Claims vs. Beliefs

[Aupmanyav]

People who keep asking for evidence over and over and over again, after the evidence has been presented.
I make no claims.

'It is so because this person says or has written so.' This kind of evidence does not satisfy many people and you have no other.
As for 'claims', I think, many people have commented on that.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is terrible reasoning. OF COURSE you are still responsible for the words you choose to propagate and use to try and convince others.

Bzzzzzt! I am responsible for what I say but I am NOT trying to convince anyone of my beliefs.

If you haven't done due diligence to vet the words being told to you for accuracy and evidential support, but decide to just speak them as if they were true to others and expect them to toe the line, then you just aren't going to be ready when people call you out on it and request to see the verification of those words in the form of evidence.

Bzzzzzt! I do not speak my words as if they were true to others and expect them to toe the line!
I do not expect anything from anybody. People have free will so they are all free to believe as they wish.

I do provide evidence for what I believe is true. It is not my problem if people don't like the evidence.

And yes, I get that that is an uncomfortable situation to have put yourself in... I get it! But you just looking for some "escape route" isn't cool either. You're still responsible.

What you are stating here is that you are not responsible, at all, for the things you say because "Messengers" said them before you. That's ridiculous. Take some responsibility FOR GOD'S SAKE.

No, I never said I was not responsible for the things I say.
I only ever said I am not responsible for proving to other people that what I believe is true.

What is utterly ridiculous is to say I am responsible to prove to atheists that what the Messengers said is true. That is not my job. As I said in the OP:

"Anyone who wants to know if an alleged Messenger of God is a true Messenger of God is responsible to do their own research and look at the evidence that supports the claims of the alleged Messenger. I can point to where the evidence for Baha’u’llah resides but I am not responsible for doing other people’s homework."

You are the one who needs to take some responsibility if you want to know the truth about the Messengers of God. It not my responsibility to do your homework for you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, there is no objective evidence for what you believe that something is. But that goes for us all. You are just of of those, who believe you are special. And that is not limited to religion or philosophy. There are also some atheists, who believe that.

None of this matters. It's just your way of trying to deconstruct everything so that everyone can be "right." I'm still not at all sure what you think this accomplishes. Once everyone is "right" then we all "get along" or something? I don't know. But anyway... even you, with all your "vast knowledge" of how subjective everything is, must necessarily go about the business of providing for the needs of your physical body or face termination from this existence. In other words, even you have to interact with the closest thing we can get to objective reality in order to even stay here spouting off about how subjective everything is. You're stuck... just like the rest of us. And therefore, you don't get to say that what we can determine is closer to "objective" (shared by each of us and "the same" in various ways regardless the observer) isn't important. You can't say that without being a hypocrite the next time you go to satisfy your needs with the physical world. The parts that I would also acknowledge that I need, and for the same reasons. The parts that I would give relatively the same descriptions of as you would, and that we could compare notes on and agree are "real" for the both of us.

Why not try and be the first person to survive ONLY on things that you feel exist that NOT ALL OTHERS agree exist? So that discounts water, and the material substance of food, discounts air and warmth - because those are all items that every single observer among us would have to admit the reality of for themselves. None of that can be counted. So... how about it? Care to take that challenge, find things that only you, yourself, or you and a group of others "believe in" and survive utilizing those elements alone. See if you can do it!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Elementary particles, like wave function dynamics, are in a sense metaphors for an underlying fundamental reality which continues to defy our comprehension. And while entities can be both real and imagined, quantum theory is undecided as to what, at the quantum level, can be regarded as real.

One can take them as particles or as waves. People are familiar with that. You are right that there still are many things for us to know, though in the last 200 years, our knowledge has improved exponentially.
I agree that real-virtual is something which we do not yet understand. I think they are just phases.
Gita said:
"All things are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?" Gita 2.28
And RigVeda said:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Quite the contrary. Real means there is objective evidence of the entity that is real.

