Evidence

[We Never Know]

All atheists are liars, immoral, don't know whate evidence is, hate God. What's the difference?

Lets say you think your child is gifted, beautiful and great.... If I disagree.. Should I...
1. Let you be happy with what you think
OR
2. Tell you your kid is lost, ugly and sucks

 

[We Never Know]

To help them clarify their arguments or discover faults in their reasoning.

I assume someone proffering an argument or opinion is interested in the truth of their opinion. Fault-finding assists them in this. Failure to criticize an argument is dismissive and an insult to the arguer.

How can you or anyone clarify what you/they don't know?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Lets say you think your child is gifted, beautiful and great.... If I disagree.. Should I...
1. Let you be happy with what you think
OR
2. Tell you your kid is lost, ugly and sucks

I wouldn't go with 2.

But one thing I wouldn't do is post pictures of kids in the Debates forum and ask people their opinions.

 

[We Never Know]

To help them clarify their arguments or discover faults in their reasoning.

I assume someone proffering an argument or opinion is interested in the truth of their opinion. Fault-finding assists them in this. Failure to criticize an argument is dismissive and an insult to the arguer.

Bob says a god does exist
Bill say no gods exist

Which one can 100% show they are right?

IMO neither can. Both are only stating what they believe/their opinion.

 

[F1fan]

My evidence is the facts about Baha'u'llah, what He was like as a person and what He did in His life, as well as what He wrote. There are no assumptions.

You are assuming what he wrote is true. What he wrote is not verified as true. What he wrote is not completely factual.

I meant that I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because of the facts about Him and His mission.

It's not likley he was. It's not believable to objective thinkers. You are not interested in belief that is rational.

The Truth about God isn't factual because NOTHING about God can ever be proven as a fact.

Lacking facts no rational mind would judge God as existing. You have some other motive to believe.

Baha'u'llah authenticated them when He stamped them with His official seal. It means we know for a fact that they were written by Baha'u'llah. Whether they are true or not is for you to decide.

This isn't objective. The insiders will validate their own texts. The same goes for Mormons and the Mormon Bible, and the Urantia folks and the Urantia Book.

Of course no rational person believes what a person says just because they say so. I do not believe in Baha'u'llah because He claimed to be a Messenger of God, I believe because of the evidence that supports that claim.

Yet there is no such evidence that is extraordinary, and there is evidence that suggests he made it up himself. If a pwerson claims to be a messenger of God then there had better be extraordinary evidence. It should be overwhelming. It isn't.

I ruled out that He was mentally ill since there is no indication that He was mentally ill, thus no reason to think so.

But it is possible, yes?

What is extraordinary evidence to one person is not extraordinary evidence to another person.
I never admitted that there is none. Baha'u'llah performed a lot of miracles, but why would you believe that unless you witnessed them firsthand?.

You keep adjusting your responses to criticisms. I'm not convinced.

My beliefs are based on facts about Baha'u'llah. They are rejected by atheists because those facts are not good enough evidence for them.

You are correct that there are no facts that prove the supernatural bits, such as the Baha'u'llah received communication fro God. That can never be considered a fact since it can never be proven. It must be accepted on faith.

But you just claimed there was extraordinary evidence. Now you admit it isn't factual.

 

[John53]

Lets say you think your child is gifted, beautiful and great.... If I disagree.. Should I...
1. Let you be happy with what you think
OR
2. Tell you your kid is lost, ugly and sucks

If I take it to a debate forum say what you like.

 

[Valjean]

"gullible, devoid of critical thinking, unreasonable, irrational, and in need of emotional comfort"

And sometimes stupid, uneducated, etc.

Its all attacking in my opinio n

And, considering what they believe to be the possible consequences of false beliefs, it behooves one to assist them in critically analyzing their beliefs for errors.
One should do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Would you want someone to allow you to burn in Hell, when they know of an error you made that would save you?

 

[John53]

You spelled "humans" wrong

I forgot the biggie, that's what I get for typing on a tablet while watching the cricket. Anyway here it is....

I'm yet to see an atheist threaten anyone to eternal punishment for not agreeing with them.

