The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Boris Norris]

Let’s look at some of his claims. What is in red text is from the article, and my comments are below.

But on the face of it, it’s impossible that Christianity is true and other religions are true. This is the basic law of reason called the law of noncontradiction. Just from a rational standpoint, the law of noncontradiction is, “A cannot be non-A at the same time in the same way.”

That is correct. If Christianity is true that means that all other religions are false, given Christians believe that Jesus is “the Only Way” to God.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Jesus did say that but Jesus did not say: “No one will ever come to the Father except through me.” I believe that what Jesus said in the New Testament applied to the Christian Dispensation, but it was never intended to apply to all of time.

If Yahweh is the one and only living and true God, there is no other god

That is logically true, and I believe it is true because it is in the Bible and all the Abrahamic religions teach that there is only one true God.

If the Bible is the one true revealed revelation of God, there is no other revelation.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the one true revealed revelation of God and there is no other revelation? I believe that the Bible was written to cover only the Christian Dispensation, and it was never intended to apply to all of time.

Of course, Christians believe that the Bible is the Only Word of God and that it will apply for all of eternity. Only 33% of the world population are Christians. So the loving God Christians believe in has denied 67% of the world population from any access to God?

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

There is no logical reason to assume that all revelation ended with the Christian Dispensation.
Moreover, the Bible does not say that. Christians say that and they try to find verses in the Bible to support that belief by misinterpreting those verses.

If the Son of God is Jesus, who is alone Lord and alone King, there is no other lord.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, but it does not say that Jesus is Lord and King and there is no other lord but Jesus.

Jesus never claimed to be Lord and Jesus never claimed to be King. Jesus disclaimed being a king when He replied to Pilate and said why He came into the world.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

If Jesus Christ is the only Savior from sin and eternal judgment, there is no other savior. If sinners can be saved only by the gospel of Jesus Christ, then they can’t be saved by any other means.

Even if Jesus was a Savior, which I believe, that does not mean that no other religions are true, because there is much more to religion than being saved.

If people can only escape hell by trusting in the person and work of Christ, they cannot escape hell by any other avenue. If sinners will be in hell forever if they reject Christ, there is no other way for them to escape.

Even if we need to believe in Jesus to avoid hell, that does not mean that we have to be a Christian in order to escape hell. For example, other religions such as Islam and the Baha’i Faith teach that Jesus was a Messenger of God so we do not reject Jesus.

If the sole work that saves sinners is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then no other work can save sinners.

Jesus said that His death saved sinners but who is to say that it did not save all of humanity, including non-Christians?

Jesus never said that His resurrection saves sinners. Jesus said that the cross sacrifice saved sinners. The ‘belief’ in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is totally unnecessary for salvation.

If the gospel is the only saving truth and all other claims are lies, if there is only one true religion, then all others are false.

Even if the gospel is the only ‘saving truth’, meaning it is the only religion that offers salvation, that still does not mean it is the one true religion, and all other religions are false. Religion is about more than being saved.

Obviously, if Christianity is the 'only truth' from God, then all other religions are false, but what reason is there to believe that Christianity is the 'only truth' from God?

If there is only one true God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit—then there is no other God. So you get the idea.

That would be true if there was only one God who is a triune God, but nowhere in the Bible is there any triune God. The Trinity is a man-made Christian doctrine.

And because it is such an offense, people cave in, and rather than be faithful to that gospel, they come up with ridiculous things like, “You can get to heaven by any religion.” A lie from the devil. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” That’s the exclusivity of the true God. Deuteronomy 4:39, “The Lord, He is God in heaven [alone] and on the earth below; there is no other.” First Kings 8, verse 60, “The Lord is God; there is no one else.”

Even if that is true that the Lord is God and there is no other besides Him, which I believe, so what?
Jesus is not the Lord God so Christianity has no claims on God. Other religions also revealed the Lord God.

Jesus is called Lord in the Bible out of reverence to His exalted station but Jesus never claimed to be the Lord God.

Jesus never referred to Himself as the Lord God. Jesus continually said to worship the Lord God and serve Him only. Jesus never said “you shall serve me only.”

Matthew 4:10 Then said Jesus unto him, “Get thee hence, Satan! For it is written: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’”

Finally, Jesus never said that there would never be any more religions revealed after Christianity. That is a Christian belief, not anything Jesus ever said. Galatians 1:8-9 says not to preach any other gospel, but a new revelation from God that starts a new religion is not another gospel.

