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

[CG Didymus]

You mean the made up stories about what God did?

I agree that some people go way overboard in what they believe God's attributes are.

I think that religious leaders did write those things. How much they were inspired by God is debatable.

Yes, that's why I think the Baha'i Faith gives too much praise to the Bible. If it's correct and true, then fine. But I think it was written and invented by the religious leaders of that culture. I think ideas were borrowed and expanded upon by religious leaders. Since the stories were written over a span of time, then it wasn't from the teachings of any manifestation. Even the books of the prophets, who wrote them the prophets or someone else?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't know where the Bible says that God revealed Himself directly to humans.

God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve also. Sometimes it says an "angel" of the Lord appeared. Jacob wrestled with God or the angel of the Lord all night. God wrote on a wall. Went before the Israelites as a pillar of smoke. Even in the NT God speaks from heaven a couple of times.

Only literalist Bible believers think these things really happened. Lots of people probably agree with the Baha'is... that these things aren't to be taken literally. My problem is that Baha'is say that they are all symbolically true. I think they are just plain old made up fictional religious stories. I do believe that a person can make some sense out of some of the stories by making things metaphorical. But why bother? And I really don't think the writers were that profound to tell a story as if it was real history, but it was really some mystical symbolic story.

 

[rational experiences]

Teaching.

The human taught says. Maths O God man theisms does not exist.

Evolution O gods in creation evolved. They are not any origin substance.

Evolution is the teaching why any substance pre exists.

No nature life is in the mass presence of multi varied evolved forms. Just science of man theisms.

Earth volcanic inside is not origin substance in space it needed stone body presence to be volcanic. There is no link to origin what allowed anything to exist.

Anything means everything. Not living.

Substance by term is not changing beyond its evolved held form.

Meaning a particle is an evolved substance once was something else.

An atom once was something else.

Reason....cooling evolving allows an atom to be changed to release it's evolution.

Rebelling in creation is a God O as a sun consuming. Yet still remaining present until space overcomes its consuming.

Men discussed the sun. Said they understood one day it won't exist in the form it is expressing.

Basic form in space conditions advice.

Science God does not exist. It is only a human choice.

If theists human thinkers know. I study biology as I know an eternal being came direct into inheriting living inside the water heavens.

Then you would know science says I know a human is closer to the origin form than any other type in creation.

Reasoning he used water to cool radiation status.

Spirit eternal inherited changed body type in water.

Water a state in creation science says is evolution. Can not become higher than its substance.

What evolution as a science creation thesis meant.

Water was not origin creation form was it.

Conscious bio human says the claim for self presence only.

Pretty basic. If a intelligent thinker wants to compare biology to an atom you surely own a mental inability to use status of advice correctly.

Therefore. Species.

A tree is a species. Yet the species a tree is so diverse. It is first thought of a tree by species.

The same for human. We are a species.

So what do you just a human thinker think you are trying to work out in species presence?

In reality tell us Mr ego what you believe you will substantiate as you man are not any creator self?

Mother's conscious status versus father says man the adult theist inventor is trying to anti by science states his human type of man species.

Out of genetic life attack conversions.

Very slowly all types of human body form expressed destruction change he caused trying to minus...is by theme a machine took my life continuance future away at my side theism.

As he is causing it. It isn't direct it is de evolution of his species the man human body type living life that warned my female human healer life of his achieved self destruction.

No man is God a direct human teaching that said no man is the substance of his scientific theisms.

Ignored every single moment as he searches to remove himself by what he claims was a humans highest closest form to the origin. The eternal type.

As he is not just trying to identify what he says is an origin type he also wants to change the form of what he says is the origin type of everything.

Being a sun theism the only body type in creation that does not abide the space law. Origin of fixed held evolved mass. Evolved status.

The bible was written against men human sun theists in science.

 

[Trailblazer]

God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve also.

God is not a man so God cannot walk. Of course you already know that I believe this is just a fictional story.

 

[CG Didymus]

God is not a man so God cannot walk. Of course you already know that I believe this is just a fictional story.

