Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Sargonski]

Your point is pointless, especially in regard to the OP which is what I was responding to in the first place.

Well I guess it’s not entirely pointless. You are supporting my original assertion that one can change their mind on what they believe, which is what the thread is about.

I think I can recognize pointless when I see it .. thank you very much

 

[CG Didymus]

There is only One .. and that is the One who is responsible for all that we see.


..which is no surprise.
Human nature being as it is, we like making things up .. exaggerating,
and we are also tribal, and love the security of wealth.

And that's why we're here asking the same questions and getting the same answers. How do you know there is only one God? And how do you know all those other religions that have contradictory beliefs are the ones that are wrong. Why are they the ones that made things up and exaggerated?

If you say that is because the Quran says so, and that you believe the Quran is true, then that's fine with me. But Baha'is say the same thing about their Scriptures. And Christians say the same thing about theirs.

 

[ppp]

Of course you don't .. you are an atheist, and think it is all conspiracy of some kind.

Get off your script and have an honest conversation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do you know there is only one God?

You mean that there might be 'many gods'?
It is all about concept .. there are no gods, other than what mankind invent.
God, with a capital 'g', is not a person, but is that which is responsible for all we see.

In other words, G-d teaches us to worship "Him" (the Creator), and not the created.

And how do you know all those other religions that have contradictory beliefs are the ones that are wrong.

I have not named religions that are right or wrong, but if they contradict the above..

Why are they the ones that made things up and exaggerated?

I refer to the details of creeds, and not specific religions.
eg. God 'snuffs out' souls after death, or an elite will live forever on paradise earth etc.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is only One

How do you know there is only one God?

You mean that there might be 'many gods'?

No, that's not what I meant. But never mind.

 

[joelr]

Deviation .. the topic is not about aliens.

No but your comment is about belief. Roswell demonstrates that belief in something has no bearing on if it's actually true.

..and you clearly do NOT "want to believe" in G-d.

That isn't even close to accurate. It's literally the opposite of everything I've said. So when you refuse another person to even have a position and thoughts and you have to tell them what their position and thoughts are, you are not debating honestly and you probably know you cannot because it will expose the fallacy of your position.

Once again, I want to believe what is true and what the evidence can demonstrate is most likely true. I will believe whatever the evidence presents. I actually have no choice.

It's your choice .. which has nothing to do with empirical evidence.

It is 100% dependent on evidence. If you are walking down the sidewalk and you see a yellow bus driving down the street towards your position, you have no choice but to believe a bus is coming and crossing the street at the time it intersects could be fatal. You will have no choice. You could be ill, have brain damage or whatever, but besides that you cannot now ignore that fact.
It's no different than with Gods or the supernatural.
I cannot choose to believe a mythology any more than you could choose to believe in Zeus or Lord Krishna.

It's funny people in religions sometimes think you can just "choose" to believe their God yet they would never just choose to believe a different god from a different religion. What you likely mean is I could also use the same confirmation bias, ignore all the logical arguments, use apologetics that have been debunked and so on that you may do, to believe in that religion. I actually cannot.

Yes, there is evidence that Jesus and Muhammad existed, and both Christianity and Islam
are believed by a substantial number of people.

Appeal to popularity. Millions also believe the Mormon Bible is the true updates to Christianity and Islam is wrong. Billions believe in Krishna. Does that make any of them more true?

There is evidence Muhammad was a person. A bit of evidence Jesus was a Jewish teacher. So?

..but not one of those people can show you physical evidence .. but that does not concern us,

Yes it does. We can look at historical writings, none confirm Jesus, we can look at cultural trends in religion, all of the NT was trending theology.
We can look at the Sanaa palimpsest and see there is evidence the Quran wasn't written in one go but earlier drafts actually existed.

The Sanaa palimpsest (also Ṣanʽā’ 1 or DAM 01-27.1) or Sanaa Quran is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence.[1] Part of a sizable cache of Quranic and non-Quranic fragments discovered in Yemen during a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanaa, the manuscript was identified as a palimpsest Quran in 1981 as it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of chapters (suwar, singular sūrah), whereas the lower text (the original text that was erased and written over by the upper text, but can still be read with the help of ultraviolet light and computer processing) contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its chapters corresponds to no known Quranic order. A partial reconstruction of the lower text was published in 2012,[2] and a reconstruction of the legible portions of both lower and upper texts of the 38 folios in the Sana'a House of Manuscripts was published in 2017 utilising post-processed digital images of the lower text.[3] A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy.[4]

because it is not about life in this universe, per se .. it is more about recognising spiritual truths
that were taught.

