• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could you be wrong?

Audie

Veteran Member
Yeah idd. In fact, that's kind of what makes them fundies ...

The pure dogmatic approach of it all.

To the point that if reality doesn't agree with the dogmatic beliefs, they'll assume that reality is wrong.

Summed up with " Man says, God says".
or, "I believe Jesus".

Which of course is actually about personal
infallibility.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If belief is not a choice -
Why are you here (if not for providing Christians for other options - possibilities. Then your just causing trouble)

Just because belief is not a choice, doesn't mean that people can't honestly hold to a false belief.
People can end up holding false beliefs because of a wide variety of reasons: incomplete data, false data, misunderstanding of data, faulty reasoning,...


I don't think anyone will knowingly hold on to beliefs they know are false.
Some might pretend though, if they feel they get an advantage out of it.
A con man, a charlatan, a sect leader drunk on power,...

But for the most part, I think people are sincere. Sincerely mistaken, but sincere nonetheless.

If belief is not a choice -
Why are there so many religions -
If not a choice - there would only be one - or none...

This again has the same problem as the previous paragraphes.
People believe false things all the time for a variety of reasons.

That doesn't mean that what you'll believe is an arbitrary choice like choosing to fried eat chicken for dinner instead of a cheese sandwich.

Belief is basically the result of the logical structure of an argument...
You'll have some premises and you'll bring it to a conclusion that sounds reasonable to you.

And if you think the premises are accurate, then you'll assume the conclusion. And you will not have a choice in that. You'll be compelled to come to the conclusion, since it's the data you think to have at your disposal that leads you to that conclusion. It's a COMPULSION, not a choice.

However, this data, those premises,.... they could be wrong. They could be incomplete. They could be misunderstood. And if any of the above, they'll lead to a false conclusion.

And you'ld be honestly mistaken.


That math doesn’t add-up

Because it's based on a misunderstanding of what we are saying.
Here, ironically, we have a very fine example of what we are saying...

You believe "the math doesn't add up". You didn't choose to believe that, right?
Nope. You logically deduced it, from your premises stated above (why are there many religions and blabla). So you feel compelled to reach the conclusion you reached.
The problem: your premisses ... are wrong. They are strawmen of what is actually being said.

Once you understand this and accept correct premises, you'll in turn feel compelled to reach another conclusion, which will then be logically deduced from the upgraded, corrected, premises.

Besides -who are you to tell me I have no choice?
I reserve the right as a human - to choose what I want - that includes believing.

I'm saying you physically can't.

Go ahead: "choose" right here, right now, to HONESTLY and SINCERELY believe in the norse gods and whalhalla. And believe it as honestly as you believe that you'll get hurt when jumping from the 3rd floor unto the concrete ground. You can not. Because belief is not a choice. It is a compulsion, based on a whole bunch of factors that are not really under your control. The only thing under your control, at best, is how open minded you are (which deals with how open you are to honestly evaluate new evidence which might disprove your beliefs).

I chose to believe - no matter what
You chose to not believe - no matter what

No.

If you say that you really do only "choose" to believe in your religion.
Then I can only conclude that you don't really believe in your religion.
Just like you could say that you "choose" to believe in the norse gods, in fact you won't really believe in the norse gods.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
If belief is not a choice -
Why are you here (if not for providing Christians for other options - possibilities. Then your just causing trouble)
I'm here because I want to see if my beliefs can stand up to scrutiny. I don't really engage with Christians much here or try to unconvince them of Christianity. I just like reading the threads, that's all. I rarely ever debate anyone.
If belief is not a choice -
Why are there so many religions -
If not a choice - there would only be one - or none...

