Evidence

[John53]

"Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are"

Why should anyone have to prove THEIR belief to YOU? Its THEIR belief.

Because it's a debate forum, it's not a post your claim and have it accepted forum.

 

[We Never Know]

Because it's a debate forum, it's not a post your claim and have it accepted forum.

Who is trying to make you accept it? They are saying what they believe and why.
I disagree with them, I've even said so on other threads. Unless they are trying to force their belief on me, beyond saying I disagree I don't see any reason to hound them like a dog, talk to them as if they are stupid, or run them down in any way simply because I don't have or agree with their belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can kind of see how this works, but why would God want to represent as other names, descriptions, ideas like in Hinduism or be ignored in Buddhism as many Buddhists are atheist or nontheistic? It sounds like your God, Baha, is trying to trick or deceive people.

So because Baha'u'llah wrote that religions come from the same God, that means that He was trying to deceive and trick people? What would be His motive? It seems to me that if He was trying to deceive and trick people He would have said that the Baha'i Faith is the only true religion and all the other religions are false, which is what Jews and Christians believe about their religions. Baha'is do not believe they have the only true religion.

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

I am allowing to have your own beliefs, but I am critical of them.

So is everyone else.
You are welcome to be critical of Baha'i beliefs but please note it is others who are critical of Baha'i beliefs not the Baha'is who are critical of other beliefs. So who is causing the disunity?

 

[F1fan]

"Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are"

Why should anyone have to prove THEIR belief to YOU? Its THEIR belief.

Absurd question given you damn well know this is a debate forum. The point of debating our positions is because we are confident that we can state positions and defend them with evidence and a coherent explantion. We observe more and more theists just stating their beliefs, cite a few reasons why they believe, and they consider these reasons as adequate evidence. It isn't, which is what this thread has explained by numerous people.

 

[John53]

Who is trying to make you accept it? They are saying what they believe and why.
I disagree with them, I've even said so on other threads. Unless they are trying to force their belief on me, beyond saying I disagree I don't see any reason to hound them like a dog, talk to them as if they are stupid, or run them down in any way simply because I don't have or agree with their belief.

I didn't say anyone was forcing me to accept anything, I pointed out it was a debate forum not a post a claim and have it accepted forum. No one is forcing them to be here and they give as much if not more than they get.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

So because Baha'u'llah wrote that religions come from the same God, that means that He was trying to deceive and trick people? What would be His motive? It seems to me that if He was trying to deceive and trick people He would have said that the Baha'i Faith is the only true religion and all the other religions are false, which is what Jews and Christians believe about their religions. Baha'is do not believe they have the only true religion.

I am not saying that Baha'u'llah was deceptive, I am saying that God himself (which I referred to as Baha as the Baha'i name of God) is deceptive, if he presents itself as different things to different people at different times.

So is everyone else.
You are welcome to be critical of Baha'i beliefs but please note it is others who are critical of Baha'i beliefs not the Baha'is who are critical of other beliefs. So who is causing the disunity?

Being critical of a religion does not cause disunity. If people have claims of arguments against one religion or another it does not stop unity of religion. And if you respect other people's opinions you should allow them to voice their opinion on a debate forum.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Theists might not be saying overtly that we must accept their reasons for belief, but it certainly is implied given the repetition of their beliefs/claims, and their indifference to the usual
standard of credible evidence. They seem to want something from critical thinkers, and perhaps that is validation.

Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are?

I'm a Wiccan and a polytheist, and I believe it's possible that multiple deities could exist. The Wiccan Rede, the different deities, the respect for nature, and the openness of Wicca concerning death and the afterlife are why I find Wicca most appealing. However, I don't expect you to accept my spiritual beliefs or insist that you should, and I would never try to proselytize you or force my beliefs down your throat. I respect your freedom to believe whatever you want. I normally live by the motto "live and let live," but I've had run-ins with Christians who tried to coerce me into converting back to Christianity. As far as having credible evidence for my beliefs, I don't have any verifiable proof that the gods I believe in exist, as I described in my post here, and I don't have a problem admitting it.

