Evidence -- making it useful

[F1fan]

You do not know this, I am willing to say you have not looked.

Messianic anything is going to be a huge longshot. There is no serious and convincing evidence of anything related to any of the claimed Messiahs. Given this huge lack of evidence, and related lack of data except books that do not relay verified truth, it is an easy bet to be skeptical and doubtful.

Let's note that I am responding to a guy that routinely makes fantastic and outragous claims but fails to offer anything in the way of evidence required to consider these claims as even plausible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no serious and convincing evidence of anything related to any of the claimed Messiahs.

Can you not see how arrogant that looks?
What you are saying is that the vast majority of people believe in "a Messiah" without any evidence.

That is quite obviously false. It is just that you do not believe the evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Can you not see how arrogant that looks?

To you honesty and facts is arrogant when it goes against what you believe. That is YOUR arrogance at work. We all know you are hostile towards facts and reasoning.

What you are saying is that the vast majority of people believe in "a Messiah" without any evidence.

If they have evidence then it is the biggest well kept secret in history. So doubtful. Fell free to present any such evidence (you won't, and there is none).

That is quite obviously false. It is just that you do not believe the evidence.

No rational thinker does. Only followers within tribes think there is evidence. Notice how every religious group has evidence for their beliefs, even when they contradict. Look at the Ashe experiments on conformity, that explains why people will adopt wrong answers and factless beliefs of those around them. Religion is a mental virus, it infects and gets passed around.

This video shows the subject visibly distressed as he goes along with the groupthink, and agrees with ideas he knows are false. He is unaware of it happening. This happens on a larger scale culturally to most people.

 

[CG Didymus]

Messianic anything is going to be a huge longshot. There is no serious and convincing evidence of anything related to any of the claimed Messiahs. Given this huge lack of evidence, and related lack of data except books that do not relay verified truth, it is an easy bet to be skeptical and doubtful.

Let's note that I am responding to a guy that routinely makes fantastic and outragous claims but fails to offer anything in the way of evidence required to consider these claims as even plausible.

The claims of Christians... Jesus was virgin born and Magi followed a moving star and angels appeared to shepherds. All sorts of miracles including raising people from the dead and walking on water, then the big one, coming back to life after being dead and buried in a tomb. Plus, ascending into the clouds.

What's not to believe? It's all there in the testimony of those that saw him do these things. Therefore, it must be true. Yet, Baha'is don't even trust all of it.

Then the claims of Baha'is... Jesus was the Messiah, but only one of the Messiahs. The "end-time" Messiah is Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí who took the title, Baha'u'llah. But are there prophecies that the Messiah would return to Iran and never set foot in Jerusalem? And be a completely different person and not Jesus?

Of course, it's all there for us to look at. But when we reject their claims, they wonder how that's possible? It's as plain as day to them. Just like Jesus was plain as day to his followers. What i don't understand is why some Baha'is keep insisting on their prophet being true. But they are talking mostly to Atheists and other skeptics. If it's not to try and convince some of us and get us to convert and believe, then why do they keep doing it? They never present anything new. Just the same old "evidence" of their guy's character, his writings and his mission?

Not much different then born-again Christians sayings, "It's all there in the Bible. All the evidence and proof that Jesus was who he said he was." But at least they admit they are trying to convert people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If they have evidence then it is the biggest well kept secret in history. So doubtful. Fell free to present any such evidence (you won't, and there is none).

There's plenty of evidence, and you know it..
You don't need me to "show you", any more than I need you to show me why the evidence is unbelievable.

You go your way, and I go mine !

 

[F1fan]

The claims of Christians... Jesus was virgin born and Magi followed a moving star and angels appeared to shepherds. All sorts of miracles including raising people from the dead and walking on water, then the big one, coming back to life after being dead and buried in a tomb. Plus, ascending into the clouds.

What's not to believe? It's all there in the testimony of those that saw him do these things. Therefore, it must be true. Yet, Baha'is don't even trust all of it.

Then the claims of Baha'is... Jesus was the Messiah, but only one of the Messiahs. The "end-time" Messiah is Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí who took the title, Baha'u'llah. But are there prophecies that the Messiah would return to Iran and never set foot in Jerusalem? And be a completely different person and not Jesus?