There are moral and ethical ideas that humans tend to agree on (not always) and all religions use them, even the religions with gods you consider fake, which proves humans can make up ethics and follow them based on human standards.
You cannot demonstrate a spiritual realm or any spiritual truths or even show any such thing exists.

You are just taking people who made claims of revelations and incorporated morals from older cultures and said a God gave these to follow. Yet they are all found in Greek society who were not claiming Gods gave them the wisdom or Zeus was giving wisdom. Neither you believe are true. So people created them.
Mesopotamian wisdom is also similar. It didn't come from Innana, people made them up.

 

[joelr]

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?

It's very circular and really going nowhere except hammering home the fact there is no evidence whatsoever.

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?

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.

No it doesn't always matter. I just heard someone who deconstructed from being an evangelical minister and he was explaining to a fellow evangelist that the statistics on gay marriage and all that wasn't bad and they accepted the stats but the next day the evengelist was right back writing about how bad it is for children to be involved in a gay marriage and completely ignored all the statistics.

The prophecies are bad but you just make some excuse like that day he wasn't "connected" or whatever. Deconstruction can only happen when you want an honest truth.
There is a video of a Jewish man who saved his family from the terrorists because he had a safe room and some guns so he kept them away until the army showed up. But the man said he prayed that the "father will always come help" and there were hundreds of comments about how God helps and all that.
It was mind boggling. So God decided to help one family, out of the hundreds of victims, who just also happened to have a safe room and guns?
As if no one else was praying?
Half of them in the comments thought Jesus helped him and he isn't even Christian?

 

[joelr]

"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?

Yeah why do they attribute miracles to him when he forbade it? They are also really bad miracles. Like a prediction of safer sea travel? Made during the Industrial Revolution?

 

[joelr]

I have no goals, I just respond to posts as I see fit. I also don't blame people for things, although I point things out when I see them.
Just as I will point out that you are repeating yourself again, talking about evidence. You are obsessed about evidence.

And the response is more word games. You don't blame people you "point thing out". These manipulative tactics will not work here.

AND, we get a nice example of it in action in the next sentence. You tap dance, say you have evidence, post awful evidence, then change it to you have criteria, then change it to logic (which you can't provide), I expose the fallacy, you use that to say I'm repeating myself. You continue to post the worst evidence possible then accuse me of repeating myself because I point out it's bad. Then close it off by calling me obsessed, even though you keep saying you have evidence, than retracting it, than saying it.

It just demonstrates the length you have to go to repair these messed up posts.

I did not initially become a Baha'i because of evidence, as I did not need evidence to see that the Baha'i Faith was the truth. I still don't need evidence even though I now know that there is plenty of evidence.

See, again, "plenty of evidence". There is no evidence. Nothing. Except the evidence that he is a normal man with normal knowledge of someone from 1870.

I also don't need evidence to know that God exists since it is obvious to me that God exists based on logical reasoning.

There is no logical path to God. Please present a logical syllogism demonstrating God exists.

It is also obvious to me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, based upon logical reasoning.

As we have seen, there is no evidence, logic or anything besides confirmation bias that shows he was a messenger of God.

You have been asked over and over. You offered terrible predictions and criteria that you would laught at if a Mormon suggested the same of Joe Smith.

It is also obvious to me that the Baha'i Faith is true, based upon logical reasoning.

Explain the logical syllogism that shows Bahai is based on logic.

I don't need anything but a sound mind to know that God exists and sends Messengers, since it is so logical.

Then you don't seem to care about what is actually true. Your priority is making a story true. You have not shown one logical reason to believe any of this.

 

[joelr]

I just explained that in the previous post.

You did not, you made a claim it was "logical". You demonstrated none of the claims.

My point stands. God does not need your belief. God has no needs. Humans are the ones who have needs.

Your point has been debunked by your religion. If you cannot respond honestly nothing you say can even be taken serious.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

The only reason God wants us to know Him and get closer to Him is for our own benefit. If we cut ourselves of from God, God's love cannot reach us.

Those are words from a man. Nothing demonstrates those are words from a God, nothing you have shown demonstrates a God exists.

Not for me. It took a while, but you and other atheists helped me realize that I never cared about evidence because I never needed it, so thanks.
That does not mean there is no evidence, that only means I do not need it in order to know that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion. Everything follows from that.

And scientologists, Mormons, Cargo Cult and others also don't need it. All you are saying is atheists helped you believe a belief that was unwarranted to actually believe. You are free to believe whatever you want. But God is not demonstrated and Bahai is absolutely not demonstrated.
You have already demonstrated there is no evidence. So claiming the religion, God, revelations is logical is simply wrong and 100% confirmation bias. Without evidence you do not have a logical belief, which only leaves cognitive bias. You have explained it well.