The Bible says:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

But then the New Testament was an addition to the Old Testament, wasn't it?
So Jesus came with a new Revelation from God and added to what Moses revealed.

And the Bible says:
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

But the Holy Qur’an and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah were not "another gospel." Only Jesus had a gospel.

Islam and the Baha'i Faith are new Revelations from God that came ‘after’ the New Testament, just as the New Testament was a new Revelation from God that came ‘after’ the Old Testament.

I think you should get some evidence that a god exists before predicting anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you should get some evidence that a god exists before predicting anything.

The evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God.

 

[Boris Norris]

The evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God.

Messengers my foot.
If I told you that child could produce sparrows from mud and seas parted, you'd wouldn't entertain it yet you happy to quote it from some hideous Bible.
Please, no more laughter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Messengers my foot.
If I told you that child could produce sparrows from mud and seas parted, you'd wouldn't entertain it yet you happy to quote it from some hideous Bible.
Please, no more laughter.

I don't normally quote from the Bible becaue I am a Baha'i. I quote from the Baha'i Writings.

 

[F1fan]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will do you more good, then He can lead you to a congregation.

What exactly is it you think you are receiving when you say this?

Do you think the Catholkics and Lutherans of 1940's Germany that committed the Holocaust had received Jesus as Lord and Savior? If not, how casn you know?

I believe liberal Christian churches are probably not any better than any other religion.

Is this good or bad? Are you anti-church and religion?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Both of them are fools. We all are. People say lots of dumb things that they cannot possibly know to be so. Talk is easy.

I didn't mean just talk. It was metaphorical. I meant (optimistic) belief and mode of life. If these two views are foolish in your opinion what is wise then?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will do you more good, then He can lead you to a congregation. I believe liberal Christian churches are probably not any better than any other religion.

What moral authority do you believe you possess to pass judgment on liberal churches and liberal Christians?

Have you ever attended a liberal Christian church or personally known any liberal Christians?

 

[F1fan]

I don't normally quote from the Bible becaue I am a Baha'i. I quote from the Baha'i Writings.

As if any text has any authority recognized by non-believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

You had said that the means by which the message cannot be compared to the way news of a pandemic was spread. I disagreed and pointed out that both could be spread by print and broadcast media and word of mouth. Now you seem to be agreeing with me. Are you aware of that?

Of course I was aware of that. Is there something wrong with me agreeing with you? Do you think it would bother me to admit you were right and I was wrong about something? Maybe you should try it sometime.

People can learn from what other people say, they don't always have to be on a soap box to prove their points.

My opinion can be demonstrated to be correct. Yours cannot.

No, it can never be demonstrated that no man could have written what Baha'u'llah wrote unless he was Messenger of God, and it can never be demonstrated that any ordinary man could have written it. Do you know why? Because you cannot demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, not any more than I can demonstrate that He was.

The claim of Baha'u'llah to be a Messenger of God is neither provable or falsifiable. That is why all you can have is a personal opinion just as all I can have is a belief.

No, agree that you believe what you believe by faith alone. Nobody will argue with that. And as long as you usurp terms like critical thinking and reason for faith, many will object. Your choice.

No, I will not agree that I believe on 'faith alone' since I believe on faith and evidence.
I could not care less if many people here object. I object to people telling me why I believe. I alone know why I believe what I believe.

You make false claims about them.

I alone know what my thinking abilities are, you don't.
You should really ask why you are critiquing my thinking abilities. Why not mind your own store?

Nobody but you an a few other faith-based thinkers on RF criticize my ego, and usually in the context of being steadfast and resolute.

Nobody but you and one other atheist criticize my thinking abilities, usually in the context of being steadfast and resolute.

For example, you said
"This is you deviating from critical thinking."
"Then your power of discernment is low here."
Those opinions are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. You were unable to rebut either.

It does not matter what you carefully consider or believe. That is not proof that you are right.
There is no need for me to rebut what is nothing more than your personal opinion.

Why is it always "you" this and "you" that? What not just speak for yourself?
It seems to me there must be a reason why you need to criticize me.

 

[Riders]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will do you more good, then He can lead you to a congregation. I believe liberal Christian churches are probably not any better than any other religion.

Maybe I may go to a church that is mixed both liberal and conservative like the Catholic church. But we shall see I will go to where I get spiritually fed the best way.

