Why do atheists talk to believers so much?

[ChristineM]

Ditto but with the "a"

Its so interesting to try to understand why atheists deny the evidence when the evidence is staring them in the face.

We have discussed your low threshold of evidence before. But ill rill repeat... Wishful thinking and faith are not evidence

 

[Trailblazer]

The best argument for something is an adequate response to a great argument against something. This drives all sincere, reasoned, respectful debate.

For me I have a believer on one shoulder and an atheist on the other always counseling me (so to speak). I channel one or the other more depending on the context.

Each perspective sharpens my insight, teaches me humility, helps me listen.

As a result I have a strong belief in belief, but not in literalism. It is a sort of deep respect and appreciation for a life-long immersion in imagination and the impact that can have for personal meaning.

What is hard for Christianity, my religion, is to accept non-literalism and diversity of belief. These qualities are so strong in Christianity these days that I think many atheists are almost triggered at a deep psychological level to heal believers of their fevered attitudes.

The human mind is an organ provides its species with access to an alternative (virtual) reality. The power that each of us experiences in our minds tempts us to believe that that reality is the higher reality even as the non-mind reality proves us wrong on a daily basis.

When you go to worship you enter a place of a special nature which is meant to help you focus on that other reality. It strengthens your inner resolve against the outer facts of our more mundane reality.

Atheists see science as the voice of the non-mind reality. Against that there are those who insist on the reality accessible to faith. Where the two overlap there is endless debate. It is as if there are two types of cognitive bias going on and the debate is being fueled by this naturally occurring divide.

Thanks for your enlightened perspective... I get very disheartened at times talking to atheists, especially when they are disrespectful and arrogant, but not all atheists are like that. Atheists just have a different perspective on life, one I try to understand. Not many atheists try to understand my perspective, but that is not my goal. I know my perspective and why I have it, that is all that matters to me. If anyone wants to challenge my beliefs I am perfectly happy to explain why I have them. Conversely, I am always open to listening to why others have their beliefs or non-beliefs.

Sometimes I just get so tired of the ridicule, flagrant attacks on my beliefs, and arrogant disrespect that I just want to leave all forums and go back to what I was doing before. Just when I am thinking of closing up shop, somebody like you comes along and reminds me why I have not done so. You said it in so many words:

"For me I have a believer on one shoulder and an atheist on the other always counseling me (so to speak). I channel one or the other more depending on the context.

Each perspective sharpens my insight, teaches me humility, helps me listen."

 

[Trailblazer]

Until you find that, he's just human. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, how can we prove a human isn't a human when that's how he was born, from humans and by humans. The default is on us.

No, you are dead wrong about that, logically speaking.
Baha'u'llah was either just human or He was more than human, as He claimed to be...
What people believe about that has nothing to do with it. He was either who He claimed to be or not.
Proof does not create Reality. Proof is just want some people want. Reality just is.

It is nobody's responsibility to prove anything to anyone else. We all have a brain and free will so we can do our own research and make our own decisions.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have discussed your low threshold of evidence before. But ill rill repeat... Wishful thinking and faith are not evidence

But evidence is evidence whether you see it as evidence or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, you are dead wrong about that, logically speaking.
Baha'u'llah was either just human or He was more than human, as He claimed to be...
What people believe about that has nothing to do with it. He was either who He claimed to be or not.
Proof does not create Reality. Proof is just want some people want. Reality just is.

It is nobody's responsibility to prove anything to anyone else. We all have a brain and free will so we can do our own research and make our own decisions.

Ill get back to requote.

How am I wrong? I know you disagree; but, disagreeing doesnt mean I am wrong. It just means Im pointing out something else that doesnt add up to your logic of seeing things.

Unless you can explain it through non-spiritual means there is no foundation for conversation unless someone believes what you do.

Conversations and debates dont work that way.

Explain how Bahaullah is divine in some way outside of his statements about himself and people who know him.

It makes sense within your religion. But facts do not work that way. It must make sense as a whole for any of it to be fact or true.

