Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

I provided the 3 sources of evidence and I do not intent to provide facts or proofs from the evidence.

After nearly 1900 posts, I thought that would be more than obvious, especially since I have said it nearly every reply.

Regards Tony

No, they were three claims of evidence. They were not shown to be reliable sources. in fact they do not appear to be so. You would need to show that they are reliable to count as evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, they were three claims of evidence. They were not shown to be reliable sources. in fact they do not appear to be so. You would need to show that they are reliable to count as evidence.

Proof

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.

I am not going to name names or get into a debate about this.
I will only say that I think it is illogical and unreasonable to expect to have evidence for God when that evidence does not exist.

The logical thing to do, when presented with evidence that believers offer, is not to say "that's not evidence."
The logical thing to say is " that evidence you offered is not good enough to compel me to believe."
At that point there is nothing more that needs to be said. The party is over and we can all go home.

Look at this thread. I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.

And that is the thing. You believe. That is fine. But to say that it is based upon anything even close to reliable evidence would be incorrect. It might strike a chord with you. It may appeal to your reasoning, but even you appear to realize that it is not reliable evidence. The OP is claiming that they are but refusing to do his homework.

If it appeals to you and works for you that is fine. No one is saying that you should quit believing. It is just rather annoying when someone claims to have reliable evidence and obviously does not.

And no, this is not about egos. Unless yours is harmed when it is pointed out that you are following a concept that is not well supported and at times is self contradictory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof

Regards Tony

So now you are admitting that your whole thread was a joke from the very start?

 

[F1fan]

Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.

Well THAT kind of evidence is what is required. Anything less is not sufficient. That is not our problem, it is the problem of believers who want to debate their beliefs.

I am not going to name names or get into a debate about this.

Yeah, didn't think so. I suspect a false accusation because what you accuse atheists of doing isn't anything i have observed.

I will only say that I think it is illogical and unreasonable to expect to have evidence for God when that evidence does not exist.

That is something theists should know before they try to argue their religious beliefs in an open forum.

The logical thing to do, when presented with evidence that believers offer, is not to say "that's not evidence."
The logical thing to say is " that evidence you offered is not good enough to compel me to believe."
At that point there is nothing more that needs to be said. The party is over and we can all go home.

Uh, that is exactly what many of us have said, and the result? Theists ignored it, and kept making their claims.

Look at this thread. I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.

Religious identity is egocentric. But we critical thinkers are trying to inform theists how to reason, and what proper evidence is and what poor evidence is. You have had your set of problems, and it seems you have adjusted. Other theists have not.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually, @Trailblazer does answer this somewhere. Apparently the other Messengers did get it right but the messages got corrupted afterwards. Only the writings of Bahaʼu'llah are free from corruption.

As an aside ... Something we non believers tend to overlook is that none of our arguments are new to (educated) believers.They have considered them all and have prepared answers to all of them. I have to smile when yet another atheist presents his well worn argument that he is so sure will convince them.

That Baha'i answer is dependent on their being an "original" teaching of the manifestation. Since none of these "original" teachings exist, it allows the Baha'i Faith to make one up. But Baha'is know that most all of the Scriptures of the other religions weren't written by the manifestation. So, of course there is very likely things that aren't true that got added into the story. But with a religion like Christianity when did the "corruption" take place? And do Baha'is really believe the NT is corrupted, or just that it has been misinterpreted? The usual answer is that the followers took things too literally. That Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead but spiritually.

But, even though they say all religions are one and from the same God, their interpretations of the other religions make them obsolete. The teachings are wrong, and Baha'u'llah has brought a new and better message anyway, so those old religions and their teachings have been replaced.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well THAT kind of evidence is what is required. Anything less is not sufficient.

Tell God, not me. I am not the one who is in charge of providing evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

If one makes up something and attributes it to Buddha, it is false evidence.

That is a key to consider when one starts walking the minefield that is now called Buddhism.

Regards Tony

So, what the Baha'i Faith says about Buddhism is true, and what Buddhists say about their own religion is false? Yet, Baha'u'llah didn't mention the Buddha at all?

 

[CG Didymus]

rebirth

(Sorry, I'm a stickler. )

Good, what is the Zen belief about rebirth? If it is still returning into a human body, Baha'is still don't believe it. They say that people only get born once, then die and move on to some other spirit world where the soul continues to progress. Again, stuff they can't prove. Yet they know they are right and the other beliefs in the other religions, if different, are wrong. And that ties in with their belief that the teachings of the other religions got corrupted. So, they don't believe that the Buddha taught such a thing, but that his followers added that in.

 

[CG Didymus]

Luckily I have other sources of evidence that can confirm Krishna.

The claim... He has sources.

I was responding to what you said you had -- and that I would be interested to see it. Are you now telling me you were being disingenuous and don't actually have it?

Why do I get the feeling that Tony doesn't have any sources that confirms Krishna. Again, Baha'u'llah, the all-knowing, didn't even bother to mention Krishna as one of his fellow manitestations.

 

[CG Didymus]

So now you are admitting that your whole thread was a joke from the very start?

Christians? Baha'is? It's all the same. They each believe their stuff is the absolute truth.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, what the Baha'i Faith says about Buddhism is true, and what Buddhists say about their own religion is false? Yet, Baha'u'llah didn't mention the Buddha at all?

I guess you will have to research the available evidence yourself CG.

I will not be commenting on it further.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, Baha'u'llah, the all-knowing, didn't even bother to mention Krishna as one of his fellow manitestations.

Neither did the all-knowing Jesus.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Also when we pursue the evidence, what we can find is the fundamental truths they all contain.

The key here is, all Faiths have the evidence, but will a person of one faith be willing to pursue the evidence provided by all Faiths?

Regards Tony

All faiths have "evidence" for their fundamental truths. But the truths are different. What is in common is that the evidence is unreliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither did the all-knowing Jesus.

Why believe those stories of Jesus? The first gospels of his are from over a generation after he died. The religion almost certainly started as oral tradition. A lot can change in 35 years.

 

[We Never Know]

No. Both are opinions. There is a difference.

I said in post #1746

Its a fact I like guns.
Its a fact Bob doesn't like guns.
Both are true.


You call them opinions when they are fact.

In post #1818 I said...

I own 14 guns. I enjoy hunting and target plinking. I also carry one.
Fact is I like guns.

Bob owns no guns. Thinks no one should own guns. Started a petition to try to ban all guns.
Fact is Bob doesn't like guns.

Which shows you why both statements in post #1746 are fact and true.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.

Isn't this the kind of evidence Messengers are supposed to possess? If not, then they were also under delusion...

 

[Trailblazer]

All faiths have "evidence" for their fundamental truths. But the truths are different. What is in common is that the evidence is unreliable.

What do you mean by unreliable? Unreliable for whom?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why believe those stories of Jesus?

If you think I believe those stories think again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Isn't this the kind of evidence Messengers are supposed to possess? If not, then they were also under delusion...

F1fan said: This is why critical thinkers rely on the highest standard used in science, law, logic, etc.

No, of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law.
Try to think about why that is not the case.