Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[muhammad_isa]

..Another flawed argument already discussed like 4 times. You say "deception" like it's bad and improbable. Yet you also believe Mormonism is false, Christianity in it's current form false, Sikh, Bahai, Buddhism, all 5 Hinduism, all cults, Jesus in Australia, and all others..

This is your "stock defence" ..
i.e. your divide and rule deception

I do not mention creed, but you want us all to think that because people believe different things,
then they are all wrong .. HUGE FALLACY!

Yes, truth seems good to me..

..but you follow 'experts', with an ever-changing philosophy-of-the-day
I don't .. I follow the Bible and Qur'an.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your claim is that something is true.

No, I do not claim that something is true, I say I believe that something is true.

I have never heard "personal reasons" turn out to be actual evidence.

I did not say that my personal reasons for believing what I do are actual evidence.

They are not personal, it is because of evidence.

The reason why you do not believe what I do is because you see no evidence to support what I believe.
That is your personal reason.

All or nothing fallacy.

"Apparently you cannot grasp the concept that people do not all think alike" is not an all or nothing fallacy.

But people DO think enough alike that we have an entire field of psychology and the empirical, scientific method has not failed us yet.

All those people do not think alike.

And you continue to forget that besides the one thing you buy into for some reSON, WE SEEM TO BOTH UNDERSTAND THE 10,000 other religions and cults are not real. So bad point. I'm wondering how far you are going to try to stretch this?

Just because we think the same about ONE THING that does not mean we think the same about everything.

Looks like you are riding this one into the dirt.
No. Just no.

Yes, just yes.
What is contained in your mind determines what you think. What is in your mind is not the same as what is in my mind so you think differently than I do. That is why you cannot believe what I do based upon the same evidence.

Which is a claim.

I do not claim anything. I say I believe it.
1) I believe there is evidence

There is evidence and it's terrible AND it shows he was wrong many many times. You don't care. Bias.

That is only your personal opinion, we all have those.

sure, prophecies that are literally wrong. Good enough!

low grade, repetitive, praise writings. Good enough!

trying to change a prophecy about the entire world becoming like the Eden garden (animals and people all at peace) into a plant garden on a hill? Good enough!

No supernatural abilities like every other religion has. Good enough!

No information beyond what humans knew, even though we were close to incredible discoveries. Good enough!

No medical information which would have saved millions of lives. Good enough.

Clearly copying older religions and adding nothing new. Good enough.

I have a hard time believing you actually think that and want it to be true so bad you are using some type of denial.

More of the same blah, blah, blah.

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when it becomes a claim. Saying evidence is good enough to believe the supernatural and God is a HUGELY declarative way.

The only one doing any declaring here is you, saying the evidence is not good enough.

What a waste. Jesus in Australia can come over and make this same word salad argument. He is still not Jesus and Bahai has no evidence to warrant belief.

belief

Yes, you used confirmation or a cognitive bias to buy into a belief that has poor evidence. Prove me wrong, show me evidence.


You sure write a lot for someone who claims they don't care? It's looks like this God is in your mind only.

Sure, if by "nothing" you mean -
But I have demonstrated that your claims of evidence are not at all evidence (his like?), his prophecies are not correct, he said nothing of interest as far as proof one is speaking to a deity, his writing is not advanced and it looks to be either made up claims or he actually believes it. But no God is involved.

It's good to speak up for empirical thought. Because revelations never end, people just get better tools to evaluate them.

and I can continue to give more and more examples.

An opinion based on facts and probabilities and not on confirmation bias.
It is not a personal opinion the missing link was falsely predicted to be never found. Or the ether or electricity and magnetism isn't physical is a prediction that is false.
Or the apologist writing had to claim he was speaking about magnetism in a "con - I- ventional".....(made up wu wu BS) in order to brainwash readers.
Yeah, he never again mentioned what that meant, why it wasn't ever again used, why was it even used there? He just moved on to more sales pitch.

I already debunked this claim. Now it's very obvious what you are doing. Hint, it's not truth.

More of the same blah, blah, blah.

Yet you are arguing with me.

No, I am not. I am just reading more of the same blah, blah, blah.

You have long since proven there is nothing to prove.
But for someone who has nothing to prove you just spent a lot of time trying to prove a bunch of things. Dictionary entries, misplaced psychology....

I am not trying to prove anything. I am just responding to posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

You implied it right here:

"Not believable TO YOU. This is what you totally miss.
Obviously they are believable to most people since 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of these faiths are based upon a revelation from God."

There is no reason to point this out and claim I "totally miss" that fact if you are not using it in an appeal to peoples beliefs.

No, I never said "If many believe so, it is so." I ONLY SAID that many people believe it.

A religion is not true because many people believe it since belief does not make anything true. It is either true or not.

God does not exist because many people believe that God exists. God either exists or not.

God does not exist because there is evidence that God exists. God either exists or not.

Evidence is just what people want in order to believe, it does not MAKE God exist.
God could exist and provide no evidence at all.

 

[joelr]

This is your "stock defence" ..
i.e. your divide and rule deception

I never said that. I;m saying you also don't believe other religions are true. You don't believe Zeus actually caused lightning and punished Greek people and answered prayers and helped them win wars and they died and went to a Greek afterlife.

All religions are just mythology. It's up to individuals to look into things with skepticism, rational thought, empirical evidence, philosophy and so on.

Plato did say it was a deception in the Republic. He wrote a story about how in order to have a functioning society you have to have a myth about Gods and people who don't believe you call them heretics and get rid of them, it's the "noble lie".