 

[PureX]

It does to me. That word carries baggage I don't intend be suggested when talking about such matters. For how many months were you misunderstood in recent years because you used that word? I'm assuming that you mean a person, something I don't assume about anybody clinging to that word.

The word "God" refers to a whole lot of things, but all of them within the category of thought that I suggested. There's no need to make assumptions beyond that. And if you want to know more specifically how someone is characterizing the unknowable and uncontrollable in life, just ask the person you're talking with. I'm sure they'll oblige as people usually like to talk about themselves, and what they think. The fact that you jump to your own most disliked assumptions about what other people men when they use the term "God" is your own flaw, and perhaps even a character defect, as it assumes the worst of others. So why don't you stop doing it? Why don't you just stick to the generalized idea that "God" refers to the unknownable and uncontrollable that we all must face in life (that does not open your own negative "baggage") and leave it at that unless and until more specificity is relevant. And even then, your negative baggage is your own, remember.

Faith is not required, nor is it desirable. Faith is a logical error.

This is, of course, false. Faith is simply the choice to act toward and outcome that we hope to be true when we cannot know it to be true. But for you to accept this reality would cause you to have to reassess your very deep seated bias against faith as a 'religious belief', and clearly you aren't willing to do that.

 

[PureX]

I didn't mean just talk. It was metaphorical. I meant (optimistic) belief and mode of life. If these two views are foolish in your opinion what is wise then?

In my opinion, nearly ALL of our beliefs are foolish, simply because all a "belief" is, is the presumption that our opinions about things are no longer just our opinions, but have magically become reality. All we ever really "believe" is that we are right. And in almost every instance, we have no way of actually knowing that to be so.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is simply the choice to act toward and outcome that we hope to be true when we cannot know it to be true.

No, that is not faith. Let me be clear here - I am referring to unjustified belief, like religious faith, not justified belief based in experience. That's a different word spelled and pronounced the same, but defined differently. A third word spelled and pronounced the same but with a third meaning refers to a religion, like the Jewish faith. Conflating these is a logical error and leads to equivocation fallacy.

I do what you describe above. We made plan for Peking duck tonight with another couple. I hope to be eating duck this evening with them, but I do not know that it will happen. That kind of thinking is nothing like what the religious do, what the vaccine deniers did, what the election hoax believers did, what the climate deniers do, etc.. They believe things that haven't been shown to be correct empirically, and they make mistakes because of it, often very costly ones. As I've previously explained to you, I paid that in my Christian days. It led to a bad marriage and a lot of subsequent unhappiness. I gave up that way of thinking, embraced humanism, remarried using different criteria to choose a wife than the urging of the Holy Spirit, and have been happily married for 33 years now.

Faith is guessing - no more, no less.

The word "God" refers to a whole lot of things, but all of them within the category of thought that I suggested. There's no need to make assumptions beyond that.

But people do, which is why if you use that word, your message will be transformed. That's what I mean by the term carrying baggage. I still don't believe that your god isn't a person to you. Maybe, but maybe not. I am careful not to be mistaken for a theist, so I don't use the word to describe the mysteries of nature. I call them the mysteries of nature, because I know what will be heard by many if I call it God.

Of course I was aware of that. Is there something wrong with me agreeing with you? Do you think it would bother me to admit you were right and I was wrong about something?

I didn't have an opinion on it until now.

No, it can never be demonstrated that no man could have written what Baha'u'llah wrote unless he was Messenger of God. it can never be demonstrated that any ordinary man could have written it.

That's easily falsified. I've explained one way of doing that to you twice already: using artificial intelligence to generate language indistinguishable from the writing you say couldn't have been generated by man. Test 100 people that have never seen your scriptures and give them each a few dozen passages allegedly no man could write and an equal number that men programmed a computer to generate (or wrote themselves), and see empirically if they are distinguishable to the test subjects, and you'll have your answer as to how human both are when the test subjects are shown to be unable to tell the difference.

Shouldn't you or some other Baha'i being setting up such a test to demonstrate how different and special scripture is? Imagine if the tests had people consistently picking the prophet's words over the control words. Of course, imagine if it didn't. Maybe that's why no believer to date has been too keen to do such an experiment, or if they did, buried the results.

you cannot demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God

Nor need I.

not any more than I can demonstrate that He was.

That's a good reason not to believe it.

The claim of Baha'u'llah to be a Messenger of God is neither provable or falsifiable.

