Question for Atheists

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@actsfourthirty

The post above is a duplicate of an OP which I have already responded to. Please stop spamming. It is against TOS.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@Valjean

I can't disagree with your point; the definition of "person" was pulled from online dictionaries. Your query as to what qualities fit the word "person" is quite tantalizing and worthy of a thread on its own.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Pride and self-interest proves fallen human nature, reason is defective: requiring divine revelation and Christian virtues

Or it proves the primal nature which exists in all human beings; that primal nature being evidence of evolution.

It was the church that created western civilization, pagan religion was barbaric.

"Pagan" covers a very wide and disparate religions that cover a wide range of human behavior, some of them being barbaric. The Christian religion is equally guilty of barbarism, of which I can list multiple examples: Sex abuse scandals, Destruction of Aboriginal and Native American cultures, the Salem Witch Hunts, the Crusades, emotional and sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, the Spanish Inquisitions, stripping parental rights of Haitian children through unlawful and manipulative adoption of the same and shipping them to USA, scriptural references dehumanizing and devaluing blacks as lessers during the slavery era, and the list goes on and on. Christianity, it can be said, is truly barbaric.

Pagan barbarism is a result of fallen human nature corrected by the Christian culivilization, Grace, and virtues.

Corrected? If you view taking aboriginal children from their families by force, subjecting them to neglect and physical and sexual abuse while under the care of the fine, upstanding Christian slavers -- 'scuse me, Caretakers -- then preach on. Personally, I see no grace or virtue in this, or the dozens of other atrocities committed in the name of the Christian religion.

how many times have scientific theories been updated and corrected? (Almost always) Most of what’s called science is not even science but a faith based theory system.

Stating the same thing again and again doesn't make it true. Science demands verifiable evidence; its conclusions must be testable, falsifiable, predictable and repeatable -- it is based on empiricism, which is the antithesis of "faith".

Real science is done in a lab and is repeatable

This, coming from someone who is obviously well educated in science and science philosophy? There is nothing to say that the mouth of a volcano or the night sky can be a "lab". Not only must "real" science be repeatable, but it must also be predictable, falsifiable and testable. Please educate yourself on the most basic fundamentals of science; that way, when you attack or criticize it, you actually understand what you are criticizing.

The heavens declare the glory of God, why? They are ordered they had be an orderer or Creator, creating and ordering the laws of nature.

Agenticity; the human tendency to superimpose purpose, intent and human qualities to that which has no inherent purpose, no intent, no human qualities.

Justice, truth, and morals require the divine

Why?

Religion invented science, most scientist of the 1700’s to the 20th century were religious men, many priests, the oldest observatories or daily recorded weather staitions are located at monasteries, Louie Pasture etc. and the originator of the Big Bang theory was a priest!

The basic building blocks of the scientific method were actually laid down by the Greeks. Please study the history of science before making claims that are not true, so that you assert fewer untrue claims.

Fake science and evolution ..... piltdown man and peeking man were missing link frauds perpetrated by Teilhard de Chardin a apostate priest and called science.

And that fraud was revealed by scientists.

Fake science and evolution as a means of avoiding the eternal moral law, the purpose atheism is to avoid the moral law, eliminate the moral law giver and you eliminate the moral law,......

This is just silly.

Again science is infallible!

Scientists don't hold science to be infallible; yet theists, who hold their divine scriptures as infallible, claim that scientists claim that science is infallible, then rebuke science for a claim it never made. Strawmanning AND projecting.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's merely a belief. Like "bigfoot exists"
I say it's not true. Now what?

Now, if you are "asserting" that it is not true, that is committing the fallacy of Argument from ignorance since you are asserting that "a soul exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true.
But if you say that "you do not believe" that a soul exists that is fair game.

Off course I can, since what constitute a "good and valid" reason to warrant belief, is not dependent on individuals, but rather on rational reasoning, logic and evidence.

You do not determine what a "good and valid" reason to warrant belief is for anyone except yourself.

This is just wrong. And the very root of the problem.
What constitutes rational reasoning and evidence, is not a matter of mere opinion.

No, but you do not set the universal standards for rational reasoning, logic and evidence. What seems rational and logical to you is not what is rational and logical to other people. What is not evidence to you is evidence to other people. How can you prove something is rational and logical? How can you prove something is evidence?

Right, so you DO recognize that what constitutes good or bad reasons, isn't dependent on opinion, but rather upon rules of logic and rational reasoning...?

Yes but what is logical and rational reasoning will differ among people. Who are you to determine what is logical and rational?

You don't "know". You "believe".
Knowledge is demonstrable.
To quote AaronRa: "you don't know it, if you can't show it"

I do know, and not all knowledge is demonstrable.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means

There is no more evidence that the "soul" doesn't leave the body, or that there is such a thing as a "soul", then there is evidence that the "life generating pixies" leave the body, or that there is such a thing as a "soul".

The positive claim carries the burden of proof.

