Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Spirit of Light]

None of which is evidence that the god he believed in is real. This is blindingly obvious. He could have done all that and written all that while being completely mistaken or deluded about his version of god.

But God can exist, just that we understand differently what a God is, so explations will look different from person to person.
It is of course ok to not believe in God, but it is also ok to believe, even the "proof" of a God is more on a personal level than scientific. Or?

 

[ratiocinator]

But God can exist, just that we understand differently what a God is, so explations will look different from person to person.
It is of course ok to not believe in God, but it is also ok to believe, even the "proof" of a God is more on a personal level than scientific. Or?

Yes, there might be a god and some people might have got the right one but claiming to have objective evidence, rather than personal faith or some other reason to believe, is something that should be, well, objective.

 

[Trailblazer]

None of which is evidence that the god he believed in is real. This is blindingly obvious. He could have done all that and written all that while being completely mistaken or deluded about his version of god.

It is evidence but it is not proof. There is no proof that God exists, we can only ever prove that to ourselves by looking at the evidence. The greatest evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God. No ordinary man has ever been able to do what they have done.

A deluded man could not write and accomplish all that Baha'u'llah wrote and accomplished.

One also needs to look at motivations. Why would He do all of that and write all of that given He had nothing to gain for Himself? Why would He make up all this stuff about God, endure 40 years of banishment, exile and imprisonment, when He was born into wealth and prestige and could have instead lived a life as a minister in the government of Persia?

 

[ratiocinator]

It is evidence but it is not proof.

Not even that. History is full of people who said that knew god and started cults and religions. At least most of them must be wrong.

No ordinary man has ever been able to do what they have done.

A deluded man could not write and accomplish all that Baha'u'llah wrote and accomplished.

Assertions - how do you know? Even if they weren't 'ordinary', that doesn't mean they were right.

One also needs to look at motivations. Why would He do all of that and write all of that given He had nothing to gain for Himself? Why would He make up all this stuff about God, endure 40 years of banishment, exile and imprisonment, when He was born into wealth and prestige and could have instead lived a life as a minister in the government of Persia?

I don't know about "nothing to gain", it depends what he thought was important. There is also the possibility that that he genuinely believed what he said but was just wrong (misinterpreted personal experiences, for example).

As I said, history is littered with people who thought or claimed they were right about god and at least most of them were wrong.

 

[samtonga43]

Sure there is reliable evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah. It is unfortunate for people who they deny this.

Why is it 'unfortunate' for people who deny this?

By the way... you said
"There is no such thing as reliable evidence". # 3096
"Sure there is reliable evidence". #3098

?

 

[samtonga43]

There was no subgroup, there was just one man. That is why the verse says "he."

Only in one poor translation.

 

[samtonga43]

That would only be testable if that religious faith claimed that God answers prayers. The Baha'i Faith does not claim that God answers all our prayers. We believe that God answers only the prayers He chooses to answer.

What a surprise!

Do you mean that God would not answer A's prayer that his rival B. would fall into the lions' cage at the zoo and be torn to pieces?

 

[samtonga43]

But you can't claim that it's an objective fact that your beliefs are true.



Yeah, I've already explained how this is contradicting itself.

Once again, to make it clear...

In January, the doctor says, "The remedy the patient needs now in January can never be the same as what the patient will require in June." In June, the doctor says, "It's little wonder that the treatment I prescribe today is identical with what I prescribed in January."

In January, the doctor says that the January treatment and June treatment are going to be different. In June, he says that we shouldn't be surprised that they are the same.



I was a believer for the first 20 years of my life, you know, so don't start telling me what I've done, okay? You'll find many atheists in the same boat, believers when younger, but they left religion when they started thinking about it.

Yes, I was kind of the same, only the other way around.
It is important that people DO think. Very important.

 

[samtonga43]

Then waht is your evidence? If It only involves confirmation bias then that is very poor quality evidence. Evidence where one's idea passes a reasonable test is much more convincing. But theists never want to test their beliefs with a proper test that could show them to be wrong.

A rash generalization.

But anyway, I'm interested in the 'proper test' you speak of.

What kind of test would you say is 'proper'?

 

[samtonga43]

Because I am not trying to understand it.

And there it is.

 

[samtonga43]

A deluded man could not write and accomplish all that Baha'u'llah wrote and accomplished.

Of course he could!

One also needs to look at motivations. Why would He do all of that and write all of that given He had nothing to gain for Himself? Why would He make up all this stuff about God, endure 40 years of banishment, exile and imprisonment, when He was born into wealth and prestige and could have instead lived a life as a minister in the government of Persia?

Why? Because he had deluded himself into believing that he was a 'Messenger of God'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A rash generalization.

But anyway, I'm interested in the 'proper test' you speak of.

What kind of test would you say is 'proper'?

Tests that can refute one's ideas are seen as much stronger than tests that only support confirmation bias. And how was my generalization rash?

But back to testing, A test that is based upon the merits of one's beliefs that could possibly refute it shows that one does not have only irrational belief and is willing to think of ways that one could be wrong. For example an improper test that would not refute anything would be on the order of "If monkeys fly out of my butt I am wrong". The problem with such an extreme test like this is that it is all but impossible for monkeys to fly out of one's butt even if one has been ODing on bananas and binge watching The Wizard of Oz. And it is up to the person with the belief to generate a proper test. They often try to pass the buck, but any test proposed by someone else would almost certainly be rejected by the person with the belief as a "strawman" even though technically it is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not? Because when people pray for certain things they are not likely to get answers so that invalidates the study right there.

I would not make any assumptions about my beliefs. I do not believe prayers are answered very often.

