• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Claims vs. Beliefs

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
That's just a vapid platitude, using a circular reasoning fallacy, it explains nothing and simply assumes its core premise in it's argument.
Wack-a-do. :)

Regards Tony

No I wouldn't call your claim wackadoo, just obviously irrational, since it uses a begging the question fallacy to create a circular reasoning fallacy, here:

TransmutingSoul said:
a great wisdom found in verse 7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;......."
You simply assume your core premise in your argument.

Many people are entirely ignorant of common logical fallacies, and thus these pervade their reasoning. Of course many people also deliberately choose to be irrational, often in order to preserve irrational beliefs they are emotionally invested in.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
I have no idea CG.
The words recorded are full of wisdom reflected in other religious scriptures, this being a great wisdom found in verse 7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;......."
Regards Tony

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight". Proverbs 9:10
 
I am tired of being accused of making claims. I am not making any claims because I have nothing to claim since I am a nobody.

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them
3) That God exists

I believe their claims but I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

Atheists assert that I am making claims so they can say that I have the burden of proof, but I am making no claims just because I believe the claims of the Messengers of God, so I have no burden of proof.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. The Messengers of God made the claims so they were responsible to meet the burden of proof. I believe that the true Messengers of God met their burden by providing evidence that supports their claims.

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

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.

According to my beliefs, God wants everyone to do their own homework and come to their own determinations because we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone else because we are each accountable to God for our own beliefs on Judgment Day.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

All this makes logical sense if people could only remove their bias and think about what I just said. Of course, it would require atheists to think differently than they have always thought about claims and evidence and see another point of view that they had never considered.
What an excellent advice.

Most believers don't do their duty as such.

They are as lazy as charity people who write $19.00 a month (67 cents a day) to organizations which collect billions of dollars to help 100 handicap people, 50 cancerous cases and similar amounts of people with birth defects and hard to cure diseases, a few abused dogs,a few survivors of a war that ended 70 years ago, etc.. Nobody makes the "sacrifice" to check where the huge amount of money goes in reality, they just send it.

I have made my own review of the Hebrew writings and found out that even the most famous rabies have also missed lots of the insight in those writings. I think that people who read and write modern Hebrew can't understand the biblical Hebrew as well.

Then, having an old Hebrew hard to be properly understood, and translations made by experts in Hebrew language but ignorant of the intent of the writers of the scriptures, the current believer is trapped in a chaotic situation when is about receiving the correct information.

---When the Bible writings in the original language is interpreted correctly, then one finds miracles that never occurred and events that happened but in a different way, not the way most translators agree with.

Yeshu (Jesus) was hated by the religious leaders not by his miracles but by his teachings, which were a more accurate interpretation of the ancient Hebrew language. The religious leaders were even surprised about how this man was capable to understand and interpret Hebrew without "their training".

---Believers must try to understand the Bible before following it.

This is a task that requires time. This is a synonymous of sacrifice. Like helping others is not just giving goods away but you being involved in a good action, like the good Samaritan did. A believer is part of the action, not just a bulk to be taken here and there without knowing what is going on.

---You ask and your God will provide.

One messianic assembly in the 1900s was originated when the leader of a protestant church on his knees, begged in his prayer for his God telling him His name. This was the beginning of a new era. In other places appeared messianic churches, some have survived, others have gave birth to new ones, others have disappeared. The preacher of this story received wisdom and he was capable to interpret the scriptures like no one else in his times.

Same inspiration given to prophets, believers can also receive it when they ask for it, when they look for it.

----The claims of former prophets, saying they announce the message of their God, are valid when their words go in accord to the scriptures.

The duty of a believer is to review what he has heard, read and see in their assemblies and outside of them.

In our current society, when leaders of all kind give a message, no matter how humanitarian the given message might appears to be, for the believer the message must go in accord to the essence of the biblical reading.

It's hard to find a fully accurate interpretation of the scriptures, but the essence of the message is found in the agreement between texts, not from comparing verses alone but from comparing texts.

