Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[ppp]

So you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist?

That question is both a non sequitur and a linguistic travesty. I am far to lazy to bother to do more than note that fact. Or even to go back and correct the spelling of "to".

 

[Sargonski]

Wrong. One who has seen god can be atheist if they choose so.

They just have to understand that the mind is not 100% reliable at discerning reality.

One who has seen God - and realizes they have seen God - can not claim that God does not exist without contradicting their initial claim to have seen God.

No offence .. just logic. Your explanation "Maybe I didn't see God" -- does not change the contradiction .. as then you have not seen God

I too have met God .. but am not an atheist .. but agnostic to religion. Having met God .. I know that your claim to have seen God is false .. because when you meet up with God .. you don't see God

 

[Trailblazer]

That question is both a non sequitur and a linguistic travesty.

I asked? "So you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist?"

A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

What I posted was not a conclusion or a statement. It was a question, so it cannot be a non sequitur.

My sentence was grammatically correct. I could have also phrased it like this:
Do you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist?
or Do you have to 'see God' in order to believe that God exists?

I am far to lazy to bother to do more than note that fact.

You should not make a claim that something is a fact unless you can back that up.

Or even to go back and correct the spelling of "to".

The spelling was correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

I too have met God .. but am not an atheist .. but agnostic to religion. Having met God .. I know that your claim to have seen God is false .. because when you meet up with God .. you don't see God

How do you meet up with God without seeing God?

 

[ppp]

A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Your work is sloppy and incomplete. You get a D-.

The spelling was correct.

It was spelled incorrectly in my sentence, silly. Not everything is about you.

My sentence was grammatically correct.

Travesty is absurd, burlesque, ridiculous, parodic, distorted, ungodly mess, you've got to me freaking kidding me, who wrote this purple prose and why is it littering my pixelary, a mockery. It does not mean grammatically incorrect. An F for more sloppy work and general pointlessness.

 

[ppp]

Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god, I don't see how one can rationally be anything but an atheist

So you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist?

Your question should have been, How are you using the word see? Or can you explain what you meant by that?

I asked ChatGpt: What does this statement mean...Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god, I don't see how one can rationally be anything but an atheist

Chatgpt: The statement "Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god, I don't see how one can rationally be anything but an atheist" suggests that in the absence of a clear and reliable way to verify the experience of seeing or perceiving a god, the rational position is to be an atheist.

In other words, the speaker is emphasizing the importance of verifiable evidence or criteria for belief in a deity. Without such evidence, they argue, the default or rational stance is atheism, which is the disbelief in the existence of deities. The underlying assumption here is that belief should be based on empirical evidence or rational criteria, and in the absence of such evidence for a god, non-belief (atheism) is presented as the rational choice.

ChatGPT got things very close. Though I would correct the bolded to say a reliable methodology, and falsifying diagnostic criteria.

 

[Sargonski]

Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god, I don't see how one can rationally be anything but an atheist. @an anarchist says, " But it's true, at least in my reality" as though they get their own personal reality. Pfui.

Logic is as follows .. if A) one has seen God - and believes that one has seen God then B) I don't believe in God - is in contradiction with A.

Both cannot be true at the same time

 

[Trailblazer]

Your work is sloppy and incomplete. You get a D-.

You are not my teacher so I don't care about your personal opinion of me.

It was spelled incorrectly in my sentence, silly. Not everything is about you.

It was also spelled correctly by me.

So you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist? #600

Travesty is absurd, burlesque, ridiculous, parodic, distorted, ungodly mess, you've got to me freaking kidding me, who wrote this purple prose and why is it littering my pixelary, a mockery. It does not mean grammatically incorrect. An F for more sloppy work and general pointlessness.

Yet you cannot explain why it is a absurd, burlesque, ridiculous, parodic, distorted, ungodly mess. As such it is only a a bald assertion.

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

Regarding your fault-finding post:

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

 

[ppp]

Logic is as follows .. if A) one has seen God - and believes that one has seen God then B) I don't believe in God - is in contradiction with A.

Both cannot be true at the same time

That's not the proposition you presented. You said

One who has seen God can be agnostic.. but not aetheist I think

Under the hypothetical that a god exists, I could have seen that god at lunch and not had a clue. Or I could have seen it and suspected god without being convinced. or I could have seen it and been convinced. The first two are rational. Without testable diagnostic criteria the third is not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your question should have been, How are you using the word see? Or can you explain what you meant by that?

You said: "Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god, I don't see how one can rationally be anything but an atheist."

The word See means perceive with the eyes; discern visually. You said "seen a god" so I asked my question according to what I thought you meant.
"So you have to 'see God' in order to not be an atheist?"

The word See can also mean to discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.
If I had wanted to engage you in a further dialogue I might have asked what you meant by See, but I did not want to do that.

 

[Sargonski]

That's not the proposition you presented. You said

Under the hypothetical that a god exists, I could have seen that god at lunch and not had a clue. Or I could have seen it and suspected god without being convinced. or I could have seen it and been convinced. The first two are rational. Without testable diagnostic criteria the third is not.

what are you talking about ... "I" - did not present any proposition. My comment is on someone elses proposition .. which was presented exactly as stated.

