Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have posted more than one thread on this forum asking atheists that question, but they really could not come up with any reasonable answers.
Marketing. Paul and Constantine put Jesus on the map, and the crusaders, missionaries, and conquistadores spread it further at the point of a sword or an inquisition or a witch hanging. They've put a Bible in every hotel room, and they ran ads during the Superbowl. You've got pastors trying to grow their congregations and collection plates promoting the religion from the pulpit. Our resident Protestant Pastor on RF just commented that he led about a half dozen to Jesus last Sunday. And then there's his Sunday school in the basement marketing this religion to children.
I've yet to hear anything that wasn't either a miracle or mundane.
I don't believe that. Nor do I believe that he knew any more about Jesus than I or anybody else familiar with the Gospels does.
Then we're not talking about the same historical character. I'm talking about the New Testament Jesus. You're describing fan fiction.
I don't believe that, either. It seems that your claims of Jesus' exceptionality are all rooted in some faith-based belief about Jesus.
No. He manifested the attributes of a man.
Like thousands of other people including you.
You don't need to worry about that. Debate ends with the last plausible, unrefuted claim, meaning that the issue is settled. It's assumed that if you could offer a counterexample, you would have. When does it ever happen that somebody has a compelling counterargument and doesn't make it to a critical thinker disagreeing with him because he doesn't feel like it? Never. That behavior translates into concession.
Not in this context. It means that it comports with the laws of fallacy-free reason connecting evidence and premises to sound conclusions. You use your own version of reasoning.
The rules for evaluating evidence apply to all that is evident.
That's your definition of truth? That's not a definition of anything. If you use the definiendum as the definiens as well, you get tautology.
Not for me. It's always empiricism. An idea needs to be shown to be correct before it can be called that. Correct ideas are the ones that accurately predict outcomes, their only test, but one which they must pass.
If your claim isn't testable empirically, it's not testable at all. It falls into the category of a metaphysical statement, which because it is untestable, can never be called correct or incorrect. Besides also being called unfalsifiable and unscientific, such ideas are called not even wrong.
Yes, but why tell me? I don't confuse the two. I also don't have separate standards for evaluating their claims. The religious ask us to soften our standards for belief when dealing with their faith-based beliefs (that's when words like materialism and scientism are used derisively), but why would a critical thinker do that?
I would need to experience something that confirmed or very nearly confirmed its existence. That's never happened. You might ask what that could be. I can't think of anything that couldn't also be due to an advanced alien civilization of naturalistic origin (abiogenesis followed by evolution), including creating a universe.
That's only true if no religion has sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief in it.
Hyper-analyzed and picked apart? I use the same methods for evaluating religious claims as any other kind of claim. And yes, it involves tearing an idea into its component pieces ("piece by piece"). Thats the lysis of analysis: "analysis, "a breaking-up" or "an untying;" from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening").
It was marketing at first, but that does not fully explain why a third of the world population still follows Jesus.
There is nothing mundane about being a Representative of God.
I did not expect you to believe it just because I believe it.
If anything is fan fiction it is the New Testament Jesus, not Baha'u'llah's version of Jesus.
Of course they are faith-based since nobody really knows what Jesus did as a fact, except that He was crucified.
No. He manifested the attributes of God.
No, nobody except a Messenger of God can bear witness to the truth about God. That is the main reason they come to earth.
You can asume anything you want to such as assuming I am in a debate with you. I am in no debate, I am only in a discussion. People who debate have a need to win but I have no need to win anything since I consider that egotistical. You can call that concession if you want to.
You also use your own version of reasoning and you think it is better than mine.
Good luck trying to apply that to God.
Testing a God that can never be seen empirically is illogical. I can and will call it correct because it passes my test since I have empirical evidence for Baha'u'llah.
My point was that the standards of evidence cannot be the same since religion and science are differnt.
The deity does not need anything from humans, not anything at all. It is humans who need what the deity reveals.
Actually, what he said does explain it. Although, there are probably some more nuances he chose not to include, like family and peer conditioning.
All men manifests attributes of God. Baha'u'llah was just ahead of the curb when it came to global unity and prosperity.
What God is, is different for each individual. The prophets were just more vocal about that.
We are literally in Religious Debates, and both of you share unlike opinions on God. It's a debate.
We can prove that God exists, but to convince to other people that is definitive proof of God, is just a very difficult thing to do.
You went from "nobody can prove God" to "I have empirical evidence for Baha'u'llah" in two paragraphs. Try to have more consistency. That's one of the biggest faults of the Baha'i Faith - they claim God is unknowable then say the prophets know God.
Yes, science explains how things came to be, where as religion explains why.
If religion never existed would people exist? I contend they would, although things would be very different.
That's like saying "if the universe is meaningless"..
I don't understand what TB is trying to say. From a Baha'i pov most of those Christian believe things that aren't true. So, what does that prove? That people will believe what those that claim to know the truth say?
Yes, I agree, so I had to go back and change my other post.
I agree with that too. All men have the potential to manifest the attributes of God. Baha'u'llah even wrote that.
I agree. Everyone experiences God differently, as an individual.
In my mind it is not a debate because I am not trying to prove I am right or win anything.
I think we an prove to ourselves that God exists, if that is what you mean, but we can't prove that God exists to other people.
Empirical evidence for Baha'u'llah just means we can verify that He existed, but that does not prove God exists since we cannot prove that Baha'u'llah got messages from God.
Yes, that's true, and Baha'is believe that science and religion are like two wings of a bird, and humanity needs both wings to fly.