A person who is claiming revelations who is actually having revelations will never be able to provide evidence.
Try to think about why it is impossible to provide evidence of a revelation from God.

already answered. Reality is probabilistic, we can have a probable case of revelations at least. Incorrect predictioons is simply not revelations.

"a person in late 1800 knowing would be very very strange and would either be ESP, an alien, or a deity. He could go further and tech him all modern science, beyond where even we are. He could show us all quantum mechanics, all aspects, plus solve Hilberts 10 math problems, especially the Riemann Hypothesis, with the correct math. He could build an A.I., unify gravity with QM, cure cancer, solve for dark energy, dark mater, multi verse, big bang and then let us move on from there. It took the smartest humans over 100 years collectively to get some of that and will take much longer to finish. That would be either a God or alien supermind with supertech. At that point it wouldn't matter if he could demonstrate an afterlife as well."

He predicted we will never find a missing link. Not only did we, the actual concept of a missing link is a creationist propaganda which is fundamentally wrong. Listen to what a biologist says about the missing link idea"

“Missing link” reply from evolutionary biologist

1:55:43

Some things can be known and some things cannot be known. Some things can be known based upon the attributes of God coupled with logical reasoning.

Not what you said when you didn't want a God to do something. Again, you say the word logic with no logical explanation.
Your "logical" explanation of why God cannot appear as a human is "c'mon, he's a God, he can't just appear as a human...."
Wow, such logic. Are you wrong at every single turn? Yes.

Yet you cannot point out one fallacy and say how it was committed.

Sure I can, I did. But let's move on. Just right above you used the personal incredulity fallacy, you cannot fathom a god showing uup as a human so you call it "logical" that he cannot.

Then above that , to show me something about God you posted:

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260"

So, it's true because the book says so. Brilliant.

and this -
"That does not mean there is no evidence, that only means I do not need it in order to know that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion. "

is some type of appeal to ignorance

One of your biggest ever

"God did not send the angel Moroni to Joe Smith, show him golden plates or write a new Bible. That is not evidence of anything except that people believe that."


Biggest special pleading ever. EVER. This is your religion as well, in a nutshell. Yet with Mormonism it's just evidence that people believe the stories and claims.
Not your religion though...? (yes yours also)

More special pleading

"That was not God providing evidence since God did not write those texts. It was humans who were trying to convince people that God exists."


HA HA HA, yes it was humans, Bahaullah.

Nobody can make an All-Powerful God do what they want, for obvious logical reasons.

Except you when you forbid him from appearing as a human or having teeth.

There is no reason to 'assume' that God would provide good evidence. That is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Uh, no, that's when you fail to look at all the variables involved. A God hiding behind a fraud with incorrect prophecies is highly unlikely. Unless it was Loki, a trickster god.

There is every reason not to assume that God would provide good evidence since God wants to be believed on Faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

1) doesn't mean he would provide NO evidence at all.
2) cherry-picking, Hebrews also says - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;....Jesus is God, which you have to disagree with because your book says so.
3) which is another case of "it's true because the book says so".

4) since faith is a terrible path to truth how do you prove God wants to be believed on faith?

Believing in God requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. God will reward those who earnestly seek Him.

Many people including Jesus saw him in the Bible. Oh, right, your book says not true. "It's true because the book says so".

I earnestly seek God. Without cognitive bias, twisting truth, apologetics and with all the cognitive abilities given. I find he is a myth.


But, I will take this admission of faith to be sincere. As I stated, you have no evidence or logical reason. You have faith.

You have made this very clear.

That was not God providing evidence since God did not write those texts. It was humans who were trying to convince people that God exists.

Yeah we have been here at least twice. You cannot prove it. You believe it because your book says so. You have no evidence to back any of this up.

If God exists, what we see is what we get and it is what God wants us to have.

A useless tautology hat says nothing.

We cannot get anything from God other than what God wants to give us.

another useless tautology that says nothing

That means we are not going to get any evidence other than what God provides.

No, that isn't what follows. Two useless tautologies equal, one big useless. It does not tell us anything. It most certainly doesn't say anything about evidence.

It could be turned around and said "and that is why God will give awesome evidence when and if he shows up"

That is not claims of a man, it is what I have deduced based upon my own logical reasoning.

If that is an example of your "logic" than that explains much.

You said nothing.
It could mean the exact opposite and that would be just as true. But this shows logic is nowhere to be found here.

 

[joelr]

No, my list of criteria that I believe a Messenger of God would have to meet was NOT entered as a type of evidence.
I am the one who entered it so I alone know why I entered it and what I entered it for.