You are trying to unconflate Seeing with Believing .. and it is perfectly fine to say I saw God but later came to believe it was not God who I Saw .. but then the claim "I Saw God" is false .. because you didn't see God .. Heh heh heh

 

[ppp]

You are not my teacher so I don't care about your personal opinion of me.

Surely there is no necessary entailment between my not being your teacher and you not caring about my personal opinions or you. Can't you not care about my opinions irrespective of my being your teacher.

Also, aren't all opinions personal. Are there opinions that are existing out there independent of some person? Where? And if I grab one doesn't it become mine, and by virtue of possession, a personal opinion?

It was also spelled correctly by me.

Shrug

Yet you cannot explain why it is a absurd, burlesque, ridiculous, parodic, distorted, ungodly mess. As such it is only a a bald assertion.

Incorrect. I won't.
I will however enjoy watching you pointlessly fuss about nothing

 

[ppp]

The word See means perceiv

Too late. You should have dealt with this in your first or second reply. Chat GPT has addressed it and I have moved on

 

[ppp]

You are trying to unconflate Seeing with Believing .

Absolutely

 

[Trailblazer]

Surely there is no necessary entailment between my not being your teacher and you not caring about my personal opinions or you. Can't you not care about my opinions irrespective of my being your teacher.

I might care about your personal opinion of me if I thought it had some merit, but it I don't think it does. I have many faults, but one of my faults is not how I express myself on this forum. Nobody except you seems to have a problem with how I word my posts.

Also, aren't all opinions personal. Are there opinions that are existing out there independent of some person? Where? And if I grab one doesn't it become mine, and by virtue of possession, a personal opinion?

Yes, all opinions are personal since they are expressed by a person.

Incorrect. I won't.
I will however enjoy watching you pointlessly fuss about nothing

Then carry on. I have miles to go before I am finished so maybe you can find some more posts of mine to find fault with.

 

[ppp]

I might care about your personal opinion of me if I thought it had some merit, but it I don't think it does. I have many faults, but one of my faults is not how I express myself on this forum. Nobody except you seems to have a problem with how I word my posts.

Yes, all opinions are personal since they are expressed by a person.

Then carry on. I have miles to go before I am finished so maybe you can find some more posts of mine to find fault with.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I can come to the correct conclusion that there is a rock the shape and size of my foot at the south pole of Mars. But if I come to that conclusion merely because an ancient book says so, then I my conclusion is irrational, irrespective of the existence of that rock.

It doesn't matter whether the book is ancient or modern..
If a person reads something on the internet, for example, and concludes it must be "the truth"
without further thought or study, it is not an intelligent conclusion.

You speak as if that is all the Bible or Qur'an say i.e. god(s) exist
It does not. It gives meaning to our lives spiritually, and we cannot make conclusions
about existence of god(s) purely by trying to find out "where they live".

G-d only "gives His address" to those He trusts, it would seem.
Makes sense to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because you are playing word games, tapdancing and doing everything you can by re-phrasing answers in order to achieve some goal which I do not know. Then, as usual, you try to put blame on me...."why do you.......why do you....", as if I don't recognize these argument styles.

Lots of us have fallen for the "evidence" that supports the belief in a religion. But once we've accepted that evidence, it becomes the proof that what we believe about the religion is true and factual. TB keeps putting out their all her "evidence" and then says but there is no "proof". But then say that she's "proved" it to herself?

Yes, too many word games. If a person believes a religion is true, then they should have the proof and evidence to back it up. But because, ultimately, a religious person's proof are things that can't be proven, but must be taken on faith, then she and others haven't proven it to themselves. All they've done is accepted it on a belief that it is true.

She looked at his life, his mission and whatever else, and decided, that's good enough, and committed herself to believing what Baha'u'llah says as being factual. But is everything he said and teaches factual?

Cancer is communicable? How many cancer nurses get cancer from their patients? Magnetism isn't physical, electricity isn't physical? Yeah, because we didn't know what an electron or a field was at the time, so people thought that. So did he.

If Baha'u'llah said any of this stuff, then can he be trusted in what he says? And to a person that has already given themselves over to belief in a religion, does it matter? With many religious people it doesn't matter. Just like with Christians that believe in a worldwide flood and a 6-day creation. People and their science are wrong, not the Bible. Then Baha'is contradict that and say that those stories in the Bible are not literally true. But, of course, their stuff, whatever their prophet said, is literally true, because it came directly from God. And how do we know that? Because of the evidence, his life, his mission, etc. And how do we know that is evidence? Because he said so.

 

[CG Didymus]

he did do miracles. Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

"Bahá’u’lláh forbade His followers to attribute miracles to Him because this would have amounted to the degradation of His exalted station."

So, how do we know if Baha'u'llah really did these miracles? We have to trust the word of people that disobeyed him by attributing miracles to him?

 

[CG Didymus]

Without a reliable criteria for establishing that one has seen a god

Born-again Christians have something reliable... The testimony in the Bible. God appeared. He spoke from heaven. He raised Jesus from the dead. He sent angels. He knocked down the walls of Jericho. He sent plagues to Egypt. He parted the seas. He flooded the world and on and on.

And why don't Baha'is believe that testimony? Probably it has something to do with... just because the Scripture of some religion says so, doesn't mean it really happened. Only their Scriptures are totally accurate.

Which bothers me a lot, because Baha'is say all those religions and their Scriptures and their manifestation/messenger were all true, but not totally true.