I don't believe it either, but it's another place that has God revealing himself to a human. But, as we've talked about before, this story goes back more than 2000 years. Who was going to question what it said? People died for believing and saying the wrong things back them.

 

[rational experiences]

God is not a man so God cannot walk. Of course you already know that I believe this is just a fictional story.

Science. Men theorising give the status.... named.

No man is God.
Do not give God a name was a human owned organisation applied I apply a mans law.

Humans apply law by society agreements.

No names is first a natural identified reasoning. Every status was natural. Existed. Was not named.

Common sense no human owned anything else.

Dominion for liars. Life's creation stopped biologically at humans. Dominion.

So lying first is known as science by man's choice. As you have to be a hu..man. says men. Brothers.

A human correctly teaches using a theme as a story uses no names. First in natural terms.

A human owning two forms existed living first in nature's garden.

Reason for teaching the theme as no animals were in the depiction.

The story says two humans living as humans and the nature garden.

No names as the heavens was natural to support first natural highest human life. Nature supported.

Then just a story....only told by humans as humans said the two humans were evicted out of the garden.

Therefore tell a story how it should be taught using no names.

The reason a human scientist named everything to change anything. Science a human practice did not exist first.

A basic human question. What changed to cause humans to be evicted by nature's support.

Reasoning.

Bio life. Nature life. Water atmosphere support. Natural heavens life support.

Trees oxygenated the atmospheric heavens for biology.

Trees are wood.

Now tell yourself scientist why did you infer wood in man's life sacrifice and a cross that tormented tortured life?

+ Fake maths adding first. When no man owned any powers energy or machines. Add is first false.

Earth owned + four positions of variations O in a circle in one moment. Taught. Ice and heated middle.

+ Earth owned atmospheric four seasons two of which expressed a balance.

Earth owned two heavens cold clear and sacrificed burning day.

What did you personally own?

A natural human life.

The bible. Written about human egotists destroyers theisms that owned science practice that sacrificed life within an oxygenated renewed heavens.

Heavens was God owned as a teaching.

Science hurt o planet earths life the teaching.

As science is not a step by step machine reaction thesis by men. About why life changed.

Tree wood supported our life by oxygenation.

The story said science machine conditions maths plus machine became his partner. Space womb zero maths.

Space and his fake mother maths hurt his life the teaching.

Humans two were equal.

He attacked life became angered. It was maths zero his science status that hurt life. Yet he incorrectly chose to blame then abuse the female life.

Stating all choices of her inequality by his man choice she deserved.

Yet science maths zero mother had caused it.

How correct do you honestly review man's science status as a history of applied chosen men's explanations rationally?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe it either, but it's another place that has God revealing himself to a human. But, as we've talked about before, this story goes back more than 2000 years. Who was going to question what it said? People died for believing and saying the wrong things back them.

Who cares what people believed over 2000 years ago? We don't live back then.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, I am wrong a lot. We all make mistakes and I am the queen of mistakes.

I can't argue with this.

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching to men of science.

To make status statements for life continuance against man's egotism...his want to control what spirit never controlled.....change.

He says change is a law the sun owned. To compare advice. To teach by principles to make conscious humanity aware.

You don't use change to natural to own control. As the sun was never controlled. Even space could not stop its destruction.

Don't act nor propose men ideals by the destroyer purpose. Yet you did and still do. Never allowing healing. Never allowing love care compassion reasoning to allow development.

Even tried to make love a science to convert love into a destroyed conversion as theisms...
is how evil you are. Without being the state evil.

So God versus the sun was a theist teaching conditions of principles by the law space.

God O planets simply evolved. Holier.

But existed in the same one law cold empty space pressure.

He said CH gases Christ were born arise out of earth. You lived with the support of the physical presence of the heavens state.

Not you are the state.

Teaching was to man's ego who said nothing owned creation. A dot point moment.

I learnt. I saw the dot ping communicated back from massive giant spirit communicative space. At the shoulder of humans. What science said was God the word in heavens a status the soul.

They changed the advice in our heavens communicators. Now are possessed by everything they aren't. Don't apply living on earth. Ignore humanity's destruction loss.

