Default position

[lukethethird]

What you decide is random and fantastical is irrelevant to anyone but you. What others believe is irrelevant to anyone but them. Yet you seem to imagine that you are in charge of it all.

You did, and do often. But you can't justify it, so now you're pretending you didn't assert it. Nearly every atheist on here asserts it, often. And not one of them can justify it logically. Doesn't matter, though. They hold to it just the same. Like the true believers in their own bias that they are.

Does Tinker Bell exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes - obviously. God (if it exists) is the designer. How good or bad humans are at understanding messages is entirely down to them being humans, and a creator god would have decided on those capabilities.

I said: Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans are fallible creatures?

I did not say: Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans don't have the capabilities to understand messages from God.

As I said before humans DO have the capabilities.

Speaking as the Voice of God, Baha’u’llah wrote that we all have the capacity to believe in God, because otherwise we could not be held accountable.

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143​

​

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

The fact that humans misunderstand in general is the reason why using messengers is such a stupid idea. If they misunderstand and distort things, then absolute clarity is important. The last thing you would do is send some humans that just leave some words that can later be distorted and misinterpreted, not to mention being mistaken for all the other religious leaders and peddlers of superstitions in general.

Absolute clarity exists in the message of Baha'u'llah, and for people who cannot understand what He wrote, He appointed interpreters of His Writings.

Do you think I care? I don't think there is such a being and if it has done as you suggest, then it's being incompetant, as far as I can see. All I'm doing is applying what would be my god-given abilities (if such a being existed) to assess the situation as I see it.

That is all you can do, see it as YOU see it. The same applies to me. I just see it differently than you do, since my mind contains different information and processes it differently.

So how come we are? You can't really have it both ways. If god is an omni-type creator, how can it not be responsible for human nature?

I said: God did not 'make humans' prone to misunderstanding.

I did not say: God is not responsible for human nature.

As the Creator, God is responsible for human nature. However, God is not responsible for the 'varying capacities of humans to understand' since those are affected by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences.

For example, there are some things about God that I do not understand that other Baha'is understand, and that is because some of those factors noted above cause my mind to operate differently than theirs.

Hang on, what about all the theists that don't accept the idea of messengers? Also one settles on atheism because one is not convinced by any of the supposed versions of god(s) and their supposed reasons. To describe it as a rebellion is absurd. I don't see a reason to believe in any god(s). I cannot rebel against something that doesn't exist.

I said: some people, namely atheists, would rebel against the way God 'chose' to deliver His messages...
Those other religious people do not rebel the way I have seen atheists rebel, thye sinply do not have a Messenger as part of their belief set.

If God exists and if used Messengers to communicate, then atheists are rebelling against God whenever they say the very idea of God using Messengers is absurd and that God is incompetent, etc., etc., etc.

I'm only interested in the truth of the matter. I don't want to believe or not want to.

That is an excellent position to take.
I don't think anyone should believe 'because they want to.' I think they should only want to know the truth of the matter.

Of course it is. Clearly (if what you claim is true) the "capacity to understand" is terribly unreliable.

It is not unreliable, but some people just choose not to use their God-given capacity and other people are unable to use it. I believe God takes this into consideration since God knows what everyone's capacities are since God is all-knowing. That is why all that God requires of us is a 'sincere effort.' Not everyone is going to understand and God knows that. I don't understand some things about God but I think I will be forgiven for that since I have tried so hard to understand.

Why would I care? I never understand why religious types think that quoting their books and leaders is going to be at all convincing to people who don't accept their authority.

I do not think (a) that you care or (b) that you accept any scriptures I post as carrying any authority.
That is not why I post them. I post them to explain what I believe, and I think it is better to cite the source than to paraphrase.

Human behaviour is down to god (if one exists).

I have never heard anything so ludicrous or illogical in my entire life.
God gave man (a) a brain to think with and (b) free will to choose behaviors. After that, the ball was completely out of God's court.

Your the one claiming that there is evidence in the facts. Your burden of proof.

All I ever said is that the facts are evidence to me, but I cannot prove that to you nor is it my burden. You have to look at the facts for yourself and decide if the facts constitute evidence for you.