I am not making a claim, I simply have a belief.

The complete lack of any evidence for any afterlives, or souls or life generating pixies, coupled with all the evidence that dead = dead, is completely consistent with death being the end and completely inconsistent with death not being the end.

No, it is not consistent with death being the end because even of ther was no other evidence, the various scriptures that reveal that we have a soul is evidence. I am sorry you do not like that evidence, but that is the only kind of evidence that God provides. Since God created the soul, the logical place where you would information about the soul is from religious scriptures.

Not any more then it is "an argument from ignorance" to assume that there is no bigfoot, no loch ness monster, no life generating pixies, no gravity regulating graviton pixies, no alien abductions, etc.

To assert that any of those things exist would also be an argument from ignorance.

The proposition is "a soul exists and lives on after death". That is the proposition that carries the burden of proof. There is zero evidence for this. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It carries no burden of proof because:

1. I am not claiming it, I believe it, and
2. It cannot ever be proven, anymore than any religious beliefs can be proven.

Which is what you engage in when you insist that a soul exists that lives on after death.

Who insisted on it? Not me. Believing is not insisting.
I am not making an argument from ignorance because I do not assert that a soul exists, I believe that a soul exists.

No. I dismiss the entire idea in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons as I, and like you to, dismiss bigfoot, the lochness monster, life generating pixies, .....

You are free to dismiss it because there would be no reason for you to accept it unless you believed in a religion. There is no reason for me to believe in the existence of bigfoot, the lochness monster, or life generating pixies because thee is no evidence for them, but there is a reason for me to believe in a soul because my religion is the evidence.

Indeed. It doesn't apply to souls and life generating pixies.
Which is consistent with the idea that only the body exists, and not any soul or pixies.

Unless you believe in a religion that reveals they we have a soul.

So far, all I have seen are bare assertions and beliefs.
Where is this "evidence"?

Religion is the best evidence although there is other evidence such as NDEs.

What "next life"?

The life we all go to after this life, the spiritual world.

 

[Polymath257]

Please share it’s a two way street although no reply is required

Pride and self-interest proves fallen human nature, reason is defective: requiring divine revelation and Christian virtues

Funny that those virtues didn't show themselves until humanism started up.

It was the church that created western civilization, pagan religion was barbaric.

Wrong. he ancient Greeks created western civilization, which was then extended by the Romans. The time when Christianity controlled was the *low* point of western civilization.

Pagan barbarism is a result of fallen human nature corrected by the Christian culivilization, Grace, and virtues.

Except that the time when Christianity controlled things was also known as the 'Dark Ages'. Now, that is misleading, because there was progress made during that time, but grace and Christian virues had little to do with the progress made.

how many times have scientific theories been updated and corrected? (Almost always) Most of what’s called science is not even science but a faith based theory system.

This just shows that you don't understand how science works. The scientific method seeks to correct itself, if necessary, when new evidence is found. But the changes do NOT usually simply dispell the older ideas: they extend and modify them at the boundaries of knowledge, but the stuff that has already been tested remains solid.

just read the paper or science journal almost always
Scientists now believe......

Yes, scientists tend to be cautious. They make sure the evidence supports their conclusions and are always aware that new evidence could change some of their views. That is a type of wisdom, not a failure.

Real science is done in a lab and is repeatable

Tell that to astronomers. You know, the first people to do science.

The heavens declare the glory of God, why? They are ordered they had be an orderer or Creator, creating and ordering the laws of nature.

Justice, truth, and morals require the divine

Religion invented science, most scientist of the 1700’s to the 20th century were religious men, many priests, the oldest observatories or daily recorded weather staitions are located at monasteries, Louie Pasture etc. and the originator of the Big Bang theory was a priest!

Which shows that there isn't any discrimination against theists is science. But, Pasteur and Lemaitre both understood that using science to prove religion is fraught with peril. Lemaitre, for example, chided the Pope for claiming the Big Bang theory supported theism.

Fake science and evolution as a means of avoiding the eternal moral law, the purpose atheism is to avoid the moral law, eliminate the moral law giver and you eliminate the moral law, evolution is used as a tool to do this, piltdown man and peeking man were missing link frauds perpetrated by Teilhard de Chardin a apostate priest and called science.

Yes, Piltdwon man was a fraud. That fraud was discovered by scientists that determined that the find didn't fit into the rest of the evidence. Peking man (Homo erectus) has many other fossils than the original one that went missing.

Again science is infallible!

Science is fallible. That is why it has mechanisms for correcting itself over time. Religion is also fallible, but does not have such correction mechanisms, so it maintains that failures of the past.

Scientists now believe.................

Based on evidence....

Be precise there is a big difference in terms leading to misunderstandings

You first. I haven't noticed much precision in your posts.

 

[Polymath257]

Now, if you are "asserting" that it is not true, that is committing the fallacy of Argument from ignorance since you are asserting that "a soul exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true.