Are with rich greedy inventors theists who care less that we starve are sick and dying by human man's past science rich man choices. Spends billions on space and not on life.

That affected his life mind psyche. I was taught. I learnt as a healer human.

About God in the heavens to the human thought.

Possession.

We are not the spirit language that fell burst and was born in destruction. But science sure has proved to itself image by human earth science causes is communicated related as those bodies cool.

Sees the spirit visions of fallen angels like humans in the gases.

As the law evolution is a space law.

So men try to preach you are the Christ consciousness. No it's just a human teaching versus human theist egotists. No human is a CH gas. It was a relevant teaching advice.

To humans who theory beginning when life biology owns only evolution states status.

Our life whose biological water oxygenated life is what we live within. God the mass owning waters creation is historic space a law.

We never came from out of space. We aren't the mass pre form. Water mass keeps our tiny life biological safe. The scientific mind introduced the psyche causes that developed lying and dis spirited human advice.

So you bring teaching back to human life. Life on earth as. Biology. Life was equal everyone should be healthy and what was introduced that owned all changes.

As created mass supported a healthy human first. The equal human. The only introduced change was mans science choice. Radiation was what he introduced which he cannot control.

Extra radiation by man's choice science.

Which has not stopped since. Any condition forced inherited change.

Our brothers made a spiritual oath a promise as the preachers of human lifes spirituality to cause as little change as possible

Broke their oath.....to allow evolution of life healing on earth. As science already knew what evils it had caused by men of theism machine choice.

As from the dust man developed the life machine. Out of dusts he gave his machine life. Now he is possessed by it as his future life warning. We own life as biology not technology.

Men of science quote they gave the machine life

Today tried to theory a machine had humans life as electricity.

We don't own in biology electricity. We have chemical energetic pulse releases. As bio life.

As science used heart starting life regain by machines was the moment they lost their healer memory. What it's like to be mutual....healing status true....conditioned to have the wisdom to save anothers life.

And our parents were involved.

The half water life no longer lived by their babies.

As a healer I would ask or pray as some say to our holy parents. Hands on healing please save their life.

A friend who I proved kept a secret no one knew. Her father had raped her many times.

In healing I would not interview the patient. We would talk to them into a comfortable relaxed status only. As trust is important first.

Then heal in a group meditative taught status. I was told direct advice always. Medical.. doctors...healing....psyche history.

So I told her that the cancer she bore was from her rape. She worked in a medical facility herself. Was astute.

Her demeanour changed. We took a journey with her. She however no longer wanted to live.

So right up to the moment in hospice we tended her for free. The moment of astounding response spirit proof many times.... it felt like she would raise off her bed. Her bed actually shook by vibration.

The love I felt astounding. Her peace real. We were thanked by her boyfriend that said she healed in a way we never accepted. She was truly at peace in life.

I always wanted the human family member to live. It was my want. So father taught me accept.

I was told once by spirit it was their choice not ours. Which I accepted no control. To learn what I was shown.

Scientist it is about time you accepted my teaching also.

 

[Tiberius]

I already told you in a previous post why God reveals the teachings and laws to guide us. God wants us to have guidance because God loves us and what is the best for us.

Funny. You'd think that if God really loved us and wanted the best for us, he'd step in when you've got people sexually abusing little kids or something.

I know because there is evidence that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and as a Messenger of God, He was infallible so what He wrote had to be accurate.

Is that ACTUAL evidence that can be objectively tested, or just your "evidence" that can't be verified in any objective way?

But WHY would we expect to see what I just described? Give me one good reason.

Because people who have hallucinated and imagined they were hearing the voice of God are well documented.

If that is what you think then you should be able to tell me what you think we would see if God DID exist. Fair is fair.

We would see religious texts that make specific claims about what religion could do, and it would actually happen. We would see things that had no possible natural explanation.

So, if God did exist how would God communicate to humans and show that He existed?

He's all powerful. He could do it any way he wanted.

I see that we have gone full circle and we are right back at the OP:

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

I answered this in post 2359.