From which we can assume that there is nothing at all that is inconsistent with being mistaken, deluded, or lying. Otherwise it would be headline news and not just another religion.

That if it was true it would be headline news is almost as illogical as what you said above.

It all boils down to this ONE QUESTION: If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?
It will never be headline news because it can never be proven as a FACT. It has to be believed on faith and evidence.

All religions grow larger slowly over time. Do you really think that 'Jesus Christ' was known by many people back in His day?

“Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.​

​

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”​

​

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?​

Please don't try to use the argument that in this modern age we now have mass media, because the main reason for growth is human effort and human acceptance.

Even before there was the internet and television, in the first century the Baha'i Faith grew much faster than Christianity grew in the first century.
There were were 5 million Baha'is at the end of the first century and this was the result of human efforts to carry the message of Baha'u'llah all around the world.

The Baha’i Faith has spread to over 250 countries and territories and is almost as widespread as Christianity. Most of this happened during the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944) FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944
Growth of the Baha’i Faith has slowed down since the year 2000 because the new goal is consolidation and community building, so the emphasis is not spreading the Faith all over the world as it was before in the 20th century.

Not only is this an a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but they don't believe in a single god. Even the monotheists believe in very, very different versions of 'God'.

I said: Messengers/Prophets of God have been sent by God since the beginning of human history, long before the Bible was ever recorded. As a result, most people in the world believe that God exists.

I did not say: Messengers are sent by God is true because many or most people believe that God sent Messengers.

I am not saying "If many believe so, it is so."Therefore it is not the ad populum fallacy. I have already been through this many times on this forum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Two more instances of worthless circular arguments.

There was nothing circular about it because I am not MAKING and argument! I was only making two logical statements.

It makes logical sense that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

Obviously you cannot respond to what I said with a reasoned argument, so you throw out the circular argument garbage again.
After over 10 years posting to atheists, I know how atheists operate. It is called deflection.

 

[ratiocinator]

I said: Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans are fallible creatures?

I did not say: Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans don't have the capabilities to understand messages from God.

As I said before humans DO have the capabilities.

Except that your whole religion (as you've described it here) rests on the assumption that people have been misunderstanding and wrongly interpreting messages though all of history. Even if some people can get it right, obviously it is far from the general rule, so your god would still be responsible. Again, we are back at incompetent design and/or incompetent message delivery.

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143​

​

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

I can see where you get the tendency towards useless circular arguments from.

As for "...I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men." Not exactly going well, is it? (Please no irrelevant references to all those 'mistaken' people who believe in god(s) but don't accept Bahá’u’lláh.)

Absolute clarity exists in the message of Baha'u'llah, and for people who cannot understand what He wrote, He appointed interpreters of His Writings.

It's the use of 'messengers' in itself that isn't clear.

I said: God did not 'make humans' prone to misunderstanding.

I did not say: God is not responsible for human nature.

That humans are prone to misunderstanding is a part of human nature.

God gave man (a) a brain to think with and (b) free will to choose behaviors. After that, the ball was completely out of God's court.

Nonsense. God (if it exists) is entirely responsible for our capabilities and hence, basically, our behaviour. The general capabilities are evidenced in mass behaviour - the average, if you like.

All I ever said is that the facts are evidence to me..

If you have to qualify it with "for me", then it's poor at best. Been here before.

It all boils down to this ONE QUESTION: If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?
It will never be headline news because it can never be proven as a FACT. It has to be believed on faith and evidence.

Faith (in the religious sense) is irrational. If the evidence isn't good enough to be headline news, it's very poor (at best). Not nearly good enough. Remember "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

All religions grow larger slowly over time.

One good reason to dismiss them.

I said: Messengers/Prophets of God have been sent by God since the beginning of human history, long before the Bible was ever recorded. As a result, most people in the world believe that God exists.

I did not say: Messengers are sent by God is true because many or most people believe that God sent Messengers.

Then what was the point in saying it?

There was nothing circular about it because I am not MAKING and argument! I was only making two logical statements.

It makes logical sense that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

If it's not an argument what's the point? And these are not even logical statements without the underlying assumptions that a god exists, there is a need for a "bridge", and that said god is "all knowing". Without assuming the truth of what you're proposing, they're just word salad.