Of course, it's all there for us to look at. But when we reject their claims, they wonder how that's possible? It's as plain as day to them. Just like Jesus was plain as day to his followers. What i don't understand is why some Baha'is keep insisting on their prophet being true. But they are talking mostly to Atheists and other skeptics. If it's not to try and convince some of us and get us to convert and believe, then why do they keep doing it? They never present anything new. Just the same old "evidence" of their guy's character, his writings and his mission?

Not much different then born-again Christians sayings, "It's all there in the Bible. All the evidence and proof that Jesus was who he said he was." But at least they admit they are trying to convert people.

The dilemma for theists is that they want to participate oin these debates but either don't understand how discourse works, and/or overestimate what they believe is adequate evidence. I suggest it is a losing approach to attempt arguing that any religious concepts are true objectively. I say that by simply observing the consistent failure of theists attempting to argue for their beliefs.

The lack of credible evidence is their biggest flaw, and they don't understaind it.

How believers think:

We know what we believe, and since we believe there must be evidence, and if there isn't evidence we are delusional, and being delusional is bad, so that can't be true, therefore we do have credible evidence, but since these atheists don't acknowledge our evidence there must be something wrong with them, and we can't figure out what it is, but they are blind, it isn't us, that for sure.

There's plenty of evidence, and you know it..

Here is an example of what I just wrote. Notice muhammad isa offers no evdience, but asserts there is some, and that I even know what it is. Is this what a person who has some supernatural truth would have to stoop to?

You don't need me to "show you", any more than I need you to show me why the evidence is unbelievable.

You have none, so I know to ask you to show me is a fool's errand. But I offer you the oportunity to show us your beliefs aren't a hoax or fraud. You try to bluff your way through these threads, but it doesn't work. At least not on us. You may have fooled yourself.

You go your way, and I go mine !

I'm going on with these discussions to challenge how believers think. If you have no evidence then you have no reason to go further. Trolling is against the rules, btw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you not see how arrogant that looks?
What you are saying is that the vast majority of people believe in "a Messiah" without any evidence.

That is quite obviously false. It is just that you do not believe the evidence.

No, that is not necessarily so. You would not believe how many people simply do not understand the concept of evidence. It appears that you do not understand the concept since you have never provided any for your beilefs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Messianic anything is going to be a huge longshot. There is no serious and convincing evidence of anything related to any of the claimed Messiahs. Given this huge lack of evidence, and related lack of data except books that do not relay verified truth, it is an easy bet to be skeptical and doubtful.

Let's note that I am responding to a guy that routinely makes fantastic and outragous claims but fails to offer anything in the way of evidence required to consider these claims as even plausible.

Or someone chooses not to look at the valid evidence that God does provide.

That is what I see.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or someone chooses not to look at the valid evidence that God does provide.

That is what I see.

Regards Tony

Tony what "valid evidence"? You can't even seem to define the concept. If you cannot define it then you cannot even begin to know whether you have any evidence.

So, please define what you think is "valid evidence" and why. Just setting some arbitrary conditions is not enough. You need a rational reason for those conditions.

 

[F1fan]

Or someone chooses not to look at the valid evidence that God does provide.

That is what I see.

What you think you "see" is irrelevant. Valid evidence is available to anyone, it doesn't require "special abilities to see". That is code for you not having valid evidence.

If you were a prosecutor and went into court insisting you have the murder weapon inside a box that proves the defendant is guity, but only members of the prosecution get to see this "evidence". Why would the jury be convinced if they can't see this special evidence? Should they take your word for it? If you insulted the jury for not seeing this evidence would that be smart?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony what "valid evidence"? You can't even seem to define the concept. If you cannot define it then you cannot even begin to know whether you have any evidence.

So, please define what you think is "valid evidence" and why. Just setting some arbitrary conditions is not enough. You need a rational reason for those conditions.