There is no objective evidence if you look closer. Most humans don't do that and that is regardless of religion or not. You and I both believe. We just believe in different versions.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to be offended by the word "claim". Is it because you want to state what you believe in a debate forum but not be challenged on what you believe is true? If so, you need a fellowship forum that accepts your views as true.

I am offended by being told I am making a claim because I am not making a claim. It is that simple.
It is disrespectful to keep telling a person they are doing what they have said are not doing.

That said, I do not mind being challenged for what I say I believe is true.

If you make a statement of what you think is true in a forum that debates/discusses religious ideas then you volunteers into an adversarial process, and that means your statements of belief are claims.

No, statements of beliefs are not claims. I am making no claims. How many times do I have to say this?
I started this thread for the sole purpose of clarifying this yet people are still accusing me of making claims.

Your participation in a debate/discussion forum implies your intent is to make claims. If you don't want your statements of belief to be considered claims then you are in the wrong forum.

That is called projection. YOU think that a debate/discussion forum implies an intent is to make claims, but that is NOT my intent.

In Bahia fellowship, perhaps. But you still might fond people who disagree with you and question what you believe. This is common human behavior. We check and challenge each other all the time.

I have NO PROBLEM with people who disagree with me. I only have a problem with people who speak for me and say I am making claims because I am not making any claims.

It's normal. It's theists who make claims they can't defend who get upset with this issue. The solution for theists is not to post. Or find a forum that is accepting of what you believe.

I am not making any claims.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Bzzzzzt! I am responsible for what I say but I am NOT trying to convince anyone of my beliefs.

What a crock. You and I have gone back and forth in plenty of conversations where you are sitting there, claiming that Messengers being sent to Earth and the reasons for God's decisions to do so are "logic 101 stuff." What do you think that is besides an attempt to convince someone of something? Trying to make me feel stupid if I don't accept your ridiculous meanderings. That's WHAT IT IS. That's exactly what you are doing. And do you know how I know? Because I EMPLOY THE EXACT SAME TYPES OF DEVICES. The main difference being that (from what I have seen and experienced between us) I am far more self-introspective and therefore am not to be deluded into thinking I am not doing such things. I also have no moral qualms about doing such... so I have no need to fool myself into thinking I am a "better person" than I actually am. There is no contradiction with my personal convictions or principles like there would be in your case.

Bzzzzzt! I do not speak my words as if they were true to others and expect them to toe the line!

Logic 101 stuff, right? Hahaha... wow.

I do not expect anything from anybody. People have free will so they are all free to believe as they wish.

Yeah yeah... sure... and if they deny the reality/truth of "the messengers" then they are free to be as stupid and incorrect as they like, right? RIGHT??!?!?!?!?!

I do provide evidence for what I believe is true. It is not my problem if people don't like the evidence.

You mean it's not your problem if the evidence is a steaming pile of dog crap, right?

No, I never said I was not responsible for the things I say.
I only ever said I am not responsible for proving to other people that what I believe is true.

Okay then, champ... then I present to you a challenge! Keep your views to yourself. Just keep them to yourself. Should be super easy if you only care about them for YOUR OWN DEVICES and don't need to convince anyone or get them to agree with you. Just keep them to yourself. Then you can rest assured in the knowledge that you are correct, and everyone else can just go about the business of believing whatever it is they want to believe. This lines up PRECISELY with what YOU YOURSELF JUST SAID:

People have free will so they are all free to believe as they wish.

I would be willing to bet that as you read this, you are just itching with discomfort and thinking about all those instances in which you would no longer be able to inform people of "the truth" as you see it. I have a feeling it would eat at you to not be able to tell people what you believe as if it were true for everyone. Or... you're not itching... and the idea that you are "right" with all of the things you believe is just so second-nature for you that you don't even know that you speak/write as if you are correct every time you do it. Because, trust me, YOU DO.

What is utterly ridiculous is to say I am responsible to prove to atheists that what the Messengers said is true. That is not my job.

So me holding you responsible for the things you say is a no-no, correct? As in, me asking you to pony up your justifications for relaying certain items as "truth" or "fact" is just "not fair" to you, right?

