• 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!

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I'll try.

The evaluation of evidence is something that applies to everything we do, not just religious claims. I'm going to bet that in every other area of your life, you demand "reasonable and logical" proof of what is true. If someone offers you an investment that is "sure" to double your money, do you just take his word for it, or do you demand some kind of hard evidence? Hopefully I don't need to add other examples.

My question is, why do your standards change when the claim is a religious one?
My standards change when it comes to religion simply because there is no hard evidence, i.e., proof.

I have a CFP (Certified Financial Planner) and I have used the same man to handle my investments since 1989, but there are never any 'guarantees' when it comes to investments. Risks are always involved. I have taken a lot of risks but I have done very well because I took those risks instead of selling when the market was in trouble, as so many other people did, because of their fears and anxieties.

My point is that sometimes we need to take a leap of faith, whether it is involving practical matters or belief in God.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that my opinion is exactly the same as theirs. I also consider it extremely likely that the eye evolved naturalistically

Their claim is that organism (eye for example) evolved by the specific mechanism that we call “the Darwinian mechanism”……….. which obviously doesn’t include all naturalistic alternatives


I am just challenging that specific claim…………. Those who made it, have the burned proof, ………. As far as I understood you are in the “I don’t know” category (like me) so we have no burden proof



- almost certainly. The only alternative I can conceive of is a deceptive intelligent designer, which is the default position if evolutionary theory were ever falsified,
Well I don´t know, with “evolution” you mean any natural mechanisms? or just the one that we call the “Darwinian mechanism” ?(random variation + natural selection-)

There are many other mechanisms that are being discussed in the literature, that are different form the darwinain mechanism, neutralism, epigenetics, transposons, natural genetic engeneering etc. ……. My view _(and your view it seems to me) is that we simply don’t know, …. And we are not expected to know any time soon, genetics is too complex and solving these puzzle requires “ nearly absolute” knowledge on the topic.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
It could be one of those or it could be all three.
And even if it is one or all of those, how do you think it can be proven? Let's say one of them is misinformed. They can tell the other person why they think the other is misinformed but unless they can prove it it is only their personal opinion. Nothing about God can be proven and that is why believers and atheists just keep going round and round in circles, saying the same things over and over and over again, and getting nowhere.

Through Socratic questioning and dialectic. This is a problem that was resolved in ancient Greece and these are the methods that continue to be used in academic debates into the present day due to how efficient they are at getting to the root of disagreements.

It is logically impossible for everyone to agree on a God belief since every human being thinks with what is in their brain and every human has a different set of data in their brain. Thus only if they replace that data with new data from someone else can they ever come to an agreement.

Luckily, agreement only needs to be reached about the relevant data and what data is relevant.

Granted, that does mean that some disagreements are infeasible in scope. Have you ever tried to argue with a flat-earther? They're "fractally wrong." If you try to debate them on one incorrect point they make, you will find out that they back up that point with several other incorrect points, and those with even more errors, and so on.

That's a major limit to the debate format. I'm not quite sure how to overcome it, although there are still people that wind up leaving the flat-earth movement so I know it's not completely impossible to get through to people in that situation.

The reason that rarely ever happens even between two people is because of ego, peoples' refusal to admit they might be wrong.

Maybe, I don't know. I don't have that dataset. The best I can do is follow the line of argumentation and stop when my interlocutor fails to present a valid counter-argument to my points or attempts to shift the topic. I might point out that they've done so before giving up, in order to give them a chance to bring the discussion back on-topic.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
My standards change when it comes to religion
That is the root of your bias. It is the basis of the logical fallacy of special pleading, which is all about bias.

You are free to hold this bias, but be aware that it is not how rational minds reach valid conclusions.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Why is that? Are you uncomfortable with reality? It is arguable that the best person to comment on religion is one that no longer believes. Usually belief is an irrational act as shown by this thread. The believers cannot make a rational argument to save their soul.