You still cannot admit you were wrong, after all this time. Is it too much for you to admit you were wrong?
Whenever you speak for another person and insist you know their motives you are wrong, because you can only know your own motives.

That's funny. A "list of criteria", would be evidence. If the criteria are met it's an evidentiary standard. There is no way around that.
I cannot change the basic meaning of words just to be manipulated into saying something I shouldn't , so sorry. Please give up on lighting that gas.

 

[joelr]

It is a fact that the evidence presented does not lead you to believe in a God.

It is not a fact that the evidence presented does not warrant belief in a God.

You do not know what warrants a belief in God for anyone except yourself.

Yes it's a fact. It does not lead to a belief in God. It could lead some there but it isn't sufficient evidence.
Gravity has sufficient evidence. The vast majority would agree there is a force we call gravity.
But it's based on experiments. Even experiments we can try by jumping off a height or falling to the ground.
God hypothesis is fragmented, billions of Christians, hundreds of sects. Billions of Muslims, billions of Hindu, 5 major sects. Hundreds of other religions, one is Bahai.

When everyone can agree like we agree on gravity or atoms, germs or the periodic table, to a specific God and specific theism with the specific revelations, which will require similar evidence, then you can say that.
Right now many of those who I see study the facts, become atheist. And those who believe cannot seem to offer any reasonable evidence, just claims, faith, and it's all different. One has faith in the Mormon bible, one in Catholic doctrine, one a Muslim, one Hindu, one Bahai.
Looks more like they convince themselves of a particular theology and block out a critical, rational, methodology and make apologetic excuses and engage in word games and such.


Anyone can come up with alternate explanations to science theories and say its invisible angels and they talk to one person in his mind, don't care. But it's not logical, rational and there is no evidence.
Faith is the worst way to know what is true, the scientific method gave us so much and if a God were real he created the universe where things are logical, rational and mathematical. That would be God. He would not disregard the fundamental reality he created and expect a method that works just as good for every other God, religion, cult, and fictional deity to be the way to find him. If so, it's clearly not working. Unless he's Loki and is having a laugh.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Once again, I want to believe what is true and what the evidence can demonstrate is most likely true. I will believe whatever the evidence presents. I actually have no choice..

This assumes that religious belief is ONLY based on empirical evidence, and we are non-emotional
beings that behave like machines. That is not the case.
Furthermore, we have a subconcious mind that complicates things even further.

..so you are claiming, in effect, that you are beyond any bias/flaw, and only choose
what to believe on a weighing up of probabilities, according to a particular view of academic, ancient history.
It is still a choice of what you prefer to believe, in my view.

I cannot choose to believe a mythology any more than you could choose to believe in Zeus or Lord Krishna.

You cannot choose it, because you base your conclusions on refutation of the accuracy
of the Bible, due to ancient history.
..and then you assume that all religion is invention from there onwards.

..and you wouldn't be human, if you didn't have likes and dislikes. We all do.

We can look at the Sanaa palimpsest and see there is evidence the Quran wasn't written in one go but earlier drafts actually existed..

We all know that it wasn't written in one go..
..and I assume that you are saying that the Qur'an we have now has been changed.
Perhaps you can tell us what meanings have been changed, and why?

You are just taking people who made claims of revelations and incorporated morals from older cultures and said a God gave these to follow..

..so you claim that they were all liars or deluded..
Naturally, I don't believe that everybody who claims to be a prophet is so.
..but I do not believe that Abrahamic religion overall, is a sophisticated plot by men
to mislead us, in order to gain power etc.
That is a tall order!

 

[joelr]

This assumes that religious belief is ONLY based on empirical evidence, and we are non-emotional
beings that behave like machines. That is not the case.
Furthermore, we have a subconcious mind that complicates things even further.

Emotions and subconscious mind have helped people learn:
1)Joseph Smith has the true updates from God and put them in the Mormon Bible
2)Lord Krishna is the true personal deity
3) In Heavens Gate a ufo will come and take your soul onboard, after drinking poison tea
4)scientology is true and aliens seeded Earth and each member eventually gets a new planet
5) Roswell is proof of aliens
6) the KKK is a good organization to be in.
7) God wants us to war with ...........


its' not reliable. easily fooled. You need evidence.

..so you are claiming, in effect, that you are beyond any bias/flaw, and only choose
what to believe on a weighing up of probabilities, according to a particular view of academic, ancient history.
It is still a choice of what you prefer to believe, in my view.