 

[We Never Know]

You are assuming what he wrote is true. What he wrote is not verified as true. What he wrote is not completely factual.


It's not likley he was. It's not believable to objective thinkers. You are not interested in belief that is rational.


Lacking facts no rational mind would judge God as existing. You have some other motive to believe.


This isn't objective. The insiders will validate their own texts. The same goes for Mormons and the Mormon Bible, and the Urantia folks and the Urantia Book.


Yet there is no such evidence that is extraordinary, and there is evidence that suggests he made it up himself. If a pwerson claims to be a messenger of God then there had better be extraordinary evidence. It should be overwhelming. It isn't.


But it is possible, yes?


You keep adjusting your responses to criticisms. I'm not convinced.


But you just claimed there was extraordinary evidence. Now you admit it isn't factual.

All your post radiates is "your are wrong and I am right". Its sad.

 

[We Never Know]

And, considering what they believe to be the possible consequences of false beliefs, it behooves one to assist them in critically analyzing their beliefs for errors.
One should do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Would you want someone to allow you to burn in Hell, when they know of an error you made that would save you?

Which one is 100% correct?

 

[We Never Know]

I forgot the biggie, that's what I get for typing on a tablet while watching the cricket. Anyway here it is....

I'm yet to see an atheist threaten anyone to eternal punishment for not agreeing with them.

Bottom line.... When its comes to a god, none of you all are debating facts or evidence. You all are debating believe and opinion.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Lets say you think your child is gifted, beautiful and great.... If I disagree.. Should I...
1. Let you be happy with what you think
OR
2. Tell you your kid is lost, ugly and sucks

To use a different analogy.

Let's say I invite you over to a cookout and to play the game Smash Bros. on Nintendo Switch. I am ready for the cookout and to play. We have the cookout, then when we get to playing Smash Bros, you pick up the controller, but don't move your character. For two whole hours, while I try to play, you say things like "These games are too violent", "When I was a kid, we went outdoors", and "Should you really play this well against this online person you're playing against?"

 

[John53]

Bottom line.... When its comes to a god, none of you all are debating facts or evidence. You all are debating believe and opinion.

So what! It's a debate!

 

[Valjean]

Which one is 100% correct?

The $64.000 question....

And this is the position of many fundamentalists, that wrong beliefs will condemn you to perdition, but they are 100% correct and can save you, if you'll just accept the truth of their doctrine.
You'd think they'd welcome your help, and thank you for pointing out errors, as scientists or intellectuals would.

 

[We Never Know]

So what! It's a debate!

A debate about believe and opinion from both sides when neither knows? So how its a winner declared when neither know?

IMO There isn't a winner. There are hopefuls and unhappy dicks that try to destroy the hopes of others.

Prove me wrong!

 

[We Never Know]

The $64.000 question....

And this is the position of many fundamentalists, that wrong beliefs will condemn you to perdition, but they are 100% correct and can save you, if you'll just accept the truth of their doctrine.
You'd think they'd welcome your help, and thank you for pointing out errors.

So neither are correct?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A debate about believe and opinion from both sides when neither knows? So how its a winner declared when neither know?

IMO There isn't a winner. There are hopefuls and unhappy dicks that try to destroy the hopes of others.

Prove me wrong!

One thing I might agree with, without agreeing with the whole entire message, is that the non-theists here might be better debaters and better arguers, which means that even in a fair debate, they'll (usually) come out on top.

 

[We Never Know]

One thing I might agree with, without agreeing with the whole entire message, is that the non-theists here might be better debaters and better arguers, which means that even in a fair debate, they'll (usually) come out on top.

If neither can show they are 100% right, neither really knows for a fact, how does either win?

 

[Valjean]

So what! It's a debate!

Beliefs and opinions won't support a debate, and points will be deducted for poor reasoning.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If neither can show they are 100% right, neither really knows for a fact, how does either win?

If a winner must be determined, it's determined by the crowd, the people watching the debate.

If the crowd is honest, they'll hopefully decide that based on who was the better arguer, and most of all, who presented the best arguments.