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

[Tiberius]

I was just correcting what people get backwards...

I do not believe it is true because I am certain it is true. I am certain it is true because I believe it is true.

But I believe it is true because of the evidence. I don't just believe it is true for no reason, so it is not circular at all.

Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

 

[Trailblazer]

And thus the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, or the one who presents the claim as fact.

Bingo! ~~ Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is the one who had the burden of proof!
I have no burden of proof because I make no claims.

Good for you. That doesn't mean I have to prioritize this forum over the other things I have to do just because you do.

I never said you should and I might not be doing it like this much longer..

Irrelevant. Lots of people have thought their way through, argued and rationalised something and still been wrong.

But that does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am right. That is just how I came to know.

I favour that which produces results that are testable by others over that which can never be externally verified.

Do you claim that this is a wrong position to take?

I do not claim it is a wrong position to take for things that are testable and verifiable but it is unrealistic to take that position for religious beliefs since they are not testable and verifiable the same way scientific things are.

And why shouldn't my claims be just as valid as the claims of any religion?

They are not as valid because you have nothing to back up your claims except your claims.
Messengers of God have evidence to back up their claims.

True. But when there is ambiguity, people will take your words as you claiming something to be a fact, not just a personal belief. I'm fairly sure we've been over this already.

That is true, but taken in context it is obviously a belief I hold strongly which is maybe why it comes out sounding like a claim.

Then you need to ask yourself why it looks like you are doing that if you aren't.

I think it is because of projection on your part. It does not look that way to anyone but you so most likely it is your reading into what I say with your own ideas about what I am thinking.

Yes, they most certainly are theories.

Here are some scientific resources that talk about the germ theory of disease.

germ theory | Definition, Development, & Facts
The Physician Who Presaged the Germ Theory of Disease Nearly 500 Years Ago
Pasteur's Papers on the Germ Theory
What if germ theory had caught on sooner?
Dr. Robert Koch and His Germ Theory of Cholera.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
https://www.frontiersin.org/subjects/germ-theory-of-disease
Germ Theory
Germ Theory of Disease - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

And this page about gravitational theory will (I hope) educate you on what a scientific theory actually is. Because right now, you are way off. Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

You might have a valid point about the germ theory of disease only being a theory because there are other theories about what causes disease that do not attribute diseases to germs.

No, I decide that what you believe has no justification for being believed because there is no testable evidence to support it.

There is plenty of testable evidence for science.

That is just your personal opinion which is biased. I can just as easily say that what you believe about the need for testable evidence has no justification because there is no testable evidence for religion and the fact that there is plenty of testable evidence for science is a moot point since we are discussing evidence for religion, not evidence for science.

Well, let's see. You claimed I was wrong about the studies showing the efficacy of prayer. I told you there had been about 170 years worth of study that showed prayer is ineffectual, and you just said it was wrong because you just thought it was wrong.

You also told me I was wrong about what I think happens after you die, with the old, "You'll find out you're wrong one day" line that is so common from believers, and also very arrogant.

I could probably come up with a few more examples if I put my mind to it.

I disagreed on a few things but I did not tell you that everything that you believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the theistic worldview, I simply stated my theistic worldview.

How can you say it's an atheist ploy when I'm using the exact same reasoning YOU have used?

How am I using the same reasoning? When did I ever call anything you say rubbish without giving a reason why I think it is rubbish? I never even called anything rubbish, I just did not believe one prayer study was the be-all and the end-all that decided the matter, since it is not logical to think that. If a prayer study actually proved something about the efficacy of prayer everyone would know about it.

The point is that I do not call things rubbish without giving a reason and then try to deflect and change the subject like so many atheists do.

it is indeed your responsibility to be prepared to engage in the discussion. And if being prepared means that you have to refer to previous posts, then that's what you have to do

I do not have to do anything except the job I am paid to do. This forum is optional and mostly for entertainment.

Yes you are.

Nope.

Yes, you have beliefs, but you do not have evidence to support them. You have opinions.

I have evidence, you just don't like the evidence. I feel like a broken record. I could just as easily be watching a rerun of Forensic Files.

If it's indistinguishable from opinion, there's no reason I should accept it as evidence. You have no evidence.

Indistinguishable for you but not for me and other Baha'is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

That is a big fat straw man the biggest one I have seen in years.

I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

I am saddened to think that after all these months you still do not know my position which I must have repeated at least 100 times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a big fat straw man the biggest one I have seen in years.