 

[Tiberius]

I meant that in a totally different context. I meant that there is no way to prove that a particular religion is true with objective evidence. However, all the great religions have been proven objectively true by practice over the millennia, since we can see the fruits religion produces in human character and behavior.

That's not proving something is OBJECTIVELY true.

But what do they have to address the problems that humanity is facing in the present age? Nothing practical that’s for certain. Other religions have no plan but Baha’is have a plan and instructions as to how it will be implemented and guidance from the Baha'i institutions.

Given that I asked you what plans and/or instructions Baha'i has to address the issues presented by genetic engineering and you said there was nothing, you don't expect me to believe this claim now, do you?

Points of view don’t change, people and the world they live in (society) changes over time. Unless one understands that one cannot understand why new religions are revealed by God in every age.

You say points of view don't change, but people and society changes?

Who do you think holds those points of view? PEOPLE. Of course the points of view change! People once had the point of view that slavery was okay! Now we don't. How is this not a changing point of view?

That’s right, so what is wrong with me saying it does not make sense to me when it does not make sense to me?

Because saying, "It doesn't make sense to me, therefore it can't be true" is argument from incredulity.

I already explained how you will know. You will know once you have done all your research and turned over every rock.

So people just convince themselves that they've got it right.

Words in a sentence can mean more than one thing, and they can mean different things to different people. You misunderstood what I meant by what I said, and that can easily happen, but I already explained what I meant and you are free to either accept it or reject it.

So when you said, "that makes no sense to me" and "that can't be true," which words did I get the wrong meaning for?

It is supported when I present the evidence that I have. Religion is not science so there is no testable evidence.

If it can't be tested, you can't show that your evidence is valid. Your position is not supported.

Then don’t spend your time, but then don’t turn around and ask me for some kind of evidence that you know does not exist.

I'm not doing this for your sake.

I'm doing it so you can show the world your position is entirely without any valid support.

The Baha’i Faith is very new and very unique for many reasons, not ten least of which is that we believe all the religions are the truth from God. I am sorry you have missed the differences, which are larger than the broad side of the barn, but that is no doubt because you are too busy covering the same ground over and over again and getting nowhere so you have NO IDEA what the Baha’i Faith even teaches.

I've seen what you have said are the differences. I'm not convinced that they are sufficient to elevate Baha'i above any other faith.

I do not think that is true of all people but it is true of some, and you just gave yourself away when you said you were only responsible to support your own position, which to me means you are not interested in what I believe is the truth.

Laying the burden of proof on the shoulders of the one who should be bearing it does not mean I am saying that their claims are not worth studying.

Of course, I can also say that your failure to study the reasons to be an atheist means you aren't interested in the truth either.

I have already supported my position. Why are we still covering the same old tired ground?

Because you haven't. You just say you have, but all your support is is your opinion which you;ve decided is correct.

I did not do any of those things. I was hijacked into answering all these atheist posts. Nobody addressed what I said in my OP, they just kept asking me for evidence so all I could do is present what I believe is the evidence. I supported my position with all the evidence I had.

Trailblazer: I'm not playing the victim!

Also Trailblazer: It's not my fault! I was hijacked into answering those posts! They made me do it!

Likewise, I have told you I will not cover the same ground over and over again and I plan to stick to that.

I'm going to keep calling you out when you use fallacious arguments.

 

[Tiberius]

Nothing could be further from the truth. I know what an atheist is after nine years of posting to atheists 24/7.

Then perhaps you'd know by now that an atheist is someone who has no belief in God. An agnostic atheist does not claim to have knowledge that their position is correct, and a gnostic atheist claims to have knowledge that their position is correct.

So I am indeed an atheist, since I lack a belief in God. I'm an agnostic atheist becase I do not claim to have knowledge that my position is correct. That's why I'm open to evidence for God.

However, you are making a mistake if you think that the default for atheists is that they are all gnostic atheists. That is not the default. The vast majority of atheists I've met in the years I've been debating are agnostic atheists.

I refuse to argue about that anymore. Claim, believe, it makes no difference to me. This is what I meant about a waste of time.

