there was some special experience that made an ordinary mortal suddenly realize how true and logical your claims are THAT TOO would be demonstrable. You offer no such evidence.

The most likely thing going on here is that you hold beliefs that are important to your identity and you are seeking validation from others, or resistance from others that you can use as a sort of pressure to believe that much harder, because we are heathen infidels, doomed to some fate of spiritual death.

 

[F1fan]

We could say the same thing about your Buddhism..
Personally I think Buddha was a great truthseeker 500 years before Jesus, and he might even have been one of the "righteous men" who Jesus spoke to the disciples about-
"Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them" (Matt 13:17)

Buddhism has some offshoots. But I am Theravada which is the original, non-theistic version. It is not really about beliefs about a supernatural. The basics of Buddhism are a set of lessons to teach a discipline of mind, and how to find peace in the "monkey mind". Siddartha even said that if there anything in the teachings that an individual disagreed with, then disagree with it.

This differs from the absurd literal framework of Christianity and salvation. These concepts would be vastly better and more applicable if the religion would treat them symbolically instead of an actual phenomenon. Many believers think the theology is like winning the lottery versus having to work to create a better self and the world.

 

[PureX]

I agree pretty much with your analysis of debate. I don't like to debate, but sometimes I do anyway to prove myself right. I don't completely agree. There is an element of trying to convince because of a belief that it will do the other person some good. Mostly, though, it is ego. It is better to find points of agreement, to find an element of unity. It is better to consult, in the sense of putting one's own ego aside, and throwing your idea out there without being attached to whether your idea will be accepted. If it is not accepted, search for points of agreement. That is the ideal. However, in a forum like this where debate is rife it is hard to not debate. The environment affects me.

Our egos are a part of us, and we need them. But we do have to learn to reign them in if we want to learn much of anything else. Especially from each other. I try to keep the conversations going until it becomes apparent to me that the other person is completely lost to their 'auto-defense' mode (ego). At that point they are not reading my post to understand them, but only to negate them. It's a waste of time and energy. And I have to be careful not to fall into that behavior, myself.

What I like about this venue is that it's all just words on a screen. It's very easy for me to 'forgive and forget' the moment the messages change. I feel no resentment against anyone about anything they write.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you accept YOUR personal experiences as evidence, just not anyone else's.

I assume that you are speaking of subjective experiences.

Yes, I accept my personal experiences as evidence. Whenever I eat Brussels sprouts, I have a bad taste experience. That's evidence, and allows me to make future decisions that avoid that unpleasant experience. And if you tell me that they taste good to you, I will assume that you are probably telling me the truth. If you tell me that God made them, I'll file that under your faith-based beliefs, not truth. What's likely true is that you believe that.

And you 'believe in' YOUR interpretation of those experiences, but not anyone else's.

I defer to my own judgment, as do you. I only defer to the judgment of others in areas where I think they know more, and understanding one's own mind is not one of those. You seem surprised.

Are you beginning to see how illogical all this is?

No. Nor have you tried to explain why you do. You just list behaviors of thought and call them illogical.

And how "believing in" stuff creates biases that blind us to our own irrationality?

I explained to you after defining the term that I don't 'believe in' anything - belief by faith, as in a god. But I do believe many things that have passed an empirical test for believability, I believe them tentatively and only to the degree that the quantity and quality of relevant evidence supports, always willing to revise my estimate of the likelihood of truth as new relevant evidence is uncovered. So, on that basis, I believe that the COVID vaccine is safer than the coronavirus because the evidence strongly supports that opinion. If new evidence arises, such as a complication of vaccination, that opinion may need to be revised. In the meantime, the COVID patient swallowing ivermectin believes in ivermectin, because his beliefs are faith-based.

And yes, 'believing in' is a mistake.

Are you still willing to dismiss my experiences as being evidence for the healing power of a "holy spirit"?