No, it is pointing out that there is no good reason to think that souls exist because there is no evidence of their existence.

But if you say that "you do not believe" that a soul exists that is fair game.

You do not determine what a "good and valid" reason to warrant belief is for anyone except yourself.

Except that there are pretty general standards for the rules of reason. Those include logic and the use of evidence, both of which also have agreed upon standards.

No, but you do not set the universal standards for rational reasoning, logic and evidence. What seems rational and logical to you is not what is rational and logical to other people. What is not evidence to you is evidence to other people. How can you prove something is rational and logical? How can you prove something is evidence?

Yes but what is logical and rational reasoning will differ among people. Who are you to determine what is logical and rational?

The point is that logic is pretty well agreed upon: there are a variety of standards for reasoning and evidence that almost everyone agrees with.

I do know, and not all knowledge is demonstrable.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means

I am not making a claim, I simply have a belief.

A better definition of knowledge: justified true belief.

No, it is not consistent with death being the end because even of ther was no other evidence, the various scriptures that reveal that we have a soul is evidence.

No, it is not. The scriptures are evidence that people *believe* there is a soul, but they are not and cannot be evidence that there is a soul.

Again, a text making a claim is not evidence for that claim.

I am sorry you do not like that evidence, but that is the only kind of evidence that God provides. Since God created the soul, the logical place where you would information about the soul is from religious scriptures.

So it is reasonable to reject the whole subject because of lack of evidence. The evidence for the existence of God is similarly weak, it seems.

Why should we believe the scriptures are accurate? What evidence supports their reliability?

To assert that any of those things exist would also be an argument from ignorance.

It carries no burden of proof because:

1. I am not claiming it, I believe it, and
2. It cannot ever be proven, anymore than any religious beliefs can be proven.

Which means it is reasonable to not believe them.

Who insisted on it? Not me. Believing is not insisting.
I am not making an argument from ignorance because I do not assert that a soul exists, I believe that a soul exists.

You made a variety of claims about souls, including that they animate the body. Those claims were made without evidence, but they *were* assertions.

And, in fact, the evidence does not support those assertions: the real reason the body is animated is because of the chemical proerties of the substances that make up the body (along with the properties of, say, oxygen).

You are free to dismiss it because there would be no reason for you to accept it unless you believed in a religion. There is no reason for me to believe in the existence of bigfoot, the lochness monster, or life generating pixies because thee is no evidence for them, but there is a reason for me to believe in a soul because my religion is the evidence.

The religion is not evidence. It is at best a claim. Those religious claims are what require evidence for belief (if logic and reason are being used).

Unless you believe in a religion that reveals they we have a soul.

Religion is the best evidence although there is other evidence such as NDEs.

The life we all go to after this life, the spiritual world.

And what if I have a religion that denies the existence of a soul? Is that good enough for belief in the non-existence of a soul?

The point is that religion is the basis of your *opinion*. But without other evidence, that is all it remains: your unsupported opinion.

Others will see that lack of evidence, especially when evidence has been searched for for ages, as sufficient reason to not believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

The scientific method seeks to correct itself, if necessary, when new evidence is found. But the changes do NOT usually simply dispell the older ideas: they extend and modify them at the boundaries of knowledge, but the stuff that has already been tested remains solid.

God's method is similar to the scientific method. In every age God reveals a new message through a Messenger in accordance with the needs of humans in that age. But the new message does not dispel the older messages from God , it simply extends and modifies them. The revelations from God that have already been tested remain solid.

Just as science evolves over time and needs updating, religion also evolves and needs updating.
What differs between science and religion is that scientists encourage updating and accept the updates whereas religious believers do not believe there are any updates so they reject all the updates, clinging tenaciously to their own religions. As such, these old religions live kind of a time warp, refusing to acknowledge that time has marched on and God has spoken again.

What do you think would happen if science did what religion does? All scientific progress would be halted and the peoples of the world would suffer. That is exactly what is going on right now with religion. Spiritual progress has been halted because people are clinging to the religions of the past, believing that their messages still apply to today's world.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it is pointing out that there is no good reason to think that souls exist because there is no evidence of their existence.

Not unless one believes in a religion or the other evidence such as NDEs.

Except that there are pretty general standards for the rules of reason. Those include logic and the use of evidence, both of which also have agreed upon standards.

Logic cannot be used to prove a soul exists is true since it can never be proven true. The evidence is religious scriptures and experiential evidence people report.

There are many kinds of evidence that are valid and which one is used depends upon what one is trying to prove.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

The point is that logic is pretty well agreed upon: there are a variety of standards for reasoning and evidence that almost everyone agrees with.

Again, logic cannot be used to prove religious beliefs such as a soul. The standards for reasoning and evidence used to prove religious beliefs are not the same as the standards for reasoning and evidence used in science or law.

A better definition of knowledge: justified true belief.

Belief does not need to be justifies by anyone except the believer.
But that does not mean all religious beliefs are true.

