Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Trailblazer]

Love how you say that you are not attacking a straw man, an then immediately attack a straw man.
You are clearly struggling to understand what is going on here.

I am not attacking a straw man because there was no argument to refute since nobody presented an argument.
I cannot attack what was never presented.
You are clearly struggling to understand what is going on here.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think they are. Let's check...
Theist: A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. (OED)
Yep.

So you think Abraham and Jesus and Bahaullah are gods?
Yikes. I thought Bahai's were monotheists.

The Messenger and the Message are all we can and will know about God.

Any God considered from any other source is a God of our own making. The Messenger is the 'Self of God', not the flesh but the Essence of the Messenger, which is the Holy Spirit, shining from that human frame.

It is not the unknowable God decent into creation, it is the creation manifesting the Attributes given of God.

"Regarding the questions you asked: Self has really two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Bahá’í writings: one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as 'he hath known God who hath known himself"

This self is the Messenger, and that is the capacity we are to look for within our own selves. Abdul'baha was such an example of what we can become.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

There is zero evidence for the resurrection. All you have managed to produce are the (conflicting) accounts of the resurrection in the Bible.
If you claim that an account of something in a book is evidence that it actually happened, you have some serious cognitive issues.

You can say THAT again. No, I'll say it...
There is zero evidence for the resurrection.

 

[KWED]

All I am saying is that people like Paul (the apostle) honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection,

Well, you assume he did because of what he wrote. However, he may not have. You will never know.
History contains many examples of people who were not what they appeared to be.

 

[KWED]

The Messenger and the Message are all we can and will know about God.

Any God considered from any other source is a God of our own making. The Messenger is the 'Self of God', not the flesh but the Essence of the Messenger, which is the Holy Spirit, shining from that human frame.

It is not the unknowable God decent into creation, it is the creation manifesting the Attributes given of God.

"Regarding the questions you asked: Self has really two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Bahá’í writings: one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as 'he hath known God who hath known himself"

This self is the Messenger, and that is the capacity we are to look for within our own selves. Abdul'baha was such an example of what we can become.

Regards Tony

Whatever you may think you are saying there, none of it appears to address the two points I made.
1. The messengers were all theists.
2. You claimed that the messengers were gods.

 

[KWED]

I am not attacking a straw man because there was no argument to refute since nobody presented an argument.
I cannot attack what was never presented.
You are clearly struggling to understand what is going on here.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

Oh dear.
You were attacking the argument, that you claim is made by atheists, that all religionists are crazy.
Atheists do not make that argument. An argument is presented that much religious belief is delusional.
The "some religionists are delusional" is an actual argument made by atheists. You replaced it with "atheists claims all religionists are crazy".
Thus, you were attacking a straw man.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have any idea just how much people believe with no evidence? It's not just God -- you forgot about angels, demons, Satan. And Muslims and their djinn. And you've forgotten how many people believe in reincarnation, transmigration of souls, astral travel, auras, fairies, Big Foot and chupacabra. Oh, and witches and wizards (not just Harry Potter and Hermione). Conspiracy theories abound, on every topic under the sun. The list just goes on and on and on! I wouldn't have time to get half way through the list. Try reading Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird things."

Sorry I missed your post yesterday but I just remembered that I missed it so I went looking for it.

You definitely have a valid point. People do believe in all kinds of things that have no supporting evidence at all.

You know, as well as I do, that the vast majority of humans alive today lack advanced education. Moreover, it is well understood that religious belief and religious attendance are two different things. It is also known that higher education tends to sort towards less strident religions, and towards more social ones. Thus, there is a well-known tendency for the educated to move away from religions that require belief in dogma -- which the better educated know to be often nonsensical.

That is also true. As a group Baha’is tend to be very highly educated, especially compared to other religions such as Christianity. All one has to do is read all the articles non https://bahaiteachings.org/ to know that.

But the vast -- very vast -- majority have no evidence at all. Only hear-say, things they've been told others experienced ("witnessed").

That’s true too. The Bible is not very good evidence since it was written by men who never even knew Jesus. It was not written by Jesus or Moses or even by people who knew them so how can it accurately represent what they taught or did?

And none of the presumed "evidence" is ever repeatable. In science, I could, if I had the will, the skill and the knowledge, set up an experiment to test any theory that has been tested before. But when God supposedly heals a presumed illness, nobody can ever get Him to do it again as a validity check. And the supposed "miracle cures" are invariably those that cannot be verified in any real medical sense.

