There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[CG Didymus]

I believe my founation is Jesus, the rock, who has done many amazing things in my life. A book can be in error but experience can't be denied.

I know people that believe in religions that are contradictory to Christianity, and they too have experienced.

And, although I don't believe the Baha'i Faith is true, I believe that for them it is true. And it becomes their "rock". I knew some Baha'is that had visions of Abdul Baha'. And I also know some people that recall their past lives.

Any of it true? It was true to them. But what they felt and what they saw depended on what they believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my experience, most people only like scientific evidence when it proves what they want it to prove.

Not always. I used to argue against AGW. It has been over ten years. I have this bad habit of reading the evidence presented against me. And I began to find a common thread with the articles that I could find versus those from the AGW side. My examples all turned out to be local, where the AGW evidence was all global. I have some prejudices, but I have a stronger one to be right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any of it true? It was true to them. But what they felt and what they saw depended on what they believe.

True to them does not make it true.
What they felt and depended upon does not make it true.
A religion is either true or not, although some of it might be true and some of it false.

All we can do is our best in order to determine if a religion is true or false. We won't all come to the same conclusions.

What if the Baha'i Faith is true and you are rejecting it just because it has to live up to your standards of perfection.
Unlike some Baha'is, I do not think the Baha'i Faith is perfect, yet I still believe it is true after 54 years.

I think there will be consequences for rejecting a true religion once we know a lot about it, but I don't know what those consequences will be.

 

[ppp]

True to them does not make it true.
What they felt and depended upon does not make it true.
A religion is either true or not, although some of it might be true and some of it false.

All we can do is our best in order to determine if a religion is true or false. We won't all come to the same conclusions.

What if the Baha'i Faith is true and you are rejecting it just because it has to live up to your standards of perfection.
Unlike some Baha'is, I do not think the Baha'i Faith is perfect, yet I still believe it is true after 54 years.

I think there will be consequences for rejecting a true religion once we know a lot about it, but I don't know what those consequences will be.

The Baha'i version of Pascal's Wager? Yet another variation on the proverbial, "What if you're wrong?"

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i version of Pascal's Wager? Yet another variation on the proverbial, "What if you're wrong?"

Yep.

 

[ppp]

Yep.

Even setting aside it's logical failings and even setting aside it's ego-centered perspective, Pascal's Wager is a predatory "argument" designed to exploit the fears of the unwary or naive.

If you don't use our anti aging cream you will get old and ugly and your mate will leave you. If you don't listen to your parents the boogeyman will come get you. If you don't adhere to our religion, there will be really bad consequences. Don't believe me? But what if you're wrong?!

Separate question: If I pretended to be Baha'i in all my words and actions, but in reality I considered the god to be a non-existent entity whose depiction is that of an immoral being, would that pretense count? In other words, would only my words and actions matter with regards to the undefined "consequences" you spoke of? Would what I actually believe matter at all?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you don't adhere to our religion, there will be really bad consequences. Don't believe me? But what if you're wrong?!

But that is not what I said. I said:
"I think there will be consequences for rejecting a true religion once we know a lot about it, but I don't know what those consequences will be."

Separate question: If I pretended to be Baha'i in all my words and actions, but in reality I considered the god to be a non-existent entity whose depiction is that of an immoral being, would that pretense count?

No, I do not think that pretense would count, since God knows what you are really thinking. God only wants sincere believers.

In other words, would only my words and actions matter with regards to the undefined "consequences" you spoke of? Would what I actually believe matter at all?

Your words do not matter but what you actually believe matters a lot.
Your actions also matter, even if you do not believe in God or His messenger.

Heck, I may as well post why I believe this, since the passage below says what I believe about getting to heaven.

Mind you, Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, but a Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

 

[ppp]

"I think there will be consequences for rejecting a true religion once we know a lot about it, but I don't know what those consequences will be."

Paraphrase: a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
Are you complaining that I paraphrased what you said, or that I misinterpreted your meaning? Just emboldening that set of words does not tell me how I misconstrued your intent.

No, I do not think that pretense would count, since God knows what you are really thinking. God only wants sincere believers.