Obviously you cannot respond to what I said with a reasoned argument, so you throw out the circular argument garbage again.
After over 10 years posting to atheists, I know how atheists operate. It is called deflection.

Genuine LOL!

You keep on saying things like you're not presenting an argument and that the only evidence is evidence "for you". If that is the case, what exactly am I deflecting?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does Tinker Bell exist?

What is exist? And if Tinker Bell really doesn't exist in any sense, are you then talking about actual non-existence? What does that mean and how do that work?
I.e. if Tinker Bell is non-existence in all forms, what are you then actually talking about with the words Tinker Bell?

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that your whole religion (as you've described it here) rests on the assumption that people have been misunderstanding and wrongly interpreting messages though all of history. Even if some people can get it right, obviously it is far from the general rule, so your god would still be responsible. Again, we are back at incompetent design and/or incompetent message delivery.

Sorry for the delayed response.

God is not responsible for anyone getting it right or wrong. That is just what happens since humans are not infallible.
The method of message delivery is not the problem. No matter how the message was delivered some people would understand it and some people would misunderstand it since humans all think with different minds.

As for "...I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men." Not exactly going well, is it? (Please no irrelevant references to all those 'mistaken' people who believe in god(s) but don't accept Bahá’u’lláh.)

It is going really well for the Bahais, since they have recognized the excellence of God's handiwork.

It's the use of 'messengers' in itself that isn't clear.

What is unclear about it?

That humans are prone to misunderstanding is a part of human nature.

So what? Why shouldn't God make humans prone to misunderstanding?

Nonsense. God (if it exists) is entirely responsible for our capabilities and hence, basically, our behaviour. The general capabilities are evidenced in mass behaviour - the average, if you like.

That is utterly absurd. God is not responsible for our capabilities or our behaviors. We each have different capabilities which are developed over the course of a lifetime, God has nothing to do with them. Humans are fully responsible for our behaviors. God bears absolutely no responsibility for human behavior. Not one iota of responsibility.

If you have to qualify it with "for me", then it's poor at best. Been here before.

The facts are evidence to me and everyone else who interprets them as I do. There is absolutely no reason why everyone would interpret the facts the same way. That is logically impossible since everyone is thinking with a differnt mind.

Faith (in the religious sense) is irrational. If the evidence isn't good enough to be headline news, it's very poor (at best). Not nearly good enough. Remember "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

Why can't you answer my question? If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?
What evidence would be good enough to be headline news?

The question still stands until it has been answered: If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?

Unless you can answer that then the answer is that will never be headline news because it can never be proven as a FACT. It has to be believed on faith and evidence.

One good reason to dismiss them.

I said: "All religions grow larger slowly over time. "
Why would that be a reason to dismiss religions? It is only logical that religions would grow slowly over time given the human factor.

The idea that if religions were true they would grow rapidly does not hold any water. You cannot explain why a true religion would grow fast, that is ony a personal opinion, and it is not based upon anything in logic nor does it take human behavior into account.

Then what was the point in saying it?

My point was that as a result of God sending Messengers most people in the world believe that God exists.

If it's not an argument what's the point? And these are not even logical statements without the underlying assumptions that a god exists, there is a need for a "bridge", and that said god is "all knowing". Without assuming the truth of what you're proposing, they're just word salad.

NO, we do not need to make the assumption that God exists before looking at my proposal and the possibility that it could be true.
We can look at it as a hypothetical statement.

It makes logical sense if God exists there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

Genuine LOL!

You keep on saying things like you're not presenting an argument and that the only evidence is evidence "for you". If that is the case, what exactly am I deflecting?

You are deflecting whenever you refer to what I said as a circular argument instead of responding to what I said with a reasoned rebuttal.

The following is a logical argument and even if it is circular that does not mean it is not true.

This all makes logical sense if you understand that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

 

[lukethethird]

Sorry for the delayed response.

God is not responsible for anyone getting it right or wrong. That is just what happens since humans are not infallible.
The method of message delivery is not the problem. No matter how the message was delivered some people would understand it and some people would misunderstand it since humans all think with different minds.