No, I'm claiming things that are true will present a sufficient amount of evidence to warrant belief. Also we know for a fact that people will believe false things and feel they are 100% correct and others are wrong, even when the evidence is no better. OR they will buy into very bad evidence. When you show them, they do not care. This suggests emotional attachment to a belief is not logical or rational, often or always not true and. all beliefs should be put to an empirical, rational, skeptical methodology FIRST. Not fit the belief into a methodology.

Provide evidence. That's it.
History can lend clues and evidence.

You cannot choose it, because you base your conclusions on refutation of the accuracy
of the Bible, due to ancient history.
..and then you assume that all religion is invention from there onwards.

..and you wouldn't be human, if you didn't have likes and dislikes. We all do.

No religion has evidence. Just claims. We went through that long post of Islamic apologetics that must prove it's divine, yet, every single claim was shown to be Greek science.
All apologetic claims were not good evidence and had explanations. We also have an early version of the Quran (which they deny) but shows evidence that it was a work in progress rather than a revelation. Which makes sense.

We also know people will make things up. 36 gospels are considered false. 6 Epistles and much more. People love to claim revelations, prophets, it's human nature. So only excellent evidence will suffice.

We all know that it wasn't written in one go..
..and I assume that you are saying that the Qur'an we have now has been changed.
Perhaps you can tell us what meanings have been changed, and why?

I haven't studied the Sanaa palimpsest, but it's evidence that it was a constructed work rather than a revelation. I read the Quran, I don't find it to be words from a God any more than the Bible.

..so you claim that they were all liars or deluded..
Naturally, I don't believe that everybody who claims to be a prophet is so.
..but I do not believe that Abrahamic religion overall, is a sophisticated plot by men
to mislead us, in order to gain power etc.
That is a tall order!

Why would that be a tall order? First, you think Christianity is the same?
Then thousands of years of religions, Inanna, Osirus, Brahman, every God and pantheon, all made up. We already know that. So why would that make one more religion a tall order?
A tall order is saying a God is real. That hasn't been demonstrated? The Quran says the OT is true.

History shows it's a re-working of Mesopotamian myth and then Persian messianic expectation. Moses is considered a literary creation.
The Quran doesn't know that because it wasn't yet known.
Every single nation from Sumer on had. gods or God to frame laws and ethics. We already know and accept this. Yet you say it's a tall order to add one more religion? Who says the OT is real? Yahweh is a typical Naer Eastern Deity, very not real. Very similar to Ugaric and other Gods.
The Islamic theologians were using late Christian theology - God is the undivisible substance, the source of all good, Aquinas and so on already said that.
I do not think there is a being at the base of reality, we make that up. I'm always open to evidence.

Every nation wrote stories about Gods. It's not a lie, it kept society unified. Just isn't seeming to be real.




"
..but I do not believe that Abrahamic religion overall, is a sophisticated plot by men"



In myth characters are named by their function.

Abraham is a boy's name of Hebrew origin meaning “father of multitudes” or “father of a nation.”
Adam When used as noun, אָדָם means "man" or "humanity".

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, I'm claiming things that are true will present a sufficient amount of evidence to warrant belief..

Of course..
If there were no evidence at all, then why would anybody be a Christian or Muslim?

Also we know for a fact that people will believe false things and feel they are 100% correct and others are wrong,.

That applies to us all, including you.

When you show them, they do not care..

I know .. the subconcious mind plays a part in that.

This suggests emotional attachment to a belief is not logical or rational..

Again, it applies to all of us, including atheists.

History can lend clues and evidence.

It can .. pity there is more than one version.

No religion has evidence. Just claims..

..and you either reject them, or accept them.
We all weigh up the evidence in our own way .. it is not like "scientific fact" ..
There are some things that are hidden from us.

Some people will take the stance that as they cannot be sure of what is true, they
will not believe in ANY hidden thing, until it can be empirically proved.
Others, will accept that some things are about faith .. such as belief in a Holy One who
is responsible for all we see.

If G-d prefers His creatures to make their own mind up, then that's that.
We read the Bible/Qur'an, and make up our minds about it.
Some will believe, and some won't.

It is our intention that is MOST important, and not what particular creed we prescribe to.

I read the Quran, I don't find it to be words from a God any more than the Bible..

Well there you go .. perhaps you either don't understand it, or don't like what
it is saying.

Why would that be a tall order? First, you think Christianity is the same?
Then thousands of years of religions, Inanna, Osirus, Brahman, every God and pantheon, all made up. We already know that..

We don't know that.
Some religions do not CLAIM to be anything other than cultural beliefs.
..but some do .. and over time, they evolve to be what they are today.
The most recent major revelation is from Jesus and Muhammad.