I do not mention creed, but you want us all to think that because people believe different things,
then they are all wrong .. HUGE FALLACY!

Funny, you didn't mention the fallacy? Your apologetics are getting nonsensical now?
First I don't believe they are wrong because they believe different things. They are wrong because every single myth has zero evidence to support it being true.

But I bring up things like Mormonism to show that in the case of Mormonism or Hinduism, you also don't believe, and they also make the same arguments as you, and none of you have any evidence.

also I assume you don't believe in other gods but other religions do believe in other gods. But like you, they feel it in their heart they are correct, they have a personal relationship with the different god, they make all the same bad arguments that you make.

Why do you continue to make stuff up about me, how clear can I be?

..but you follow 'experts', with an ever-changing philosophy-of-the-day

This was the most ironic thing I have ever heard in my life. I cannot believe people can be this un-self aware. It's mind boggling.


So first of all, the scholarship I follow, as I've said over and over, is basically the consensus. It doesn't change every day, it has not changed since this thread started and you are talking out of your .... Of course you cannot give even one example, again you are just making stuff up.

But worse, is you think it's a good thing to follow some archaic book from an ancient merchant who clearly dislikes Jews and Christians and somehow believes the myths, just that they are wrong and he's going to correct them. A book that can never change from it's archaic status, women will always be oppressed and so on. Meanwhile science, which also doesn't change, fringe science changes, as new information comes in science adapts and re-sets it's understanding of the world. Religious books cannot do that.
Science is always searching for a better approximation of truth. And it works, it's why we have technology, medical care, know about germs, medicine, electricity, cars, computers, because we upgrade the knowledge.

And your going to put that down? And still use modern medical advances, travel in cars, airplanes, use your computer and phone? How dare you? Put away all scientific related tech, use only your holy book and prayer. Pray your message gets typed by Gabrielle. See how that goes.

So your criticism is hypocritical and lacking in any thought about the real world.History is just one line I follow to understand religion is fiction. There is also philosophy and other arguments.

But then we get the big irony ending..........

I don't .. I follow the Bible and Qur'an.

Ah, yes, the books that never change, don't know about germs, washing hands, any medical or other technology from modern science. You got that from the books that change. Yet you dare still use it? And act like it's a bad thing to pursue knowledge yet still freely use that computer.

Throw it away please, stand by your convictions. Follow the Quran, just pray your message will be left in the thread by an angel. Use only the science in the Quran, no modern x-rays, drugs, stop using a cell phone....those are from science which changes. Historicity is a soft science.


And it gets worse still.......


You say experts change daily (they don't) so you follow the bible. But you don't believe what the bible says about Jesus? Why is that? Oh, because someone changed the bible? Is that right?
So not even your "unchanging books" are unchanging?

Ridiculous.


And the "experts" are people who look at evidence, original text in original languages, original historical writings, archaeology, all things your religious leaders DON'T LOOK AT, yet they exist out there. That is all they do.
While you are told a bias version of history and the world, they fact check and it turns out your stories are not true.

Nothing is changing there? Genesis is still all Mesopotamian. Jesus is still Hellenistic. The end times is still Persian.
The palimpset still shows the Quran was being worked on for centuries and not what you have been told. Oh wait, the Quran was changing over several centuries? So you have no idea what you speak of.


I care about what is true, you don't. If new information comes in that shows my information has to be updated, I will pay attention. You will not.
That is the bottom line. So stay in a fantasy world. who cares?

 

[joelr]

No, I do not claim that something is true, I say I believe that something is true.

a claim

I did not say that my personal reasons for believing what I do are actual evidence.

"There are reasons why I believe what I do and they are personal to me." post 771. If something is a reason to believe it is evidence.

You semantic games are ridiculous and bring to mind a high school text debate.

The reason why you do not believe what I do is because you see no evidence to support what I believe.
That is your personal reason.

NO, the evidence exists outside of me. If I see a bus driving down a street I am forced to believe a bus is driving down the street and I wait to cross.
It is evidence from the real world.

"Apparently you cannot grasp the concept that people do not all think alike" is not an all or nothing fallacy.

Yes people all thinking differently is not an all-or nothing fallacy. But what you wrote was. And now we have ridiculous semantic games.

All those people do not think alike.

Never said that, I said humans think alike enough we have been able to create entire fields like psychology. And understand confirmation bias and semantic word games people use when they have no argument left.

Just because we think the same about ONE THING that does not mean we think the same about everything.

Thank you Capt. Obvious for nothing.

Yes, just yes.
What is contained in your mind determines what you think. What is in your mind is not the same as what is in my mind so you think differently than I do. That is why you cannot believe what I do based upon the same evidence.

Your lack to basic concepts doesn't mean it's false, it just means you cannot grasp simple concepts.

Evidence doesn't work that way. Especially good evidence. Human minds do not work so differently that one can claim divine knowledge but also claim the evidence can only be understood by certain minds.

I can claim I have an invisible dragon in my closet and the evidence works only for me, no one else.
All of science is true because basic tenants can be shown, demonstrated to be true.

The world of science isn't 50% of scientists saying, that evidence for atoms, and germs, doesn't work for me, it's up to the iindividual.

That is crackpot nonsense

You new line of reasoning isn't reason and isn't working. Your evidence is lousy.

I do not claim anything. I say I believe it.
1) I believe there is evidence

a claim

That is only your personal opinion, we all have those.

It is NOT my personal opinion the missing link was found. It was found, dozens of species,
It is not my opinion magnetism and electricity has no physical counterpart. It is wrong.

