Claims vs. Beliefs

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, but what the something is other than not being you is unknown.

Physical energy, fundamental forces, quarks, leptons, hadrons are there, and then there is relativity and quantum mechanics. Why should I take recourse to imaginary things like God/Gods/Goddesses?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physical energy, fundamental forces, quarks, leptons, hadrons are there, and then there is relativity and quantum mechanics. Why should I take recourse to imaginary things like God/Gods/Goddesses?

The is a false binary. There are more positions that those 2.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The person in the first link (48), John L. Heilbron, is probably a historian. I have not checked the principal interests of other people, whether they are from science, philosophy or religion. Therefore, I ill reserve my comments.

 

[F1fan]

No one has to accept the belief of their culture.

Yet the way it works much of it is subconscious. You are likely unaware of all the cultural things you adopt without thinking. You learn language, you learn food norms, you adopt the schedule of school with summers off, you use the time zone you're in, you likely have sport preferences that are normal where you live, clothing styles, do you wear Muslim garb? Probably not. Did you choose not to, or accept the typical garb you wear? Probably not, you likely just accepted the norms and options available commercially, and via what those around you wear. Did you chose your religion that is more typical for religions in India or the Middle East, or a religious sect that is prevalent of those around you? How many years did you devote to other religions in depth before you picked Christianity? If none, then you picked carelessly. Maybe you just picked the one other people exposed you to. Possible?

Therefore they choose it or not.

I understand you think this is how it works, but it simply doesn't. People of different cultures have different norms, different habits, different food options, different clothing styles, different social rules, etc. These are not chosen. How you behave is largely what you learned and didn't chose. This is how social animals behave, they conform to the social norms as a means for unity, trust, belonging, etc.

And science doesn't claim proof of anything.
So you decide if it's correct.

False. You don't decide if facts are correct. Facts are demonstrable. The process of experimentation is based on observations, measurements, data, etc. There is very little that is decided. This is what makes science work. Your comment shows ignorance of science, and contempt, which is something certain conservative believers learn from this social experience in their practices. Did you choose to have contempt and ignorance for science? According to your claim above you made this decision.

And I didn't say atheist are wrong because all they have is belief. They are wrong when they try to pretend they have more.

So you assert the more belief you have the more wrong you are?

Do you not understand that it is WHAT is believed that is the measure of whether it's likely true or likely false?

If you believe OJ killed his ex-wife you are likely correct. Why? Because there is a massive amount of evidence that places him at the crime scene. If you believe jesus died for your sins you are likely wrong. Why? Because not only is the idea inconsistent with reality as we know it, there is no evidence for this.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Did you choose not to, or accept the typical garb you wear?

Absolutely. I wear stuff almost no one does. I make my own " accessories" like cell phone cases, and wallets, with leather that I tan myself.
I even made some of my own buckskin clothes and hats.

 

[Wildswanderer]

False. You don't decide if facts are correct. Facts are demonstrable. The process of experimentation is based on observations, measurements, data, etc. There is very little that is decided. This is what makes science work. Your comment shows ignorance of science, and contempt, which is something certain conservative believers learn from this social experience in their practices. Did you choose to have contempt and ignorance for science? According to your claim above you made this decision.

You are simply wrong. Science isn't about facts or proof, but working theories. Do some research.

 

[Wildswanderer]

These are not chosen.

Hogwash...in our culture today, anyone has access to all cultures and choose to wear whatever they please. You are confusing influence with choice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you believe OJ killed his ex-wife you are likely correct. Why? Because there is a massive amount of evidence that places him at the crime scene. If you believe jesus died for your sins you are likely wrong. Why? Because not only is the idea inconsistent with reality as we know it, there is no evidence for this.

Again, you are ignorant of the evidence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science leads to knowledge which is different from mere belief.

As Aron Ra likes to say "If you can't show it, you don't know it". In other words if you cannot rationally explain something then you do not know it, you only have belief.

Good thing I can rationally explain my faith then.

 

[F1fan]

True to whom?

If they're true to her, but not claiming that what she believes is objectively evident, she's not making a claim.