If by Holy Spirit you mean the Christian concept - it often turns out after thousands of characters of communication that you had a private definition in mind that you hadn't yet articulated - then yes, if you claim that belief in the Christian God resulted in you being infused with a benevolent, wise aspect of a deity that guides you, then no, I don't believe that that happens. Why should I? I tested the claim once, remember?

One of the chief reasons I left the religion was its failure to deliver on its promises. When I entered the religion, I was already about eighteen and had been to university before dropping out and enlisting in the military, so I had some critical thinking skills. I understood that to test the claims of the religion, I needed to suspend disbelief, and just try the religion on like a pair of shoes and see if with time, it doesn't fit me better, that is, the cognitive dissonance normally created by being offered such ideas was put on hold. I explained how discharge and relocation allowed me to see that the experience I had been interpreting as the presence of the Holy Spirit was just the experience of euphoria caused by a gifted and charismatic preacher. And then I understood that I had been interpreting a psychological state improperly.

So how do you think I ought to understand anybody else's claim like yours above? I understand your AA experience in the same way I do my own military experience. You joined a group like I did, you experienced welcoming and a sense of community, and you had a spiritual experience because of it that you interpreted as evidence of the divine. That was my story, too. Yours is different because you got something of lasting value, something you needed - sobriety. Congratulations for that. And if you're like many or most other friends of Bill W., you understand that in religious terms.

But I've found that gods don't add anything to the mix for me. I've been able to do the things religion claims to do without it. For example, I still have spiritual experiences like the one I described to you on the barracks stairs, when suddenly I felt God telling me to marry the woman I was with. I felt of frisson pass over me, and understood that to be a sign from God. Today, when I get that same experience, I understand it as a reaction of my mind to nature, one that leaves me with a sense of mystery, awe, connectivity, and gratitude just I had in church, but today I explain that in psychological language, not theological. The universe is enough for me even if godless. Life remains a mystery, as does consciousness. Others who have these thoughts see a god as the answer. I have learned to leave unanswerable questions unanswered rather than guessing. Am I sensing a great consciousness out there? Maybe, but I have no reason to conclude so.

And I've settled on a moral code that is compatible with reason, empathy, and benevolence without a holy book, one that is actually much more suited to 21st century life than any holy books moral code. Look at these threads, and the secular humanists posting on them. Without exception, they are well-educated, proficient critical thinkers, and morally upright. There's another thread where a British Christian poster has taken an anti-refugee stand, showing zero empathy for these people, and even calling them parasites. Many unbelievers have called him on these attitudes, and how they are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. My point isn't that this one guy seems so morally lost, but that the unbelievers are uniformly the opposite. Adding gods and Commandments and thou shalts to their way of thinking could not improve their moral code, but could very well degrade it.

These are the people I identify with. That's who I wanted to be and think I have become since leaving a faith-based worldview. They're smart, sensible and decent.

I don't understand how your mistake didn't remain your mistake, but somehow became an issue of God's existence.

It was both. It was my mistake to believe by faith and make an important decision that way. Had I gotten lucky and married well, I might still wonder whether I did receive some kind of external guidance. But I didn't. The marriage ended in divorce. She was still a believer, and saw me as a backslidden captive of Satan, causing her to want to keep me away from our young daughters, and to teach them that I was an immoral person to steer clear of. That's my mistake, and it was a lesson in the folly of faith-based thinking and decision making.

would you reject the I-Ching as not being a "real oracle" just because you figured out how it works, psychologically, and that there is no "divine magic" involved?

Again, I don't know what you mean by a real oracle or divine magic, especially when you put them each in quotes, but don't have any reason to believe in oracles, divinity, or magic.

 

[Dropship]

The basics of Buddhism are a set of lessons to teach a discipline of mind, and how to find peace in the "monkey mind".
This differs from the absurd literal framework of Christianity and salvation..

I don't know any true Christian who hasn't got peace of mind. I mean, what have they got to worry about?..
Christianity tells us how to achieve the correct state of mind to "lock on" or "mindmeld" with Jesus, so that when we die our souls fly to him like guided missiles and absorb into him and God instead of veering off into the void-
Jesus said- "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20)