It is not my opinion we cannot do alchemy in the way he meant.

It is not my opinion he gave NO informtioon that would prove he had un-human knowledge, like energy and mass are equivalent.

This could go on and on. NONE OF IT is an opinion.

His lousy flowery praise writing, that is my opinion.

No miracles, not opinion.

Of course your answer to this will be to ignore it, say "blah blah" and go back to trying to say it's all personal opinion. Which it isn't. All modern living including this computer is based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true. If a deity is interacting with a person than that deity can be studied and evidence can be formed. If a deity has an interface to interact with a human it is not immaterial and is material.
As Brian Tackle says:



"There would have to be a kind of interface to mediate between the physical and the non-physical. Thinking about this interface, I would assume that our side of it, the part that connects to our physical experience, would itself have to be physical. If the near-end of the interface is physical, and therefore subject to observation, I can record what it does and infer its more remote functions. This means that the immaterial and unobservable becomes observable and, consequently, material. (It’s only immaterial if I can’t affect it, right? Well, observation is affective.)


Apply this same reasoning to a supernatural entity. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between me and a supernatural entity, I should be able to make observations of that interaction, even if it’s only observing the near-side of an interface layer. From that data I can infer the workings of the supernatural entity, and said entity necessarily loses its prefix, because I can make all the scientific predictions about it that I make about any natural entity. Thus, the supernatural is always reducible to the natural.


The only alternative to this is to say that the supernatural does not interact with the natural. That’s fine, but it leads to one of two results. The primary result is that communication with supernatural entities is an interaction (since information must be transferred, and information is physical), and so this non-interfering universe also entails not holding discussions with the gods. The secondary result is to ask what the difference is between a universe that contains supernatural entities that do not have any interaction with the natural world and a universe without supernatural entities. There is no difference. So we can safely delete the unneeded premise that supernatural creatures exist."



If evidence cannot be agreed upon it's NOT GOOD EVIDENCE AND NOT WORTHY OF CALLING IT TRUE. It's in the I don't know phase.

More of the same blah, blah, blah.

Ah, when I give actual examples then you cant use your semantics game, HA. Out comes the "blah blah..." predictable

The only one doing any declaring here is you, saying the evidence is not good enough.

Uh, no, saying the evidence is good enough is declarative, making it a claim.

More of the same blah, blah, blah.

Here I asked for evidence, am met with this, LOL. See the manipulation, you try to bring it back from games to evidence and you get this.

No, I am not. I am just reading more of the same blah, blah, blah.

Basically just gaslighting from here on out, you bring up a subject, I respond and you suggest I'm unnecessarily repetitive by framing it is "blah". Yup, more games. Argument, over. No evidence.

Trailblazer - "I have no interest in arguing with you because I don't need to prove anything"

Joelr - "Yet you are arguing with me."

Trailblazer - "No, I am not. I'm just reading more of the same blah..."

noI am not trying to prove anything. I am just responding to posts.

As if people don't respond to posts to make a point. Semantic won't help you. Evidence will.

 

[joelr]

No, I never said "If many believe so, it is so." I ONLY SAID that many people believe it.

The context you used it in was a fallacy, you were not just posting it to show how many people believed for kicks. Sorry, your fallacy, move past it please.

A religion is not true because many people believe it since belief does not make anything true. It is either true or not.

God does not exist because many people believe that God exists. God either exists or not.

God does not exist because there is evidence that God exists. God either exists or not.

Evidence is just what people want in order to believe, it does not MAKE God exist.
God could exist and provide no evidence at all.

Saying these completely useless tautologies now doesn't change the past, why every time you get caught you have to come back and try to re-frame, use semantics, anything to not be wrong. But you are. Go do this with someone else, I'm erasing all semantic nonsense.

Do you have an actual argument?

 

[muhammad_isa]

All religions are just mythology..

Pointless remark that teaches us nothing.

..first of all, the scholarship I follow, as I've said over and over, is basically the consensus. It doesn't change every day..

Nobody is saying it changes every day..
However, when I say "what you follow", it refers to the moral values that you and these 'experts'
have. i.e. the secular values that constantly change.

Science is always searching for a better approximation of truth. And it works, it's why we have technology, medical care, know about germs, medicine, electricity, cars, computers, because we upgrade the knowledge.

And your going to put that down? And still use modern medical advances, travel in cars, airplanes, use your computer and phone? How dare you? Put away all scientific related tech, use only your holy book and prayer. Pray your message gets typed by Gabrielle. See how that goes.

Now you are just rambling..

I care about what is true, you don't. If new information comes in that shows my information has to be updated, I will pay attention. You will not..

That is just pure ad-hominem .. and is not true.

 

[Trailblazer]

a claim

I do not claim that something is true, I say I believe that something is true.
A belief is not a claim. That is why there are two words, belief and claim.
You are wrong. Give it up for lost.

I make no claims. I only state what I believe. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe His claims.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.

What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff

Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God so he claimed ownership of the title Messenger of God.
I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim.

The psychology behind this game you are playing is that you want to turn my beliefs into claims so you can say that I have to prove my claims are true, but it won't work since I am not claiming that my beliefs are true.

"There are reasons why I believe what I do and they are personal to me." post 771. If something is a reason to believe it is evidence.

It is evidence that indicates to me that my belief is true.

You just don't get it. There is no such thing that would be evidence to everyone. That is logically impossible.
I cannot make you think logically because you do not think logically.

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

NO, the evidence exists outside of me. If I see a bus driving down a street I am forced to believe a bus is driving down the street and I wait to cross.
It is evidence from the real world.