Also "doing your own research" is a copout for actually developing a well-rounded counterclaim.

Ive researched and read the bible, for example, and there is no proof that jesus IS who he claims he is. There is proof that he said it through his diciples because its written. There is proof that some events happen are written to happen but unless you were there, there is no proof that it did.

Unless you know jesus' mind, you are going off your own interpretation not his and definitely not gods.

Trust in something does not make that something fact.

Bahaullah is more than human?

How? I know his claim (thank you for not quoting scripture!) but it goes beyond that. What exactly in history can prove he IS who he is without his, his friends, and his believers word for it?

Can you back up the claim with outside evidence?

A debated doesnt prompt the other to "do their own research". It is not my faith but yours. If you can defend it, then we can move on. If you cant (or dont want to), its not my fault. I cant go beyond what I know because you have to build more of and argument (statement of refutation) so that I can address whether what you say makes sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, you are dead wrong about that, logically speaking.

How so?

Example: It makes logical sense why a child believes he can fly. He saw Superman, and superman looks human with a cap, and the child is impressionable, so he thought he can fly. Is it true-no. Is it logical. Yes.

Disagreeing and claims doesnt make anything logical. Explain the logic behind bahuallah being more than human beyond the claims.

Baha'u'llah was either just human or He was more than human, as He claimed to be...

He was human. That doesnt mean he wasnt special or anything. What year does a person need to live before he all of the sudden cant be divine anymore?

Whats the cut off point of human divinity?

What people believe about that has nothing to do with it. He was either who He claimed to be or not.

He isnt. But my point is, you say he is who he claims. We have evidence of the claim. We dont have evidence of what he claim is true. Anyone can trust anything for their spiritual wellbeing.

Mistaking that as a fact someone else is ignorant or need to reseach because there is evidence in front of them is totally different. either it can be proven (the evidence of the claim is subtanstiated and can be studied by all regardless ones faith or lack thereof) or it cannot.

But having trust something is true doesnt make it true. Evidence isnt in front of us. If it were, it would be fact. It is not.

Proof does not create Reality. Proof is just want some people want. Reality just is.

So bahaullah being more than human isnt a part of reality since proof is irrelevant (or missing) in his claim?

If there is no proof for bahaullahs divinity in reality, what exactly do you believe in that is of reality?

Somethings not adding up. Is bahaullah divinity part of reality? How can you justify his claim if the proof of it doesnt correlate to reality?

It is nobody's responsibility to prove anything to anyone else. We all have a bra

Yes. But in a debate forum, you have to back up your statements beyond quotes. Rephrase them in your own words but youre doing a yo-yo effect.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It depends on the atheist I guess. Some are quite obnoxious, I agree. A lot of it is ego-driven I think. Some atheists have an obsessive need to "win" debates and arguments. I used to be that way, but have gotten over it for the most part.

I have wondered for many years, why anyone would even bother to argue with someone about religion, if they truly don't believe there is a God? If I truly believed there wasn't a God, I wouldn't waste my time. It has made me wonder, if maybe somewhere deep down they have doubts, and are trying to assure themselves they are right. I mean after all, eternity is a long time to regret it if they are wrong.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I have wondered for many years, why anyone would even bother to argue with someone about religion, if they truly don't believe there is a God? If I truly believed there wasn't a God, I wouldn't waste my time. It has made me wonder, if maybe somewhere deep down they have doubts, and are trying to assure themselves they are right. I mean after all, eternity is a long time to regret it if they are wrong.

And what if you're wrong about Zeus?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have wondered for many years, why anyone would even bother to argue with someone about religion, if they truly don't believe there is a God? If I truly believed there wasn't a God, I wouldn't waste my time.

These days, I don’t engage with theists to see whether I can convince myself of what they believe; I do it to see if I can find a way to avoid contempt for their beliefs... and by extension, theists themselves.