That math doesn’t add-up
There are many religions because humans are religious by nature among other explanations which I don't feel like going into right now. Believing that a God or Gods exist isn't the same thing as practicing religious rituals. You seem to be conflating religious beliefs with actions consistent with belief... those are two different things. One can practice or participate in religious rituals without actually believing that God exists.
Besides -who are you to tell me I have no choice?
I reserve the right as a human - to choose what I want - that includes believing.
Oh my goodness dude. Relax! Stop projecting stuff onto what I'm saying. I'm not saying the you don't have free will and I'm not trying to limit your freedom. I'm just saying that I find it difficult to believe that someone could just will them self to believe that someone they've never seen or heard from their entire life exists... it's like saying I can believe that Santa exist if I want to but I can't. If you think you can do so then that's your prerogative but I know for myself that I can't do it.
I think it’s hilarious- atheist seem like they want to intrude into your head - and say you have no choice, or you must.... they put words in your mouth and then argue that point...
I never put words in your mouth and I don't want to 'intrude into your head'. I don't care what you believe and I'm not trying to unconvince you of Christianity. Jeez, man, relax, nobody's trying to take your faith away.
....and they will say belief is not a choice - well no wonder.
Christians easily conform to Christ - atheist want to be in that position, where Christians conform to them. they may think that because;
they think belief is no choice, they think that if provided science - you must (not choose to) no longer believe.
Again I don't want you to become an atheist, if Christianity makes you a better person and makes you happy, then remain a Christian, I don't care. Me and other nonbelievers aren't out to get you. Also, 'conforming to Christ' would be an act of worship not an act of belief... one would have to already believe that Christs exist (which would be an act of belief) if one wants to conform to Him. Belief and worship are two different things.
You can believe that someone exists but not worship them.
And yes - I easily choose to not believe in unicorns - or time travel -

I chose to believe - no matter what
You chose to not believe - no matter what
Look at who's telling me what I can and can't believe now. You get mad at me for telling you that you can't choose to believe that God exists but now you tell me that I can choose not to believe that God exists. Wow. Kinda hypocritical isn't it?
If you think you can choose to believe in time travel or unicorns that's your business. I know I personally can't. And since you seem to get worked up over nothing, I think I'll end this conversation with you.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Just because belief is not a choice, doesn't mean that people can't honestly hold to a false belief.
People can end up holding false beliefs because of a wide variety of reasons: incomplete data, false data, misunderstanding of data, faulty reasoning,...


I don't think anyone will knowingly hold on to beliefs they know are false.
Some might pretend though, if they feel they get an advantage out of it.
A con man, a charlatan, a sect leader drunk on power,...

But for the most part, I think people are sincere. Sincerely mistaken, but sincere nonetheless.



This again has the same problem as the previous paragraphes.
People believe false things all the time for a variety of reasons.

That doesn't mean that what you'll believe is an arbitrary choice like choosing to fried eat chicken for dinner instead of a cheese sandwich.

Belief is basically the result of the logical structure of an argument...
You'll have some premises and you'll bring it to a conclusion that sounds reasonable to you.

And if you think the premises are accurate, then you'll assume the conclusion. And you will not have a choice in that. You'll be compelled to come to the conclusion, since it's the data you think to have at your disposal that leads you to that conclusion. It's a COMPULSION, not a choice.

However, this data, those premises,.... they could be wrong. They could be incomplete. They could be misunderstood. And if any of the above, they'll lead to a false conclusion.

And you'ld be honestly mistaken.




Because it's based on a misunderstanding of what we are saying.
Here, ironically, we have a very fine example of what we are saying...

You believe "the math doesn't add up". You didn't choose to believe that, right?
Nope. You logically deduced it, from your premises stated above (why are there many religions and blabla). So you feel compelled to reach the conclusion you reached.
The problem: your premisses ... are wrong. They are strawmen of what is actually being said.

Once you understand this and accept correct premises, you'll in turn feel compelled to reach another conclusion, which will then be logically deduced from the upgraded, corrected, premises.



I'm saying you physically can't.

Go ahead: "choose" right here, right now, to HONESTLY and SINCERELY believe in the norse gods and whalhalla. And believe it as honestly as you believe that you'll get hurt when jumping from the 3rd floor unto the concrete ground. You can not. Because belief is not a choice. It is a compulsion, based on a whole bunch of factors that are not really under your control. The only thing under your control, at best, is how open minded you are (which deals with how open you are to honestly evaluate new evidence which might disprove your beliefs).



No.

If you say that you really do only "choose" to believe in your religion.
Then I can only conclude that you don't really believe in your religion.
Just like you could say that you "choose" to believe in the norse gods, in fact you won't really believe in the norse gods.