That is empirical evidence but no such evidence exists for God because nobody can SEE GOD.
And because there is no such evidence for God, there can never be evidence that proves that a man is a Messenger of God.
This is logic 101 stuff.

All we have is evidence that indicates that a man might be a Messenger of God. There is NO WAY to ever prove that is true.

Your lack to basic concepts doesn't mean it's false, it just means you cannot grasp simple concepts.

As noted above you cannot grasp simple logic, and that is why it is hopeless to talk to you, hopeless.

Evidence doesn't work that way. Especially good evidence. Human minds do not work so differently that one can claim divine knowledge but also claim the evidence can only be understood by certain minds.

Evidence does work that way. Human minds work so differently that so the evidence can only be understood by certain minds. The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true.

A physically blind person is blind and there is nothing anyone can do to make that person see.
A spiritually blind person is blind and there is nothing anyone can do to make that person see.

I can claim I have an invisible dragon in my closet and the evidence works only for me, no one else.
All of science is true because basic tenants can be shown, demonstrated to be true.

Religion is not equivalent to science so the evidence can never be the same.
Until you learn the basic fallacies you will just keep repeating yourself and getting nowhere.

To compare religious evidence to scientific evidence is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

a claim

I am making no claims, I only have beliefs. See above.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

It is NOT my personal opinion the missing link was found. It was found, dozens of species,
It is not my opinion magnetism and electricity has no physical counterpart. It is wrong.

It is not my opinion we cannot do alchemy in the way he meant.

It is not my opinion he gave NO informtioon that would prove he had un-human knowledge, like energy and mass are equivalent.

This could go on and on. NONE OF IT is an opinion.

His lousy flowery praise writing, that is my opinion.

No miracles, not opinion.

ALL of those are your personal opinions of the Baha'i Writings, what they say and mean.
ALL you have is a subjective personal opinion, you have nothing else. That is all I have, but at least I admit it because I am logical.

All modern living including this computer is based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true. If a deity is interacting with a person than that deity can be studied and evidence can be formed. If a deity has an interface to interact with a human it is not immaterial and is material.

Nothing could be more ridiculous than to compare a deity to a computer. THAT IS SO ILLOGICAL yet you cannot understand why.

All modern living including this computer is based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true.
The existence of God is not based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true.
It is as simple as that.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, a logical fallacy.

The deity is not interacting with any person. The deity has no interface to interact with any human because the deity is not material.
A material deity! Nothing could be more absurd.

The deity can never be studied because the deity is not a material entity that can be located with a GPS tracker to study.

As Brian Tackle says:

"There would have to be a kind of interface to mediate between the physical and the non-physical.

There is an interface. That interface is the Messenger of God who speaks for God.
This is not that difficult. This is logic 101 stuff.

It does not matter if you like it or not. The only interface between God and humans are the Messengers of God.
You can continue to kick and scream and say "that's not evidence" and hope for some other kind of evidence that God exists but none will be forthcoming because the Messenger is God is the ONLY evidence God provides.

Thinking about this interface, I would assume that our side of it, the part that connects to our physical experience, would itself have to be physical.

That interface is physical. Jesus was physical. Baha'u'llah was physical.

If the near-end of the interface is physical, and therefore subject to observation, I can record what it does and infer its more remote functions. This means that the immaterial and unobservable becomes observable and, consequently, material. (It’s only immaterial if I can’t affect it, right? Well, observation is affective.)

Apply this same reasoning to a supernatural entity. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between me and a supernatural entity, I should be able to make observations of that interaction, even if it’s only observing the near-side of an interface layer. From that data I can infer the workings of the supernatural entity, and said entity necessarily loses its prefix, because I can make all the scientific predictions about it that I make about any natural entity. Thus, the supernatural is always reducible to the natural.

The only alternative to this is to say that the supernatural does not interact with the natural.

The supernatural does interact with the natural through Messengers, who have both a divine and a human nature.
Because they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can mediate between God and humans.

If evidence cannot be agreed upon it's NOT GOOD EVIDENCE AND NOT WORTHY OF CALLING IT TRUE. It's in the I don't know phase.

That is only true for science, not for religion. There are logical reasons why religious evidence cannot be agreed upon.

Here I asked for evidence, am met with this, LOL.

Why are you asking for evidence again? We have already been through this and you KNOW full well the evidence I have.
Are you hoping that I will come up with some other evidence that I have not yet presented?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Trailblazer]

The context you used it in was a fallacy, you were not just posting it to show how many people believed for kicks. Sorry, your fallacy, move past it please.

I was posting it to show how many people believed it.

I never said "If many believe so, it is so." I ONLY SAID that many people believe it.

That is not a fallacy. It is just a statement of fact that 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Do you have an actual argument?

There is no evidence that can prove that God exists.
God does not exist because there is evidence that God exists. God either exists or not.
Evidence is just what people want in order to believe, it does not MAKE God exist.
God could exist and provide no evidence at all, although that is not what happened. God provided Messengers as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now you are just rambling..

What's new?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's new?

• Nihonium
• Moscovium
• Tennessine
• Oganesson

are the newest chemical elements mankind have discovered.

 

[joelr]

I do not claim that something is true, I say I believe that something is true.
A belief is not a claim. That is why there are two words, belief and claim.
You are wrong. Give it up for lost.

I make no claims. I only state what I believe. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe His claims.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff

Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God so he claimed ownership of the title Messenger of God.
I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim.

The psychology behind this game you are playing is that you want to turn my beliefs into claims so you can say that I have to prove my claims are true, but it won't work since I am not claiming that my beliefs are true.