History shows it's a re-working of Mesopotamian myth and then Persian messianic expectation. Moses is considered a literary creation.
The Quran doesn't know that because it wasn't yet known.

No .. history does NOT show .. that is the conclusion of a group of historians which you believe.
..and these conclusions are based on comparing inaccurate OT narrations with their findings.

These historians can NOT possibly know for sure, the core truths that are confirmed in the Qur'an are false, which is ~1500 years old .. relatively modern compared to the OT.

 

[joelr]

Of course..
If there were no evidence at all, then why would anybody be a Christian or Muslim?

For the same reason people believed in Zeus, Inanna, Osirus, Mithras, Odin, Zalmoxis and so on. Those religions had "evidence" as well. People made claims they had revelations and then other people used post hoc rationalizations to prove it, "look we got good weather, it proves our god, "look a war happened similar to what he predicted", "look this book cannot be reproduced"....therefore......

Now any scientist, doesn't matter where they are from or their upbringing, they all believe in the same Standard Model and table of elements.

That applies to us all, including you.

And that is exactly why I bother to study history, comparative religion, religious apologetics, skepticism, philosophy, and look at evidence on all sides and see what is most likely true, regardless of what I want to be true.

I know .. the subconcious mind plays a part in that.

Yes it does.

Again, it applies to all of us, including atheists.

Uh, it might apply to atheists, it depends on what their claims are. Atheists can also make claims that are not supported by evidence.
That is why I try to stick to evidence, probabilities and find where my bias are so I can drop beliefs that are not supported.
Atheists are generally not making illogical claims, a wise atheists is just saying they don't find sufficient evidence for any of the claims of theism.
You don't need atheists to demonstrate that is true, believers demonstrate it already. 1/3 believe some form of Christianity, 1/4 Islam, the rest other religions. If one religion had sufficient evidence it would not be an issue.

It can .. pity there is more than one version.

By all means, tell me the historical scholars who have peer-reviewed material that present a different version. I don't care about fundamentalists making up history that supports their religion. Show me the evidence. A peer-reviewed monograph will contain many sources on every page so you can investigate. I've seen only one basic version.

..and you either reject them, or accept them.

supernatural claims without sufficient evidence are almost definitely not correct. You can claim yours are and a Mormon can claim his are.
Don't care, that is why evidence is needed.

We all weigh up the evidence in our own way .. it is not like "scientific fact" ..

So do Mormons and all religions. From your point of view they are all wrong. So your method is not reliable if you care about what is actually true.

There are some things that are hidden from us.

The fact that there is more to the natural world doesn't mean Mormonism is the true updates from the Jewish God. OR any other religious claims. That is just an appeal to personal incredulity.

Some people will take the stance that as they cannot be sure of what is true, they
will not believe in ANY hidden thing, until it can be empirically proved.

And others believe in Big Foot, alien abductions, Scientology, lucky rabbits foot, witchcraft, astrology or religions.

Most of those are hidden, should you believe them? No? But yes to your religion? Then special pleading. A fallacy and not a good reason to believe.
You should not believe something that is hidden until there is evidence it's true. This is why there have been over 10 K religions.

Others, will accept that some things are about faith .. such as belief in a Holy One who
is responsible for all we see.

Which doesn't make it true one single bit. It does make it a story people made up before we understood any real science, outer space, the galaxy and thought the supernatural realm was a given. So those stories made sense of an unknown world. They are still appealing because they make us special. But the randomness of events shows we are not and probabilities are what govern us. The fundamental forces of creation in no way need be an actual being with ultimate powers, that is likely a made up concept.

Faith is not a reliable path to truth. You use it here from only your point of view, it can also be used to believe anything at all. You don't believe any other of the thousands of religions people have made up and had faith in yet feel you are somehow above the odds that you are no different. The only way to know if you are actually different is to have evidence.
What scientist that discovered anything new about the universe, ever, said they didn't have evidence yet but they did have faith in their theory?

If G-d prefers His creatures to make their own mind up, then that's that.
We read the Bible/Qur'an, and make up our minds about it.
Some will believe, and some won't.

The logic here is absent and this is a very archaic point of view. Use a different book to show how absurd it is.
Since God wants people to make up their own minds, we read the Mormon Bible and some will believe and some won't. God wants you to believe in the holy words he put in the Mormon Bible, but that's human nature, some just are not going to believe. Some have strong faith and will believe. Because they hear God in the text.

