End Goals of Your Faith?

[muhammad_isa]

And you think we can make reliable decisions based on the hundreds of different views offered by people who have no real evidence to show?

No, I don't.
Belief is a personal thing.
For me, science comes into it .. as does consideration of various claims about Divinity.
I do not just dismiss it all saying "you can't scientifically prove it". I wouldn't expect to.

Why would God give somebody a conscience & intelligence, and a life experience,
and then pop up and say "here I am" ?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

For some reason that reminds me of the story of Jesus walking on water. There's Jesus trucking his way across the sea to meet up with the disciples in their ship. They see him, Jesus even says, It is I, but Peter still asks for proof. "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" I mean, Duh.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not just dismiss it all saying "you can't scientifically prove it". I wouldn't expect to.

Why would God give somebody a conscience & intelligence, and a life experience, and then pop up and say "here I am" ?

Not dismissing it is OK, but you make positive claims without evidence. That, IMHO, is not correct.
Did a God give us conscience and intelligence? You are assuming things of which you have no evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not dismissing it is OK, but you make positive claims without evidence. That, IMHO, is not correct.
Did a God give us conscience and intelligence? You are assuming things of which you have no evidence.

No, I'm not..
As I have already said .. you keep on about "scientific evidence", as if that is all there is.

If God spoke to you, that is not scientific evidence .. it would be some sort of brainstorm, presumably

I believe that the Bible and Qur'an is true. It makes complete sense to me.
What is it about the Bible or Qur'an, that makes you think that it is all lies or delusion?

 

[RJM]

I believe that the Bible and Qur'an is true.

The parts of the Bible that agree with the Quran, you mean? Not The Pauline or Johannine writings, for instance -- nor the parts of the gospels about the death on the cross and the resurrection?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The parts of the Bible that agree with the Quran, you mean?

No .. that's not what I mean.
I mean that I believe that the scriptures are not talking about "a made-up god" that created the universe.
I strongly believe that Prophets existed, that were sent to mankind to teach and reform.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. you keep on about "scientific evidence", as if that is all there is.
If God spoke to you, that is not scientific evidence .. it would be some sort of brainstorm, presumably
I believe that the Bible and Qur'an is true. It makes complete sense to me.
What is it about the Bible or Qur'an, that makes you think that it is all lies or delusion?

What other kind of evidence is there?
I have already said that God talking to me will be sufficient evidence for me only but not for others.
It does not make sense to me, since it is not 'first hand' evidence for me, nor it is any scientifically verifiable evidence.
Answer in the above sentence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It does not make sense to me, since it is not 'first hand' evidence for me..

That sort of comment would not be accepted in a court of law.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In a court of law, both Bible and Quran will be rejected outright (Hindu scriptures too). Again, because no evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In a court of law, both Bible and Quran will be rejected outright (Hindu scriptures too). Again, because no evidence.

No .. your idea of evidence is very narrow-minded.
People are convicted on many forms of evidence, and not just opinions of "experts" or scientists.

Have you never heard of witnesses?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just witnesses would not do. Witnesses many a times are bought, induced, forced, may err because of situation - eyes weak, light not enough, may not be of sound mind, may have their own interest in the proceedings, etc. Justice requires more than just witnesses.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just witnesses would not do. Witnesses many a times are bought, induced, forced, may err because of situation - eyes weak, light not enough, may not be of sound mind, may have their own interest in the proceedings, etc. Justice requires more than just witnesses.

I don't agree..
What about a case of "dangerous driving" ?
What sort of evidence do you think is necessary for a successful prosecution?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It should be recorded on a camera. Just a traffic policeman's accusation will not do.

https://www.socialnews.xyz/2020/04/...-the-speed-of-vehicles-amid-lockdown-gallery/

 

[muhammad_isa]

It should be recorded on a camera. Just a traffic policeman's accusation will not do.

No of course it won't !
..but if there are several independent witnesses, who give an account of what happened, the prosecution has a strong case.
A jury is likely to convict.

You can't expect there always to be a camera.
Have you got cameras that cover the whole of India's road network?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We do not have jury system. Witnesses may say that a car was traveling at a high speed, but conviction will depend on how an accident happened. Who was at fault? The car or the other vehicle? Who was driving it? Was the person under the inflence of alcohol or a drug? What is the condition of the other vehicle? Who was on the wrong side of the road? If there is a CCTV recording what does it say? Etc. Judges will look for all those signs even if the speed recording is not available. And if the proof is not conclusive, or strong circumstantial evidence is not available, the person will be let off. "Not guilty unless proved", that is how Indian judiciary works. Even many people involved in terrorist activities are let off for this reason.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..And if the proof is not conclusive, or strong circumstantial evidence is not available, the person will be let off. "Not guilty unless proved", that is how Indian judiciary works..

OK .. we'll "let you off" then, for not believing

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, you can't blame us atheists for not believing what you believe since you have no evidence to prove it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah, you can't blame us atheists for not believing what you believe since you have no evidence to prove it.

What you mean is, that the evidence is "not beyond reasonable doubt", in your opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder what evidence convinces the theists?

 

[dattaswami2]

I read the post from the first word to the last and here is my reply:
Now this is a "mega post". Meg Posts generally contain verbiage. But strangely, this post is pure verbiage. I congratulate you for posting this.

Of course everyone dies, but no reason we should be constantly thinking about it. We also have a life to live. I have never worried about death. I know exactly what happens. I am an atheist. I never think about any God, unless forced to do so by theist posts.

At time of death in the death bed all our relatives will surround us. That time a flash of knowledge will be given to us by God. "All my life i have spent time for these people who cannot save me now, God who can save me now is not arriving at all since i have not spent any time or effort for Him" thinking this way the soul undergoes tremendous pain and agony then and there after in hell.