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement.
post # 322, Trailblazer:

"I do not assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. I believe it's true because of the evidence.
It is not begging the question since my premise doesn't lack support. My premise is supported by the evidence."

your claim is its' true because it has evidence and that demonstrates it's true. Your belief is also declarative.
Your terrible semantics game has just wasted all that effort for you. Good. It's what you get for trying to be sneaky and play word games.


Do you have an actual argument or evidence?

It is evidence that indicates to me that my belief is true.

A claim that the evidence is good.
I looked at many lines of the evidence, they all suck. I can repost my findings.

You just don't get it. There is no such thing that would be evidence to everyone. That is logically impossible.

Of course there is. There is endless evidence that the majority of people would agree on. Let's look at a few:

atoms are real
Trump was president
Kang is on trial for assault
Zeus is a fictional deity
many people claim revelations from a god
the missing links in hominid evolution has been found, several of them
magnetism has a physical reality
there is a number in pi that is the quadrillionth decimal point, it will always be the same number


this list could go on for a long time

I cannot make you think logically because you do not think logically.

you use the word "logic" often however I am certain you don't know what it actually means.

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

That is empirical evidence but no such evidence exists for God because nobody can SEE GOD.

Wrong again, people have claimed to see god and you cannot prove they didn't.

Most likely they are fictional stories. But, if you accept that, most likely revelations are also fictional stories. But yet, you will special plead and say those old stories are made up while the stories you believe are real.
Hello special pleading. Goodbye logic.

And because there is no such evidence for God, there can never be evidence that proves that a man is a Messenger of God.
This is logic 101 stuff.

Than why do you believe such obvious misinformation?

All we have is evidence that indicates that a man might be a Messenger of God. There is NO WAY to ever prove that is true.

No, but there is many ways to suggest it's false. And we have excellent evidence that indicates he is a fraud.
writing style
bad prophecies
copy-cat
no miracles
no super powers
no supernatural
apologist lies for him in prophecy book
knows nothing a human wouldn't know as if a god can't give you at least one piece of information to get peoples attention
we know people like to make up religious stories, especially revelations

As noted above you cannot grasp simple logic, and that is why it is hopeless to talk to you, hopeless.

It's hopeless because the thing you substitute for logic and call it "logic" is some weird confirmation bias, semantic games, and inability to take a loss and move forward.

Evidence does work that way. Human minds work so differently that so the evidence can only be understood by certain minds. The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true.

This is so wrong I need a list to school you
1) you are using circular reasoning to prove a point that cannot be proven with circular reasoning.
2) Twice
3) They are also fallacies.
4)Appeal to Ignorance (Presenting Evidence the Audience Can’t Examine) - ie "only certain minds" Cool, give an actual example of something proven to be true where only certain people can understand the evidence.
5)"The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true." is circular. It asserts a truth but doesn't demonstrate it. This is also another example of "the book says it so it's true".

6) this line of argument is going down in flames and I tried to warn you last time

A physically blind person is blind and there is nothing anyone can do to make that person see.

But it can be demonstrated what "blind" means as well as blindness itself can be demonstrated. Often an eye or brain defect is obvious in imaging.

A spiritually blind person is blind and there is nothing anyone can do to make that person see.

"spiritually" is ill-defined and abstract, please define your terms.

"spiritual sight" is going to be very hard to demonstrate, both a lack of and that it exists in the first place.


But if you think that a bunch of poorly written "praise the most high" is spiritual (whatever that means) in an objective way, you will never demonstrate that.
Subjective nonsense is never going to demonstrate evidence. All you are headed for here is showing you indeed have confirmation and cognitive bias because you like his writings.
Not a crime. Doesn't mean any gods were involved.

 

[joelr]

Religion is not equivalent to science so the evidence can never be the same.

If a supernatural entity communicated with a person,

the supernatural is always reducible to the natural.


From that data I can infer the workings of the supernatural entity, and said entity necessarily loses its prefix, because I can make all the scientific predictions about it that I make about any natural entity.


Funny though, Bahai did make many scientific predictions that were intended to be the same as scientific evidence. Looks like it was intended to wow people at the time. Now with time and advancement on our side we can clearly see he was running a con. Because he was incredibly wrong on all of it.

Until you learn the basic fallacies you will just keep repeating yourself and getting nowhere.

As usual, you fail to show any fallacies, you sling the mud but can't actually produce anything.


But yes, as long as you play these word games, trying to twist basic facts it's going nowhere.

To compare religious evidence to scientific evidence is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

I am making no claims, I only have beliefs. See above.

(Continued on next post)

So, sigh, the link you gave which goes to a book of evidence of prophecy - Gary Matthews. The Challenge of Baha'u'llah


chapter 5 is called (now keep in mind you just said it's a fallacy to compare religious to scientific evidence), chapter 5:


Five: Baha'i Prophecies: Scientific

Discoveries...................79

Up to now we have examined Baha'i prophecies that forecast either world trends or historical events. This chapter details prophecies that anticipated scientific developments, either by making specific predictions or by stating previously undiscovered facts."



And before that was Historical Prophecies.

So I'm actually comparing science and history to SCIENCE AND HISTORY.

Other things, such as overall claims of revelations I'm comparing to all other claims, propabilities, does he have any knowledge that a human wouldn't otherwsie have? He doesn't. Would a god speak to someone, intend for them to start a religion and give them zero miracle powers, knowledge, just leave them to be called a heretic and liar? Maybe? Probably not?