Of course we all can be, and are often enough, honestly
mistaken.

However, we also have a very large contingent of people
who are dishonestly mistaken.

In this forum, a good example is the creationists.

It is impossible to be an informed and honest creationist.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
No, nobody can know exactly what would happen if God appeared on earth.
If the full Essence of God showed upon earth... all created things would be completely destroyed...
Pairs of statements like the above always leave me feeling like I am, most definitely, on the correct side of "belief." What I consider the more credulous minds among us, capable of believing all sorts of outlandish things, are the ones I see making these sorts of statements displaying cognitive dissonance. Out of one side of your mouth you state that "nobody can know exactly what would happen", but then follow it up by describing particular ideas about what would happen. And yes, I know you added a qualifier of "exactly" before the "what would happen" part, but this is just covering your butt so that you have an "out" when I call you out like I am doing now. You can say "Well, I don't know exactly" ... just enough to know that all "created" things would be destroyed - a completely loaded statement assuming that things were "created" in the first place, and assuming that God's presence would destroy it all - which comes along with all sorts of detail you didn't even have to state - all humans and animals killed, all types of matter destroyed because nothing at all is strong enough to withstand God, etc. In other words, your statements encompassed quite a lot of detail, and yet "nobody can know exactly." It's ridiculous.

I also noticed your little segue that I left out of the pair of ideas/quotes for brevity above. It goes something like this:
No, nobody can know exactly what would happen if God appeared on earth. That passage has a meaning that apparently you did not understand, so let me explain it. If the full Essence of God showed upon earth, nobody would question that God exists. However, God’s power is so great that all created things would be completely destroyed if God “showed up.”
I believe that this information was inserted between the first sentence and the last as a sort of "buffer," to make it more likely that I would forget that you had just admitted that "nobody can know exactly what would happen." It may have even been done subconsciously. I see this kind of thing all the time when people are making an admission, but still really want to go against what they just admitted was accurate/correct. I've honestly probably done this myself in the past. But it is something I try not to do, because admitting something and then backtracking like you did is very much like the old "Now I'm not racist, but..." type of statement that sort of gears the listener up for the fact that you really are racist, you just don't like the appearance.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Of course we all can be, and are often enough, honestly
mistaken.

However, we also have a very large contingent of people
who are dishonestly mistaken.

In this forum, a good example is the creationists.

It is impossible to be an informed and honest creationist.

I think you are using the word "honest" in another way that I am here.

I use it in terms of being sincere.
I think creationists are very sincere.

They are intellectually dishonest in their argumentation, sure.
But they don't seem to be realising it. Their problem is that they employ / have learned faulty reasoning. Reasoning, that is in fact intellectually dishonest. But they have been told that this is not the case.

Consider a brainwashed person, which bears a lot of similarities here...
A brainwashed person, is honestly mistaken.
You can't really blame a brainwashed person for being brainwashed. They are victims, after all.
If they'ld realise there faulty reasoning, if they'ld realise they are brainwashed, then they would no longer be brainwashed...

So, while definatly frustrating to talk to - to the point they might also draw the blood from under my fingernails -, I always try to remind myself that they don't actually know any better. They don't want to know any better either, which is part of the larger problem. And which also can't be fully blamed on them personally, since it's part of their indoctrination to close of their minds to outside information that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.

It's quite a clusterf**k situation to be in.

While they can drive me absolutely mental in discussions, I feel quite sorry for them, actually.


Perhaps I'm just incredibly optimistic or something...
But I like to think that the vast majority of such people are quite sincere and just honestly try to do what they think they should be doing in context of their worldview - no matter how mega warped that worldview might be.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
"God" is the only proper noun there. It looks phony and
pretentious to invent new ones like that.

When the reference is referring to a name of God it is used as a proper noun. When it’s speaking about actual persons a proper noun is rightfully used as in this instance ...