No, it is not. The scriptures are evidence that people *believe* there is a soul, but they are not and cannot be evidence that there is a soul.

The scriptures are evidence because if the scriptures are true there is a soul. That is called reasoning. But the scriptures are not proof because evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Nobody can ever prove that a soul exists because the soul is a mystery of God no human mind can ever unravel.

“the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

Again, a text making a claim is not evidence for that claim.

Of course not.

So it is reasonable to reject the whole subject because of lack of evidence. The evidence for the existence of God is similarly weak, it seems.

Yes, it is reasonable to reject both God and the soul if you reject religion.

Why should we believe the scriptures are accurate? What evidence supports their reliability?

That would depend upon what scriptures you are referring to and what you mean by reliability.

Which means it is reasonable to not believe them.

It is reasonable not to believe them unless you determine for yourself that certain religious scriptures are true. In the Bahai Faith that is called the independent investigation of truth.

You made a variety of claims about souls, including that they animate the body. Those claims were made without evidence, but they *were* assertions.

They might have 'sounded' like assertions since I am sure thye are true, but they are beliefs, not assertions, since I cannot assert what I cannot prove.

And, in fact, the evidence does not support those assertions: the real reason the body is animated is because of the chemical properties of the substances that make up the body (along with the properties of, say, oxygen).

There is no evidence that refutes my beliefs. You believe you know why the body is animated but unless you can prove that it is only a belief. All you can say is that the chemical properties of the substances that make up the body allow it to function, and that is true, but you do not know what makes those processes work. It is a known scientific fact that how the mind works is still a mystery, and that is because it is connected to the soul, which is a mystery. The mind is the power of the soul. The soul is like the lamp and the mind is the light which shines from the lamp. If course these are beliefs, but they explain what science has been unable to explain.

The religion is not evidence. It is at best a claim. Those religious claims are what require evidence for belief (if logic and reason are being used).

That is correct. Religions make claims, so we need to look at the evidence to determine if there is a valid reason to believe those claims.

And what if I have a religion that denies the existence of a soul? Is that good enough for belief in the non-existence of a soul?

That is a very good question and a valid one and that is why it is important to investigate the religions to determine if they are true before believing in their teachings.

The point is that religion is the basis of your *opinion*. But without other evidence, that is all it remains: your unsupported opinion.

Others will see that lack of evidence, especially when evidence has been searched for for ages, as sufficient reason to not believe.

I do not have and opinion, I have a belief. My religion is the basis for my belief. Without evidence that shows that my religion is true, it remains unsupported. Many will see a lack of evidence because they never really looked at the evidence with an open mind and a desire to know the truth; rather, they just discounted it out of hand as being just like all the other religions, which is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

 

[Polymath257]

Not unless one believes in a religion or the other evidence such as NDEs.

In which case, you would need evidence for the religion or for the NDEs.

Logic cannot be used to prove a soul exists is true since it can never be proven true. The evidence is religious scriptures and experiential evidence people report.

Both of which we *know* to be incredibly fallible. Hence, it is at best very weak evidence.

There are many kinds of evidence that are valid and which one is used depends upon what one is trying to prove.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

Most of these (Anecdotal evidence, hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, analogical evidence, etc) are considered to be *very* poor evidence. Character evidence is only good for claiming a person believes what they say. If they are wrong, it won't reveal that. Digital evidence is pretty irrelevant in this discussion, documentary evidence may be useful, but is generally weak, exculpatory evidence is irrelevant to this discussion, and testimonial evidence is incredibly fallible.

So, how about some direct, physical, demonstrative, or forensic evidence?

A

gain, logic cannot be used to prove religious beliefs such as a soul. The standards for reasoning and evidence used to prove religious beliefs are not the same as the standards for reasoning and evidence used in science or law.

The standards for law are pretty lax. For something like the soul, I would require evidence that qualifies as scientific. But what you have just said is that religious evidence is even worse than legal evidence, which isn't even devoted to finding the truth.

Belief does not need to be justifies by anyone except the believer.
But that does not mean all religious beliefs are true.

Exactly. And what I am interested in is the truth. if you cannot demonstrate the truth of the religious beliefs, there is every reason to think they are false (because there are so many different religions that contradict each other).

The scriptures are evidence because if the scriptures are true there is a soul. That is called reasoning. But the scriptures are not proof because evidence is not the same as proof.[/QUOTE]

You are correct that evidence isn't the same as proof, but scriptures don't even rise to the level of good evidence. You need to prove the reliability of the scriptures *first*. Only then is the material said in them actually evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Nobody can ever prove that a soul exists because the soul is a mystery of God no human mind can ever unravel.

Which is why I don't see it as a reasonable thing to believe in.

“the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

A nice little way for a system of beliefs to not have to live up to the standards of any other system of beliefs.

Of course not.

Yes, it is reasonable to reject both God and the soul if you reject religion.