BAsed on Yahweh, absolutely not.

So, wrong, wrong, wrong, more games, incorrect fallacy complaint, anything else?

 

[joelr]

ALL of those are your personal opinions of the Baha'i Writings, what they say and mean.

HA HA HA HA HA HA, now, speaking of ridiculous word games, you are trying to say I'm making a "personal opinion" of simple and direct prophecies????? SUPER-MANIPULATIVE and gaslighting. THAT is my opinion.

Let's look at the prophecy from The Challenge of BAUHAULLA


"

Prophecy 28: Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape."



Hey, is it "my opinion" that he predicted the failure to find the missing link between man and ape?



Talk about confirmation bias. That was a perfect demonstration.

Another, Magnetism has no physical counterpart -


"He emphasized that Magnetism, it was 'not material', had 'no outward form and no I place', and was describable only by symbols and meta-■ phors no more to be taken literally than those referring I to any other abstract phenomenon.186 I From the standpoint of classical physics, this was I rank heresy. Although 'Abdu'1-Baha was using con-I ventional terminology, “"

As I said, the author had to now say it was wrong and made up a BS term "con-I-ventional terminology" to justify it. But he never explained what that means, why it was used or why he never used it again?
My opinion? It's written in the book you posted.

Now if I wrote all the prophecies were spot on you wouldn't say "oh that is your personal opinion". This is called confirmation bias.

ALL you have is a subjective personal opinion, you have nothing else. That is all I have, but at least I admit it because I am logical.

And a book of prophecies all wrong or predicted when it was already known, like technology would explode. This can be verified, in 1870 people were expecting a huge mechanical revolution because it already started.


The fact that he has no evidence is also a fact. Sure God maybe wanted the whole thing to look super sus. And have him called a fake and sent to jail and have almost no one from Islam convert. Yeah, sure, great point. Logic? Nowhere to be found.

Nothing could be more ridiculous than to compare a deity to a computer. THAT IS SO ILLOGICAL yet you cannot understand why.

Never mind, that went over your head. I was talking about scientific evidence.

All modern living including this computer is based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true.
The existence of God is not based on things that can be shown and agreed to be true.
It is as simple as that.

No, it's based on feelings, confirmation bias and wishful thinking. In the stories about gods there was always ways god interected with humans and reality. Because people understood you need evidence.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, a logical fallacy.

How many times are you going to misinterpret something then go on and on. You were wrong from the start, so all this is junk.

The deity is not interacting with any person. The deity has no interface to interact with any human because the deity is not material.
A material deity! Nothing could be more absurd.

Oh cool, please provide evidence a deity cannot be material. Then provide evidence so positive you can make statements like it's "absurd".



Also if Bahai got messages from god, he interfaced with god in some way. Which makes it material, even if it was in the mind.

Therefore he also could have gotten information beyond what a human would know.

But please prove Yahweh didn't walk with Moses and Jacob. Saying "its absurd" isn't proof.

The deity can never be studied because the deity is not a material entity that can be located with a GPS tracker to study.

The information given can be studied.

There is an interface. That interface is the Messenger of God who speaks for God.
This is not that difficult. This is logic 101 stuff.

Then god can be studied, the information can be studied and you haven't demonstrated god cannot be physical, give powers to a human, create miracles or supernatural events, send angels or other entities. You haven't demonstrated why a deity cannot speak to all humans at once.


Oh wait.........logic 101... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Priceless.

You read a story about gods and man who speaks top it and call that logic!!! HA AH HA HA


Not only that, you call that the most basic 101 logic of all!! HA HA HA HA

Logic lesson #1.
A man claims a God speaks to him. Everything the man says is therefore from God and therefore God is real and the man is correct.
HA HA HA HA HA


a logical argument has a premise and a conclusion. You back up the premise with evidence, deductive or inductive and argue a logical connection between the truth of the premise and the conclusion.

circular arguments are not that.
God is proven by messengers of God. Bahai has a messenger of God. Bahai is true. doesn't follow.
You have assumed God, so your premise is not founded in logic.
You haven't shown any evidence for any messenger being a real thing.
You haven't shown evidence for this messenger to be real.

You have only used weak inductive logic for the messenger:

Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were messengers, so messengers are real. Conclusion doesn't follow, prove they were messengers (after you prove god)

Then on faulty conclusion added a weaker argument:

Bahai is a messenger in this line of god messengers - only inductive evidence he is not, as I explained

And now a mess of illogical premise/conclusions

Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahai were all god messengers. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad writings are all corrupt and say fictive things about anything related to evidence (super sus). Bahai cleared it all up, without even offering evidence.

This is so far removed from logic, no premise is reasonable, no conclusion is reasonable, the only inductive logic is old religious stories which you have to modify in such a way to erase all physical evidence, this erases the need for Bahai to provide physical evidence and adds another layer of sketchy.
Logic is not to be found here.

But you say this - "
That interface is the Messenger of God who speaks for God.
This is not that difficult. This is logic 101 stuff."

as if it's deductive logic. As if a Mormon says the Mormon Bible is true (like saying all suns are stars, our sun is a star). Yes, fail.

It does not matter if you like it or not. The only interface between God and humans are the Messengers of God.

Which a fictional book says that you buy into with no evidence. Yes, I know the sit.

You can continue to kick and scream and say "that's not evidence" and hope for some other kind of evidence that God exists but none will be forthcoming because the Messenger is God is the ONLY evidence God provides.