“These Suns of Truth are the universal Manifestations of God in the worlds of His”

Bahá’u’lláh

By Suns of Truth it is referring to Beings like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and so on so a proper noun must be used even for the word sun as it is referring to a person not the sun in the sky.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Pairs of statements like the above always leave me feeling like I am, most definitely, on the correct side of "belief." What I consider the more credulous minds among us, capable of believing all sorts of outlandish things, are the ones I see making these sorts of statements displaying cognitive dissonance. Out of one side of your mouth you state that "nobody can know exactly what would happen", but then follow it up by describing particular ideas about what would happen. And yes, I know you added a qualifier of "exactly" before the "what would happen" part, but this is just covering your butt so that you have an "out" when I call you out like I am doing now. You can say "Well, I don't know exactly" ... just enough to know that all "created" things would be destroyed - a completely loaded statement assuming that things were "created" in the first place, and assuming that God's presence would destroy it all - which comes along with all sorts of detail you didn't even have to state - all humans and animals killed, all types of matter destroyed because nothing at all is strong enough to withstand God, etc. In other words, your statements encompassed quite a lot of detail, and yet "nobody can know exactly." It's ridiculous.

I do not really know what would happen. I simply interpreted a certain passage as I did, but I could be wrong.... Here it is again:

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

I interpreted “reduced to utter nothingness” to mean destroyed, but I do not know exactly how that would happen. On the other hand, “nothingness” could mean something else and maybe it does because of what the following sentence says: “How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” If everyone was destroyed there would be nobody left to differentiate! So nothingness must mean something else...
I also noticed your little segue that I left out of the pair of ideas/quotes for brevity above. It goes something like this:

No, nobody can know exactly what would happen if God appeared on earth. That passage has a meaning that apparently you did not understand, so let me explain it. If the full Essence of God showed upon earth, nobody would question that God exists. However, God’s power is so great that all created things would be completely destroyed if God “showed up.”

I believe that this information was inserted between the first sentence and the last as a sort of "buffer," to make it more likely that I would forget that you had just admitted that "nobody can know exactly what would happen." It may have even been done subconsciously. I see this kind of thing all the time when people are making an admission, but still really want to go against what they just admitted was accurate/correct. I've honestly probably done this myself in the past. But it is something I try not to do, because admitting something and then backtracking like you did is very much like the old "Now I'm not racist, but..." type of statement that sort of gears the listener up for the fact that you really are racist, you just don't like the appearance.
I am very tangential in my thinking, so sometimes I have discordant thoughts.

Whatever I said, I did not do it to deliberately mislead you, I was just explaining what I think these passages mean, and of course I could be wrong.

This might be a game for you but it is not a game for me. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. I am not trying to convince you of anything or win any arguments.
 

Baroodi

Active Member
What's contradictory about it?
Don't just claim it - explain it.



Huh?



That's not an explanatory model (hypthesis/theory) of some phenomena of reality.

Your approach looks philosophic. Philosophy is always the start of reaching to the bottom line after a long stages of sieving, From this context I like it. But still it hypothesize things with no conclusive evidence, for this I don't like it.
You are free to care or not to care about Quran, Bible or any other book. I just passed a challenge posed by Quran I thought it support the presence of a supreme maker.








Out of curiosity if we hear any bang in our neighborhood probably every one would be interested to know what was it and what happened.





Why would I care what the Quran has to say?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
When we die - would we all be asleep until the end of that thousand years?
Is that when Jesus will bring people back from hell (I thought that was during the 3 days...
people from the old law)
Does that mean - no one from earth is yet in heaven?
I know - I should read more of my Bible ...