Then what is the point of Pascal's wager? It's not like the threat of consequences (defined or undefined) is going to change what I believe about the nature of the god or the religion. The threat of consequences (defined or undefined) would just increase my contempt.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i version of Pascal's Wager? Yet another variation on the proverbial, "What if you're wrong?"

Hey, that works for the Born Again Christians. Why not Baha'is also. "Can you take a chance? Do you want the Baha'i God to be upset with you after you die?"

Yeah... It might work... But nothing like the Christian version... "You want to take the chance of eternity in hell? With fire, brimstone, little demons poking you with pitchforks... Or... living with God and Jesus in heaven where they'll teach you how to play beautiful music on a harp?"

 

[CG Didymus]

Even setting aside it's logical failings and even setting aside it's ego-centered perspective, Pascal's Wager is a predatory "argument" designed to exploit the fears of the unwary or naive.

If you don't use our anti aging cream you will get old and ugly and your mate will leave you. If you don't listen to your parents the boogeyman will come get you. If you don't adhere to our religion, there will be really bad consequences. Don't believe me? But what if you're wrong?!

Separate question: If I pretended to be Baha'i in all my words and actions, but in reality I considered the god to be a non-existent entity whose depiction is that of an immoral being, would that pretense count? In other words, would only my words and actions matter with regards to the undefined "consequences" you spoke of? Would what I actually believe matter at all?

I think Baha'is and Christians have their people that go through the motions. Probably with Baha'is is not out of fear like I think is happening with some Christians, but out of, "Well, it sounds good. Peace, unity, what can be so bad about that?"

But it's a religion with a lot of rules and beliefs. Baha'is are supposed to believe it all. But... I wonder... How many Baha'is really do?

 

[Brian2]

That is hardly "evidence". Or at best it is very poor evidence. Evidence is supposed to be rational and your argument is definitely not rational.

What is hardly evidence and what is very poor evidence and what is not rational?

 

[Brian2]

But I know, for many Christians, believing the Bible is literally true, or at least as literal as possible, is the foundation of their beliefs. But believing those stories as being literally true is the foundation of why some of us don't believe in Christianity.

Yes I suppose more people want proof that God and the supernatural are true these days before they will believe in them.
Even evidence for God and the supernatural needs to be proven to be evidence before it is seen as evidence.
But people are willing to be naturalists/materialists without proof that the physical universe is all there is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is hardly evidence and what is very poor evidence and what is not rational?

I would say hearsay is poor evidence. And much of the Bible does not even qualify as that. Tell me what your supposed evidence is and I can explain why it is reliable or not.

And rational evidence is part of a rational argument. That means that one cannot use logical fallacies when gathering what one thinks is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I suppose more people want proof that God and the supernatural are true these days before they will believe in them.
Even evidence for God and the supernatural needs to be proven to be evidence before it is seen as evidence.
But people are willing to be naturalists/materialists without proof that the physical universe is all there is.

"Proof" is a poor term to use. What is wanted is either solid evidence, it is rather silly to base one's most important hopes on falsehoods,, or at least a good rational argument for a God. If one could support a God logically then physical evidence would not be needed.

Tell me, what would it take you to believe in Bigfoot or Leprechauns?

 

[SkepticThinker]

By God I mean a creator.

Yes, I know.

Science cannot and does not say whether a creator was needed or not. Any belief either way is a leap of faith.

This was in response to, "It's the same "faith" required to imagine that leprechauns aren't needed. There's just no evidence for it, so there's no reason to include lerpechauns in our explanations.
That's not faith."

You seem to have just repeated yourself, instead of considering and responding to what I've said to you.

like the idea that life began under the sea at ocean vents.

That's not taken on faith. It's taken on where the evidence leads.

But this is just a theory anyway and can never be confirmed unless we travel back in time to see what happened.

False.

There are many such hypotheses which cannot ever be confirmed without travel back in time. That should be clear to anyone but unfortunately is not.

False.

But I do find it strange that you seem to believe that unless we can travel back in time, we can't know what happened in the past, but you also claim that everything in the Bible is true, as written, correct? How can you possibly know that unless you've travelled into the past?