No, science is not religion so we cannot have repeatable, testable, or verifiable evidence for religion.

So as I said, most people have no evidence, and no evidence has ever been produced that clearly demonstrated the existence of God.

Any evidence that ‘clearly demonstrated’ the existence of God would be verifiable evidence which is proof. No, there I no proof that God exists. If there was proof the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Something that's verifiable can be proven. In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born.
Verifiable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

Let me expand on that last point. Do you suppose, really, that if such incontrovertible evidence existed, anywhere on earth, that it would not be the biggest news story of all time? Nobody, but absolutely nobody, would not be aware of it -- it be trumpeted so loudly and endlessly everywhere that we'd never be free of it. Yet, sadly, such a thing has never happened.

Of course there is no ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that God exists, because that would be proof, NOT evidence. If there was proof God would be an established fact.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Look how you've framed that: "most believers don't even know what the purpose of life is." You just made it clear that, a) you think some believers do know what it is, and that b) you don't accept the very real possibility that it has no purpose at all -- that it just is.

I believe I know what the purpose of life is and that is why I believe that many believers do not know what it is, since they believe other things, such as what Christians believe, that the purpose of life is to be ‘saved and forgiven’ by the blood of Jesus so they can go to heaven.

Even if that "truth" is that there is no God to help us, that we are alone in solving our own problems, and that when we die, we no longer exist -- period?

Even if atheists believe there is no God to help them and they are solving all their problems, that does not mean that God is not helping them. I believe God helps everyone.

Atheists will find out the truth that they still exist after they die, but I have NO IDEA what will happen after that. Heck, I don’t even know what will happen to me, so how can I know what will happen to other people? The Baha’i Writings say that anyone can be changed through the bounty of God.

“It is even possible that the condition of those who have died in sin and unbelief may become changed—that is to say, they may become the object of pardon through the bounty of God, not through His justice—for bounty is giving without desert, and justice is giving what is deserved. As we have power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess the same power in the other world, which is the Kingdom of God. Are not all the people in that world the creatures of God? Therefore, in that world also they can make progress. As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can plead for forgiveness and receive light through entreaties and supplications. Thus as souls in this world, through the help of the supplications, the entreaties and the prayers of the holy ones, can acquire development, so is it the same after death. Through their own prayers and supplications they can also progress, more especially when they are the object of the intercession of the Holy Manifestations.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 232

Wouldn't it be nice if what we knew was consistent with what we believed?

I believe that what I know is consistent with what I believe, although I cannot prove that to anyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh dear.
You were attacking the argument, that you claim is made by atheists, that all religionists are crazy.
Atheists do not make that argument. An argument is presented that much religious belief is delusional.
The "some religionists are delusional" is an actual argument made by atheists. You replaced it with "atheists claims all religionists are crazy".
Thus, you were attacking a straw man.

Okay, I see it now.....
"Many atheists claim that the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy."

As I think I said somewhere along the line, it is not many atheists who think that but some atheists think that.

 

[Sheldon]

Love how you say that you are not attacking a straw man, an then immediately attack a straw man.
You are cleraly struggling to understand what is going on here.

The want of understanding, is not for want of explanation either.

 

[Sheldon]

On any given day, more non-smokers die than smokers. Therefore if you are a smoker you are less likely to die. QED.

Brilliant...

 

[Sheldon]

I am not sure of what that actually means. How would someone "die for Jesus and the resurrection". Their death would not change the event in any way, so what would it achieve?
Are you claiming that if the resurrection did not happen, if enough people willingly die "for it", it becomes true?

Basically, but more hilariously, he is claiming that believing something so strongly, that one would be willing enough to die for it, would make lying and making up evidence to convince others it is true unlikely.

 

[Sheldon]

I am not attacking a straw man because there was no argument to refute since nobody presented an argument.

Correct, it was you who presented a straw man argument, and assigned it to "atheists". Then presented your own counter argument.

It was and is, and will remain a textbook straw man fallacy.

"Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, (that's the one you falsely created that atheists think all theists are crazy, which you made because it was easy to defeat..) whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."

 

[KWED]

As a group Baha’is tend to be very highly educated, especially compared to other religions such as Christianity.

And yet the Bahai's I converse with here have been some of the most dogmatically irrational apologists I have ever encountered.