Think about this: The ones called to Heaven have that first or earlier resurrection - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10
They are the ' brothers ' of Matthew 25:40. They are the little or smaller flock of Luke 12:32.
Whereas the ' sheep ' of Matthew 25:37 do Not go to Heaven, but can remain on Earth as part of the humble meek who inherit the Earth as promised at Psalms 37:9-11, 29. They are the ' other sheep ' or majority of John 10:16.
I find Revelation 20:1-4 is about those called to Heaven.
Revelation 1:5 about ' everlasting life ' on Earth.
In other words, the dead resurrected ' during ' Christ's reign can live eternally on Earth at the 'end' of the 1,000 years.
That means at that end time the earthly resurrected have proven faithful to gain everlasting life on Earth.
Those resurrected ' during ' Christ's reign could still fall away, that is why Satan is released - Revelation 20:7-10
Satan will see there are those who remain faithful at that last testing time.
The earthly resurrection will start early during Christ's rulership with such faithful ones such as King David (Acts of the Apostles 2:34) and people like Abraham and other faithful ones of old, besides other faithful ones throughout the centuries. Remember: 'There is going to be' (future tense) a resurrection......- Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
A resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. Only the wicked destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Any legitimate scientist knows that energy does not cease to exist, but only transforms "relativity".
.... and I find that the God of the Bible supplied that dynamic energy needed to create the material realm of existence.
Because it was God's abundant 'Power and Strength' - Isaiah 40:26 - that He used to create the visible world for us.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
AND, that you are risking a sense of personal infallibility,
that you, with your chosen techniques, and your idea of
"biblical truth", of what "truth"* even is, are elevating
yourself far out of the "humble" range wherein ye
Christian is said to dwell......................

I find Pilate asked, " What it truth ? " at John 18:38
Jesus was there to teach what the Scriptures teach - John 18:37
Pilate's retort was in effect saying the concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to merit attention.
So, Pilate and Jesus were talking about two different truths with Jesus referring to 'divine truth'.
Or, as Jesus said at John 17:17 that Scripture is religious truth.
Jesus making the distinction between what is religious truth and religious lies.
Such truth originating with his God, and lies originating with Satan - John 8:44.
Whereas, Pilate was speaking about truth in general, subjective (or I suppose objective) truth.
Like many people today think that truth is Not absolute truth, but ever-changing truth.
Ever changing depending on the time or the situation at hand.
That thinking allows people the freedom to make their own determination of what is right or what is wrong.
Especially when determining with respect to moral or value standards.
Whereas, the Bible contains unchanging truth, unfailing truth century after century - Proverbs 2:6
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
When the reference is referring to a name of God it is used as a proper noun. When it’s speaking about actual persons a proper noun is rightfully used as in this instance ...
...........................................
By Suns of Truth it is referring to Beings like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and so on so a proper noun must be used even for the word sun as it is referring to a person not the sun in the sky.

I find God and Lord are titles and Not personal names.
So, yes, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad are proper nouns, and God and Lord are Not names but titles.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I find Pilate asked, " What it truth ? " at John 18:38
Jesus was there to teach what the Scriptures teach - John 18:37
Pilate's retort was in effect saying the concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to merit attention.
So, Pilate and Jesus were talking about two different truths with Jesus referring to 'divine truth'.
Or, as Jesus said at John 17:17 that Scripture is religious truth.
Jesus making the distinction between what is religious truth and religious lies.
Such truth originating with his God, and lies originating with Satan - John 8:44.
Whereas, Pilate was speaking about truth in general, subjective (or I suppose objective) truth.
Like many people today think that truth is Not absolute truth, but ever-changing truth.
Ever changing depending on the time or the situation at hand.
That thinking allows people the freedom to make their own determination of what is right or what is wrong.
Especially when determining with respect to moral or value standards.
Whereas, the Bible contains unchanging truth, unfailing truth century after century - Proverbs 2:6


Mantra chanting is just ignored.

If the bible were so wonderful it would
not contain garbage like 6 day poof and flood
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Oh, definitely. When I was staunchly religious, I "knew" that I was right and everything my religion believed was correct...and, of course, we were the ONLY ones who had the correct understanding about anything Biblical.
Since leaving that religion, and learning that many of the things I was taught as truth were anything but true, I've realized that my beliefs are simply that...beliefs...and that they cannot rightfully be called truth. Perhaps some (or all) of what I believe will turn out to be true, but it's just as likely that those beliefs will prove to be absolutely wrong.

I am wondering which of Jesus' beliefs you think will turn out to be true, or prove to be absolutely wrong.
I can't find anything wrong with the ' religious truth ' that Jesus taught.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The dictionary is having new words added to it almost everyday in this age.
Yes, language evolves, for who reads Tyndale's Bible today because of its archaic English.
Adding words does Not change that such words as Lord and God are titles and are Not proper names.
The Tetragrammaton stands for God's name and Not the word Lord, nor the word God.
 
Top