It isn't about reading a book and deciding to believe it. If one wants to live that way they can. But you can see how they will never know anything about what is true. You have to weigh claims. Have others claimed to speak to an angel and get God messages? Is it a trend?
Do they actually say anything a human really could not know (like specifics on quantum mechanics ad cosmology and math in 1800 that we confirm is correct over centuries, 100 digits in pi at the 1 trillionth decimal, etc), has the supernatural ever been proven, has God been demonstrated, are the apologetics false, are the witnesses probably not as accurate as claimed, and so on.
No religion has had ay meaningful predictions beyond vague things or older science they borrowed, none of the claims of world events like the sun going out is confirmed in other cultures, there is no evidence to justify such claims. Do people get behind man-made religions by the billions? Yes, there are examples.
Then there is philosophy and the questions tackled there.
It's not about reading a book and saying you believe if you want to know what is actually true.

It is our intention that is MOST important, and not what particular creed we prescribe to.

Religious and secular people generally want peace, a good intention. But other intentions such as the intention to "make" a religion true and inventing endless apologetics is a bit too much.

Well there you go .. perhaps you either don't understand it, or don't like what
it is saying.

I understand it fine, it's translated to english. Some of it I think is violent, just like the OT. Some is good. It's just nothing at all is beyond what people already knew. The wisdom, theology, science, it's a typical text from that era.
I know many who have deconverted from Islam and agree,

We don't know that.
Some religions do not CLAIM to be anything other than cultural beliefs.
..but some do .. and over time, they evolve to be what they are today.
The most recent major revelation is from Jesus and Muhammad.

You don't know that. Your religion makes that claim. Neither Jesus or Muhammad say anything a person from their time couldn't say. No reason to buy into the idea they are revelations from any deity.
There are more recent revelations from Bahai and Joseph Smith. Your group doesn't believe them but millions do. Mostly because of upbringing or deciding to buy into a story without evidence.

You are just using massive special pleading with all this.

No .. history does NOT show .. that is the conclusion of a group of historians which you believe.

That is the consensus of all historians in the field.

..and these conclusions are based on comparing inaccurate OT narrations with their findings.

In all cases they are comparing the oldest existing Hebrew documents. The OT scholars like Dr Baden or Dr Kipp Davis work with the original Pentateuch.
Please tell me which scholar who studies the Hebrew text says there are inaccurate OT narrations that the top scholars are using.
Or are you just pulling this out of nowhere?

I have never heard a fundamentalist Rabbi say the Hebrew OT is inaccurate? You are making wildly ridiculous excuses to rescue your religion. This says it all right here.

These historians can NOT possibly know for sure, the core truths that are confirmed in the Qur'an are false, which is ~1500 years old .. relatively modern compared to the OT.

Yes we have the original Pentateuch, you might consider studying some of the scholars who work on it like Dr Baden or Kipp Davis.
When the Mesopotamian clay tablets that are up to 1000 years older were found early 1900s it became clear that Genesis was a re-working of older mythology. That is now a fact.
Having to resort to this conspiracy theory "oh the scholars are wrong...." is just confirmation the truth has become less important than making a story you were told stay true. Critical-history has not yet even been done much on the Quran. But on the OT it's been done since the Enlightenment.


There are University textbooks:


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

 

[muhammad_isa]

For the same reason people believed in Zeus, Inanna, Osirus, Mithras, Odin, Zalmoxis and so on. Those religions had "evidence" as well.

That's like comparing apples with oranges..
Most people were illiterate, back in the day..

By all means, tell me the historical scholars who have peer-reviewed material that present a different version..

No thanks .. it is enough to know, that history is subjective, and often depends on
who narrates it.
Ancient history is particularly problematic.

I don't care about fundamentalists making up history that supports their religion..

Nor do I .. I'm more interested in finding the truth, as far as possible.
Conclusions about religion, based on examining historical accounts, are subject to error.
I prefer to make my own conclusions, whether about "scientific facts" or religion.

I've seen only one basic version.

Are you multilingual?

So do Mormons and all religions. From your point of view they are all wrong..

Your 'divide & rule' tactics are wasted on me..
I do not think in binary terms. i.e. right/wrong

And others believe in Big Foot, alien abductions..

Deviation .. stick to the topic..
Comparing them to a 'Creator of the universe' is childish.

You should not believe something that is hidden until there is evidence it's true..

Why?
Just because you say so?

I see evidence of G-d, and you don't .. or you dismiss it as improbable.

Which doesn't make it true one single bit..

It doesn't MAKE it true .. it is either true or false .. and we both believe differently.

Faith is not a reliable path to truth. You use it here from only your point of view, it can also be used to believe anything at all..

Yes, it can .. but strangely enough, people who believe in the concept of G-d, do not just believe in "anything at all".

You don't believe any other of the thousands of religions people have made up and had faith in..