I hope this means that you're going to stop using your technique of avoiding answering questions by saying, "I was just stating my believes, not making a claim."

Ditto on what I just said above.

Same.

And I still believe you are wrong. So what?

Do you have anything other than opinion to support your belief that I am wrong?

I did not say we should accept anything as evidence.

You said we should get evidence wherever we can find it. That would presumably include the YouyTube channel of some crazy conspiracy thoerist who has ranting about something which supports your views, yes?

I think you are unreasonable but that is just my personal opinion. There is no point arguing about that.

And what am I doing that is unreasonable when I refuse to accept your "evidence" as valid?

They look at the objective evidence. Then they will have an opinion that is subjective and objective because that is how the brain operates.

So you've gone from saying the belief is objective to saying the belief is objective and subjective.

That is just your biased opinion. You think that any time a believer believes something it is because they want to believe it so they convince themselves it is true. This is a typical atheist position on believers. The reason you think this is because you cannot understand why else we would believe what we believe.

That and flawed arguments.

I've never seen any argument for belief that doesn't fall into one of those two categories.

 

[rational experiences]

When I got attacked not believing in any theme God. I had applied a human choice being a self. I would prove or disprove it myself.

When I was burning irradiated thought I would die. By gas burning sciences cause owned thesis light constant first in their thesis...... Really believed I was.

Father spoke to me. He said our brother has made this attack on life personal.

What other type of belief do you scientist want?

Oh that is right what God never was a scientists human thesis. You want science to be god by power terms your human objective. A type of energy only. Not an earth type or a heavens type.

So you argue God in science is not spiritual as just a human mind thinking science advice. Your own human scientists advice. Spiritual god not science.

Science says their God terms are not of spirit or spiritual. As their want of a God they want is just energy to convert it's presence into controlled energy for human built machines.

Why it cannot be god.

Number one. First is a science quote first position first source.

In human science earth a rock planet is first technical science string to invention machine. Source of science by human choice.

No they claim heavens position bio life with god....reactions. talking inside machine reaction next.

Eternal infinite radiation he said created life's beginnings. Is just radiation in reality.

What about earth as God O owning it's created heavens first. Gases and ground water oxygenated not any first position energy.

Not interested he says I only wanted a direct string to radiation to machine.

But life biology dies by radiation causes....heavens gas support changes....
who cares he says I want machine life energy a circuit a cycle machine reaction internal loops back to electricity loops to life of a machine.

No machine ever owned a looped circuit. I know he says I want it to be a space body reactive purpose I studied. I want to invent it.

I see the types of theories out in empty space he says.

Our heavens does not function like a star group does. He cares less...he is just experimenting to learn he says.

Is possessed by years and years of human thesis.

 

[Tiberius]

All you are doing is avoiding my questions, and asking your own.
I have answered your questions, already.
We are not discussing about somebody from our frame of reference entering another, and finally coming back to their original one, so please stop avoiding the issue.

It's a case of one frame perceiving something before another frame perceives it.
..and I'm asking you what theoretically limits the difference between them.

The relativity doesn't apply, because it describes what happens to someone in our frame of reference who starts travelling very fast. So you can't use it to support your claim.

 

[rational experiences]

Theists use machines the human man built to support his machine thesis.

Is a one hundred percent liar.

If men had all inventions removed you would be forced to be just a human living on earth as a life equal to our own.

Surviving. Living by human sex. Living hoping one day the extra radiation science caused would disappear by spatial voiding cooling evolution.

Theism should be outlawed as evil thoughts. As every human is biological a human only by earth natural supported living conditions.

Not by what an egotist spruiks off about themes as just stories first. Owning the exact same equal human natural life living conditions.

Which is a holy human science says first self observation. Self and what I see first as that self. Human.

Human life is first. Seeing secondary.

Human theists egotists

Human machine inventions is not any proof.

Yes it is he lies

Why?

I prove I could convert and obtain energy for my inventions to subsist.

Did we need invention?

No. Inventing was meant to assist humans toil to survive.

What about mass over production?