What you think you "see" is irrelevant. Valid evidence is available to anyone,

I have offered this numerous times now as well as the reasons why. The Person of the Messenger, the Revelation and the Message is valid evidence of a Messenger from God. All 3 will prove the claim. How do people think one can find and build a solid faith without proof?

There are lifetimes of material to pursue to see if the gi en evidence contains valid and logical proofs.

I am amazed at how many tablets were revealed and messages that were sent to people in power, just by the Bab, let alone the mammoth amount of Tablets Baha'u'llah revealed and messages He sent.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

I have offered this numerous times now as well as the reasons why. The Person of the Messenger, the Revelation and the Message is valid evidence of a Messenger from God.

You have posted this many times and it has been assessed and criticized by many critical thinkers who have offered similar responses. You offer no direct evidence. This all requires assumptions and heavy interpretation. Who Baha'u'llah was isn't all that crucial to anything. The revelations are not very good. The writing sytle is overly wordy and lacks any significant content. The whole of his message could be written in one concise paragraph. And why did he have to advocate against gays? That is a huge setback fot you modern Baha'i. A real sage would have known this. The writings as a whole do not impress me at all and certainly don't suggest it was from any God.

All 3 will prove the claim.

When?

How do people think one can find and build a solid faith without proof?

That's just it, faith doesn't require facts or evidence. Faith by definition is unjustifed belief. This is why there are thousands of religions, and thousands of divisions in those religions. Truth is what the faithful say it is, not because they all follow facts to a single truthful conclusion, like science does.

You are interested in your faith, and that means reasoning isn't important. Critical thinkers are seekers of truth, and we require valid and substantial evidence. You recognize and respect reason and you want your beliefs recognized and validated, but you just don't have the evidence to get what you want. That is not our fault. We follow evidence to conclusions. You have a conclusion and need the evidence, but you don't have it to a level that critical thinkers require.

There are lifetimes of material to pursue to see if the gi en evidence contains valid and logical proofs.

None of us have seen adequate evidence. If you don't have anything else than what you have offered, then you will be disappointed with our assessment. We aren't looking for a faith, we are looking for truth.

I am amazed at how many tablets were revealed and messages that were sent to people in power, just by the Bab, let alone the mammoth amount of Tablets Baha'u'llah revealed and messages He sent.

The faithful will always be impressed by inadequete evidence. The faithful have their conclusion and are desperate for any evidence. So what that he sent cards and letters to leaders. Anyone can do that. What would be impressive is if the leaders actually changed their views and peace occurred. Well, it didn't. We saw two of the worst world wars in history. If your messenger is what he claims he is why is he such a failure? Wouldn't God know he would fail? Why would an all knowing God send messages that failed to fix anything?

 

[CG Didymus]

How believers think:

We know what we believe, and since we believe there must be evidence, and if there isn't evidence we are delusional, and being delusional is bad, so that can't be true, therefore we do have credible evidence, but since these atheists don't acknowledge our evidence there must be something wrong with them, and we can't figure out what it is, but they are blind, it isn't us, that for sure.

Yes , they've committed themselves to believe the religion, so now they are stuck having to support all the beliefs and claims of their religion.

Or someone chooses not to look at the valid evidence that God does provide.

Born-again Christians believe the Bible says the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. They found evidence. They also believe the Bible says that there was a worldwide flood about four thousand years ago. They found evidence. They believe the Bible says that humans were created as is... that evolution is false. They found evidence. Do Baha'is believe them, or do they go along with Atheists in saying that their evidence isn't correct?

When it comes to born-again Christians, who also believe that Jesus is God and that Satan is real, Baha'is probably have more in common with Atheists than they do with Born-again Christians, a religion in which they claim is a true, God-revealed religion. All religions have beliefs that can't be proven, yet religions say they have evidence that supports those beliefs.

Tony what "valid evidence"? You can't even seem to define the concept. If you cannot define it then you cannot even begin to know whether you have any evidence.

So, please define what you think is "valid evidence" and why. Just setting some arbitrary conditions is not enough. You need a rational reason for those conditions.

The "rational" reason is still, "Our prophet said that the only evidence that God gives is his manifestation. And here's just a couple of them... his character, and our guy was the nicest guy the world has ever known, and his writings, who else wrote so much."