Science uses more scientific language, true.

Yes.

Do you really expect science, which has a limitation of only being able to study the physical universe, to be able to see or detect spirits?

Yes, I do. If you can detect them, science certainly should be able to.

That is the faith of scientism and is not really very logical.

It's your claim that some supernatural realm exists in which spirits reside, that needs demonstrating.

There is nothing illogical about not including undetectable things in our explanations of how the world works. The illogical part would be claiming that said thing exists without any way whatsoever to demonstrate it.

And as I said, I'm not complaining about science not being able to find God or spirits, it's just the leap of faith that skeptics take to then say that since science has not found a God, that is significant.

There is no leap of faith required to observe that gods and spirits do not appear to us in any way demonstrable or observable way.
When scientists observe how the water cycle works, for instance, they don't see gods and spirits tinkering with it. They see natural mechanisms at work. There is no need to invoke unseen and unexplained realms.

Everything we know to exist is demonstrable, measurable, detectable or observable in some way. That's how we know they're there in the first place. But you're claiming that you can detect some unobservable, unmeasurable, non-demonstrable and undetectable thing. You take a leap of faith to imagine that it's there, and then project that onto people who are not taking any leaps of faith.

What do you mean?

You're projecting your own thoughts, feelings, shortcomings, etc. onto others in an effort to defend your beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am told that science does not prove things, but skeptics believe many things that science tells us. That sounds like skeptics believing things that have not been proven.
There is nothing antithetical about faith the believes things beyond what science has or can show are correct.

This was in response to, "Why you think that "skeptics believe things that have not been proven" is beyond me. It sounds like projection, tbh.

There is no need for faith when you've got evidence.
This kind of faith is antithetical to the scientific method which is evidence-based."

It seems you've just repeated yourself again, instead of responding to what I've said in regards to the claim you keep repeating.

I mean, how you got "sounds like skeptics believing things that have not been proven" from what I said is beyond me. I specifically pointed out that we rely on evidence. And your comeback is, "that sounds like you believe in unproven things," which demonstrates you're not even reading what I'm typing to you.

I cannot prove to you that there is a God and you cannot prove to anyone that there is no God. I don't want you to try to prove it to me. Just opening your eyes to the fact that we all have unproven beliefs would be a good thing however.

For the umpteenth time, I don't claim "there is no god." I have no burden of proof.

You claim there is a god, which means you've got the burden of proof here, since you're the one making a claim.

You don't just get to claim you can detect undetectable things and imagine you and I are on the same footing here.

Anything can be disbelieved on faith also.

Demonstrating yet again, that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, given that anything can be believed (or not believed) on faith.
Faith is useless to me.


This was in response to, "What you've shown us time and time again, is that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason/evidence. Otherwise they'd just give the evidence. And therefore it is an unreliable pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. You've confirmed this many times over in your posts. (I've pointed that out every time.)"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I suppose more people want proof that God and the supernatural are true these days before they will believe in them.
Even evidence for God and the supernatural needs to be proven to be evidence before it is seen as evidence.
But people are willing to be naturalists/materialists without proof that the physical universe is all there is.

My question is, why are people willing to believe in spirts without any proof that any supernatural realm exists at all?

I mean, we accept the existence of the natural world because it's here for us to observe, measure, test, etc. I daresay you accept that the natural world exists, correct?
We have no such thing for claims of anything supernatural. Just faith on the believer's part.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I do. If you can detect them, science certainly should be able to.

Of course science cannot detect spirits. Science can only detect that which can be seen and observed.
Science can only detect that which exists in the physical world. Spirits do not exist in this physical world so science cannot detect them.

 

[Trailblazer]

My question is, why are people willing to believe in spirts without any proof that any supernatural realm exists at all?

We believe on the evidence that is available to us, realizing that there can never be any proof.

 

[stvdv]

The New Testament was written by people who were not eye witnesses to Jesus.

That means it is less reliable. I remember the "whispering in the other's ear game" as kids, without dementia. Even then, after 2 minutes the outcome changed dramatically

Christians should admit it is less reliable, but they usually try to veil this fact, so not smart