That would depend upon what scriptures you are referring to and what you mean by reliability.

Correspondence with reality.

It is reasonable not to believe them unless you determine for yourself that certain religious scriptures are true. In the Bahai Faith that is called the independent investigation of truth.

They might have 'sounded' like assertions since I am sure thye are true, but they are beliefs, not assertions, since I cannot assert what I cannot prove.

OK, so they are your opinions which you cannot give reasonable evidence for, which means there is no good reason anyone else should take your beliefs seriously.

There is no evidence that refutes my beliefs. You believe you know why the body is animated but unless you can prove that it is only a belief.

And it is proved from the science of biochemistry. Nothing the body does is animated by anything other than physics and chemistry.

All you can say is that the chemical properties of the substances that make up the body allow it to function, and that is true, but you do not know what makes those processes work.

The processes work for the same reason every other chemical process works, whether it is part of life or not. There is nothing 'special' about the chemistry of life.

It is a known scientific fact that how the mind works is still a mystery, and that is because it is connected to the soul, which is a mystery. The mind is the power of the soul. The soul is like the lamp and the mind is the light which shines from the lamp. If course these are beliefs, but they explain what science has been unable to explain.

Which means the soul is NOT what animates the body. if it were, then other animals would not be animated, right?

That is correct. Religions make claims, so we need to look at the evidence to determine if there is a valid reason to believe those claims.

That is a very good question and a valid one and that is why it is important to investigate the religions to determine if they are true before believing in their teachings.

And I have found no reason to beieve any of them.

I do not have and opinion, I have a belief. My religion is the basis for my belief. Without evidence that shows that my religion is true, it remains unsupported. Many will see a lack of evidence because they never really looked at the evidence with an open mind and a desire to know the truth; rather, they just discounted it out of hand as being just like all the other religions, which is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

No, it is just that your standards of evidence are different than those who disagree with you. You allow for very weak evidence to support your views and other require much stronger evidence than your belief system can provide.

It *is* looking at it with an open mind to realize the evidence is weak.

 

[Trailblazer]

In which case, you would need evidence for the religion or for the NDEs.

Obviously.

Both of which we *know* to be incredibly fallible. Hence, it is at best very weak evidence.

Subject to error yes, but not all religious scriptures and experiential evidence people report are *incredibly fallible.*

Most of these (Anecdotal evidence, hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, analogical evidence, etc) are considered to be *very* poor evidence. Character evidence is only good for claiming a person believes what they say. If they are wrong, it won't reveal that. Digital evidence is pretty irrelevant in this discussion, documentary evidence may be useful, but is generally weak, exculpatory evidence is irrelevant to this discussion, and testimonial evidence is incredibly fallible.

So, how about some direct, physical, demonstrative, or forensic evidence?

There is no direct, physical, demonstrative, or forensic evidence for God or the soul but there is physical and demonstrative evidence for the Messengers of God, and since the only way to know anything about God or the soul is through what the Messenger has revealed, the logical way to proceed is to investigate the Messenger to determine if His claim to be a Messenger are true. That can never be proven as a fact that everyone will believe for obvious reasons, but you can prove it to yourself, which is all the really matters.

The standards for law are pretty lax. For something like the soul, I would require evidence that qualifies as scientific. But what you have just said is that religious evidence is even worse than legal evidence, which isn't even devoted to finding the truth.

There is no scientific evidence for the soul because the soul is a mystery of God, so the way to know is we have a soul is to read about it in religious writings and determine if what is said about the soul makes sense to you. Another way is if you accepted the source of those writings to be infallible then you would believe what they say. It is always best to consult the original source because otherwise you are just reading what someone said about the soul and much can get lost in the transmission.

Exactly. And what I am interested in is the truth. if you cannot demonstrate the truth of the religious beliefs, there is every reason to think they are false (because there are so many different religions that contradict each other).

Nobody can demonstrate religious truth to someone else, everyone needs to discover the truth and thereby demonstrate it to themself. All I can do is point you to the sources of information and answer questions, and I have always been willing to do that for anyone who is sincerely interested. Moreover, what is evidence to one person will mt be evidence to another person as we are all very different in how we think and in our backgrounds. I had no religious background growing up and no belief in God that I can recall, and I was not even searching for God or a religion. I joined the Baha'i Faith because the teachings rang true and they were in keeping with my idealism. Only decades later did I start thinking about God in a serious fashion.

The fact that there are so many different religions that contradict each other has a very logical explanation that I explain later if you want to continue this conversation.

You are correct that evidence isn't the same as proof, but scriptures don't even rise to the level of good evidence. You need to prove the reliability of the scriptures *first*. Only then is the material said in them actually evidence.