Why should I have to pay for what nature gave to every human life equally?

And he owns any excuse he can coerce by word use. Stories and themes of his own just human thoughts.

Which is proof how self destructive he is personally. As lying by coercive choice is still just human.

Claiming he proved how powerful he is to survive in earth product converting destruction.

His proof I can destroy. Is the proof he bandies as proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Funny. You'd think that if God really loved us and wanted the best for us, he'd step in when you've got people sexually abusing little kids or something.

If God had planned on stepping in God would not have allowed free will in the first place.
God seems to think what’s best for us is to leave us to ourselves to make choices, be they good or evil.

It would not make sense for God to step in and live our lives for us because then we would just be like robots programmed by God to do what God thinks we should do. We have to make our own choices so we can learn from them and suffer the consequences for them, be they rewards or punishments. The unfortunate consequence of free will is that evil people cause good people to suffer.

Is that ACTUAL evidence that can be objectively tested, or just your "evidence" that can't be verified in any objective way?

You already know the answer to that.

Because people who have hallucinated and imagined they were hearing the voice of God are well documented.

That is true, but that does not mean the everyone who heard the voice of God was imagining things. To conclude that because some people were imagining things that all people were imagining things would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

We would see religious texts that make specific claims about what religion could do, and it would actually happen. We would see things that had no possible natural explanation.

We do see those things in religious texts and we do see Messengers of God that have no possible natural explanation.

He's all powerful. He could do it any way he wanted.

He could if He wanted to but since He is all-powerful He does ONLY what He chooses to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not proving something is OBJECTIVELY true.

It certainly is. The objective evidence is the fruits of the religion. Human behavior and character are something we can see in the world so they are objective.

Given that I asked you what plans and/or instructions Baha'i has to address the issues presented by genetic engineering and you said there was nothing, you don't expect me to believe this claim now, do you?

I don’t care what you believe. Issues presented by genetic engineering is not among the major problems that humanity is facing in the present age, it is just one very small thing you are interested in. The social and political and economic woes of humanity are all around us and they are very serious.

You say points of view don't change, but people and society changes?

Who do you think holds those points of view? PEOPLE. Of course the points of view change! People once had the point of view that slavery was okay! Now we don't. How is this not a changing point of view?

Spiritual truth -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy -- is not a point of view. It is a constant that never changes. Whether slavery is acceptable or not is a point of view and it is related to the second part of religion, the Laws of God that refers to the material world and how people are to live. That changes in every age because as the material world changes man needs new teachings and laws that are suited to the present time. I explained all that in post #3998.

That is what I just explained above. What is the same in every age is spiritual truth -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. These are attributes of man’s spiritual nature which never changes, so they have no need to change over time. For example, Baha’u’llah reiterated what Jesus said about righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, and patience but He did not change the teachings.

However, as the material world changes man needs new teachings and laws that are suited to the present time.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

Because saying, "It doesn't make sense to me, therefore it can't be true" is argument from incredulity.

But that is not what I said. All I said is that it does not make sense to me, period.

So people just convince themselves that they've got it right.

They become convinced by the evidence.

So when you said, "that makes no sense to me" and "that can't be true," which words did I get the wrong meaning for?

You are cherry picking and making a straw man because you omitted the context. I NEVER SAID it can’t be true because it does not make sense to me.

If it can't be tested, you can't show that your evidence is valid. Your position is not supported.

I am not trying to show you that my position is valid. You have to show yourself if you care to.

I'm not doing this for your sake.

I'm doing it so you can show the world your position is entirely without any valid support.

So you are on a crusade and you are using me to promote your opinions, posting this for the benefit of the innocent bystanders on this forum, so they won’t be taken in by a believer. So much for you saying you want to believe in God.

People can think for themselves, they don’t need your opinions. Do you really think you are influencing people?

I've seen what you have said are the differences. I'm not convinced that they are sufficient to elevate Baha'i above any other faith.

Baha’is are not trying to elevate the Baha’i Faith above any other Faith, we simply believe it is the religion that is suited for this age in history because it addresses the problems that humanity is facing in this age, not some former age.

