Facts vs evidence

[Ella S.]

Of course people can deny that there is a purpose .. so what..
If people think that life is just a game that ends with death, then they are in for a shock.

I know .. where's my evidence ..I don't need to argue with foolish people, that claim that life
is just a game without any real consequence in the long run.
We all have a conscience, and we can deny whatever we like .. evidence or no evidence.

In other words, "I don't have any evidence for my outlandish and completely baseless claims, but if you don't agree with me it's only because you're an evil fool and deny your conscience."

Do I even have to point out how that's completely delusional and grandiose?

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting observation. The Baha'i faith is considered one of the Abrahamic religions. I don't know much about the god you believe in, but you've indicated that it disapproves of homosexuality. Where does that idea come from if not the Old Testament?

That might be in the Old Testament, but the Baha'i views regarding homosexuality come from the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, not from the Old Testament. It just so happens that God's views on the matter have not changed over time, although the punishments have changed markedly from what they were in the Old Testament.

What characterizes the god of the Abraham is that it is an immaterial personage (they say a personal god, or as you say, anthropomorphic) separate from nature and which gives man moral commandments. What other religions have that part from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'ism? Do you believe a perfect tri-omni God created man (and the world)? In his own image? With an immortal soul? If so, I'd say that your god is the god of Abraham. Do you disagree?

Yes, Baha'is believe in the God of Abraham, but that is different from saying we believe that everything in the Old Testament that is written about God is actually true. I cannot speak for all Baha'is but I do not believe in the stories in the Old Testament that turn God into a man.

This is from the Wiki called Abrahamic Faiths.

"The Baháʼí Faith, which developed from Shi'a Islam during the late 19th century, is a world religion that has been listed as Abrahamic by scholarly sources in various fields. Monotheistic, it recognizes Abraham as one of a number of Manifestations of God including Adam, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb, and ultimately Baháʼu'lláh. God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through these intermediaries, in a process known as progressive revelation."

Yes, that is accurate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A valuable distinction to draw.

Drawing distinctions, defining terms and using evidence productively doesn't seem to be the strong suit of many theists. I do what I can to help the out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course people can deny that there is a purpose .. so what..

Here's another example of a response that doesn't reflect on what I posted. Is this mike on?

I didn't say anything about denying purpose. I said that I don't have evidence for one for natural events. You don't either.

If people think that life is just a game that ends with death, then they are in for a shock.

Always the go to threat of some theists. "You'll get yours when you die". Yada yada yada.

I didn't imply or claim that life was a game. There being no evidence for some underlying purpose to all events in nature (life?) doesn't imply a game either.

I know .. where's my evidence ..I don't need to argue with foolish people, that claim that life
is just a game without any real consequence in the long run.

Good grief guy. I'm sure you feel you are a credit to your belief system. I suppose someone has to.

I never claimed that life was just a game. I never implied it. Are you sure that I'm the foolish person here? You're arguing against things I never claimed. You do the math.

We all have a conscience, and we can deny whatever we like .. evidence or no evidence.

I have no idea what you mean. It just seems like rambling now.

I take if from all this misfire that you know you don't have evidence for purpose in nature and don't want to admit it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In other words, "I don't have any evidence for my outlandish and completely baseless claims, but if you don't agree with me it's only because you're an evil fool and deny your conscience."

Do I even have to point out how that's completely delusional and grandiose?

Winner Frube!

 

[muhammad_isa]

In other words, "I don't have any evidence for my outlandish and completely baseless claims, but if you don't agree with me it's only because you're an evil fool and deny your conscience."

No .. I have plenty of evidence, but I can see that it is not worth discussing with a person who denies
the significance of existence.
Should I continue arguing with people who play devil's advocate?
In my opinion, no.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I take if from all this misfire that you know you don't have evidence for purpose in nature and don't want to admit it.

There is reams and reams of evidence..
..but to the atheist, it is all about chance and mindless evolution.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
- Noam Chomsky -

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is reams and reams of evidence..

Of course, just nothing to corroborate it or to show your reams and reams of evidence are the correct evidence over someone else's reams and reams of evidence. We are not talking about what a person believes. We are talking about what they can demonstrate with unambiguous, evidence that can be shared and reviewed equally by others.

..but to the atheist, it is all about chance and mindless evolution.

I suppose atheists do use evidence even when you don't. I don't think atheists think it is all about chance and they would agree with me that there is no evidence for the actions of an intelligence in nature. Just so you can understand this so you don't keep repeating incorrect things, I didn't say that I don't believe there is no intelligence guiding nature. Just that there is no evidence for that guidance. What some book claims is not the sort of evidence I'm talking about either. Lots of books claim lots of things and some of those things contradict each other.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
- Noam Chomsky -

That's a claim waiting for the rubbish heap.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No .. I have plenty of evidence, but I can see that it is not worth discussing with a person who denies
the significance of existence.
Should I continue arguing with people who play devil's advocate?
In my opinion, no.

I got lots of evidence, but I can't show you any of it. Really? You're on here constantly, what is stopping you from providing this evidence, reasoned explanation of it and reasoned argument why it is evidence and shows what you claim?

Could it be, I don't know? Could it be? You don't really have it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I got lots of evidence, but I can't show you any of it. Really? You're on here constantly, what is stopping you from providing this evidence..