Wicca isn't a rigidly structured, patriarchal religion that pompously claims to be the only true religion in the world or that pompously claims that women should be submissive to men and views women as inferior to men or claims that it's the only religion with the correct answers to theological questions like how to worship a god, pray to a god, or live a moral life. There are no holy scriptures, no widely accepted revelations, and no doctrines about what the afterlife will be like. Each Wiccan decides for themselves what they believe about spirits, the afterlife, and death. Wicca isn't a religion that arrogantly claims to be the only one with the correct answers to what happens after death, either. There are a few differing views found within Wicca when it comes to life after death, but there isn't an overseeing authority that instructs Wiccans to believe in any particular version of life after death. There are conclusions that many Wiccans may share, such as reincarnation, but there are no official stances. In my opinion, Wicca is a very welcoming religion.

Being a Wiccan has been liberating, and unlike when I was still a Christian, there is no longer any fear, guilt, or shame hanging over my head (click here to read my backstory). The negativity I encountered during the years I was a Christian eventually led me to Wicca and, later, polytheism, and being a Wiccan has been a very positive experience for me. After being constrained to only one God as a Christian, learning about these other gods has been fascinating, and I feel liberated. I don't feel pressured to worship a particular god or goddess, nor do I feel pressured to always live morally upright in order to placate a very vengeful and jealous God who threatens to damn me to hell for all eternity if I don't play by his rules. I don't feel intimidated by any deities, nor do I fear the wrath of any deities.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you had followed through the thread at least I, and I am pretty sure others, have stated that if the OP, who has now left, had simply said "this is my belief" he would have been left alone. The discussion kept going and got a bit heated due to claims of evidence for the Bahai beliefs. I will say it again, If one just volunteers "These are my beliefs . . . " people would have let that person be. If one says "these are my beliefs and I have evidence" and then only posts dogma at best, that causes a bit of a ruckus.

But of course -- that is the entire point. I don't post in religious discussions because people are talking about they believe and have no interest in anything I might have to say about it.

But if you're going to start a debate thread, promising "evidence to prove" one thing or another -- well expect anybody who likes evidence and proof to get keenly involved.

The sad part is, there a many people who want to have their cherished beliefs approved of, or even better, believed. But you can't get somebody to believe what you do by trying to make them think like you do -- they can't do that, they can only think like they themselves do. Thus, you have to provide something that will give them a reason to think as you do -- and that is always, I'm afraid to say it, some compelling evidence.

The problem with that is that there is no compelling evidence -- not in any religious belief known to man, and sadly, you can't manufacture any -- that convinces a non-believer to adopt your beliefs. That's the problem with this particular issue -- it's been going on for bloody ever, and it never gets resolved.

Now, that last point is of some interest, if you ask yourself, "what would it take to get it resolved?" And the simple answer is -- some compelling reason to believe. Otherwise known as "evidence."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm a Wiccan and a polytheist, and I believe it's possible that multiple deities could exist.

To which I have only a single question: "what is it that makes you believe that any (not just one or many) deities exist?"

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

To which I have only a single question: "what is it that makes you believe that any (not just one or many) deities exist?"

I think it's possible that multiple deities could exist because I believe in supernatural phenomena, and I provided several reasons why I believe in supernatural phenomena in the first link in my previous post, which is here. I explained my reasons in the last paragraph of the post. And if you want to know more about what I wrote in the last paragraph, then you can read these previous posts of mine: (1) "Annoying proselytizing (and preaching);" (2) "Earthbound Spirits;" and (3) "Do you believe in the afterlife?" FYI, I posted a few links in the "Annoying proselytizing" post that further explain why I believe in supernatural phenomena. I hope that the links I posted and my answer have sufficiently answered your question. If you have any specific questions, then feel free to send me a private message.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem with that is that there is no compelling evidence -- not in any religious belief known to man, and sadly, you can't manufacture any -- that convinces a non-believer to adopt your beliefs. That's the problem with this particular issue -- it's been going on for bloody ever, and it never gets resolved.

Now, that last point is of some interest, if you ask yourself, "what would it take to get it resolved?" And the simple answer is -- some compelling reason to believe. Otherwise known as "evidence."

It seems a bit odd to me that the evidence for God's existence, most of which comes by way of religion, is compelling to 93% of the world population, yet it is not compelling for atheists. The atheist claim that atheists are just more intelligent than believers, critical thinkers, etc, just does not cut the mustard, and it is very arrogant. It makes no logical sense that all those people who have recognized the evidence for God are stupid idiots who cannot think their way out of a paper bag. Please bear in mind that these "stupid people" are the people, who are running the world. It is not the mere 7% of atheists who are running the world, that would not be logically possible.

