Evidence

[F1fan]

We do share the knowledge but we cannot make you believe it because you have your own minds and you think differently about the same knowledge.

Oh, then you don't have knowledge, you have beliefs. That is why we reject what you believe, it isn't knowledge, and that's because it isn't factual.

A better question is why God should perform miracles just to prove to a few atheists that He exists?

Off topic. Adults are just as worthy as children. Why didn’t God save my husband from cancer?

If my God could have saved my husband why didn’t He?

Why are kids more important to you than adults? We are all humans.

God is not subject to morality because God does not have behavior. Only humans are subject to morality.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Was there something wrong with me wanting to save my husband? I was not asking for myself. I guess you are okay with adults who suffer from cancer and die horrible deaths.

You asked m what would prove to atheists that a God exists and I said the elimination of childhood diseases, and then you respond with a bewildering set of accusations and defensive positions. Why didn't you just accept what my answer was? I find the fact that children, and even adults, suffer from genetic diseases to be something no loving god would allow. Theists claim their God can do anything, and that is something I want to see happen. I consider my attitude of saving children from fatal diseases to be a moral thing on my part.

You can reject whatever you want. God does not need your belief because God has no needs.
Those who accept and believe will receive their reward, the others will forfeit the reward.

I don't share your beliefs about this. Any reference to vindictive or judging Gods is irrelevant. It doesn't affect my thinking, and I have no worries.

Please spare me the illogical. Christians and Muslims, reject Baha'i claims because they are Christians and Muslims. The same applies to the followers of all the other religions. They all have a religion that they are convinced is true. Why would they become Bahais, if they were not searching for a religion?

Yet you are critical of atheists for being atheists, so why is that? The Baha'i on these threads insist their messenger is authentic and telling a definitive truth, so that should apply to all, yes? Or do you think religions are relative, and not absolute? If so, why be concerned about a category that reject all religions? Atheists are no different than any other believer, except we reject one more reliogion than any theist. If theists have truth, including that some sort of God exists, then it is absolute, and not relative.

That is not supported my any religious scholars, and I don’t mean Christians.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Sorry, but scholars do conclude that the Jesus myth was a retelling of Egyptian lore whether you like it or not. The myth at face value is absurd and not factual. Of course theologians will assume the myth is true because....that's what they do. Believers want to believe, not understand what is true about how things are. But objectively the myth is better explained as recycled Egyptian lore. We thinkers are interested in the truth, not believing the tradtion of myth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is not "evidence". " It convinces me" does not make a claim evidence.

All you are effectively saying here, is that you consider the Bible and Qur'an to be "hearsay".

i.e. you do not consider those scriptures to be reliable evidence

..but guess what .. many people do.

Continually saying that the scriptures are not "evidence", is more a case of manipulating language, than anything else.
Atheists would rather say "there is no evidence", rather than say they do not believe the evidence is reliable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is not "evidence". " It convinces me" does not make a claim evidence.

You say this only because you have never felt the exhilaration which comes when you lift your spirit to the light and declare, with complete conviction, "I believe".

 

[F1fan]

Where you see failure on the part of theists to provide evidence of God, the theist sees a failure of perception on your part.

Yet theists can't explain how they have any sort of special perceptive powers that atheists don't have. I have asked theists if they have special powers to detect a God and among the many dozens who have answered I remember only two saying they do.

So you made the claim that theists see atheists unable to perceive a God as a failure, and i want to hear more. How do atheists fail in this regard? Use facts and explain in full, or admit your claim is false.

No, you misunderstand. The theist has all the evidence he needs for the existence of God, and lives his life accordingly.

Based on what theists testify to they need no evidence whatsoever. They have adoted a set of concepts from their social exverience with other theists and carry on a tradition of belief, not a reasoned conclusion via facts.

 

[F1fan]

You say this only because you have never felt the exhilaration which comes when you lift your spirit to the light and declare, with complete conviction, "I believe".

Science has studied this and revealed the feelings are hormones injected into the blood, and the brain reward centers fire up. This is similar to the feelings of euphoria when your favorite sports team wins a big game. Theists think their experiences are special because of the non-rational, self-serving context of religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say this only because you have never felt the exhilaration which comes when you lift your spirit to the light and declare, with complete conviction, "I believe".