All one has to do is read all the articles non https://bahaiteachings.org/ to know that.

As if by magic, you present an entirely irrational argument. There are probably many times more articulate, erudite Chritian and Muslim apologist sources than Baha'i. Therefore, by your "argument", Christians and Muslim s are more educated than Baha'is.

That’s true too. The Bible is not very good evidence since it was written by men who never even knew Jesus. It was not written by Jesus or Moses or even by people who knew them so how can it accurately represent what they taught or did?

Why does that matter if the author was guided by god? You claim that Bahaullah's writing are the ultimate religious scripture - but which prophet did he know? Which Biblical character had he met?

No, science is not religion so we cannot have repeatable, testable, or verifiable evidence for religion.
Any evidence that ‘clearly demonstrated’ the existence of God would be verifiable evidence which is proof. No, there I no proof that God exists. If there was proof the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.

So you have finally accepted that your constant claims for "proof" and "evidence" for god are merely belief. Phew, that took some time!

I believe I know what the purpose of life is and that is why I believe that many believers do not know what it is, since they believe other things, such as what Christians believe, that the purpose of life is to be ‘saved and forgiven’ by the blood of Jesus so they can go to heaven.

The follower of every religion is just as certain that their beliefs are right and yours are wrong - and neither has any evidence nor rational argument to support your claims. So where does that leave you?

Even if atheists believe there is no God to help them and they are solving all their problems, that does not mean that God is not helping them. I believe God helps everyone.
Atheists will find out the truth that they still exist after they die, but I have NO IDEA what will happen after that. Heck, I don’t even know what will happen to me, so how can I know what will happen to other people? The Baha’i Writings say that anyone can be changed through the bounty of God.

So what is the point in religious belief?

I believe that what I know is consistent with what I believe, although I cannot prove that to anyone.

Oh, now you've gone and spoiled it.
"Knowledge" and "belief" are two different and mutually exclusive concepts. If you "know" something, there is no need for "belief". If you are required to "believe" something, it means it is not "known".

It's like people who talk about "a sure thing" in gambling. If the outcome really is certain, there is no gamble. If there is a chance (even tiny) that an outcome will not happen, it is not a certainty.

 

[KWED]

Okay, I see it now.....
"Many atheists claim that the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy."

That is still a straw man because I maintain there is no rational atheist who makes that claim.

Also, there is far more than 7% of the world who don't believe in god in the religious sense. You are merely citing one study's results on the people claiming to be "convinced atheists". Even in hard line theocracies like Saudi Arabia there are 6% confirmed atheists, plus another 19% who don't consider themselves religious.
In many countries the proportion of people who call themselves religious is below 50%

As I think I said somewhere along the line, it is not many atheists who think that but some atheists think that.

In which case you should make that clear. And even then, your claim is still pretty weak and by appealing to emotion you are still tending towards a straw man.

What you should be saying is that some atheists think that some religionists are delusional. This is both accurate in the representation of the atheists' claim, and the claim itself is accurate.

You're welcome.

 

[leroy]

We don't have an empty tomb. What we have is words about an empty tomb. Even if we had such a tomb, we have no way of establishing that it represents a resurrection. Word alone are not sufficient evidence to believe in either gods or resurrections.



From Mass hallucination. "A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously. Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary, and other paranormal phenomena. In most cases, mass hallucination refers to a combination of suggestion and pareidolia, wherein one person will see, or pretend to see, something unusual (like the face of Jesus in the burn-marks on a tortilla, or the face of a kidnapped girl on a blank billboard) and point it out to other people. Having been told what to look for, those other people will consciously or unconsciously convince themselves to recognize the apparition, and will in turn point it out to others."

The empty tomb needs no explanation. And hallucination is not needed for those not present to believe. The Gospel writers weren't present, so they cannot be said to have hallucinated an event they did not see. They simply believed what they were told, like all believers since including those living today.






Not to me. Any naturalistic explanation is more likely than any supernaturalistic one simply because we have countless examples of the former and none of the latter.



I would consider the possibility from the beginning, but wouldn't believe it without more evidence than testimony.

If you made that claim, based on what I know about you from your posting, I wouldn't consider crazy or lying most likely. Your belief in resurrection seems even more tenuous than a belief in alien abduction, but I consider you neither crazy nor lying. I just see you as somebody willing to believe without the evidence it would take to convince critical thinkers, that is, people who don't believe without compelling evidence.

