Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Muffled]

Disagree.
There is much evidence the sun is a giant ball of nuclear fire.
There is no evidence the sun is a sentient being that cares about anything - let alone what we do with our private parts.

I believe the sun has power over us by causing the skin to burn and the moon has power to brighten a dark night.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe the sun has power over us by causing the skin to burn and the moon has power to brighten a dark night.

Ok.

Not quite sure what your point is beyond stating the obvious, but ok.
Weird choice of words though.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with your definition of reality. What I disagree with is what can and can't be said about the unknown. Doesn't it stand to reason that if it is unknown then nothing can be said about it? To make any declaration about some feature or thing and say that it resides in the unknown would be de facto creating a fiction.

If something is completely unknown then nothing can be said about it, but if we know a few things then something can be said about it.

God is not 'known to exist' in the physical reality, which means God cannot be found in the physical reality since God does not exist there.
God exists in another dimension that is thus far unknown to us.

 

[Trailblazer]

The example has no forensic or eyewitness evidence either. It just has a person making claims. Which is what you have for your god also.
You think it's enough to accept your god exists, but clearly you don't think it's enough to accept a guilty charge in a murder trial.

You are comparing apples and oranges, which is a logical fallacy.
Condemning a person to death is not the same as a person deciding whether or not to believe in God.
One is a matter of life and death and the other isn't. It is only a choice one makes.

The claims of the Messenger of God would not be enough to believe that God exists since anyone can make claims. It is the Person of the Messenger, what he did on His mission, and what he wrote that causes me to believe that He was speaking for God.

So you can't have empirical evidence and you can't have "testimony".
One has to wonder what then is left that would be in any way convincing.

I cannot have eyewitness testimony but I can have testimony, the testimony of the Messenger of God who is the representative and mouthpiece of God.

How is any of these things evidence?

To me they are evidence that the Messenger was speaking for God, although everyone won't see it that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you defined "superstition" as "not from god".
And you defined "religion" as "from god".

This is about as circular as it gets.

What is circular about that?

What are the criteria to differentiate between the two?

The existence of superstition within the religion. For example, Jesus rising from the dead after three days.

superstition
1a
: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b
: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Definition of SUPERSTITION

 

[Trailblazer]

That is what makes it wrong, I don't know why you would say it is true and then instantly clarify why it isn't

Here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the Bible is true then God exists.

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God then God exists.


If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I nobody can ever prove that the Bible is true or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, the argument is not sound.
The argument is valid but it is not sound since the premises can never be proven true.

A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

I just used these examples as they are pretty clear examples. But there are lots of rules in all religions of what you should and shouldn't do, a majority of these are minor things, but I think this counts as being manipulated into behaving a certain way,

Yes, there are teachings and laws in religious scriptures, telling us what we should and should not do, but I don't see that as manipulation. If parents tell their children what they should and should not do is that manipulation?

you have to remember that in all cases those interpreting the rules are merely humans having no authority to do it, except that the believers in the religion seek them for guidance, rather than simply reading the text themselves and do as they say.

No, religious leaders should not be telling people what to do since they have no authority to do so. They are mere humans.
Believers might go to them for guidance but it is better if believers go to the texts themselves and so as they say.

And as we know a lot of modern religious leaders don't follow the rules, they bend and twist them to fit with the modern world. If you read the Bible the majority of the rules are extremely straightforward forward and there isn't really that many compared to the insane amount of rules we have today, just think about selling a house, traffic laws, tax laws etc. The old biblical laws are nothing compared to that, in terms of scale.

It is not only the religious leaded who don't follow the rules, but rather bend and twist them to fit with the modern world. It is also the religions believers. For example, fornication is prohibited in the Bible, but most Christians have sex out of wedlock.

I agree. But that is the "power" of organized religion, they can get away with a lot more things than cults can. Also because there is a lot of believers so they have political power, big enough to overthrow or keep a government in power as we see all over the world.

Yes, the larger organized religions have a lot of power and a lot of members so they can get away with a lot more than a cult.

 

[CG Didymus]

None of this is factual.

She keeps throwing out the same old argument. If it's not "factual" then what is it? A wild guess? Total fiction? No, religious beliefs are put out there as if they are the ultimate truth and reality. Yet each religion has different beliefs about what is truth and reality.