I have, and I know by experience that if people do not want to acknowledge truth, they will not.
I have no interest in writing long posts just to be told that it is only evidence, if you have evidence
to prove it's evidence.

Any intelligent person can understand that we have intelligence for a purpose.
It isn't just a fluke.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's a claim waiting for the rubbish heap.

What do you mean by that?
The Darwinist claims that humans have intelligence due to evolutionary psychology.
That's it .. it's all for nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have, and I know by experience that if people do not want to acknowledge truth, they will not.
I have no interest in writing long posts just to be told that it is only evidence, if you have evidence
to prove it's evidence.

Any intelligent person can understand that we have intelligence for a purpose.
It isn't just a fluke.

Whatever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean by that?
The Dawinist claims that humans have intelligence due to evolutionary psychology.
That's it .. it's all for nothing.

Then we have nothing to discuss then. You have your straw man version of things that you are happy with. More power to you.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

In other words, "I don't have any evidence for my outlandish and completely baseless claims, but if you don't agree with me it's only because you're an evil fool and deny your conscience."

Do I even have to point out how that's completely delusional and grandiose?

Winner Frube!

I second that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think atheists think it is all about chance and they would agree with me that there is no evidence for the actions of an intelligence in nature..

I know atheists claim that there is no evidence of intelligence in nature..
..but if I could see no evidence, I would have no good reason to believe that God exists..

Why would I believe in God, if there were no visible signs that God existed?
I wouldn't.
..visible signs, including the behaviour of humans, of course.
Humans are part of nature, are they not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know atheists claim that there is no evidence of intelligence in nature..
..but if I could see no evidence, I would have no good reason to believe that God exists..

Why would I believe in God, if there were no visible signs that God existed?
I wouldn't.
..visible signs, including the behaviour of humans, of course.
Humans are part of nature, are they not?

That's a really odd response!!! You think "the behaviour of humans" is somehow evidence of intelligence in nature (let alone God)?

What are we doing around the world, right now. What have we been doing throughout our history? How nice have we been to one another? How many have we killed, tied to stakes or thrown into volcanos and lakes or cutting their hearts out? How many did we lynch because they were the wrong colour and looked the wrong way at our wives? How many wars? How many entire civilizations wiped out? How many buildings brought down (WTC)? How much art destroyed (Bahmiyan Buddhas)?

Do you have any idea how long I could go on with this pathetic list of what the "behaviour of humans" has wrought?

Do you really consider all of those to be "visible signs that God exists?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know atheists claim that there is no evidence of intelligence in nature..
..but if I could see no evidence, I would have no good reason to believe that God exists..

Why would I believe in God, if there were no visible signs that God existed?
I wouldn't.
..visible signs, including the behaviour of humans, of course.
Humans are part of nature, are they not?

So you believe humans are the intelligence behind nature. That is a different religion and atheist proof too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's a really odd response!!! You think "the behaviour of humans" is somehow evidence of intelligence in nature (let alone God)?

What are we doing around the world, right now. What have we been doing throughout our history? How nice have we been to one another? How many have we killed, tied to stakes or thrown into volcanos and lakes or cutting their hearts out? How many did we lynch because they were the wrong colour and looked the wrong way at our wives? How many wars? How many entire civilizations wiped out? How many buildings brought down (WTC)? How much art destroyed (Bahmiyan Buddhas)?

Do you have any idea how long I could go on with this pathetic list of what the "behaviour of humans" has wrought?

Do you really consider all of those to be "visible signs that God exists?"

I understood that confusing mess a different way. I thought that he was claiming humans are the intelligence behind nature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Science" can be understood in two senses: broadly, as a general academic discipline concerned with the pursuit of knowledge, under which some countries also include fields like ethical philosophy and theology; or narrowly, as an experimental methodology which sets out to falsify hypotheses with measurable observations and the proper documentation and peer-review of said experiments, as well as the collection of data and formulation of theoretical models to help guide these experiments.

Your country almost certainly still uses the narrow sense of science. It's become almost universally recognized for its fruits. It is world-renown for being able to discover true knowledge about external reality. That's not just a Western cultural narrative; there are scientists in every major country across the globe.

The problem is that many people use "other ways of knowing" alongside science which might even contradict science, such as faith, magical thinking, emotional reasoning, motivated reasoning, deference to authority, and any number of biased, fallacious, or pathological thought patterns. Sometimes those wind up in the more broad sense of the term, especially in fields like theology, but these are not to be confused for the more narrow understanding of science.

Yeah, but we still if we have to name science in a more narrow context use natural science.
In fact we have two words for humaniora or humanities. That one and human science and you can find a difference between the 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe in God on faith, but I don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I accept science based on my understanding of the methods, results and evidence.

I recognize that some believers think that a claim is evidence for what is claimed. I don't.

I know that to many this seems contradictory, but there are a lot of us. But just me or a few posting here.

I tend to get more meaning out of conversations with atheists and agnostics than many theists here, since most of those will respond to what I wrote and not to some imagined thing I did not.

Well, I have for the most time I have done this been an agnostic atheist. Only recently did I become religious and even then I am a philosophical deist more than standard religious.