So when you say there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, what you are really saying is that "there is no evidence that is compelling for me to believe in God."

Moreover, since it is the believers who have found the evidence it might be wise for the theists to listen to the believers instead of poo-pooing all their evidence. If most believers believe in God because of a religion, it makes logical sense that what is found in religion IS the evidence and there is not some other kind of evidence that you refer to as "evidence."

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not saying that Baha'u'llah was deceptive, I am saying that God himself (which I referred to as Baha as the Baha'i name of God) is deceptive, if he presents itself as different things to different people at different times

God was revealed through Messengers differently at different times because people were different in different times and the people those Messengers were addressing were also different. People's needs and capacities have changed over time. Perhaps there was a time when people were incapable of believing in one God, so scripture referred to "many gods."

It makes no sense that revelations from God would be static, frozen in time, because people and the world they live in change dramatically over time. This is the whole idea behind progressive revelation, which is a core teaching of the Baha'i Faith.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Being critical of a religion does not cause disunity. If people have claims of arguments against one religion or another it does not stop unity of religion. And if you respect other people's opinions you should allow them to voice their opinion on a debate forum.

Being overly critical of a religion causes disunity between the people of the targeted religion and the people who are criticizing it. If people respected other people's religions they would not be so critical of them. They could state what they don't like about the religion, as you did, and do it respectfully. As my late husband used to say "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

 

[F1fan]

It seems a bit odd to me that the evidence for God's existence, most of which comes by way of religion, is compelling to 93% of the world population, yet it is not compelling for atheists.

You are assuming believers are rational and arrived at rational conclusions that a God exists via facts and reasoning. None do. Theists adopt one form of religion or another from their social experience in whatever location they are in. There is a strong biological component to why humans evolved to believe in religion. This article explains it pretty well.

Why Do People Believe in God?

The atheist claim that atheists are just more intelligent than believers, critical thinkers, etc, just does not cut the mustard, and it is very arrogant.

No, critical thinkers apporach religion and rleigious ideas objectively and by doing so they recognize no basis to make a conclusion that a God exists. Believers approach their belief non-rationally, and are generally in the habit of belief.

It makes no logical sense that all those people who have recognized the evidence for God are stupid idiots who cannot think their way out of a paper bag. Please bear in mind that these "stupid people" are the people, who are running the world. It is not the mere 7% of atheists who are running the world, that would not be logically possible.

This sounds like sour grapes. Do you ever read your posts before you submit them?

So when you say there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, what you are really saying is that "there is no evidence that is compelling for me to believe in God."

Yes, that's how it works when you have no bias and have a high standard for evidence and reason.

Moreover, since it is the believers who have found the evidence it might be wise for the theists to listen to the believers instead of poo-pooing all their evidence. If most believers believe in God because of a religion, it makes logical sense that what is found in religion IS the evidence and there is not some other kind of evidence that you refer to as "evidence."

The evidence is non-existant or weak, and believers are guilty of confirmation bias in their thinking.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You are assuming believers are rational and arrived at rational conclusions that a God exists via facts and reasoning. None do. Theists adopt one form of religion or another from their social experience in whatever location they are in. There is a strong biological component to why humans evolved to believe in religion. This article explains it pretty well.

Why Do People Believe in God?

In my opinion, any claim that suggests a religion is true because many people in the world believe in it is an example of the "appeal to the people" (Argumentum ad populum) fallacy (read about it here), which has already been shunned more than once in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my opinion, any claim that suggests a religion is true because many people in the world believe in it is an example of the "appeal to the people" (Argumentum ad populum) fallacy (read about it here), which has already been shunned more than once in this thread.

It is a terrible argument since no religion holds a majority. So if you go by popular vote there will always be more voting against a religion than voting for it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It is a terrible argument since no religion holds a majority. So if you go by popular vote there will always be more voting against a religion than voting for it.

I think that you are correct, and the Psychology Today article you linked to is very interesting. Thank you for posting it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are assuming believers are rational and arrived at rational conclusions that a God exists via facts and reasoning. None do.

You are 'assuming' believers are irrational and arrived at irrational conclusions that a God exists with no reasoning. To say "none do" is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of black and white thinking.