That, to me, is a strong negative against the Baha'i Faith. They have to deny some of the beliefs of the other religions and say that those things aren't true. But then say that the messengers and the message from those other religions is part of the evidence for God?

If there's a problem with the messages, then there is a problem with the religion and the messenger and the God that sent them. Baha'is can't have it both ways. Yet, they try to by saying that the followers added in things and misinterpreted things. Well then, the message is no good. It is not factual. We don't know what the original true teachings were.

Baha'is have evidence that their guy lived and wrote things and claimed to have been sent by some God. How do we know that? They have investigated and have "proven" it to themselves that their prophet is trustworthy and can be believed in. For a Baha'is then, what he says is the truth. It is fact. And once they've convinced themselves that everything their prophet says is true, then everything his religion says is then true also.

And what was that proof? Oh yeah, his writings, his character, his mission is the evidence that has convinced them that what he says is the truth and is factual. I don't understand why a believer in the Baha'i Faith would not just come out and say that they believe it is fact.... except maybe for the fact that they are relying on flimsy evidence and are taking it on "faith".

 

[Trailblazer]

She keeps throwing out the same old argument. If it's not "factual" then what is it?

It is a belief. It is not a fact since it is not known or proved to be true.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

 

[Nimos]

If the Bible is true then God exists.

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God then God exists.

Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

None of these are circular fallacies, they are all valid statements

A circular fallacy is when you use an unjustified conclusion to justify itself so to speak.

A simple example could be (Assuming we knew nothing about rabbits):

Rabbits can't be green, because green rabbits don't exist.

If you split them into two statements:

A. Rabbits can't be green
B. Because green rabbits don't exist.

So if I asked you, how do you know that rabbits can't be green (A)? Your answer would be drawing on your unjustified conclusion of B, which is that they don't exist.

Equally, if I asked you, how do you know green rabbits don't exist? You use the unjustified conclusion of A to justify B.

We all suffer from circular fallacies, it is not a unique thing. But we can use knowledge to at least reduce it. In the example above, we do have a lot of knowledge about rabbits to draw on and based on this we can with high confidence say that green rabbits don't exist. Even though it might be wrong, we have so much evidence that this simply doesn't happen naturally that it is not just grabbed from thin air.

So in your example:

If the Bible is true then God exists.

This statement is true because it doesn't rely on God to be true for the bible to be. Because you use the condition "If the bible is true" then "God must be". So everything relies on whether or not the bible is true.

This wouldn't work the other way around, if God exists the bible must be true. That is a fallacy as well because there are lots of God(s) and even if God exists the bible could contain errors in the form of human mistakes.

Yes, there are teachings and laws in religious scriptures, telling us what we should and should not do, but I don't see that as manipulation. If parents tell their children what they should and should not do is that manipulation?

Well it is manipulation, it's not necessarily bad. Even lying to children is not always harmful even though it is also manipulation. For instance, telling them that Santa is real can make them excited and happy etc, which is good. Lying to them to prevent them from doing something that could potentially harm them would also be good.

But the laws in the Bible rely on whether God said this or not, and even then a lot of them are very questionable from a moral point of view I would say. To the point where one could wonder if an all-mighty God really cares about such things and might not have better things to do?

No, religious leaders should not be telling people what to do since they have no authority to do so. They are mere humans.
Believers might go to them for guidance but it is better if believers go to the texts themselves and so as they say.

Yet they do, I have never heard of any priest or spiritual leader of any kind present any evidence of their authority to do this or even give a reasonable explanation of why anyone ought to do what they are saying? They go to school and get a degree and then they have "authority", that doesn't really seem like how God intended it to work.

It is not only the religious leaded who don't follow the rules, but rather bend and twist them to fit with the modern world. It is also the religions believers. For example, fornication is prohibited in the Bible, but most Christians have sex out of wedlock.

Agree, everyone does it. And then they explain it away with people being born sinners and what other nonsense. You just have to listen to the banana man (can't remember his name Ray Confort or something I think?) and the tactic he is using is extremely obvious, bogus and completely unjustified.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there's a problem with the messages, then there is a problem with the religion and the messenger and the God that sent them. Baha'is can't have it both ways.

Who determines if there is a problem with the messages?
Whether there is a problem or not is only a subjective personal opinion. Until people step outside of themselves and realize that they will never be able to look at this objectively.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what was that proof? Oh yeah, his writings, his character, his mission is the evidence that has convinced them that what he says is the truth and is factual. I don't understand why a believer in the Baha'i Faith would not just come out and say that they believe it is fact....