It is going really well for the Bahais, since they have recognized the excellence of God's handiwork.

What is unclear about it?

So what? Why shouldn't God make humans prone to misunderstanding?

That is utterly absurd. God is not responsible for our capabilities or our behaviors. We each have different capabilities which are developed over the course of a lifetime, God has nothing to do with them. Humans are fully responsible for our behaviors. God bears absolutely no responsibility for human behavior. Not one iota of responsibility.

The facts are evidence to me and everyone else who interprets them as I do. There is absolutely no reason why everyone would interpret the facts the same way. That is logically impossible since everyone is thinking with a differnt mind.

Why can't you answer my question? If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?
What evidence would be good enough to be headline news?

The question still stands until it has been answered: If a man was really a Messenger of God, how would people know that?

Unless you can answer that then the answer is that will never be headline news because it can never be proven as a FACT. It has to be believed on faith and evidence.

I said: "All religions grow larger slowly over time. "
Why would that be a reason to dismiss religions? It is only logical that religions would grow slowly over time given the human factor.

The idea that if religions were true they would grow rapidly does not hold any water. You cannot explain why a true religion would grow fast, that is ony a personal opinion, and it is not based upon anything in logic nor does it take human behavior into account.

My point was that as a result of God sending Messengers most people in the world believe that God exists.

NO, we do not need to make the assumption that God exists before looking at my proposal and the possibility that it could be true.
We can look at it as a hypothetical statement.

It makes logical sense if God exists there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

You are deflecting whenever you refer to what I said as a circular argument instead of responding to what I said with a reasoned rebuttal.

The following is a logical argument and even if it is circular that does not mean it is not true.

This all makes logical sense if you understand that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

For the umpthteen time, circular arguments are fallacious, not true, and only faith is required to believe, there is no evidence, just your opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the umpthteen time, circular arguments are fallacious, not true,

For the umpteenth time, just because they are fallacious that does not mean they are not true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia​

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

and only faith is required to believe, there is no evidence, just your opinion.

For the umpteenth time, faith is always required to believe in God or a Messenger of God, since neither one can be proven to exist.
For the umpteenth time, there is evidence, just no proof.

It is always an opinion as to whether the evidence I refer to is evidence for God or a Messenger, so it is your opinion that it isn't and it is my opinion that it is.

 

[lukethethird]

For the umpteenth time, just because they are fallacious that does not mean they are not true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because​

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

For the umpteenth time, faith is always required to believe in God or a Messenger of God, since neither one can be proven to exist.
For the umpteenth time, there is evidence, just no proof.

It is always an opinion as to whether the evidence I refer to is evidence for God or a Messenger, so it is your opinion that it isn't and it is my opinion that it is.

False and misleading, first your bold; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia, is not found anywhere in this wikipedia article because it does not apply, besides, and furthermore, your premises are not true.

Two, there is no evidence otherwise you would have presented it by now.

 

[Trailblazer]

False and misleading, first your bold; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia, is not found anywhere in this wikipedia article

I copy/pasted from a Word document I made some time ago. It used to be in that article but it was edited.

But I was right. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true:

If an argument is sound, then it is valid and has all true premises. Since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument really does have all true premises so it does actually follow that its conclusion must be true.​

​

Phil 106: Critical Thinking​

because it does not apply, besides, and furthermore, your premises are not true.

It does apply. You do not know if my premise is true or false. I cannot prove it is true, but that doesn't mean it is false.

Two, there is no evidence otherwise you would have presented it by now.

I have been presenting the evidence for over five years.

 

[lukethethird]

I copy/pasted from a Word document I made some time ago. It used to be in that article but it was edited.

But I was right. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true:

If an argument is sound, then it is valid and has all true premises. Since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument really does have all true premises so it does actually follow that its conclusion must be true.​

​

Phil 106: Critical Thinking​

It does apply. You do not know if my premise is true or false. I cannot prove it is true, but that doesn't mean it is false.

I have been presenting the evidence for over five years.

Never have you ever presented any evidence nor are your arguments sound by a long shot, and no, circular reasoning is not to be confused with sound reasoning, never has been, never will be. You're wrong, again.