It has been my experience that ex-Christians are usually more knowledgeable about the Bible and Christian theology than current Christians. I was told by some Christians online shortly after I left Christianity that I couldn't possibly understand the Bible because I wasn't a Christian, and therefore, since I didn't have the Holy Spirit, I couldn't properly spiritually discern the Bible. I told them that I had been a Christian for thirty years, that I had read the Bible from cover to cover several times, and that I had spent nearly five years assisting my nephew in earning his Master of Theological Studies (MTS), during which time we had extensively studied and researched the Bible and Christian theology. But it didn't seem to matter to them because they insisted not only that I couldn't properly spiritually discern the Bible without the Holy Spirit but that I'd never been a "true Christian" because I left Christianity. I simply couldn't reason with these Christians because, I guess, they were convinced that I was never a "true Christian" and I wasn't worth the time or effort.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
That is merely a belief, Why on Earth do you think that your soul is any more worthy of being saved than others?
I never said that it is.
If somebody wants to save their soul, then they should seek spiritual guidance.
Almighty God has provided it to us through His messengers.
The most famous and trusted being Jesus and Muhammad, peace be with them.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I never said that it is.
If somebody wants to save their soul, then they should seek spiritual guidance.
Almighty God has provided it to us through His messengers.
The most famous and trusted being Jesus and Muhammad, peace be with them.
Why? That really has not done a lot of Muslims ore Christians any good.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It has been my experience that ex-Christians are usually more knowledgeable about the Bible and Christian theology than current Christians. I was told by some Christians online shortly after I left Christianity that I couldn't possibly understand the Bible because I wasn't a Christian, and therefore, since I didn't have the Holy Spirit, I couldn't properly spiritually discern the Bible. I told them that I had been a Christian for thirty years, that I had read the Bible from cover to cover several times, and that I had spent nearly five years assisting my nephew in earning his Master of Theological Studies (MTS), during which time we had extensively studied and researched the Bible and Christian theology. But it didn't seem to matter to them because they insisted not only that I couldn't properly spiritually discern the Bible without the Holy Spirit but that I'd never been a "true Christian" because I left Christianity. I simply couldn't reason with these Christians because, I guess, they were convinced that I was never a "true Christian" and I wasn't worth the time or effort.
The sound like "Once saved, always saved" Christians. A fallacy that creates some of the worst behaved Christians out there.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I've picked up atheism these days. Lack of belief in a God or gods. One thing I've wondered is whether atheists have (godless) awakenings though, and what that would look like. I think they do, even if they look entirely different and might be called different things and labelled perhaps a bit more specificly. However, it's a question I'd be better off asking RF some time, rather than assuming.
I think it's similar to meeting or even just seeing someone and falling love. Your heart is all glad and you can't wait to see them again. But sometimes, or most of the time, that feeling fades away when you find out what they are really like.

I think with religion people can have an epiphany. It's like the blinders are removed and you see the truth and the love so clearly. But like that love you had for a person; the love you've found in a religion can wear out.

I say this because I used to be what I call, "spiritually" gullible. I listened and believed most anybody's religion. I listened to Fundy Christians, Charismatic Christians, JW's and Mormons. I chanted and danced with Hare Krishnas and other such groups. It was always fun, and they always showered me with love. Then I learned about their beliefs. But the worst was the showering of love started becoming less and less. It was reserved for new people.

So, I think an Atheists can discover new truths and insights or fall in love and have the same types of feelings. Oh, and back to religions, what impresses me now is people that have a more genuine love for others. I don't expect it to be perfect, just deeper than what most people have.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Luckily there is evidence of the Quran and the Baha'i Writings, they in turn confirm the Bible.

This OP has offered we need to consider all the evidence available, not just some aspects of it.

Regards Tony
Why do I doubt that the Quran and the Baha'i writings confirm the Bible. It sure seems like it is just some "aspects" of it are taken. Especially when Baha'is say something in the Bible or the NT is symbolic and not literal. That's not confirming what it says in those Scriptures. It is saying that they are wrong.

Like the six-day creation? Wrong. A worldwide flood? Wrong? Elijah flying off in a fiery chariot? Wrong. Then of course, Jesus ascending into the clouds and rising from the dead? Wrong. And before you get all weird about it... I agree with you. I think those things are false and didn't really happen. Yes, I agree with the Baha'is... except I don't then go around claiming some symbolic interpretation.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Why is that? Are you uncomfortable with reality? It is arguable that the best person to comment on religion is one that no longer believes. Usually belief is an irrational act as shown by this thread. The believers cannot make a rational argument to save their soul.

I would offer it is obvious why. I would also offer this material world is but a semblance of reality.

Example. I would not go to an Athiest site and start telling the Athiest how illogical and unreasonable they are. I would leave them to discuss what they wish to.

So a person who says there is no God, will basically except there is no evidence for God, the position is already determined, they would need a major event to consider otherwise.

My guess is, they will wait for that event.

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
What we need to consider is that we did not meet the Messengers, but other people have and left their testimonials about those meetings and what they experienced.
There's a testimonial about what happened in North America before it got colonized by Europeans. That testimony was preserved on golden plates. No one knew about them, until the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith about them and where to find them and then gave him a way to translate them. We can see today how it has changed so many lives for the better. In about the same amount of time that the Baha'i Faith has been around the LDS Church has been more successful in getting people to join and believe. Trouble is... Is any of it true? If so, then let's all join them. If not, then it is evidence that a fabricated story about religious beliefs can and will be believed and will be successful in changing lives.
 
Top