I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

I am saddened to think that after all these months you still do not know my position which I must have repeated at least 100 times.

How was that a strawman? I don't think that you understand the concept.

 

[Trailblazer]

How was that a strawman? I don't think that you understand the concept.

I understand the fallacy like the back of my hand.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

@Tiberius misrepresented my argument and built a straw man.

Tiberius said: Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

None of that is my real position. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the fallacy like the back of my hand.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

@Tiberius misrepresented my argument and built a straw man.

Tiberius said: Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

None of that is my real position. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

The problem is that your so called evidence is mostly, if not all circular reasoning. He was spot on.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that your so called evidence is mostly, if not all circular reasoning. He was spot on.

No, my evidence is not circular at all, but I just bet my husband $400 dollars you would disagree with me.
Now I am richer!

If you are claiming my evidence is circular reasoning then you should back up that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, my evidence is not circular at all, but I just bet my husband $400 dollars you would disagree with me.
Now I am richer!

If you are claiming my evidence is circular reasoning then you should back up that claim.

Uh huh. Others can see that it is.

 

[samtonga43]

But that does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am right. That is just how I came to know.

You know, but that doesn’t mean you are right? Is this what you really meant to say?

 

[Trailblazer]

Uh huh. Others can see that it is.

It does not matter what others can see. I am not talking to them.
If you are claiming my evidence is circular reasoning then you should back up that claim with your favorite thing -- it is called EVIDENCE.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know, but that doesn’t mean you are right? Is this what you really meant to say?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not matter what others can see. I am not talking to them.
If you are claiming my evidence is circular reasoning then you should back up that claim with your favorite thing -- it is called EVIDENCE.

I got tired of explaining to you. What good would it do? You would simply go back into denial mode.

 

[Trailblazer]

I got tired of explaining to you. What good would it do? You would simply go back into denial mode.

I have nothing to deny. maybe that is why you don't want to explain it.

 

[Tiberius]

Bingo! ~~ Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is the one who had the burden of proof!
I have no burden of proof because I make no claims.

Once again you are trotting out the tired old, "I'm not making any claims!" excuse to hide from the burden of proof. You are presenting the claims as fact, so you have taken the burden of proof onto your own shoulders!

But that does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am right. That is just how I came to know.

Given how unreliable it is, I don't see how you can claim that it gave you any knowledge at all.

I do not claim it is a wrong position to take for things that are testable and verifiable but it is unrealistic to take that position for religious beliefs since they are not testable and verifiable the same way scientific things are.

I can say the exact same thing as a reason to believe in the magic that allows me to turn into an eagle.

They are not as valid because you have nothing to back up your claims except your claims.
Messengers of God have evidence to back up their claims.

Messengers of God have no evidence at all to back up their claims that they have any kind of relationship with God.

That is true, but taken in context it is obviously a belief I hold strongly which is maybe why it comes out sounding like a claim.

Then people take it as a claim, and if you do not want people to take it as a claim, you must specify that it's not a claim.

You might have a valid point about the germ theory of disease only being a theory because there are other theories about what causes disease that do not attribute diseases to germs.

Wow, you really have no idea about what science is.

I would try to explain it to you, but you've already shown that you'll refuse to listen to any attempt to correct your flawed views, so I'm just not going to bother.

That is just your personal opinion which is biased. I can just as easily say that what you believe about the need for testable evidence has no justification because there is no testable evidence for religion and the fact that there is plenty of testable evidence for science is a moot point since we are discussing evidence for religion, not evidence for science.

Once again, you have invented a method of measuring something before you've even shown that there's anything there to measure.

I disagreed on a few things but I did not tell you that everything that you believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the theistic worldview, I simply stated my theistic worldview.

Oh, and here we go with the "all or nothing" argument.

How am I using the same reasoning? When did I ever call anything you say rubbish without giving a reason why I think it is rubbish? I never even called anything rubbish, I just did not believe one prayer study was the be-all and the end-all that decided the matter, since it is not logical to think that. If a prayer study actually proved something about the efficacy of prayer everyone would know about it.

A person has a belief, and they claim to have verified their belief by carefully examining it for themselves. However, there is no evidence that they can share with anyone else. It's simply that each person must examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusion. But if a person verifies it for themselves (despite the fact that they can not get anyone else to check their own verification), then that's good enough and a person is perfectly justified in accepting it as factual.