I guess you don't see that that's a death sentence for the proposition for critical thinkers. Propositions can either be confirmed, disconfirmed, or they are untestable. The first category identifies true testable statements, the second false ones, and the third are irrelevant statements that can be ignored (metaphysical, unfalsifiable, unscientific, "not even wrong"). You object to having your ideas such as your claim to be a critical thinker yourself subjected to critical analysis, but that's what dialectic is and does, and when you make comments like the one above, you reveal how you do think and how it varies from orthodoxy.

I will not agree that I believe on 'faith alone' since I believe on faith and evidence.

If any part of your belief is faith-based, it's unsound. Faith contaminates the reasoning process, which must contain zero fallacies. One fallacy makes the conclusion unjustified and believable only by faith.

I object to people telling me why I believe. I alone know why I believe what I believe.

I disagree. If you believe unsound propositions, you believe by faith whether you agree or not.

I alone know what my thinking abilities are, you don't.

You put them on display here every day. Why do you think I don't know what your thinking abilities are? You thought calling a claim unfalsifiable would help your case rather than scuttle it. You think that the messenger writes beyond human capability. You think that a little faith is OK if you claim that you also use evidence. You believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. You believe that Baha'u'llah was the messiah. Maybe you can't tell what that says about how you think, but I can.

I think this is our greatest stumbling block - that you don't know what critical thinking is or does, and refuse to learn about it from others. It extracts sound (correct) conclusions from evidence. It allows the critical thinker to know things unknown to those who haven't mastered the technique, and to know that they are correct. You don't believe that, but that's just evidence that you don't know what critical thinking is or does. The idea offends you, but only because you refuse to consider that it might be correct, understand all of this as a personal attack rather than dialectic. Your mind is closed to the possibility, and so you will never learn these things and will always resent being told that.

Sorry that you experience this that way, but that's on you. That's the price you pay for closing your mind to that possibility and assuming that your faith-based opinions are as valuable as sound conclusions because you don't what the latter are or that they exist.

You should really ask why you are critiquing my thinking abilities.

I know why. Maybe you should ask why you resent it.

There is no need for me to rebut what is nothing more than your personal opinion.

You call sound conclusions mere opinion. And even if they were unsupported opinions, if they were wrong, somebody could demonstrate that. I rebut your personal opinions routinely when they are logically unsound.

It seems to me there must be a reason why you need to criticize me.

I've explained what I'm doing and why, but I might as well tell a boulder. There is no penetrating your (or any) confirmation bias and closed-mindedness. You have cut yourself off from learning.

 

[F1fan]

Nobody can be completely objective because everyone has a personal bias since everyone has personal desires and assumptions.

That is why science is peer reviewed. That is why forums ar useful. We can all check each other's thinking and work. Critical thinkers were criticized a few days ago by a believer who said there was a sort of conspiracy. But wasn't realized is that critical thinkers tend to agree with each otehr because they are following the rules of logic and factual evidence to sound conclusions, unlike the many diverse theists who commonly disagree with each other, even in the same religion. That's because theists are relying on interpretations with all sorts of non-factual sources, and THAT is the subjectivity that allows flawed conclusions.

That cuts both ways. For example, someone who does not believe a God exists and wants to find justification not to believe in Baha'u'llah will not be objective in reading Baha'u'llah's texts. This is a problem atheists have hanging over their heads. Can they be truly unbiased and objective when they have already decided that Messengers of God do not exist because God would not communicate via Messengers?

You have it backewards. From this approach you suggest we all assume a God exists, and that Baaha'u'llah was a messenger, and then look for ways that these aren't true. Reasoning begins without belief or assuming validity, and looks for evidence that justifies judgment. This is how juries work as well. This reply illustrates why your conclusions and beliefs are flawed.

Baha'is do know, but we cannot prove what we know to other people. Everyone has to come to that knowledge by themselves.

Another flawed claim. You insist Baha'is know their messenger is genuine but can't show this is true? This is non-rational and absurd. Knowledge that is actually based on fact isn't personal knowledge, it is objectively true and anyone can understand it is true without biased, subjective assumptions. You leave out that it is assumptions that allow you Baha'i to falsely claim knowledge when it isn't.

Correction: The Writings of Baha'u'llah were intended to appeal to ordinary people, but in order to understand what is written a person needs to have some background reading and understanding scriptures. Still they might have an issue understanding the meaning but that is why we have study groups.

Excellent, a direct contradiction that illustrates you are making this all up. No truth. No knowledge. This is why objectivity is superior to what your approach is.