Are you sure? At any rate it is still not a good excuse to abuse a term.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atheists are not lacking knowledge either. Some may be. I still study theology, history, apologetics and even read the Quran among other things to study in this field.

Good. I do not suggest that believer or disbeliever is more or less capable than the other.

I do get the feeling that atheists like to suggest that believers are "irrational" in their belief .. I wonder why?

Perhaps because they often are.
That does not let "atheists off the hook" .. we can all be guilty of unsound conclusions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yet theists can't explain how they have any sort of special perceptive powers that atheists don't have. I have asked theists if they have special powers to detect a God and among the many dozens who have answered I remember only two saying they do.

So you made the claim that theists see atheists unable to perceive a God as a failure, and i want to hear more. How do atheists fail in this regard? Use facts and explain in full, or admit your claim is false.


Based on what theists testify to they need no evidence whatsoever. They have adoted a set of concepts from their social exverience with other theists and carry on a tradition of belief, not a reasoned conclusion via facts.

Yes, I'm sure that's all true from where you are standing. But remember that you choose to stand there, in the icy shadow of your intellect.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you sure? At any rate it is still not a good excuse to abuse a term.

That's what this is, really. An argument about semantics, and a silly one at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good. I do not suggest that believer or disbeliever is more or less capable than the other.

I do get the feeling that atheists like to suggest that believers are "irrational" in their belief .. I wonder why?

Perhaps because they often are.
That does not let "atheists off the hook" .. we can all be guilty of unsound conclusions.

What unsound conclusions do you think that atheists have arrived at?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science has studied this and revealed the feelings are hormones injected into the blood, and the brain reward centers fire up. This is similar to the feelings of euphoria when your favorite sports team wins a big game. Theists think their experiences are special because of the non-rational, self-serving context of religion.

Science has shown that human emotions, perceptions and experiences register in the body, including in the brain. It hasn't shown that they originate there, nor that our humanity is an exclusively material phenomenon.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What unsound conclusions do you think that atheists have arrived at?

That there is no God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what this is, really. An argument about semantics, and a silly one at that.

No, the point of this whole thread is that theists like to pretend that they have the same sort of reasoning that others have when they claim to have evidence for their beliefs. When we said "Okay, where is the evidence?" none was forthcoming. Don't blame atheists for abusing semantics in this debate.

As I said before, if people just claimed to have a belief most others would simply say "Okay". But when one claims "I have evidence for my beliefs" then the person took on a burden of proof.

You can have whatever beliefs that you want and I will not oppose that. Claim that you have evidence and I will demand it.

If someone claimed that they had evidence that Jesus was 100% mythical would you simply accept that claim, or would you demand to see the evidence? Personally I would demand to see the evidence, and I am not even a Christian any longer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has shown that human emotions, perceptions and experiences register in the body, including in the brain. It hasn't shown that they originate there, nor that our humanity is an exclusively material phenomenon.

Science has not shown that leprechauns do not exist either. Science has supported the idea that thoughts, emotions, etc. originate in the brain. There is no evidence of them arising anywhere else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That there is no God.

Who made that claim?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Science has studied this and revealed the feelings are hormones injected into the blood..

..so what if it is?
It does not change anything .. people still have thoughts, and feelings of like and dilslike.

Theists think their experiences are special because of the non-rational, self-serving context of religion.

There you go with your sweeping brush, again..

 

[F1fan]

Yes, I'm sure that's all true from where you are standing. But remember that you choose to stand there, in the icy shadow of your intellect.

Oh my, icy shadow of intellect. What a derogatory implication that is really just bias against reliable thinking.

Where I’m standing is facts, reason, objectivity, science, tests in reality, and self-awareness. Your unwarranted bias must stand opposed to these for some reason, and I doubt you have put any thought into it.

 

[F1fan]

..so what if it is?
It does not change anything .. people still have thoughts, and feelings of like and dilslike.

It addresses the false claims of religious experience being unique and indicative of a supernatural. Of course you avoid the point as part of your ongoing denial of reality.

There you go with your sweeping brush, again..

And you have no rebuttal, just more complaints as if theists are special. You aren’t. You invite scrutiny every time you post, and you don’t learn anything.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Who made that claim?

You’ve lost me now

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’ve lost me now

When did atheists claim that there was no God?