You are absolutely correct. Scriptures are only good evidence if they are reliable, so it all circles back to what I have been saying all along. One has to look at the claims of the Messenger who established the religion and the evidence that supports His claims. It really all boils down to a or b, as I have been saying to atheists on various forums for over eight years. Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Messenger of God and His claim is either true or false. If true, the Baha'i Faith is a true religion from God, but if false, the religion is a sham. Given my knowledge of the evidence I consider it logically impossible for it to be a sham, and that is why I am still a Baha'i after over 50 years even though I am not religiously inclined at all. The more I was challenged to look further into the evidence the more I knew it could not be refuted.

My belief is not emotional for me at all, it is all based upon the facts that surround the life and teachings of Baha'u'llah and everything else surrounding His Revelation, including the history of the Baha'i Faith, which is quite astounding and verifiable unlike the history of the older religions. This represents years of accumulated knowledge because I have dedicated myself to this pursuit, night and day for over eight years. All the years preceding this I *believed* the religion was true, but now I *know.* I did not get that from someone else, I got it from doing my own research

Which is why I don't see it as a reasonable thing to believe in.

Like I said before, it would not be reasonable to believe in a soul unless you understood what it was and why it is important, and that knowledge only comes from reading about it.

A nice little way for a system of beliefs to not have to live up to the standards of any other system of beliefs.

I can explain why it does not have to live up to the standards of the older religions but that would have to be in another post, as I cannot explain everything in one post that is already too long.

Correspondence with reality.

Well, of course you would want that. Who wants to believe in a fantasy? I can think of some people who don't seem to care but I find that irrational.

OK, so they are your opinions which you cannot give reasonable evidence for, which means there is no good reason anyone else should take your beliefs seriously.

They are my beliefs and I have evidence that support them. There would be no reason for anyone else to take my beliefs seriously unless they looked at what I looked at and determined what I determined.

And it is proved from the science of biochemistry. Nothing the body does is animated by anything other than physics and chemistry.

It is not proven that there is no soul behind those processes.

The processes work for the same reason every other chemical process works, whether it is part of life or not. There is nothing 'special' about the chemistry of life.

Which means the soul is NOT what animates the body. if it were, then other animals would not be animated, right?

The non-human animals do not have a rational soul, but they have an animal spirit. The difference is explained in this chapter:

55: SOUL, SPIRIT AND MIND

And I have found no reason to believe any of them.

I don't know which religions you have looked at. Have you looked at the Baha'i Faith to see how different is? The retort atheists usually have to this is that all religions claim to be different, which is true, but different in what way? That is the key. If you look and still do not see it then you don't, but you can only know if you look.

No, it is just that your standards of evidence are different than those who disagree with you. You allow for very weak evidence to support your views and other require much stronger evidence than your belief system can provide.

It *is* looking at it with an open mind to realize the evidence is weak.

How can you know what my belief system provides as evidence unless you looked at the evidence for my belief system?
Logically speaking, you cannot say that evidence is weak unless you have looked at the evidence.

 

[actsfourthirty]

@actsfourthirty

The post above is a duplicate of an OP which I have already responded to. Please stop spamming. It is against TOS.

Sorry but this is my original content

 

[actsfourthirty]

@Valjean

I can't disagree with your point; the definition of "person" was pulled from online dictionaries. Your query as to what qualities fit the word "person" is quite tantalizing and worthy of a thread on its own.

sorry again but I originated it with the help of inspiration

 

[Valjean]

Please share it’s a two way street although no reply is required

Pride and self-interest proves fallen human nature, reason is defective: requiring divine revelation and Christian virtues

How do pride and self interest prove anything?
Reasoning? -- Reason is the gold standard. It's the best we can do; our most accurate tool.
Why would it require divine revelation, and how would we recognize such a revelation?
We've had thousands of prophets, for thousands of years. They all seem to disagree. None provides tangible support for his revelation.

It was the church that created western civilization, pagan religion was barbaric.

*Political success does not equate to doctrinal truth.
*If not the church, it would have been something else dominating society.
*There have been many civilizations not based on the Christian church.
*The Christians were just as barbaric, at the time, as any other religion.

Pagan barbarism is a result of fallen human nature corrected by the Christian culivilization, Grace, and virtues.

Human nature, like any other biological trait, is a product of evolution. There was no "fall," there is natural selection.
You keep making these truth assertions, but you have no evidence backing them. You're just reïterating folklore.

how many times have scientific theories been updated and corrected? (Almost always) Most of what’s called science is not even science but a faith based theory system.
just read the paper or science journal almost always
Scientists now believe......

Real science is done in a lab and is repeatable

This updating and correction is science's greatest strength. It's what makes it the most accurate, cutting-edge descriptor of reality available.
The alternative: continue believing X even after it's been clearly shown that X is wrong? Is this what you advocate, or do you oppose any investigation at all?

A faith-based theory system?! Do you even know what you're saying, here? How is science faith based -- ("faith" being unfounded belief)?
Science hates faith, it's the opposite of faith. It believes nothing without evidence and testing, and every belief is provisional; open to new information.

Theory system? Do you even understand what a scientific theory is? It is not guesswork or conjecture.