Your claim that the Baha'u'llah writings only make sense if you read the secondary writings, is like the Gossip Game. Why didn't God and Baha'u'llah just create clear and unambiguous writings from the start?

The Baha'i Faith is working for those who have embraced it, who are ordinary people just like you and me.

It is a fringe religion that seems to attract religious rebels. This is also why there are so many diverse sects in Christianity because the "truth" only apveals to certain personality types and attitudes. Baha'i won't appeal to those who believe in gay rights.

I am not religiously inclined and I don't enjoy reading and studying scriptures, so I do not have a high level of spiritual understanding and the other Baha'is leave me behind in the dust. My friend @Truthseeker is always having to explain to me what the Baha'i Writings mean.

You strike me as more religious than spiritual. I equate spiritual with a sort of maturity and wisdom, and religious and non-religious can have these traits. Oddly you need Tony to interpret the secondary writings that explain the original writings. So you are fifth in line from the "truth" of God. That's pretty far removed, yet you are excessively confident.

The interpreters were appointed by Baha'u'llah through His Will to explain what Baha'u'llah meant, since not everyone can grasp the meaning in His writings.

Middlemen to the middleman. And then you need Tony as another middleman. How can you believe you have any truth at all?

I did not say that the additional Writings are crucial to read, I said they are easier to understand and they contain the same information and what we need to know. The very first two books I read were Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era and Bahá’í World Faith. I did not read Gleanings till much later.

This is a plie of confusion. Why not just make original writings clear?

It would be understandable if they had some religious background and they made a serious effort to understand. I was just an ordinary person but I did not understand Gleanings until I read it several times since I had no religious background.

But you just said you need Tony to understand. And if you really understood it you would be more consistent and coherent to us in these discussions.

I do not know exactly what you mean by critical analysis.

Exactly.

Baha'u'llah told us how we should go about recognition of God and His Prophets.

And you bought into these claims without critical analysis.

The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

So what? This isn't factual.

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do. Rather, we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean (was He a Messenger of God or not?) In other words, we should never base our conclusions on other people's opinions.

It's a whole truckload of claims and not a single bit of evidence. This sort of writing is created for those who already believe and need reinforcement for that belief. It is irrelevant objectively. No rational mind concerned with truth and intellectual integrity will be convinced by this propaganda.

No, believing that God exists is not assuming that God exists. Nobody can know that God exists as a fact, but they can believe with certitude.

No one comes to a conclusion that any god exists on evidence. Those who believe must have a mental condition that is oen and eager to believe, and that oen the door to an easy assumption that religious texts are adequate for that justification. Your own testimony describes the typical religious experience.

That is a long way off in the future. We cannot unify people who don't want to be unified. It has to be their choice.

This is an excuse. If a God created the universeincluding humans, and it wanted unity, it would have made humans more rational and more cooerative outside tribal alliances. There is global cooperation since after WW2 mostly because the major nations understand how it complicates order and economies, especially the more commerce is global. Those with wealth want to keep their wealth, and they drive that peace. This doesn't guarantee against actors like putin and smaller nations with actual border and cultural disputes. It's clear the right wing authoritarian leaders pose the biggest threat to global peace, and there are many citizens that are attracted to these leaders. I suggest these are personality defects, as well as faults in meaning seeking that creates a vaccuum of social values. Baha'i has it's own bigotry that is in the way of local and global peace, so not a solution that anyone recognizes.

 

[F1fan]

I am anything but special but I am a hard worker so when I set my mind to something I do it.
You should use critical thinking as a tool to assess the Baha'i Faith.

Seven Characteristics of Critical Thinking

• Flexibility.
• Clear Purpose.
• Organization.
• Time and Effort.
• Asking questions and finding answers.
• Research.
• Logical Conclusion.