I agree that as the number of people agreeing with you goes up, the believability of the claim goes up as well, but never to the level of justifiable belief. In fact, I have no reason to believe that there has ever been an extraterrestrial visit to correlate with any reports of UFO. Remember, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that there is insufficient reason to believe that it did if it did.

This has been a very successful epistemology for mankind and me personally. This kind of thinking resulted in man discarding astrology, alchemy, blood letting (to restore balance in fictional humors), and creationism with astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and Big bang cosmology (physical evolution) and biological evolution. In each case, a wrong belief that generated nothing of value was replaced with a correct one that did. That's a pretty strong recommendation for this manner of deciding what's true about the world - empiricism. And that's been my approach for 35 years, since leaving Christianity, where I did believe ideas with insufficient support that were just as sterile as astrology.

Pleasant discussion, thanks.

Pleasant discussion, thanks

The pleasure is mine, I appreciate your honest approach and your intention to honestly and sincerely try to understand your opponents arguments

My short answer would be: in ancient history when an even is attested in 2 or more independent sources, historians would consider it a historical fact….. so why making an arbitrary exception with the resurrection?

t Aint Necessarily So, post: 7604816, member: 61691"]We don't have an empty tomb. What we have is words about an empty tomb. Even if we had such a tomb, we have no way of establishing that it represents a resurrection. Word alone are not sufficient evidence to believe in either gods or resurrections.

Íll say that The evidence for the empty tomb is conclusive , if you are not willing to grant this at least for the sake of this conversation, perhaps it would be a good idea to focus on the empty tomb and ignore the rest for a while.

The empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection, specifically it´s a correct prediction, “if Jesus resurrected we would expect to have an empty tomb”…. I know that this by itself is not good enough to establish the resurrection but it can be part of a cumulative case.

Even if a deity exists, we can say that it is very unlikely that it raises our dead based on the number of biological deaths followed by a resurrection compared to the number that did not.

Well we have no other option, it doesn’t matter if you believe in the resurrection or in an alternative naturalistic hypothesis, in either case you have to claim that something extraordinary happened, something that has only been reported once.

It doesn’t matter If Jesus resurrected, if they where mass hallucinations, or if Jesus survived in the cross, of if he had a tween brother etc. all hypothesis involve something that has never been observed to happen and has never been reported.

From Mass hallucination. "A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously. Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary, and other paranormal phenomena. In most cases, mass hallucination refers to a combination of suggestion and pareidolia, wherein one person will see, or pretend to see, something unusual (like the face of Jesus in the burn-marks on a tortilla, or the face of a kidnapped girl on a blank billboard) and point it out to other people. Having been told what to look for, those other people will consciously or unconsciously convince themselves to recognize the apparition, and will in turn point it out to others."

I see 4 problems with the mass hallucinations hypothesis

1 the report cases of mass hallucination are not analogous to what early Christians saw (or claimed to have seen), they didn’t see something like a distant shadow and said “hey it looks more less like Jesus” perhaps he resurrected, the claim is that they saw jesus directly talked to him, ate with him touched him etc. (this is not analogous to UFOs or virgin marry apparitions)……if you define miracle as something that cant happen according to the laws of nature, then they type of hallucination needed to explain the data, would have been a miracle.

2 mass hallucinations only happen when people are predisposed, early Christians where not expecting a physical resurrection, bodily resurrections where inconsistent (or at least unexpected) in the Jewish religion … a spiritual experience or dream would have been more expected. So the point is that if early Christians would have had mass hallucinations they would have concluded that the spirit of Jesus was talking to them (they would have not concluded a physical resurection)

3 mass hallucinations is unfalsifiable, the resurection hypothesis is falsifiable, all you have to do is find the tomb with the body of Jesus or a contemporary document explaining where the body really was.

4 the mass hallucinations hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb

....

Not to me. Any naturalistic explanation is more likely than any supernaturalistic one simply because we have countless examples of the former and none of the latter.

You don’t have countless examples of mass hallucinations, (you don’t even have one) the type of mass hallucination that early Christians would have had to experience would be a unique type that has never been seen nor reported. And the same is true with all other naturalistic alternatives.

The point is that if we treat the resurrection the same way you will treat any other claim form ancient history, then the resurrection would have been accepted as a historical fact. We have multiple independent and early sources, explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony etc.