That's the argument that you have used, and that's the same argument that I am using.

The point is that I do not call things rubbish without giving a reason and then try to deflect and change the subject like so many atheists do.

I've given my reasons. It's not my problem if you ignore what I say.

I do not have to do anything except the job I am paid to do. This forum is optional and mostly for entertainment.

*Looks at what section of the forum this thread is in.*

Religious DEBATES.

That's a funny way of spelling ENTERTAINMENT.

It's almost like the people who run this site intended for this section to contain DEBATES, and not fun and games...

Hmmmmmmm.....

Nope.

Yep.

I have evidence, you just don't like the evidence. I feel like a broken record. I could just as easily be watching a rerun of Forensic Files.

You can call it evidence as much as you like, but it won't actually be evidence until you can demonstrate it to other people.

Indistinguishable for you but not for me and other Baha'is.

Then there's bias, which renders it invalid.

 

[Tiberius]

That is a big fat straw man the biggest one I have seen in years.

I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

I am saddened to think that after all these months you still do not know my position which I must have repeated at least 100 times.

And you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and ...

Tell me again it's not circular.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand the fallacy like the back of my hand.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

@Tiberius misrepresented my argument and built a straw man.

Tiberius said: Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

None of that is my real position. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

So instead of being a circle joining two points, it's a circle joining three. It's still circular.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The problem is that your so called evidence is mostly, if not all circular reasoning. He was spot on.

It is cyclic and not, at the same time. That is creation as all things go in cycles or cease to be.

So if the sun rises each morning, it is a cycle of the same sun, it it is a new day, not the sun of yesterday, eventually the sun no longer exists, but the light still travels through time.

The evidence of a Messenger is likewise, it dawns like the sun in each age, we see the same sun as yesterday, but it is a new day, not the Messenger of yesterday.

But the evidence of the Sun stops at the sun, the proof of the sun is the sun and the rays it imparts to humanity. The moon is not the sun, the distant stars are not that sun, the planets are not that sun.

The same with a Mesenger the proof of who they are is who they are and the bounties they impart to humanity.

Those proofs are as obvious as the Sun, if we choose to come out of the darkness of our own material self to the light of the day.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is cyclic and not, at the same time. That is creation as all things go in cycles or cease to be.

So if the sun rises each morning, it is a cycle of the same sun, it it is a new day, not the sun of yesterday, eventually the sun no longer exists, but the light still travels through time.

The evidence of a Messenger is likewise, it dawns like the sun in each age, we see the same sun as yesterday, but it is a new day, not the Messenger of yesterday.

But the evidence of the Sun stops at the sun, the proof of the sun is the sun and the rays it imparts to humanity. The moon is not the sun, the distant stars are not that sun, the planets are not that sun.

The same with a Mesenger the proof of who they are is who they are and the bounties they impart to humanity.

Those proofs are as obvious as the Sun, if we choose to come out of the darkness of our own material self to the light of the day.

Regards Tony

You do not appear to understand what the phrase "circular reasoning" means. Perhaps that explain why you so often use it.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and ...

Tell me again it's not circular.

That is an even BIGGER STRAW MAN than last one. Why are you making an effort to misrepresent me? Either you are doing it to embarrass me or because you have to be right or because you are have not understood a thing I have been saying for many months, which would make you lacking in mental abilities.

So which is it?

I did not accept the evidence because I believed the Baha'i Faith was true, and I did not believe that the Baha'i Faith was true because I thought it was true. I looked at the evidence and then I accepted the evidence that proved the claims of Baha'u'llah were true and then I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true...

There is NOTHING circular about what I actually did. Rational people look at evidence in order to determine if a belief is true or not, and then if the evidence indicates that the belief is true they believe it is true. That is what rational people do.

Irrational people say "that's not evidence" when it is the ONLY evidence God provides because they expect God to provide testable evidence, as if the Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, is at their beck and call. They are like small children who whine because mommy gave then vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate.

 

[Trailblazer]

You do not appear to understand what the phrase "circular reasoning" means. Perhaps that explain why you so often use it.

I know what it means...

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

The circularity does not reduce the validity of these argument in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

Here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since we can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then we can never assert the conclusion God exists is true based upon that premise, and that is why my circular argument is not a sound argument and that is why the Messenger of God cannot be used to try to prove that God exists in a logical argument.

However, that does not mean that the Messenger of God is not proof that God exists, it only means one has to be cautious because the argument is circular.