Seven Characteristics of Critical Thinking - Lumen Learning​

• Flexible doesn't mean compromising with factual evidence. Flexibility means being open to nuance in examining eveidence and one's own bias.
• Clear purpose can be said to be to understand what is demonstrably true in reality, and religions notoriouslu fal short.
• Organized thinking allows a person to move step by step to consider evidence to sound conclusions. Look at many of your posts how they contradict, and go and forth inconsistently with descriptions. You change your story when pressed with more questions. That's chaos.
• Time and effort means dedicating yourself to learn proper reasoning. There is no indication you have done this. You often post cut and paste logical fallacies but above you wrote "I do not know exactly what you mean by critical analysis." Why not? This should be basic understanding of anyone who registers with any online forum.
• Notice how often critical thinkers and skeptics ask questions of theists and get inadequate answers. That is due to ignorance or bad faith, or both.
• Research, yeah, that is tricky on the internet since there is so much garbage out there. A person needs solid and formal epistamology about how to learn. Conspiracy theorists lack this. Highly dogmatic believers lack this.
• And of course, logical conclusions. You don't understand this in regards to your religious belief, which is typical of believers. Theists can use logic in non-religious areas of knowledge and debate. There are numerous members who can subject political ideas with a high level of valid critical analysis, but when it comes to religion they demonstate none of this ablity.

No doubt you think more highly of your own abilities on this list than what others observe, and that is part of the bias and lack of skill that is sabotages the search for truth. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it is something only the self can address and solve.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is when a person does not have skills or ability in a specific area but sees themselves as fully equipped to give opinions or carry out tasks in that field, even though objective measures or people around them may disagree. They are unaware that they do not have the necessary capabilities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

• Flexible doesn't mean compromising with factual evidence. Flexibility means being open to nuance in examining eveidence and one's own bias.
• Clear purpose can be said to be to understand what is demonstrably true in reality, and religions notoriouslu fal short.
• Organized thinking allows a person to move step by step to consider evidence to sound conclusions. Look at many of your posts how they contradict, and go and forth inconsistently with descriptions. You change your story when pressed with more questions. That's chaos.
• Time and effort means dedicating yourself to learn proper reasoning. There is no indication you have done this. You often post cut and paste logical fallacies but above you wrote "I do not know exactly what you mean by critical analysis." Why not? This should be basic understanding of anyone who registers with any online forum.
• Notice how often critical thinkers and skeptics ask questions of theists and get inadequate answers. That is due to ignorance or bad faith, or both.
• Research, yeah, that is tricky on the internet since there is so much garbage out there. A person needs solid and formal epistamology about how to learn. Conspiracy theorists lack this. Highly dogmatic believers lack this.
• And of course, logical conclusions. You don't understand this in regards to your religious belief, which is typical of believers. Theists can use logic in non-religious areas of knowledge and debate. There are numerous members who can subject political ideas with a high level of valid critical analysis, but when it comes to religion they demonstate none of this ablity.

No doubt you think more highly of your own abilities on this list than what others observe, and that is part of the bias and lack of skill that is sabotages the search for truth. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it is something only the self can address and solve.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is when a person does not have skills or ability in a specific area but sees themselves as fully equipped to give opinions or carry out tasks in that field, even though objective measures or people around them may disagree. They are unaware that they do not have the necessary capabilities.

Even the bold one is not that simple for what truth is and what reality is.

 

[F1fan]

Even the bold one is not that simple for what truth is and what reality is.

Some like to complicate what is simple. This can be in service as a platform for murky "truth" and avoid demonstrable truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some like to complicate what is simple. This can be in service as a platform for murky "truth" and avoid demonstrable truth.

'So which one of these are the correct version of truth?

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And even that is not all.

 

[F1fan]

'So which one of these are the correct version of truth?

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And even that is not all.

Notice you don't clarify a context for me to answer. If you really wanted an answer....

 

[PureX]

Let me be clear here - I am referring to unjustified belief, ...

Then stop calling it faith. Because faith is not belief. Belief is belief, whether it's justified or not. Belief is a presumption of correctness. Faith is a choice made without that presumption.

That's a different word spelled and pronounced the same, but defined differently. A third word spelled and pronounced the same but with a third meaning refers to a religion, like the Jewish faith.

It's just a misuse of language. Religion means religion, not faith. And faith means faith, not religion. You are deliberately and wrongly conflating these words to justify your own confused bias.

I do what you describe above. We made plan for Peking duck tonight with another couple. I hope to be eating duck this evening with them, but I do not know that it will happen. That kind of thinking is nothing like what the religious do, what the vaccine deniers did, what the election hoax believers did, what the climate deniers do, etc.. They believe things that haven't been shown to be correct empirically, and they make mistakes because of it, often very costly ones.

Empiricism is not the only way to choose, or to justify choosing a course of faith action. So when you label their choices "unjustified" you're just doing so based on your own myopic bias. You assume that empiricism is the only justified method for determining a course of action while your fellow humans are free to use any number and combination of methods for doing so because they don't share you bias.