Actsfourthirty, you do not understand what science is, how it works or what it purports to do, yet you have these strong opinions about it -- based, apparently, on religious propaganda that's been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

The heavens declare the glory of God, why? They are ordered they had be an orderer or Creator, creating and ordering the laws of nature.

This is religious claptrap and you know it. You're just preaching. These assertions are based on religious folklore, not reason or evidence.

Justice, truth, and morals require the divine

Why? What do you base this assertion on?
There is empirical evidence to the contrary.

Religion invented science, most scientist of the 1700’s to the 20th century were religious men, many priests, the oldest observatories or daily recorded weather staitions are located at monasteries, Louie Pasture etc. and the originator of the Big Bang theory was a priest!

Religion is the opposite of science, and, historically has opposed it at every step. Science is skeptical, it challenges faith; it demands hard evidence, it tests, it invites criticism. Religion resists all of this.

As long as astronomy or meteorology did not question church doctrine, the church ignored them, but as soon as anything challenging was asserted, the inquisition came down like a ton of bricks.
The church was never interested in truth. It's based on faith and received doctrine.

Fake science and evolution as a means of avoiding the eternal moral law, the purpose atheism is to avoid the moral law, eliminate the moral law giver and you eliminate the moral law, evolution is used as a tool to do this, piltdown man and peeking man were missing link frauds perpetrated by Teilhard de Chardin a apostate priest and called science.

"Eternal moral law" is religious folklore, actsfourthirty. It's not based on anything substantive.
Science doesn't seek to avoid anything. It's an investigative modality, not a religious system. Atheists, too, don't seek to avoid anything. It's not a political or moral position. It has no "purpose." It's simply lack of belief, pending evidence.

How is evolution a political tool? Evolution is change. That change is well evidenced. The theory of evolution is a
description of the mechanisms by which this known change occurred. Nothing more. No political or anti-religious agenda.

You really are quite the conspiracy theorist. You have no evidence, but you feel threatened, and you've made up a whole opposing reigio-political conspiracy movement in the form of science and atheism, which you seem to have zero understanding of.

Missing links? This is a popular, not a scientific concept. Piltdown man was a deliberate fraud and was immediately suspect. It was eventually completely debunked -- by means of the "updating and correction" you see as a defect of science.
Peking man is real. It's a variety of Homo erectus. Many other H. erectuses (H. erecti?), mmmm... 'erectile Homos' have been discovered since the Chinese specimen was unearthed.

Again science is infallible!

Scientists now believe.................

Science worked! It researches, and incorporates new information. Its not a religious doctrine. It's happy to evolve. That's what makes it the epistemic gold standard.

Religion would never have discovered or reported any updated information. The Bible's full of known mistranslations, edits, addenda, and outright errors, but is is ever updated?
Again, religion seems uninterested in truth or accuracy. It's cast in stone and will resist change no matter what the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Science worked! It researches, and incorporates new information. Its not a religious doctrine. It's happy to evolve. That's what makes it the epistemic gold standard.

Just as science evolves over time and needs updating, religion also evolves and needs updating.

What differs between science and religion is that scientists encourage updating and accept the updates whereas religious believers do not believe there are any updates so they reject all the updates, clinging tenaciously to their own religions. As such, these old religions live kind of a time warp, refusing to acknowledge that time has marched on and God has spoken again.

What do you think would happen if science did what religion does? All scientific progress would be halted and the peoples of the world would suffer. That is exactly what is going on right now with religion. Spiritual progress has been halted because people are clinging to the religions of the past, believing that their messages still apply to today's world.

 

[actsfourthirty]

How do pride and self interest prove anything?
Reasoning? -- Reason is the gold standard. It's the best we can do; our most accurate tool.
Why would it require divine revelation, and how would we recognize such a revelation?
We've had thousands of prophets, for thousands of years. They all seem to disagree. None provides tangible support for his revelation.
*Political success does not equate to doctrinal truth.
*If not the church, it would have been something else dominating society.
*There have been many civilizations not based on the Christian church.
*The Christians were just as barbaric, at the time, as any other religion.
Human nature, like any other biological trait, is a product of evolution. There was no "fall," there is natural selection.
You keep making these truth assertions, but you have no evidence backing them. You're just reïterating folklore.

This updating and correction is science's greatest strength. It's what makes it the most accurate, cutting-edge descriptor of reality available.
The alternative: continue believing X even after it's been clearly shown that X is wrong? Is this what you advocate, or do you oppose any investigation at all?

A faith-based theory system?! Do you even know what you're saying, here? How is science faith based -- ("faith" being unfounded belief)?
Science hates faith, it's the opposite of faith. It believes nothing without evidence and testing, and every belief is provisional; open to new information.

Theory system? Do you even understand what a scientific theory is? It is not guesswork or conjecture.

