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 worked in town planning for a few years. It may have been purchased without the knowledge of town planning requirements and zone objectives. They were purchased quite a lot of years ago, if my memory of the date is correct.
No, what I said is correct. I understand you want to see things differently to justify your religious belief.
Your reality? It's yours, and has nothing to do with me. Your "reality" gets critiqued when you make it an issue for discussion. I don't like illusory "reality" myself.
This really makes no sense. It illustrates the illusion.
Most of what you said is your personal opinion which of course is biased towards atheism just as Tony's personal opinion is biased towards belief in God.
Your reality also gets critiqued although sometimes that critique is very oblique.
False. I have no bias towards atheism. Atheism is the default position given the lack of evidence for a supernatural. I have no choice to be atheist. It's just the category I fit into.
So you mention that Tony's opinion is biased towards belief in God, and then that "A personal opinion is not subject to being either correct or incorrect since it is not fact-based", which means Tony's opinion isn't fact-based.
Correct. There are many theists who get science right, and have reasoning skill.
I invite any critique anyone has to offer. It had better be reasoned.
Atheism might be the default position but you also have a bias towards it, just like Tony and other believers have a bias towards belief.
Since there are facts about the Baha'i Faith that have led to Tony's opinion, his opinion is based upon those facts.
Opinions are not 'necessarily' fact-based but they can be fact-based as I just said about Tony's opinions.
That's good.
'Faiths' don't claim anything. People do. Faith is a motive, not a proclamation. Some religions make claims, through their adherents, but faith does not.
I think the Chinese govt should continue to
Bigotry, slavery, massacres etc are all
Except that logically, atheism is NOT the default position given a lack of evidence, AND there is plenty of evidence. Whether you choose to accept it or to be convinced by it or not. It's still evidence.
As in, of what use are logic and evidence when
Yep. I was of course not referring to your post
Nor, then, does it speak against it. Which is why atheism is not a logical "default" position. Also, the fact that a question of cause or origin is being asked is evidence that an answer is likely to exist, even if we don't know what it is. Which is why the claim that there is no evidence at all, is false.
That's your own issue to contend with. And your own choice to make. And then for you to defend, same as anyone else.
Actually, I think it's you that is confusing these by claiming there is no evidence when there very clearly is.
I'm not sur what you man by bias in the context you are using it. It isn't clear to me and you are being vague.
The evidence for religious claims is so weak that it doesn't require an intrpretation to understand it isn't sufficient to allow a rational conclusion that religious claims are true, or even likely true. I don't view the "evidence" for religious claims in a religious way. Maybe that is what you mean, that I don't make the assumptions about evidence that believers do.
You might have subconscious motives to believe, and are trapped into the behavior you rely on for feeling meaning and security. But as a person capable of reasoning you still have a choice.
So you are changing your mind about opinions, that they CAN be based in fact.
So there are facts, but they aren't adequate to demonstrate Baha'i true o likely true? That's weak. Enough facts of a given claim is what compels our judgment that the claim is true. I offered the guilt of OJ as an example. His guilt is built upon substantial evidence. Since religions lack adequate evidence to compel judgment by rational minds there is some other reason for religious belief.
Yup. Assessing an opinion involves whether it is built on facts, and is reasoned. When we read opinion pieces the reader HAS to be well educated, and be able to recognize critical thinking, or the lack of it. I have read opinions that are overly emotional and passionate, but still make valid points.
It is the lack of evidence that makes atheism (non-theism/disbelief) the natural default. In logic we are neutral about propositions UNTIL there is adequate evidence that the idea is true, or even discredited. Religions are a social phenomenon that developed along with permanent settlements, and for many thousands of years were allowed to become an established norm of belief before science and reason became the reliable way to understand what is true about how things are. Science and reason has inadertantly become a foil for many religions and their adherents, as science and reason challenged many traditional beliefs and traditions. Your contempt for science is an example of bias against both science and reason. To my mind it illustrates how religions are inadequate to help many citizens in the 21st century.
Whatever evidence is presented tends to require loads of assumptions, which critical thinkers can't do if they follow logic. Logic/reasoning requires true premises, and avoid assumptions. The evidence that believers claim to have is dubious, and this gets explained in debates over and over again.
This is false. You are claiming an absurdity since it is clear that critical thinkers use logic/reason much more to the letter than any theist/believer. Notice how you accuse the whole category of critical thinkers. Yet you fail to show your claims are true. This statement of yours is passive aggressive chest thumping. You make these claims, and probably even believe it, but fail to show it is correct. Using logic means showing your work.
Your criticism is unfounded and untrue. It's funny that categorizing myself as a critical thinker means I'm not a critical thinker. Why wouldn't a critical thinker understand they are a critical thinker? You've made this accusation twice, and still haven't explained why claiming the self to be a critical thinker means they aren't one. THAT is why you aren't a critical thinker. You need to have evidence for what you assert, and be able to explain the conclusion. You don't. You have biased beliefs, and you make emotional comments without thinking how they are logical/reasoned. It's a major flaw in your thinking, and posts.
As explained, non-belief is the logical default for any claim.
If the question is rational, yes. We can have real questions that have no answers, so we are uncertain. Experts can propose answers and models, but these have to be based on what is understood about how things are already, that means facts. This is why religious answers are not valid. Nor are the assumptions based on religious tradition valid.
The evidence has to be verifiable.
This tends to apply to theists more than atheists. Theists are the ones who have inherited a non-factual set of assumptions and beliefs. It is a choice to set these aside.
Theists make this claim. Notice the lack of a list of verifiable evidence.
Very little.
Thanks for coming back to me.
A bias is a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another, and to favor that person or thing. In this case you prefer atheism and Tony prefers belief. In other words, you wouldn't want to be a believer and Tony would not want to be an atheist.
That is too vague. What do you mean by weak? Why is the evidence for religious claims weak?
What do you mean by "in a religious way?" How do you view the evidence then? Where did all the scriptures of various religions come from if they had nothing to do with a God? Is the whole Bible just the writings of men? What would motivate men to write all of that?
Nobody knows what is in anyone's subconscious. You might have subconscious reasons not to believe in God.
They can be but not necessarily.
There are known facts about the Baha'i Faith, what is in the history and the teachings, but how those facts are interpreted varies among people.
These facts are adequate to demonstrate to some people that the Baha'i Faith is true, but the facts are not adequate to demonstrate that to most people. It is not about how many facts there are, it all boils down to how people interpret those facts.
Evidence for a court case will never be the same as evidence for a religion. To expect that is the fallacy of false equivalence.
That argument won't work since it is based upon a personal opinon.