I do. It is not yay or nay.

It's not about reading a book and saying you believe if you want to know what is actually true..

No, it isn't. Experience is part of the equation, too.

I understand it fine, it's translated to english.

Some things we can understand from reading a book, but context is also important,
as it contains a lot of history.
If we do not practice, we will also view many things in a different light.
Each human being is unique.

I know many who have deconverted from Islam and agree,.

Great .. I don't agree that people should be forced to believe religious creeds.

Neither Jesus or Muhammad say anything a person from their time couldn't say..

Well, if they did, what sense would it have made to anybody?

Please tell me which scholar who studies the Hebrew text says there are inaccurate OT narrations that the top scholars are using..

What?
You say that the Qur'an is probably not the original .. but do not say what meanings have been changed..
..and then you say that the OT is accurate "according to scholars"??
..sounds like double-standards, to me.

When the Mesopotamian clay tablets that are up to 1000 years older were found early 1900s it became clear that Genesis was a re-working of older mythology..

Exactly .. the OT consists of rewritten scrolls of various age and source.

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

All very interesting .. yet conclusions cannot be made definitively, other than what I have already agreed to.
i.e. the OT is based on scrolls of various age and source

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no logical path to God. Please present a logical syllogism demonstrating God exists.

I always have to wonder...Which God? The trinitarian Christian God? The many Gods of some religions? I'm sure the believers in any of those have their logic to why they believe those Gods are real.

See, again, "plenty of evidence". There is no evidence. Nothing. Except the evidence that he is a normal man with normal knowledge of someone from 1870.

What? She must have learned something about the Baha'i Faith to come to believe it was true? I've heard Baha'is say, "His writings ring true." Which fits one of the things claimed to be "evidence"... Baha'u'llah's writings.

since faith is a terrible path to truth how do you prove God wants to be believed on faith?

In the New Testament the English word faith is used to translate the Greek word pistis. The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words says, “Pistis is used of belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same.​

​

Using "trust" is a lot different than a person that uses the word "faith". Especially the way some Baha'is use it. It's seems to be used as a way not to have to support their beliefs. Because they are unprovable and must be taken on "faith". What do you think?

 

[Trailblazer]

@Evangelicalhumanist

Since that other thread got locked and we were off topic anyway, I decided to post what I wrote to you here, since evidence seems to be a hot topic on this thread.

The first definition is the available body of facts or information that indicates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
The definition does not say that it establishes that a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence indicates that a belief is true. Proof establishes that a belief is true. There is no way to establish that God exists or that any given religion is true. That can only be believed to be true.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

The definition also does not say that evidence validates a belief or proposition as true or valid for all.
Evidence only validates the belief is true for those to whom the evidence indicates that the belief is true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

I think that definition applies to all people so I think it should say:
Evidence is anything that any person experiences, reads, or is told that causes that any person to believe that something is true or has really happened.

But you are correct in saying that the evidence in question is not universally accepted. Quite often, it's not accepted by very many people at all.
However, that does not mean it is not evidence. It is just not evidence to people who don't accept it as evidence. There is no evidence that will be universally satisfactory for everyone since everyone views the evidence differently, with a different mind.

Atheists say "That's not evidence" but they should rather say "That's not good enough evidence for me." That would be more correct and it would put an end the pointless arguments between atheists and believers.

 

[ppp]

@Evangelicalhumanist

Since that other thread got locked and we were off topic anyway, I decided to post what I wrote to you here, since evidence seems to be a hot topic on this thread.

The first definition is the available body of facts or information that indicates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
The definition does not say that it establishes that a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence indicates that a belief is true. Proof establishes that a belief is true. There is no way to establish that God exists or that any given religion is true. That can only be believed to be true.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

The definition also does not say that evidence validates a belief or proposition as true or valid for all.
Evidence only validates the belief is true for those to whom the evidence indicates that the belief is true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

I think that definition applies to all people so I think it should say:
Evidence is anything that any person experiences, reads, or is told that causes that any person to believe that something is true or has really happened.

But you are correct in saying that the evidence in question is not universally accepted. Quite often, it's not accepted by very many people at all.
However, that does not mean it is not evidence. It is just not evidence to people who don't accept it as evidence. There is no evidence that will be universally satisfactory for everyone since everyone views the evidence differently, with a different mind.

Atheists say "That's not evidence" but they should rather say "That's not good enough evidence for me." That would be more correct and it would put an end the pointless arguments between atheists and believers.

You are divorcing evidence from any intellectual rigor or responsible and reliable methodology, in favor simply making it the connections drawn by any firings of random neurons in your brain.