The only “problem “is that we are dealing with miracles, but if God exist (or if his existence is more less likely) then proclaiming miracles shouldn’t be a grate extravagance. … miracles would only be a problem if the existence of God where impossible (or very unlikely) but unless you accept this burden and show that God doesn’t exist, you shouldn’t have big problems with miracles.

 

[leroy]

eroy said: ↑
All I am saying is that people like Paul (the apostle) honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection,

Well, you assume he did because of what he wrote. However, he may not have. You will never know.
History contains many examples of people who were not what they appeared to be.

Do you always have this paranoid and extreme skepticism? or you only apply high standards of skepticism only with stuff that contradict your own particular view?

 

[leroy]

And coincidentally, the apologists of other religions think their evidence is better than yours, with just as much conviction.

Yes and flat earthier think that their model of the universe is better than yours…………so what? we all have an independent mind and we might disagree on many issues, I personally have seen the arguments for Christianity more compelling that then arguments for other religions.

There is zero evidence for the resurrection. All you have managed to produce are the (conflicting) accounts of the resurrection in the Bible.
If you claim that an account of something in a book is evidence that it actually happened, you have some serious cognitive issues.

You are talking about ancient history “books” and “documents” are nearly all there is to establish truth……

By your logic we should reject all ancient history because all we have is “books”………

 

[KWED]

Do you always have this paranoid and extreme skepticism?

Not sure what you are referring to.
You made an absolute claim. I merely pointed out a flaw. That is all.

or you only apply high standards of skepticism only with stuff that contradict your own particular view?

I didn't have a view on the issue you raised (that Paul sincerely believed that the resurrection actually happened). However, as soon as you raised it I could see a potential problem.
Do you not agree that people can claim to hold a position that they do not actually hold, for a variety of reasons? You would have to be incredibly naive and credulous to think otherwise.

 

[KWED]

Yes and flat earthier think that their model of the universe is better than yours…………so what?

Well, the obvious issue would be that neither you nor the other religionists have any evidence to support your positions, it is merely belief, whereas the flat earth issue is one that can be empirically demonstrated. (It is not flat, BTW, in case you were wondering)

I personally have seen the arguments for Christianity more compelling that then arguments for other religions.

And (as I said in my earlier point, which you are still failing to address) other religionists make the same claim about their beliefs. And we're back to square one.

You are talking about ancient history “books” and “documents” are nearly all there is to establish truth……
By your logic we should reject all ancient history because all we have is “books”………

You are quite correct that if an ancient book contains extraordinary tales of gods, monsters, magic, etc, we require independent, corroborating accounts before we accept them as fact.
That is why we are sceptical about the cyclops in Odyssey, dragons in the Mabinogion, ice giants in the Norse Sagas, and Jesus' magical powers. We don't accept they exist simply because an old book describes them.

However, if an ancient book says someone was emperor of a land, and archeology finds artefacts with his name and image on, and statues with a similar image and inscriptions bearing his name, and ancient books and inscriptions from a different land also mention him, then it is reasonable to assume that person existed and was emperor of that land. Although it's important to bear in mind that such a conclusion is not absolute. It will change if new evidence comes to light. This has happened throughout our modern understanding of ancient history.

And yet when it comes to Jesus, a pretty flaky record with zero corroboration is accepted as gospel without question and every argument or discovery to the contrary is simply dismissed by default.

Also bear in mind that the claim that an ordinary man lived and did some ordinary stuff does not require the same level of scepticism as claims of magic and monsters.

 

[leroy]

Not sure what you are referring to.
You made an absolute claim. I merely pointed out a flaw. That is all.

I didn't have a view on the issue you raised (that Paul sincerely believed that the resurrection actually happened). However, as soon as you raised it I could see a potential problem.
Do you not agree that people can claim to hold a position that they do not actually hold, for a variety of reasons? You would have to be incredibly naive and credulous to think otherwise.

The same skepticism could be used to reject any other claim, how do you know that Richard Dawkins truly believes in the theory of evolution? How do you know he is an atheist? Maybe he is a flatt earthier YEC that lies about his views for whatever reason.


With Paul based on his actions and claims, it is fair to assume that he truly believed in the resurrection, just like it is fair to assume that Richard dawkins believed in the theory of evolution, sure anyone of them would be lying for some mysterious reason.