Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have explained why I believe they are flawed.
You have never provided any justification to back up your claims that my arguments are flawed.
It is all just a matter of your personal opinion.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
You have never provided any justification to back up your claims that my arguments are flawed.
It is all just a matter of your personal opinion.
ppp
Well-Known Member
What about the concern fact that unjustified beliefs are responsible for so much of the pain, degredation and death in world societies for most of human history? That seems like a logical concern.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
My religion is not responsible for any of that.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I don't think logical means what you think it means.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Your religion espouses many of the same themes of those that do. It is not unreasonable to have a concern that should you ever cycle to a place of similar power that you will follow the same path.
The fact that you believe that the only "logical" reason to be concerned about you religion is worry that your beliefs are true is more about your pride than in the reality of the situation.
ppp
Well-Known Member
So true. She thinks it means, Makes sense to her.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
But that does not mean that my religion is responsible for what the religions of the past have done.
That is not logical.
It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with logic.
You gave me one logical reason why atheists would speak out against religious beliefs, but that does not explain why they would speak out against the Baha'i Faith, since the Baha'i Faith does not do what the older religions did.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that is what atheists think. They think logic means makes sense to me.
Logical: characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+means
Who is to say that the reasoning of another person is not clear and sound?
Atheists say that about my reasoning but they have no evidence to back that up, only their personal opinion.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Logical: characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+means
ppp
Well-Known Member
You have ignored why I said it is reasonable to speak out against Baha'i in favor of simply repeating yourself.
ppp
Well-Known Member
And what does 'sound' mean?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I did not ignore what you said. I responded to it, but as yet you have not given me any logical reason to speak out against Baha'i. That it is a religion is not a reason since all religions are not the same.
If you are trying to say that the Baha’i Faith is no different from all the previous religions just because it has some things in common with them that is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions
Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
- religion a did x, y and z
- religion b did x, y and z
- religion c did x, y and z
- religion d did x, y and z
- religion e did x, y and z
- religion f did x, y and z
- religion g did x, y and z
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Sound is often used to mean sure, or clear. Sound reasoning is simply reasoning that makes sense, and follows some sort of logic. Sound reasoning means logical reasoning.
https://brainly.com/question/279762
ppp
Well-Known Member
I'm not. I am saying that because Baha'i exhibits some of the unsavory beliefs of as other religions that
No
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You were saying that since my religion shares many themes with other religions that it is not unreasonable to assume that it will do what other religions have done if it gets to a point where it has enough power. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization because the Baha'i Faith is not the same as those other religions so it will never do what they did.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What YOU consider unsavory. That does not mean those beliefs ARE unsavory.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Not bad. I truly appreciate the effort.
What I am actually saying is the because your religion espouses beliefs that traditionally lead to bad acts when held by humans with power, that it is not unreasonable to be concerned that the humans of your religion will act in much the same manner as those of other religions and non-religions when placed in similar circumstances.
A hasty generalization would be if I my concerns were based on an inadequate sample size. But I am basing my position on the recorded history of human nature from around the world. A more than adequate same size. This is not a conclusion that you will become a theocratic tyrannical hegemony, but it is a rational concern that you will act like the members of any given theocracy from human history. The very best example I can think of is the Arabic Empire during their golden age, which was a relatively tolerant theocrasy. But it was still a distinct step backwards from where we are now.
ppp
Well-Known Member
What is means is that if I see that some of the beliefs you espouse have traditionally lead to actions that I consider to be unsavory, that I am not challenging Baha'i (as you claimed) because I am afraid that your beliefs might be correct. I am challenging you on the basis that some of your beliefs have traditionally been a highway to horror.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Can you list all the religions that have aspired to become a theocratic tyrannical hegemony or have become one?