I interact with theists all the time. I find it unpleasant that I struggle to find respect for their most deeply-held beliefs. My main solace is that religious beliefs don’t actually seem to be that important to many theists, but for those for whom it is important, I still see the prospect of dismissing a huge number of people as a heavy blow to my faith in humanity, so I try to avoid it. I suppose this is probably a personal failing on my part that I refuse to accept what seems so apparent.

Plus, there’s the issue of secularism: religion imposes itself on me in all sorts of ways. If a religion is going to force itself on me, then that religion owes me a justification for why it’s correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what if you're wrong about Zeus?

That will not have any eternal ramifications.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That will not have any eternal ramifications.

It won’t?

Greek underworld - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Ill get back to requote.

How am I wrong? I know you disagree; but, disagreeing doesnt mean I am wrong. It just means Im pointing out something else that doesnt add up to your logic of seeing things.

You said: “Until you find that, he's just human. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, how can we prove a human isn't a human when that's how he was born, from humans and by humans. The default is on us.”

You are wrong because what we perceive does not determine whether He was just human or more than human. He either was more than human or not. What we believe about that is totally irrelevant because our beliefs do not determine reality. Reality is independent from what we believe about it.

Unless you can explain it through non-spiritual means there is no foundation for conversation unless someone believes what you do.

Conversations and debates dont work that way.

Explain how Bahaullah is divine in some way outside of his statements about himself and people who know him.

It makes sense within your religion. But facts do not work that way. It must make sense as a whole for any of it to be fact or true.

I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was divine. Nobody can. All I have is evidence that indicates that He was. I judge His claim by the evidence – His life, His Writings, the religion that was established in His Name.

How could something outside of Himself and people who knew Him prove he is divine?

It does not have to make any sense to anyone in order for it to be true. Truth is independent of what people believe about it.

Also "doing your own research" is a copout for actually developing a well-rounded counterclaim.

Ive researched and read the bible, for example, and there is no proof that jesus IS who he claims he is. There is proof that he said it through his diciples because its written. There is proof that some events happen are written to happen but unless you were there, there is no proof that it did.

Unless you know jesus' mind, you are going off your own interpretation not his and definitely not gods.

Jesus’ mind is God’s mind because the will of Jesus was identical with the will of God. . The question is whether you believe Jesus speaks for God.

Trust in something does not make that something fact.

I never said it did.

No religion is a fact because facts can be proven and no religion can be proven. However, it can still be true, because proof is not what makes it true. Proof is just what some people want in order to believe it is true.

Can you back up the claim with outside evidence?
A debated doesnt prompt the other to "do their own research". It is not my faith but yours. If you can defend it, then we can move on. If you cant (or dont want to), its not my fault. I cant go beyond what I know because you have to build more of and argument (statement of refutation) so that I can address whether what you say makes sense.

How could outside evidence prove who Baha’u’llah was? Think about it.

I have defended my faith over and over but I cannot convince others it is true, nor do I want to. That is not my job. As Baha’u’llah said, the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself. That means everyone has to do their own homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

It won’t?

Greek underworld - Wikipedia

It won't because Zeus was a mythological god, so the Greek underworld is just a fantasy.

By contrast, the Real God exists and heaven and hell are a reality.
That is why if you are wrong there will be eternal ramifications.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read it all (I read and quote at the same time instead of all at once)

I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was divine. Nobody can. All I have is evidence that indicates that He was.

What is evidence if you are not considering that as proof?

I have evidence that I went to Africa
Can you proove it?
Yes. Here is my evidence: My plane ticket and stuff I bought
Thank you for that evidence; now, I have proof you went to Africa.

If you cannot prove Bahaullah is divine, what value is the evidence you have to justify your trust in its validity?

How could something outside of Himself and people who knew Him prove he is divine?

Thats why I asked about the validity of your claim. How can you accept evidence but then dont see it as proof of bahaullahs divinity?

Thats not a spiritual question, its a logical one. If you have evidence (bahaullahs writings) why arent they considered proof that what he said is true?