Laying the burden of proof on the shoulders of the one who should be bearing it does not mean I am saying that their claims are not worth studying.

I have no burden to prove anything to you or anyone because I am not trying to prove anything since that is not my job. A prosecutor has a burden to prove the defendant is guilty because that is his job.

Of course, I can also say that your failure to study the reasons to be an atheist means you aren't interested in the truth either.

There is nothing to study because atheism is not a religion, it is simply a position. I know all the reasons to be an atheist and I would be one if I was not a Bahai, given I don’t even love God or believe God loves me. So what do you think I am getting for myself from being a believer?

Why do believers love God?

Because you haven't. You just say you have, but all your support is is your opinion which you;ve decided is correct.

My support is NOT my opinion. My support is the evidence that supports my belief. What else would I have?

I'm going to keep calling you out when you use fallacious arguments.

Do that if you want to and I will do the same when I see you using fallacious arguments.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then perhaps you'd know by now that an atheist is someone who has no belief in God. An agnostic atheist does not claim to have knowledge that their position is correct, and a gnostic atheist claims to have knowledge that their position is correct.

Sorry, I do not know all the sub-types of atheism. On the forum where I came from that is 80% nonbelievers, they call themselves atheists or agnostics, but I am well aware that an atheist is someone who has no belief in God. I also know that all atheists do not all say God does not exist, they just say there is “no evidence” for God’s existence.

So I am indeed an atheist, since I lack a belief in God. I'm an agnostic atheist because I do not claim to have knowledge that my position is correct. That's why I'm open to evidence for God.

Okay, thanks for straightening that out.

However, you are making a mistake if you think that the default for atheists is that they are all gnostic atheists. That is not the default. The vast majority of atheists I've met in the years I've been debating are agnostic atheists.

I only heard the term agnostic atheist after I came to this forum. Why would you be debating agnostic atheists?

I hope this means that you're going to stop using your technique of avoiding answering questions by saying, "I was just stating my believes, not making a claim."

I will say whatever is appropriate to say at the time, according to the context of the discussion.

Do you have anything other than opinion to support your belief that I am wrong?

Do you have anything other than opinion to support your belief that I am wrong?

You said we should get evidence wherever we can find it. That would presumably include the YouyTube channel of some crazy conspiracy thoerist who has ranting about something which supports your views, yes?

I did not mean literally wherever you can find it, as in a garbage dump on the internet. What you would find there would not be evidence for a religious belief. I meant wherever you can find VALID evidence from a VALID source.

And what am I doing that is unreasonable when I refuse to accept your "evidence" as valid?

It is unreasonable if you reject the ONLY evidence there is for God, IF you want to believe in God.

So you've gone from saying the belief is objective to saying the belief is objective and subjective.

I never said the belief is objective. I said there is objective evidence for the belief, but the opinions about that evidence are not entirely objective, they are both objective and subjective.

That and flawed arguments.

I've never seen any argument for belief that doesn't fall into one of those two categories.

That believers want to believe it so they convince themselves it is true is just your personal opinion.

That believers’ arguments are flawed is just your personal opinion. My personal opinion that atheist arguments are flawed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Who cares what people believed over 2000 years ago? We don't live back then.

Why would you say that? People still believe that stuff. And your religion includes it as being "God's Word".

 

[CG Didymus]

I know because there is evidence that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and as a Messenger of God, He was infallible so what He wrote had to be accurate.

Is that ACTUAL evidence that can be objectively tested, or just your "evidence" that can't be verified in any objective way?

I get it now. Since he is infallible what he says is true. And he says that there is a God and that he is God's messenger. While who needs more proof than that?

Just like a Fundamental Christian... "The Bible says it. I believe it. And that settles it." Just look at how "objective" the Bible is. We can see it. Touch it. And, if we dare, read it. Knowing that those words are the infallible word of God. And we know this because the Bible tells us so.

Except why does the Baha'i Faith and Christianity contradict each other? Two infallible messages and Christians say that the Baha'i message is false. And the Baha'is say the Christians have interpreted their message wrong.