Because it is not a fact, it is only a belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

religious beliefs are put out there as if they are the ultimate truth and reality.

Is that a fact?

If there's a problem with the messages, then there is a problem with the religion

The Baha'i Faith claims there are problems with the message. For example, the Baha'i prophet says that Isaac was not the son taken to be sacrificed by Abraham... that it was Ishmael. Is that subjective, or is that fact?

 

[F1fan]

Who determines if there is a problem with the messages?

Anyone. Discriminating thinkers tend to expose the problems moreso than believers.

Whether there is a problem or not is only a subjective personal opinion. Until people step outside of themselves and realize that they will never be able to look at this objectively.

No. Critical thinkers explain the problems you present in our claims and statements.

It is a belief. It is not a fact since it is not known or proved to be true.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

Yet you claim your belief in God is knowledge. If you really had knowledge that God exists it would be something you could demonstrate, and we would have to acknowledge it. You don't. What you do offer is like any other religious framework that has supernatural elelments that not only can't be verified as true, but also inconsistent with what is known.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet you claim your belief in God is knowledge. If you really had knowledge that God exists it would be something you could demonstrate, and we would have to acknowledge it. You don't. What you do offer is like any other religious framework that has supernatural elelments that not only can't be verified as true, but also inconsistent with what is known.

No, I did not claim that I have knowledge that God exists. I only ever said that I know that God exists. That is a different statement.
I cannot demonstrate how I know that God exists because it is an inner certitude.

No, supernatural elements can't be verified as true, but they are not inconsistent with what is known, only outside the purview of what is known..

 

[The Hammer]

A drop of off info: Mysticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2021 Edition)

 

[YoursTrue]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

I just read this post and have not yet read any others in this thread. Your question is good and I was thinking something else when I read the title of the thread, but I can only imagine for someone who doesn't believe in God or gods that it sounds like a fantasy to that person and so compares it to a fanciful concept.

 

[F1fan]

No, I did not claim that I have knowledge that God exists. I only ever said that I know that God exists. That is a different statement.

Different wording, same meaning.

I cannot demonstrate how I know that God exists because it is an inner certitude.

Then it is a guess, belief, feeling, assumption, but not knowledge.

No, supernatural elements can't be verified as true, but they are not inconsistent with what is known, only outside the purview of what is known..

That's bad news for you claiming knowledge of a God existing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe a book is physical and so are the words in it. Belief that it is mythical is assumption not evidence.

Myths can be tested based upon what the myths claim happened. When it fails those tests we can know that they are myths. And we do have evidence against them. You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is why you got this so terribly wrong. It is an assumption to say that they are true or false without evidence. With evidence one can show how the Adam and Eve story is mythical. With evidence one can show how the Noah's Ark story is mythical. You are accusing others of your flaws.

 

[F1fan]

I believe the sun has power over us by causing the skin to burn

Interesting how a light jacket and hat is more powerful than the sun. In your view.

and the moon has power to brighten a dark night.

Because it relects the sun's light.

 

[CG Didymus]

No. Critical thinkers explain the problems you present in our claims and statements.

And all the while Baha'is tell us about the problems with the other religions. Yet with their Baha'i teachings they are supposed to live it and preach it to all the people in the world as The Truth from God for this day and age. Maybe to TB it's only a "belief", but some Baha'is take it as fact.

Then it is a guess, belief, feeling, assumption, but not knowledge.

For those Baha'is, they have investigated and come to know that their prophet and the things he writes and claims are true. And they are certain of it.

The Baha’i teachings... cite revelation as the only true source of certitude:​

​

… the grace of the Holy Spirit is the true criterion regarding which there is no doubt or uncertainty. That grace consists in the confirmations of the Holy Spirit which are vouchsafed to man and through which certitude is attained. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 345.​

For TB, to say it's only a "belief," I think is only her clever way to get out of having to prove that the claims of the Baha'i Faith are true. But, then again, I think that's true... It can't be proven. So, why believe it?

That's the problem. It is just a "belief"... a belief that everything the Baha'i Faith is true. But if it's true, then it's fact? But, since it can't be proven, it's not fact, yet it's true? Crazy stuff. I still think some Christians, some Baha'is and some others in the other religions believe their Scriptures are fact.