"Anyone who wants to know if an alleged Messenger of God is a true Messenger of God is responsible to do their own research and look at the evidence that supports the claims of the alleged Messenger. I can point to where the evidence for Baha’u’llah resides but I am not responsible for doing other people’s homework."

I DON'T CARE what "Baha’u’llah" said. I don't care one bit. He was just another craphead human being - like myself. I work on the assumption that he doesn't know these things any better than I do. And from what I have read from his words... he definitely DOES NOT. It's specious claptrap... meant specifically to ensnare the gullible and speak to the desire of so many to "unite the world" in friendship, understanding and love. It's junk from what I have read. Like an Amway presentation, or Mary Kay.

You are the one who needs to take some responsibility if you want to know the truth about the Messengers of God. It not my responsibility to do your homework for you.

I don't care about it. I don't need it to go about the business of living and thriving. This much is fact... because I don't utilize it... and I am living... and thriving! So, if it is "SO VERY IMPORTANT" and someone else wants me to believe that as well... then it is THEIR JOB to convince me. I don't need it. Do you understand that? Don't need it. I'm doing fine without it, and from what I have read it offers ZERO answers I don't already get elsewhere, and many from my own ability to think through to conclusions! It's unnecessary... unless it is! But again... it is going to take A LOT of convincing at this point. I'm in no position to even want to "seek out" any of this crap. Not even close. I simply don't care about it. I don't know if I can stress that point enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

No need to explain nor to defend

There should be no need to explain or defend any further, but there will be more explaining because their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation.

 

[Trailblazer]

As several posters here have pointed out when anyone makes a claim they have a burden of proof.

I am making no claims so I have no burden of proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Almost all of the sentences where you say you are not making a claim fit the definition

None of any sentences where I state my beliefs fit the definition of a claim.
A claim is what YOU think it is, but you did not write the post so you don't know my intentions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of this matters. It's just your way of trying to deconstruct everything so that everyone can be "right." I'm still not at all sure what you think this accomplishes. Once everyone is "right" then we all "get along" or something? I don't know. But anyway... even you, with all your "vast knowledge" of how subjective everything is, must necessarily go about the business of providing for the needs of your physical body or face termination from this existence. In other words, even you have to interact with the closest thing we can get to objective reality in order to even stay here spouting off about how subjective everything is. You're stuck... just like the rest of us. And therefore, you don't get to say that what we can determine is closer to "objective" (shared by each of us and "the same" in various ways regardless the observer) isn't important. You can't say that without being a hypocrite the next time you go to satisfy your needs with the physical world. The parts that I would also acknowledge that I need, and for the same reasons. The parts that I would give relatively the same descriptions of as you would, and that we could compare notes on and agree are "real" for the both of us.

Why not try and be the first person to survive ONLY on things that you feel exist that NOT ALL OTHERS agree exist? So that discounts water, and the material substance of food, discounts air and warmth - because those are all items that every single observer among us would have to admit the reality of for themselves. None of that can be counted. So... how about it? Care to take that challenge, find things that only you, yourself, or you and a group of others "believe in" and survive utilizing those elements alone. See if you can do it!

Yeah, here is the problem.
This is not religion. It is a variant of a natural world. You have no way of knowing if you are in a fair universe or a Boltzmann Brain universe. So that you exist, doesn't mean I exist. You could be in this natural world or a Boltzmann Brain universe.
Your world is a computer and a power source and you are a part of the program on the computer. The rest of your external experience is simulated by the rest of the computer. So let's say you do something stupid and the computer let you die. I.e. it stops your part of the program. So yes, you died. But that is not evidence that the universe is fair and you exist in the universe, you believe you exist in.

So what is the point? You can't prove what you believe in. That is not limited to religion. You have the same fundamental problem since it was raised by Rene Descartes. There is no truth, proof or evidence in the ultimate, universal or objective sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I learned something new today on the internet and even stranger on RF!