You can continue to depict the situation as me "kicking and screaming". What actually happened is we have demonstrated your beliefs are not supported by evidence.
Not god, not the idea that he talks to anyone, not the idea that he only speaks to a messenger. Nothing is supported.
The messenger has been able to write incorrect prophecies, show no knowledge of any subject beyond what people knew, Wasn't much of a literary specialist and literally no reason exists to buy his tale beyond confirmation bias.

That interface is physical. Jesus was physical. Baha'u'llah was physical.

Of which you have no evidence for.Maybe the interface was broken, hence all the bad prophecies?

The supernatural does interact with the natural through Messengers, who have both a divine and a human nature.
Because they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can mediate between God and humans.

Which they did and provided zero evidence, but did provide evidence of fraud, much evidence.

Now please provide evidence "the divine" exists as a nature. We know you buy the story as the confirmation bias is working overtime but can you back up anything you say with evidence?

That is only true for science, not for religion. There are logical reasons why religious evidence cannot be agreed upon.

YES, there are logical reasons why religions evidence cannot be agreed upon.

1) it's made up
2) it's false
3)each group thinks their evidence is true
4)each group thinks the other groups evidence is false
5) each group thinks they are 100% correct, even when evidence is lacking
6) each group employs confirmation bias to only see the things supporting the movement
7)each group ignores the nagative, even to the point of having a incorrect prophecy or several, and calling it "personal opinion" if you point it out
8)each group engages in a word salad to confuse facts and sound like they make some sort of sense
9)each group may use words like "evidence" when it helps and then switch to "personal opinion" when that helps, making no overall sense whatsoever
10)abuse of the word "logic" is common
11) there is no actual reason as to why the evidence isn't agreed upon that is related to anything supernatural or spiritual. It's because the evidence sucks and the apologetics made to rescue it is equally bad

Why are you asking for evidence again? We have already been through this and you KNOW full well the evidence I have.

I'm asking because I'm tired of you playing nonsense games. Show evidence please or go do confirmation bias.

Are you hoping that I will come up with some other evidence that I have not yet presented?

I thought maybe you would stop wasting time with utter nonsense, it just got worse

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Insanity is also dealing with complete nonsense apologetics so people see how much of an illogical thing this stuff is and embrace skeptical and critical thinking if on the fence.

If critical thinking can lead one to a theism then great, I'll hear it out.

 

[joelr]

I was posting it to show how many people believed it.

I never said "If many believe so, it is so." I ONLY SAID that many people believe it.

That is not a fallacy. It is just a statement of fact that 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

/that is sus. Why post a random stat?

There is no evidence that can prove that God exists.
God does not exist because there is evidence that God exists. God either exists or not.

If God exists and provides no evidence its deism. You are a theist.

Evidence is just what people want in order to believe, it does not MAKE God exist.

In theism, God interacts with the world, which is what you are. So there would be evidence.

God could exist and provide no evidence at all, although that is not what happened. God provided Messengers as evidence.

Once again, you haven't even learned evidence isn't good if every religion can use it. Jesus in AU can say "the evidence is, I'm here, I'm Jesus and I'm here and I hear God in my mind". You can ask him "what am I thinking right now" and he can say "don't be silly, God doesn't do what you want him to, he will say what he wants to say"

Besides no god has ever been demonstrated or given even reasonable evidence,
messengers are false because it is not possible a theistic God would give bad prophecies to a messenger.

It is not likely that a God would not create a miracle or series of miracles. You believe in Yahweh who is credited as being a god of all sorts of miracles, resurrections, a graveyard of saints, God claimed to visit temples, walk with his people, grant powers and resurrection to several people, allow exorcisims, destroy armies, kick down a mountain, flood the world, destroy 2 entire cities.
Your messenger gets ZERO of that and ALSO has to say "oh yeah, every mention of any of that is a lie".

Meanwhile HE gets prophecies wrong, historical events wrong or obvious to everyone anyways. Claims science is super important yet gets NO science. But he does, he pretends to, but it's all wrong!
So he did know he should be getting scientific prophecies, he had to make them up though and now we know they are wrong.

They had to lie about the Eden/Mt Carmel prophecy, they had to lie about why he said magnetism, electricity has no physical counterpart, lie about the space ether.

Very obvious here, a dude made it up.

Also Yahweh is simply not real, it's a myth, it uses older stories, has forgeries, uses other stories again and so on.
Every possible angle has huge problems.
AND Islam said they were the final messengers, for sure. So now he makes a lie out of Islam but again gets zero evidence.

And your claim is that because a guy made a claim, he is the evidence.
So this has gone nowhere, you are back at the start. You believe a claim, it has no evidence. Same as all these claims.

His writing moves you? Not proof of a god.

 

[joelr]

Pointless remark that teaches us nothing.

Yes all religion is mythology, you would agree that older religions like Zeus, Inanna, Romulus are mythology? The evidence also suggests all modern religions are also myth.

Nobody is saying it changes every day..
However, when I say "what you follow", it refers to the moral values that you and these 'experts'
have. i.e. the secular values that constantly change.

Religious values also change. Do you consider graven images to be equal or higher than murder?
It's one of the first commandments.
Disbelievers were mocked by law, now freedom of religion is mainstream, even in Muslim communities.
Shari’ah law does not often fit Western values and Muslim communities have changed to fit the laws.

However this is a massive strawman. Massive. We have been talking about historicity, where the heck did you get morality out of this?
The Quran is angry, hates disbelievers and other religions, a painful doom awaits. Just because a bunch of 7th century attitudes were written into a book doesn't mean it's from a God? Like the OT many laws are vile and brutal and no longer used. The basics like the golden rule are still with every culture.