This depends on the intent of the statement and the context it's offered. For example, in a debate/discussion forum where ideas are shared for the purpose of discussing their truth we understand the intent of posts of belief to be claims.

But if the group is one of fellowship where the norm is people just sharing their beliefs then it is a less adversarial environment and others accept the views as an expression of self, not claims to be challenged or disputed.

I'd say any comments in this forum fall into the former category. Any statement of belief will be considered a claim open for dispute or discussion.

 

[F1fan]

Again, you are ignorant of the evidence.

And I notice you make a claim here without any evidence.

So irony at work.

Or did you kill OJ's ex-wife? Are you confessing?

 

[F1fan]

You are simply wrong. Science isn't about facts or proof, but working theories. Do some research.

Do you know what hypothesis means?

Do you know what a theory is?

Post your answers without looking them up.

 

[F1fan]

It is what I believe. Call it whatever you want to call it. Claim is just a word. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

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.

No, it is not a claim unless I am making a claim and only I know if I am making a claim or not.

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. 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.

All opinions I share with others are not claims. A person has a right to a personal opinion without having to be accused of making a claim. Is every opinion you share a claim, or do you think that claims are limited to religious beliefs?

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.

The BIGGER question is really this: Why are atheists so obsessed with the idea that I am making 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.

What is the significance of this obsession and need to be right about me making claims vs. having beliefs?

It's part of debate/discussion. It's no more obsession than changing your engine oil is obsession with car maintenance.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, the discourse becomes toxic when people make absurd claims, quote meaningless writings and never provide any evidence worth the name. So who is to blame? the one who reacts to such claims or those who continuously go on making such claims?

I’m not interested in apportioning blame. Doing so is generally a futile exercise leading only to further entrenchment and greater disharmony.

Do you consider all religious and spiritual writing to be meaningless? How about the Bhagavad Gita or the Dhammapada? Do they not have meaning, even to an atheist such as yourself?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Atheists like to go by evidence, and there is none for God or prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.

There's none for the non-existence if God.

I find plenty of evidence for a divine designer. .

 

[RestlessSoul]

Physical energy, fundamental forces, quarks, leptons, hadrons are there, and then there is relativity and quantum mechanics. Why should I take recourse to imaginary things like God/Gods/Goddesses?

These are all imaginary phenomena, in the sense that they are unobservable. Non-observable entities such as sub atomic particles, represent the metaphysical content of scientific theories; the practice of science is theory laden, and this has been the consensus since Scientific Realism replaced Logical Positivism as the prevailing orthodoxy in the philosophy of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found the Scriptures were written much earlier and at the time when the apostles were alive.
Timeline: When Was the New Testament Written?

Just because one finds a source that agrees with them does not mean that is a reliable source. One should always ask where they published their works? If just on the internet then it is probably not very reliable. In any area of study there are professional areas to publish. Though some ideas are so badly presented that any reputable publishing house will read the article and say "Naah". There are several results one could get from a publisher. If they think the article was written by a crazy person they might just ignore it. They could flatly reject it with a letter. Neither of these first two is very good at all. They could reject it, but tell you what problems they saw in it. This is actually good and very promising. If the writer corrects his errors there is a good chance that it will be published. And least likely they could accept it at the first submission.

Your source as written would be rejected, but then so would almost any source that I linked. Articles written for every day reading do note tend to fit the proper format for professional papers. The question is is there actual scholarship behind your source or not. I doubt it. Can you demonstrate that there is any valid scholarship behind yours or is it simply "For the Bible told me so"?

 

[The Hammer]

Thats an interesting point.

In your perspective, if you dont exist, who typed your post?

The Gods. They act through me. I'm only riding in the chariot seat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's none for the non-existence if God.

I find plenty of evidence for a divine designer. .

So you claim, but you have never posted any.

I do agree that there is no evidence for the non-existence of God. So what? There is no evidence for the non-existence of Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof always lie upon the person that claims that something exists. All I have seen from creationists is a total ignorance of the concept of evidence itself. Atheism, unless one is a hard atheist, is not a declaration that God does not exist. It is merely a lack of belief in a God. We do not have a burden of proof when we say "I do not believe that'.