I am a skeptic. So when the standard atheists claim they have knowledge of objective reality, I doubt that just as I doubt religion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, here is the problem.
This is not religion. It is a variant of a natural world. You have no way of knowing if you are in a fair universe or a Boltzmann Brain universe. So that you exist, doesn't mean I exist. You could be in this natural world or a Boltzmann Brain universe.
Your world is a computer and a power source and you are a part of the program on the computer. The rest of your external experience is simulated by the rest of the computer. So let's say you do something stupid and the computer let you die. I.e. it stops your part of the program. So yes, you died. But that is not evidence that the universe is fair and you exist in the universe, you believe you exist in.

So what is the point? You can't prove what you believe in. That is not limited to religion. You have the same fundamental problem since it was raised by Rene Descartes. There is no truth, proof or evidence in the ultimate, universal or objective sense.

None of that matters... and I have told you why. And you will still go on after this post to partake in the natural and perceived present-and-accounted-for pieces of this world, and this existence. You have no choice. Sure... think on your insignificant points all you want for the purposes of drafting some work of fiction where someone "breaks through the veil of THE MATRIX!" Sounds fun. But at the end of the day... you STILL need that glass of water. You do. And you can't deny it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In what way, if I may ask?
You will perhaps agree that all things are different from each other, even two stones of the same kind.

You believe you can answer something, which haven't been answered by no human so far in recorded history. And you can't understand that it is a belief, because you don't understand that it is a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, them tell me why a messenger from the flying spaghetti monster could not enjoy the same plausibility

Because there is no evidence that the messenger from the flying spaghetti monster was sent by God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of that matters... and I have told you why. And you will still go on after this post to partake in the natural and perceived present-and-accounted-for pieces of this world, and this existence. You have no choice. Sure... think on your insignificant points all you want for the purposes of drafting some work of fiction where someone "breaks through the veil of THE MATRIX!" Sounds fun. But at the end of the day... you STILL need that glass of water. You do. And you can't deny it.

Yeah, but I that I want to live, is without proof, truth or evidence. That is the second problem. We both trust the universe to be epistemologically fair, but that doesn't tell us how we ought to live.
You have only solved part of the problem and you have given no evidence that all that matters, is simply to live. So please with truth, proof, evidence or whatever tell us all how we ought to live. What is the meaning of life?

 

[Trailblazer]

Even the so-called true prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis did not provide any evidence.

They did provide evidence. See the OP.

They say respect has to be earned. Saying that all old religions are corrupted and out-dated is not going to earn you any respect.

It doesn't matter if people respect them.
It is the truth and Messengers from God only speak the truth.

 

[F1fan]

I am offended by being told I am making a claim because I am not making a claim. It is that simple.
It is disrespectful to keep telling a person they are doing what they have said are not doing.

That said, I do not mind being challenged for what I say I believe is true.

Notice how you are engaging with others on a debate forum and they are pointing out that many of your stated beliefs are not fact, yet you refer to these statements as ideas you believe true? Those are claims. That you want others to see it your way proves they are claims. That you are offended by others pointing out facts is astounding and absurd.

No, statements of beliefs are not claims. I am making no claims. How many times do I have to say this?
I started this thread for the sole purpose of clarifying this yet people are still accusing me of making claims.

That is called projection. YOU think that a debate/discussion forum implies an intent is to make claims, but that is NOT my intent.

Your intent is demonstrated by your continued attempt to convince us your denial of making claims. You want us to believe you are not making claims by claiming you aren’t making claims. We observe you making claims and defending them.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no objective evidence if you look closer.

No, there is no objective evidence for God's existence, but there is objective evidence for Messengers of God because they were real people who lived and left their footprints in the sand.

 

[Trailblazer]

'It is so because this person says or has written so.' This kind of evidence does not satisfy many people and you have no other.

What a Messenger claims is the claim, that is not the evidence that supports the claim.
There is evidence that supports the claim of the Messenger.
I have said this dozens of ties yet you keep coming back with the same old mantra.