As if we haven't read some of the things he wrote.

What you think you "see" is irrelevant. Valid evidence is available to anyone, it doesn't require "special abilities to see". That is code for you not having valid evidence.

In a way it does take "special" abilities to see. Special tinted reading glasses that makes everything their religion teaches look rosy.

And I'd agree that some of their stuff looks good and would make the world a better place for a lot of people... But everything Baha'u'llah wrote? And everything that the Baha'i Faith teaches? No. Like so many of pointed out, their teachings on homosexuality are not acceptable to a lot of people. That's enough right there for some of us to reject their prophet and their God. But what did Baha'is do? They tried to find ways to justify his teachings.

I have offered this numerous times now as well as the reasons why. The Person of the Messenger, the Revelation and the Message is valid evidence of a Messenger from God. All 3 will prove the claim. How do people think one can find and build a solid faith without proof?

Yes, it proved it to you and other Baha'is. But I don't believe in the Baha'i belief in "progressive" revelation, and I don't believe that Ishmael was the son taken to be sacrificed by Abraham, and I don't believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of all the major religions. So, what am I supposed to do? Just say, "Oh well, he's a prophet of God (because he said so), therefore I should just agree with everything he said." No, if I think it's wrong, I should be able to say so.

And if Atheist need objective proof, God should provide it. Since what God has provided in the past did not lead to people believing in the Truth from God. But, instead, led people to guess and make up things and come up with all sorts of beliefs and doctrines that even Baha'is say were false. And that was all because God did not provide the proof, the evidence or the correct teachings. Of course, now God has finally figured out, "Hey, I'll have the manifestation write down my words."

Or has he? God has still not proven himself real. Even though Baha'u'llah wrote the stuff down himself, we still have to take his word for it that those words came from some God that no one can see or speak to except his special prophets. And they all have contradictory stories and teachings, even about God.

I know, the Baha'i Faith explains away all those apparent contradictions. Well, that's fine for you. But I'm using my own eyes, and my own brain, and I see contradictions. The Baha'i explanation doesn't work for me. You know, where Baha'is say that "originally" all the messages were essentially the same, but those whacked out followers messed up that original message. Sorry Tony, it don't work for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "rational" reason is still, "Our prophet said that the only evidence that God gives is his manifestation. And here's just a couple of them... his character, and our guy was the nicest guy the world has ever known, and his writings, who else wrote so much."

As if we haven't read some of the things he wrote.

I know. Circular reasoning. He does not seem to understand why that fails.

Hey CG, did you know why I am always right? Because I said that I am always right. Wow! I can win any argument now!!

 

[PearlSeeker]

What you are saying is that the vast majority of people believe in "a Messiah" without any evidence.

Ofcourse there is evidence - scripture. But only a few question it. The majority accepts it blindly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes , they've committed themselves to believe the religion, so now they are stuck having to support all the beliefs and claims of their religion..

Nobody is "stuck" .. we can change what we believe, if we wish or have reason to do so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ofcourse there is evidence - scripture. But only a few question it. The majority accepts it blindly.

We are not all scholars, if that's what you mean.

I prefer not to think that the majority of people are inferior to myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are not all scholars, if that's what you mean.

I prefer not to think that the majority of people are inferior to myself.

Well there is some backwards thinking. The reason that one goes to scholars is not because they think they are better than others. It sounds like someone is jealous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I see they need to be discussed and decided upon.

Using probability maths will confirm a Messenger, the key here is, what is used from the evidence to determine the factors that will be used and the probability numbers.

Regards Tony

Cool. Then please show us your work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you not see how arrogant that looks?
What you are saying is that the vast majority of people believe in "a Messiah" without any evidence.

People do this all the time. Human beings believe in all kinds of things without having good evidence for them. It's not arrogant to recognize that - it's realistic.

That is quite obviously false. It is just that you do not believe the evidence.

How is it "obviously false?"

You could easily prove that wrong by showing us some actual evidence. But I'm not holding my breath on that because I've been asking for pages and pages and I've got nothing but a run-around from you.