Incorrect. Did you not see my qualifier? I said that studies that show intercessory prayer does not work. That is when one person prays for another with a goal in mind. In the studies the goal was given and made sense, it was for the person to recover from a serious illness or accident. The praying did not work. For the most part there was no change either way. In one study when people knew that others were praying for them it had a slight deleterious effect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not even that. History is full of people who said that knew god and started cults and religions. At least most of them must be wrong.

As I said, history is littered with people who thought or claimed they were right about god and at least most of them were wrong.

That's true, but that does not preclude the possibility that real Messengers of God exist.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
Logically speaking, false messengers has no bearing on whether true Messengers of God exist or not.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

Assertions - how do you know? Even if they weren't 'ordinary', that doesn't mean they were right.

That's true. It is for us to determine for ourselves if Baha'u'llah was telling the truth, if we really want to know.

I don't know about "nothing to gain", it depends what he thought was important. There is also the possibility that that he genuinely believed what he said but was just wrong (misinterpreted personal experiences, for example).

Anything is possible. It is also possible He was telling the truth and He was a real Messenger from a real God.
What if Baha'u'llah was a true Messenger of God and brought the message that humanity needs in this age?
What if recognizing and following Him bestows eternal life both in this life and forevermore?

 

[Trailblazer]

Incorrect. Did you not see my qualifier? I said that studies that show intercessory prayer does not work. That is when one person prays for another with a goal in mind. In the studies the goal was given and made sense, it was for the person to recover from a serious illness or accident. The praying did not work. For the most part there was no change either way. In one study when people knew that others were praying for them it had a slight deleterious effect.

I can believe that. I am not a big fan of praying for specific things and expecting them to happen because I consider that unrealistic, especially if it is medical. At most I pray for assistance with difficulties.

Remover of difficulties
Is there any Remover of difficulties save God? Say: Praised be God! He is God! All are His servants, and all abide by His bidding!

The Báb
Remover of difficulties

 

[ratiocinator]

That's true, but that does not preclude the possibility that real Messengers of God exist.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.

I never said it did. My argument is that you can't conclude that somebody is a true messenger because of their character and the history of their faith because many such people are false messengers. It's possible that there are true messengers (I've never denied this) but you can't claim characteristics that are common to all successful (in the sense that they started cults or religions) supposed messengers as evidence of the truth of their claims.

I suggest concentrating on what I actually said, not on what you'd rather I'd said.

That's true. It is for us to determine for ourselves if Baha'u'llah was telling the truth, if we really want to know.

And without objective evidence, that is not possible.

Anything is possible. It is also possible He was telling the truth and He was a real Messenger from a real God.

As you said, anything is possible (so long as it involves no logical contradictions and doesn't contradict known facts), but that isn't evidence. It's possible that gravity is caused by hordes of pan-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, pulling at the fabric of space-time in just the right way as to fool us into thinking Einstein's field equations hold.

 

[Trailblazer]

And it is up to the person with the belief to generate a proper test. They often try to pass the buck, but any test proposed by someone else would almost certainly be rejected by the person with the belief as a "strawman" even though technically it is not.

Why would it be up to the believer to generate the test? They already have the belief so they do not need to test it. It is the atheists who want to know if the belief is true so I think they are the ones who should devise a test that they believe would prove that the belief is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it be up to the believer to generate the test? They already have the belief so they do not need to test it. It is the atheists who want to know if the belief is true so I think they are the ones who should devise a test that they believe would prove that the belief is true.

Because they will not accept it if someone else does. They will almost certainly claim "strawman" or abuse some other logical fallacy. And yes, if one has a belief one should test it. You do not realize it but you just admitted that you are not reasoning rationally.

Or else the believer could be honest and admit that they believe but it is not a rational belief. But if a person wants to claim that they have a rational belief the take on a burden of proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said it did. My argument is that you can't conclude that somebody is a true messenger because of their character and the history of their faith because many such people are false messengers. It's possible that there are true messengers (I've never denied this) but you can't claim characteristics that are common to all successful (in the sense that they started cults or religions) supposed messengers as evidence of the truth of their claims.

I suggest concentrating on what I actually said, not on what you'd rather I'd said.

Fair enough. I did not realize that was your position. Now I know.

That reminded me of a list of criteria I devised and posted on another thread regarding how we would know if an alleged Messenger of God claimant was really a Messenger of God. This would eliminate all the false claimants pretty quickly.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a dead giveaway that he was trying to promote his religion as being the only true one, which would lead to suspicion right off the bat because none of the true Messengers of God have talked down other Messengers who preceded them. It is the followers of these religions that talk down the other religions, not the Messengers. There are reasons for that but i do not want to get off the subject at hand.

And without objective evidence, that is not possible.

How do you define objective evidence?

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

According to this definition there is evidence for Baha’u’llah because one can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha’u’llah

As you said, anything is possible (so long as it involves no logical contradictions and doesn't contradict known facts), but that isn't evidence. It's possible that gravity is caused by hordes of pan-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, pulling at the fabric of space-time in just the right way as to fool us into thinking Einstein's field equations hold.

I was not saying that it is true that Baha'u'llah was Messenger of God just because it is possible it is true. Whether it is true or not is for each person to determine by looking at the evidence, if they want to know if it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they will not accept it if someone else does. They will almost certainly claim "strawman" or abuse some other logical fallacy.

When have I ever done that? The most I have ever said is that a religious belief cannot be tested in the way that some atheists have proposed they be tested because it is not a realistic test.

And yes, if one has a belief one should test it. You do not realize it but you just admitted that you are not reasoning rationally.

I already explained how I tested my belief in another post.