Actsfourthirty, you do not understand what science is, how it works or what it purports to do, yet you have these strong opinions about it -- based, apparently, on religious propaganda that's been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
This is religious claptrap and you know it. You're just preaching. These assertions are based on religious folklore, not reason or evidence.
Why? What do you base this assertion on?
There is empirical evidence to the contrary.
Religion is the opposite of science, and, historically has opposed it at every step. Science is skeptical, it challenges faith; it demands hard evidence, it tests, it invites criticism. Religion resists all of this.

As long as astronomy or meteorology did not question church doctrine, the church ignored them, but as soon as anything challenging was asserted, the inquisition came down like a ton of bricks.
The church was never interested in truth. It's based on faith and received doctrine.

"Eternal moral law" is religious folklore, actsfourthirty. It's not based on anything substantive.
Science doesn't seek to avoid anything. It's an investigative modality, not a religious system. Atheists, too, don't seek to avoid anything. It's not a political or moral position. It has no "purpose." It's simply lack of belief, pending evidence.

How is evolution a political tool? Evolution is change. That change is well evidenced. The theory of evolution is a
description of the mechanisms by which this known change occurred. Nothing more. No political or anti-religious agenda.

You really are quite the conspiracy theorist. You have no evidence, but you feel threatened, and you've made up a whole opposing reigio-political conspiracy movement in the form of science and atheism, which you seem to have zero understanding of.

Missing links? This is a popular, not a scientific concept. Piltdown man was a deliberate fraud and was immediately suspect. It was eventually completely debunked -- by means of the "updating and correction" you see as a defect of science.
Peking man is real. It's a variety of Homo erectus. Many other H. erectuses (H. erecti?), mmmm... 'erectile Homos' have been discovered since the Chinese specimen was unearthed.
Science worked! It researches, and incorporates new information. Its not a religious doctrine. It's happy to evolve. That's what makes it the epistemic gold standard.

Religion would never have discovered or reported any updated information. The Bible's full of known mistranslations, edits, addenda, and outright errors, but is is ever updated?
Again, religion seems uninterested in truth or accuracy. It's cast in stone and will resist change no matter what the evidence.

Religion is revealed by God and the fullness revelation thru Jesus Christ, Jn 1:16-17 the deposit of faith eph 4:5 jude 1:3 with the new covenant church safeguarding the faith and teaching the nations Matt 28:19 two edge sword to define and proclaim the truth and to condemn all errors

 

[actsfourthirty]

Just as science evolves over time and needs updating, religion also evolves and needs updating.

What differs between science and religion is that scientists encourage updating and accept the updates whereas religious believers do not believe there are any updates so they reject all the updates, clinging tenaciously to their own religions. As such, these old religions live kind of a time warp, refusing to acknowledge that time has marched on and God has spoken again.

What do you think would happen if science did what religion does? All scientific progress would be halted and the peoples of the world would suffer. That is exactly what is going on right now with religion. Spiritual progress has been halted because people are clinging to the religions of the past, believing that their messages still apply to today's world.

the deposit of faith
Fullness of faith cane by Christ to his church
Jude 1:3

 

[Valjean]

Religion is revealed by God and the fullness revelation thru Jesus Christ, Jn 1:16-17 the deposit of faith eph 4:5 jude 1:3 with the new covenant church safeguarding the faith and teaching the nations Matt 28:19 two edge sword to define and proclaim the truth and to condemn all errors

This is unsupported religious doctrine. There is no reasonable or logical reason to believe this. It's completely faith-based, with innumerable competing, faith based alternatives asserting their correctness -- with the same lack of evidence.

You have yet to present any real evidence for your assertions, actsfourthirty. They're based on a familiar, religious folklore and tradition. These are not evidence for anything.

 

[Valjean]

the deposit of faith
Fullness of faith cane by Christ to his church
Jude 1:3

You keep preaching! You make these baseless statements, over and over again. You cite no supporting evidence.
You quote the bible like it was some authoritative, well researched and tested scientific work. It's not. It's literature, not evidence.

 

[actsfourthirty]

This is unsupported religious doctrine. There is no reasonable or logical reason to believe this. It's completely faith-based, with innumerable competing, faith based alternatives asserting their correctness -- with the same lack of evidence.

You have yet to present any real evidence for your assertions, actsfourthirty. They're based on a familiar, religious folklore and tradition. These are not evidence for anything.

for those who believe no proof is required
For those who refuse to believe no proof will be accepted

there are a large number of prophecies all fulfilled in Christ and made by Christ and fulfilled

if a Christian is wrong there is no harm, a good life of virtue
But if an atheist is wrong, well thats an eternal oops

our religion is revealed by God who can neither deceive or be deceived

 

[actsfourthirty]

You keep preaching! You make these baseless statements, over and over again. You cite no supporting evidence.
You quote the bible like it was some authoritative, well researched and tested scientific work. It's not. It's literature, not evidence.

If you say “there is no such a thing as absolute truth” are you making a statement of absolute truth?

We have to have a mutually acceptable truth to base a conversation?