What secular value constantly changes? When did murder change? When did stealing change? In a democratic free society when did your rights get taken away, which they would if church and state were the same.
Any person involved with the religious institution who didn't like you could call you a heretic and you would be burned. No democratic trial.
What changed? Gay people are treated like humans? If you know of a god who hates gays and thinks they should be treated bad that god can jump in a lake.
Secular values? How about the Inquisition? Or Muslim fundamentalists? Secular values try to give equal rights and protect people.
People make up morals. They existed in the Mesopotamian religions as well, I don't need a god in a book to tell me to treat people well.
The morality argument is nonsense.

Now you are just rambling..

Truth hurts. It's all from scientific thought, not religion.

That is just pure ad-hominem .. and is not true.

No it's exactly true and you failed to answer any of my points.

You put me down for following experts and said you follow the........... "I don't .. I follow the Bible and Qur'an."

Cool, do that then. History is a soft science and you are putting them down. So stop using science. Just use the Bible and Quran.

If not, why say that? Do you have a point then? Or is it just rambling as it now seems to be?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What changed? Gay people are treated like humans?

Lots of things have changed .. even in my lifetime.

In the UK, for example
eg. an employed person is not paid for 30 days, instead of a week ( or day)

eg. laws on gambling relaxed .. laws on prostitution relaxed .. laws on pornography relaxed

eg. sex before marriage is now widely accepted

eg. credit with high interest rates accepted

etc. etc.
All these things lead to more enmity in the world .. they all have a knock on effect.
..but mankind become 'blind' to the consequences of evil, as it becomes the norm..
..until disaster strikes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

but you want us all to think that because people believe different things,
then they are all wrong .. HUGE FALLACY!

If their beliefs conflict one another, at least one of them is wrong.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

You have some anomalous definitions for words like claim, belief, and fact that lead you to discussions like this one repeatedly. You often write words to the effect, "It's a fact, not a belief" and "It's not a belief, not a claim." These are not mutually exclusive categories for many if not most, for whom a belief is anything one considers true or likely true. The former can also be called a fact - belief one considers correct.

And as your first definition of claim above suggests, a claim is a belief, and expressing a belief is making a claim. It doesn't matter that you don't use the words that way yourself except for the predictable response when you do followed by several more posts of you reproducing definitions that don't support your choices. You don't seem to mind, but you can safely assume that for the rest of your life, whenever you make such comments, others will reject them.

No, I never said "If many believe so, it is so." I ONLY SAID that many people believe it.

What was your purpose for saying so if not to suggest that that is an endorsement of the idea by those people and that that should matter?

To compare religious evidence to scientific evidence is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.

You haven't made the case for false equivalence, just the claim. Evidence is evidence. There aren't separated categories of evidence for religion and science, nor for the evidence we encounter and interpret in daily life. It's all the same thing - whatever becomes evident to the senses - and it's all evaluated by the same critical criteria to determine what the evidence signifies.

 

[joelr]

Lots of things have changed .. even in my lifetime.

In the UK, for example
eg. an employed person is not paid for 30 days, instead of a week ( or day)

A union issue. If religion was in power we would have SLAVERY. A different religion could take over your country because god told them and you would be a slave.

eg. laws on gambling relaxed .. laws on prostitution relaxed .. laws on pornography relaxed

Because the money doesn't exist to jail, arrest and court dates while people need food and gas.

a book where a god is super uptight about sex and gambling isn't peoples problem. Sex is between consenting adults. No sky-father only wants sex between married people. How about we allow women an education in Islamic countries?
Porn has to be controled by users, not a government.

eg. sex before marriage is now widely accepted

Good. Why marry a woman and find out she dislikes sex or you are zero compatable that way. Have a nice life without sex.

Again, sky-father says you have to have a marriage? Than YOU have sex after marriage. You don't make a law that says everyone has to think like you. That is facism and dictatorship.

Christianity is larger than Islam, what if they took over the world and enforced an old school Christian laws on everyone. You do you, the law is not to enforce your religious beliefs.

eg. credit with high interest rates accepted

capitalism. Vote against it, follow your congressmen. Raise the issue. When they campain you go and speak to them, get them to back a bill.

etc. etc.
All these things lead to more enmity in the world .. they all have a knock on effect.

No, tight holds against gambling, sex, porn, causes it to go underground. Europe is very secular and through philosophy, values, role models they are ok. Fitness, health, accountability culture, science, truth. But religion doesnt hold up.

Plus what is porn? Yeah, X rated. Ban that and people looking to use porn will go to R rated. Ban that now bikini models are the thing.
What are you going to do have women only take photos with sheets over them with eye holes? People will still be doing more or less the same, just with imagination. You are going after the wrong thing. Time management is a better issue. If you believe in some god who hates orgasms unless in a marriage bed then fine, wait until marriage. Sexual freedom is old, hasn't caused harm. Arranged marriages have. no one wants that as law. If that can be law so can a religion, and you are not the majority movement. Wrong route.

..but mankind become 'blind' to the consequences of evil, as it becomes the norm..
..until disaster strikes.

Is a narrative you bought into.
Has nothing to do with a god being real.
It has to do with raising your own children correct, teaching them philosophy, respect, how to be independent, know martial arts to be respectful and humble and to defend themself against bullies.
Respect education and working hard. Nothing to do with religion. You have to be able to get by without it because if you truly start asking the real questions it's going to fall apart.
Not always, I know some smart Muslims but I see where they are using a bias. But they lead good lives. However, how they treat gender, gay and womens' rights might be up for debate.