If proof isnt aligned with reality, what is the evidence worth (not to juse you but as a whole) to which validates bahaullahs claim of divinity?

It does not have to make any sense to anyone in order for it to be true. Truth is independent of what people believe about it.

Including yourself. Which leads me back to since your belief dosnt make something true and proof isnt aligned with reality, are you believing in a lie or something fake?

Jesus’ mind is God’s mind because the will of Jesus was identical with the will of God. . The question is whether you believe Jesus speaks for God.

Actually, since believe doesnt substatiate truth or logic (aka aove), that question makes no sense. Also, I disagree with trinity doctrines because the bible doesnt support it.

No religion is a fact because facts can be proven and no religion can be proven. However, it can still be true, because proof is not what makes it true. Proof is just what some people want in order to believe it is true.

Yes. Many religions are fact. But (cough) you just got to be aware of the evidence infront of you to realize that. We cant do research for you to know these religions are fact.

If your evidence isnt proof of bahuallahs claim, what function is your evidence and why call it that?

And even moreso, if there is no proof, why tell us we cant dont want to see the evidence when it has no function to your argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It won't because Zeus was a mythological god, so the Greek underworld is just a fantasy.

By contrast, the Real God exists and heaven and hell are a reality.
That is why if you are wrong there will be eternal ramifications.

Ah - so you’re just unwilling to entertain the possibility that you’re wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering atheists don't make up a very large percentage of the population, they'd be pretty lonely if they didn't talk to theists. And those who don't believe in Jehovah in general are in a position where they might need to defend their disbelief, so it helps to know what you are challenging and criticizing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Disagreeing and claims doesnt make anything logical. Explain the logic behind bahuallah being more than human beyond the claims.

There is no logic behind Baha'u'llah being more than human. There is just evidence that indicates that..

He was human. That doesnt mean he wasnt special or anything. What year does a person need to live before he all of the sudden cant be divine anymore?

Whats the cut off point of human divinity?

He isnt. But my point is, you say he is who he claims. We have evidence of the claim. We dont have evidence of what he claim is true. Anyone can trust anything for their spiritual wellbeing.

Mistaking that as a fact someone else is ignorant or need to reseach because there is evidence in front of them is totally different. either it can be proven (the evidence of the claim is subtanstiated and can be studied by all regardless ones faith or lack thereof) or it cannot.

It cannot be proven as a fact that everyone is going to recognize. No religion can be proven that way. But those of us who know it is true have proven it to ourselves.

But having trust something is true doesnt make it true. Evidence isnt in front of us. If it were, it would be fact. It is not.

It can be true without being a fact. Facts can be proven but beliefs cannot be proven. However, beliefs can be true. Having trust in them does not make them true. They are either true or not.

So bahaullah being more than human isnt a part of reality since proof is irrelevant (or missing) in his claim?

If there is no proof for bahaullahs divinity in reality, what exactly do you believe in that is of reality?

Somethings not adding up. Is bahaullah divinity part of reality? How can you justify his claim if the proof of it doesnt correlate to reality?

Something can be a reality without being provable. God cannot be proven but God is a reality.

PROOF DOES NOT CREATE REALITY. PROOF IS JUST WHAT SOME PEOPLE WANT.

Yes. But in a debate forum, you have to back up your statements beyond quotes. Rephrase them in your own words but youre doing a yo-yo effect.

I do not consider this a debate forum. It is just a forum where I come to share and learn from others. I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah - so you’re just unwilling to entertain the possibility that you’re wrong.

I know I am not wrong about God and the afterlife, but just for the sake of argument let's just say I am wrong and there is no God and no afterlife...
What would be the eternal ramifications of that? I would just die and never know the difference...

Now, let's flip that over...
If you are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife, there will be eternal ramifications for being unaware of that before you die.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is evidence if you are not considering that as proof?

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger from God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

If you cannot prove Bahaullah is divine, what value is the evidence you have to justify your trust in its validity?

I do not have to justify it to anyone else except myself.