When doing so, even when contradictions might be found, the essence of the message is perceptible, and those claims can be finally judged by the believer as true or false.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hi Aupmanyav. Do you think it possible that there ever could be proof of 'the God theory'?
Of course, since God / Allah is all powerful. Perhaps a general announcement from the skies to all 8 billion people of the earth in their own languages. That will put all doubt to rest. There can be many other options too. This one is probably the simplest. He just has to raise his voice a little and declare.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Of course, since God / Allah is all powerful. Perhaps a general announcement from the skies to all 8 billion people of the earth in their own languages. That will put all doubt to rest. There can be many other options too. This one is probably the simplest. He just has to raise his voice a little and declare.
Isn't this ever so slightly anthropomorphic? :)
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
When “anthropo” (human) is combined with “morphous” (to have a form) it suggests that God is not Spirit but has a body. I believe that God is Spirit.
The etymological roots of a word can indicate meaning. but do not dictate it. The word 'anthropomorphize' means attribute human characteristics or behavior to. Which may be, but is not necessarily, a body. Usually it's personality, wants, desires. goals, or emotional states.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Depends on you. Some take it literally, some differ with that.
I assess what is in my books literally and then mark them as true or fiction.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Depends on you. Some take it literally, some differ with that.
I assess what is in my books literally and then mark them as true or fiction.

When I read Jesus' words, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture", It never occurs to me to take them literally; that would be ridiculous, because Jesus is not a door.
But neither are these words 'fiction'. They are figurative rather than literal, but they convey truth. Do you see?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You take it literally that Jesus said this. There is no proof of that.
Who knows when and by whom these words were added to NT?
When I read an advertising blurb, do I know the writer?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
For me, I reject for what I do not find any evidence for. Simple. :)
There go any Gods, Goddesses, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance and resurrection.
No evidence for any of them. All fiction.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Say for the sake of argument, Jesus was not subject to the rules of the materialist philosophy, and therefore he does not have any direct proof based on those rules. This does not mean he does not exist in another form, by another set of rules, which is not exactly material in nature. The philosophy of science is based on what enters the brain through our five common sensory systems so we can compare, verify and come to a consensus.

The brain is more than the five senses. The most modern and evolved feature of the human brain is the frontal lobe, where our imagination is; third eye or mind's eye. The human imagination is not limited to what we know follows the rules of materialism an has direct sensory input. That is the role of the older parts of brain. The animal needs to know physical reality. The imagination can step outside that and bring in fresh new ideas of things that will only be tangible and subject to the 5 senses, in the future.

Religions exercise the most modern part of the brain; imagination via faith in the unseen. If religion is fiction and imaginative, and the frontal lobe processes this type of data, religion is advanced food for the brain.

This is also true of all forms of human creativity, including all science R&D, and the many creative aspects of secular society from the arts to construction.

The frontal lobe is why the ancient people saw the hands of the gods in all forms of creativity, from art to science to sports. In their own way, they saw a common thread, that came first, via the active imagination of the original religious practices and their idea of transcendent beings; who were beyond the cause and affect of the material realm of space-time. The frontal lobe can process this type of extrapolation.

After the frontal lobe inspires us; CTC loops, the ego of the scientist or artist, uses its knowledge of the rules of materialism, to make sure the new idea can be streamlined and made consistent, so the older parts of the brain can do the rest, and make the new, part of tangible culture. But without the front end; newest part of the brain or frontal lobe, culture would stagnate, at a given level of perfection, unable to rise any higher.

In religious works, like the bible, there are many stories where people; Israel, stops thinking and obeying the day to day rules about their God. They were not using the frontal lobe enough. They started to stagnate, then degenerate only to become enveloped by more creative cultures, who would use the frontal lobe to rise above the bar. Religions are active systems of neural code used to stimulate and nurture the frontal lobe. Rome excelled in creativity for art and war.

If you look at climate change, no matter that the source of the change, there are two ways to deal with it. The first way is to avoid any change and attempt and stop the climate change, so nothing has to change. This is based on a negative approach, such as shut down all fossil fuel. This does not create anything, but will makes lot of victims as economies collapse.

The other approach is to accept and adapt to the change. The change is slow. This may mean learn to figure out the safest places in each country and then make future provisions for migration and new forms of adaptation. This is based on a positive approach that adds new things. The difference between the two is the degree we use the frontal lobe to create.

Noah did not go into denial or find a scapegoat. He accepted the future and used his frontal lobe; God, to help him build a state of the art sailing vessel, so he could meet the challenge. The rest went into denial or stayed put assuming they were living in perfection, as is.
 
Last edited:

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
For me, I reject for what I do not find any evidence for. Simple. :)
There go any Gods, Goddesses, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance and resurrection.
No evidence for any of them. All fiction.

Don't forget those teapots and unicorns, Aupmanyav...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! :)
 
Top