All you have is a personal opinion but you state it as if it is a fact.
I could just as easily say that atheists are irrational and arrived at irrational conclusions that a God does not exist with no reasoning, but I don't say this because I do not think about other people in a negative way, so those thoughts don't even enter my mind.

No, critical thinkers apporach religion and rleigious ideas objectively and by doing so they recognize no basis to make a conclusion that a God exists. Believers approach their belief non-rationally, and are generally in the habit of belief.

That is nothing more than your biased personal opinion, a way to knock believers down so you can feel superior. Anyone who looks at this objectively can see this. Do you see me knocking atheists down? No, but I am finally standing up for believers because I have had enough.

This sounds like sour grapes. Do you ever read your posts before you submit them?

I was well aware what I was posting and fully expected the backlash. I have been holding back for a long time but it was high time I finally said something in response to the constant berating of believers.

Yes, that's how it works when you have no bias and have a high standard for evidence and reason.

No, that's how it works when you have a huge bias against religion and an absurd standard for evidence, expecting evidence for God that is not logically possible to ever obtain.

The evidence is non-existant or weak, and believers are guilty of confirmation bias in their thinking.

All 93% of the believers who believe in God are guilty of confirmation bias in their thinking, but no atheists are ever guilty of confirmation bias. Atheists are smarter than all those stupid believers. This is drop dead illogical, the fallacy of black and white thinking.

You post about psychology of belief, so here is a little basic psychology for you. The reason you need to knock down believers is to raise yourself up, so you can feel superior. Thankfully, not all atheists do this but there are two on this thread that are notorious for this kind of posting.

By the way, your post is not a debate about the evidence, which is the subject of this thread, it is a critique of believers.

 

[F1fan]

It is a terrible argument since no religion holds a majority. So if you go by popular vote there will always be more voting against a religion than voting for it.

I notice how believers give themselves the flexibility in their thinking when it suits them. Tb's post 1091 she writes this:

It seems a bit odd to me that the evidence for God's existence, most of which comes by way of religion, is compelling to 93% of the world population, yet it is not compelling for atheists.​

And this is quite a liberal approach as if all theists share the same God, which they don't.

 

[Truthseeker]

I do not love arguing Duane, I do not even like it. I only do it as a duty.
When they took this thread down yesterday I was so relieved, but then they brought it back up.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that doesn't do what Baha'is call consultation. If you don't know what that is exactly, I'll try to explain what that is. Anyway, it takes two to consult. If the other person debates, there will be no consultation. This is my last post in this thread (I think).

Edit: Consultation from the Writings:

“The prime requisites for them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment from all else save God, attraction to His Divine Fragrances, humility and lowliness amongst His loved ones, patience and long-suffering in difficulties and servitude to His exalted Threshold. Should they be graciously aided to acquire these attributes, victory from the unseen Kingdom of Bahá shall be vouchsafed to them. In this day, assemblies of consultation are of the greatest importance and a vital necessity. Obedience unto them is essential and obligatory. The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously, well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.”
Shoghi Effendi, "Bahá’í Administration", 2.11 (quoting Abdu'l-Baha)

Enumerating the obligations incumbent upon the members of consulting councils, the Beloved reveals the following: — “The first condition is absolute love and harmony amongst the members of the assembly. They must be wholly free from estrangement and must manifest in themselves the Unity of God, for they are the waves of one sea, the drops of one river, the stars of one heaven, the rays of one sun, the trees of one orchard, the flowers of one garden. Should harmony of thought and absolute unity be non-existent, that gathering shall be dispersed and that assembly be brought to naught. The second condition: — They must when coming together turn their faces to the Kingdom on High and ask aid from the Realm of Glory. They must then proceed with the utmost devotion, courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views. They must in every matter search out the truth and not insist upon their own opinion, for stubbornness and persistence in one’s views will lead ultimately to discord and wrangling and the truth will remain hidden. The honored members must with all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another...
Shoghi Effendi, "Bahá’í Administration", 2.12

 

[John53]

In my opinion, any claim that suggests a religion is true because many people in the world believe in it is an example of the "appeal to the people" (Argumentum ad populum) fallacy (read about it here), which has already been shunned more than once in this thread.

They also fail to mention that all 93% don't believe in their God, they might believe in a God so I'm not sure how it's relevant other than to show what a poor job the messengers are doing.