Thats why I asked about the validity of your claim. How can you accept evidence but then dont see it as proof of bahaullahs divinity?

Thats not a spiritual question, its a logical one. If you have evidence (bahaullahs writings) why arent they considered proof that what he said is true?

If proof isnt aligned with reality, what is the evidence worth (not to juse you but as a whole) to which validates bahaullahs claim of divinity?

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:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Incontrovertible evidence is a colloquial term for evidence introduced to prove a fact that is supposed to be so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter; evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence, directing a fact-finder to a specific and certain conclusion.
Incontrovertible evidence - Wikipedia

Incontrovertible evidence is proof. God cannot ever be prove to exist as a fact because God is unknowable. However, if the evidence is good enough we can prove it to ourselves that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

Nobody can “prove” that a Messenger actually received a message from God. Even those who witnessed his revelation streaming in as He wrote it down cannot prove it was coming from God. For obvious reasons, only Baha’u’llah and God knew what happened for certain. If we want to know, we do all the investigation that we can (as noted in the categories below) and then we decide if we are going to believe that Baha’u’llah was telling the Truth about what happened to Him.

The evidence is proof to me but since the evidence is not proof to everyone, it is not an established fact.

Yes. Many religions are fact. But (cough) you just got to be aware of the evidence in front of you to realize that. We cant do research for you to know these religions are fact.

Show me one religion that you can prove is true to everyone. Only if it is proven as to everyone is it a fact.

If your evidence isnt proof of bahuallahs claim, what function is your evidence and why call it that?

It is PROOF TO ME. That is all that matters. I am not responsible to prove anything to anyone else.

PROOF DOES NOT CREATE REALITY. PROOF IS JUST WHAT PEOPLE WANT.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

SHEESH

There is no logic behind Baha'u'llah being more than human. There is just evidence that indicates that..

Yes. I am saying why is your evidence not considered proof?

It cannot be proven as a fact that everyone is going to recognize. No religion can be proven that way. But those of us who know it is true have proven it to ourselves.

Yes. That is why I ask if you are believing in a lie or something fake.

But I do not understand believing in evidence that does not correspond to reality by function of proof.

It can be true without being a fact.

Facts can be proven but beliefs cannot be proven.

However, beliefs can be true.

Having trust in them does not make them true.

They are either true or not.

I have to break this apart. Its confusing the mess out of me.

1. You believe in something you consider true even though it is not a fact? (In other words, by definition, if its not based on fact, its imaginary for lack of better words)


My thing is Why do you say that evidence is right in front of us and to do our own research when proof (which is the evidence) is not based on reality?

You are saying we are blind and ignorant to something that cant be proven and evidence only defined by the one who believes it. While you can believe whatever you want without it being fact or part of reaity, I dont see the need to blame others for their blindness and ignorance since they dont see proof and evidence the way you do (dont feel like finding posts)

Something can be a reality without being provable. God cannot be proven but God is a reality.

Huh????

How does god exist without any any type of proof related to reality?

Im sure you dont believe in something fake. But my thing is: why say we are blind or ignorant over something that cannot be proven?

and on that note, because it cannot be proven, there is no reason to believe the messengers claims. Either it can be or it cannot. reality of hearing god doesnt change after the 18th century.

PROOF DOES NOT CREATE REALITY. PROOF IS JU

CALM DOWN GOSH DARNET Proof justifies your claim. The proof would be your evidence. Your evidence would be your messengers words read this:

1. Proof is what justiifes your claim
2. the proof of your claim is called evidence
3. Your evidence is your messengers words

My thing is what are you basing the messengers validity of their claim when they have no proof of god (unless, again, divinity stoped in the mid 1800s????)

I do not consider this a debate forum. It is just a forum where I come to share and learn from others. I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

When you make a statement of any affect, you support it.

Arguments focus on convincing other people. It has to do with people.

Debates has to do with the information persented. It has to do with data.

Ideally, debates are asking you to varify your information is true. It has nothing to do with you; so dont take offense: aka NO CAPS