I agree. Humans would still exist, but they would not be civilized or moral if there was never any religion.
Baha'is believe that 'some' of what Christians believe is not true, but 'some' of what they believe is true. Christianity is a mixed bag.
Baha'is don't really seem to include those primitive religions that, to me, seem very manmade. I think it was people inventing their religion and their Gods. Then, of course, when Europeans conquered and made colonies of places where those types of religions existed, the Christian Europeans outlawed those religions.
Because you have decided there is meaning to it. Is a meaningless universe too frightening to consider?That's like saying "if the universe is meaningless"..
It doesn't seem that way to me.
How is this useful, except to feel OK about some impulse to believe in the common cultural act: belief in a God? Is it hard to consider that you are feeling pressure to believe in a God and approach your dilemma in what you suggest above? It's not useful for any other thing but to satisfy the need to believe.
It's kind of funny that you asked a question I was thinking, and that is why we need a God at all. I was wondering because you are diluting the idea of God to such a degree that it is pretty much just a general coverall. God is it, God is us. Why need to use the word God at all? It isn't descriptive. It's being defined out of relevance. If virologists look for the existence of a new virus and find it, according to you they should slap a "God" label on it. How is that useful?
I've done that. I don't have any experience that I want to call God or a god. I don't interpret my spiritual intuitions as evidence of gods. Evidence for gods is scant, and the concept adds no understanding.
I had written, "If the universe is godless, then it follows that there is no evidence that a god exists and none that could support the faith-based claims any religion." I live in a godless universe now and don't find it or my life in it meaningless. How would having a god in it make it any more meaningful to me? Maybe there is one. Maybe not. If so, it doesn't intervene in the affairs of men.
I think it does. The marketing often begins in the crib. Here in Mexico, they like to reenact Bible stories at holidays, which reinforces the teaching they hear at mass the rest of the year. On Christmas, we see creches and children reenacting Mary and Joseph looking for a room and being turned away until welcomed. On Easter come the passion plays and the reenactment of the march into Jerusalem on Good Friday.
Sure there is. Millions claim to be speaking for their gods. Remember, my claim was that if you remove the magic from the Gospels, you're left with an ordinary man living an ordinary life, not an example to be followed any more than millions of other examples. If you mean more by that than that Jesus was a man who promoted his religion, then you keep bringing me the magic to distinguish this life.
I had written, " It seems that your claims of Jesus' exceptionality are all rooted in some faith-based belief about Jesus." I'm going by the story of the man in the Gospels. It doesn't matter for my purpose if it's all fiction or not. We have a tale of a man who is reported to have been and to have done assorted things, and this life is held out as exemplary. The Christian is exhorted to be Christlike, and the implication is that this is a standard beyond man's grasp which he should attempt to approximate as best he can. My point is that none of that makes sense to me, since such people of that moral character or greater are exceedingly common. You say you aren't debating, but you are contradicting, although not with counterexamples in rebuttal, just vague claims about Jesus being special. Your argument is essentially that Jesus' life was special and exemplary because Jesus was more than just another man, which you say you believe by faith.
Which ones did he demonstrate? Here's a post I left elsewhere that summarizes God's image. Perhaps you can tell me how many of these boxes Jesus ticks:
What's the difference to you? When does discussion become debate? Elsewhere, you wrote, "In my mind it is not a debate because I am not trying to prove I am right or win anything." Is that when you feel that you're in a debate - when you're trying to win something?
I love to debate. The winners are the ones that learn. You and I have had this discussion before about framing debate as attack. It's not. It's a method for resolving differences, assuming both debaters are up to speed in their critical thinking skills.
I didn't invent my reasoning. You invented yours. And the one I chose is demonstrably better than any alternative method for determining what is true, which is why I chose it. It is better. It works. It generates sound conclusions. Yours doesn't. Yours is in the service of defending your faith-based beliefs, and has no rules.
I had written, "An idea needs to be shown to be correct before it can be called that. Correct ideas are the ones that accurately predict outcomes, their only test, but one which they must pass." I already have applied that to gods. That's why I'm an atheist.
Believing that a god that cannot be empirically confirmed exists is believing in a guess, which I consider illogical.
Yet they are the same standards used, at least in the critical thought community. Your making a special pleading argument - that god claims should be excused from critical analysis - but your argument for that is that gods can't be detected. If that correct - that no test can ever detect a deity - then that's grounds for me to consider them nonexistent like every other thing for which that is true. There are also no tests for leprechauns or vampires. Are you prepared to give leprechaunists and vampirists the same pass you ask for your god, that one cannot apply the standards of evidence to the claim, so it should just be believed without evidence? I'll bet not. Me, neither.
No such claim was made. My comment was about what it wants. What I wrote was, "Why would a deity with an important message that it wants known and believed but has to use a messenger to deliver it want to have its messenger be readily recognized as such? Do you really need that answered?" Does this deity have a purpose in sending messengers? Apparently not according to your theology. I would have guessed that it was to be known, believed, trusted, and worshiped, in which case it would need to be heard and understood first, hence messengers. But you describe a god who seems to have no purpose.
..so, what do you consider is the meaning of the universe, if you do not find it meaningless?
As Viktor Frankl said, we humans find meaning when we set goals worthy of the self.
IMO you don't have to be the writer or an expert in exegesis to understand the outline of the stories.
Nobody except the deity knows what the deity wants, so there is no point discussing it.
but you have to be the writer of the stories in order to know the intention of the stories.