• 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!

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

firedragon

Veteran Member
Well Einstein isn't here to tell me I'm wrong, so why don't you quote what he said then explain how it contradicts me.

In my opinion.

Oh God. I am sure you know all of this but you just made a statement that you didnt think about much. Anyway, since you asked, when we are falling exactly at the same rate as the space craft and we feel like floating, this is the equivalence principle and though we use the word "falling" Einstein said that gravity does not pull, space pushes. The planets mass warps the space above and this pushes you down.

So, not being pulled. Dont ask for some Wikipedia page, you can read about it in the Einstein Encyclopedia which some layman like me could understand. Though you know all of this I gave this prior to you asking more questions and elongating a matter.
 
Last edited:

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
To Tb...

There's plenty of evidence that would suffice for me. Any evidence that is testable would do. Your inability to provide such evidence is your problem, not mine.

But rest assured, if you provided such evidence and it withstood examination, then I would accept it.

I would also like to see some evidence, Tb.
Do you have any?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And the instant you present your belief as reflecting reality, you are making a claim.
Why do you insist upon arguing about this? I alone know if I am making a claim. I am not making a claim becaue I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims, I believe His claims.

Do you want to say my belief is a claim so you can tell me I am obligated to prove it is true?
Are you five?
:rolleyes:
If it can't be tested, how can you say it is evidence?
Why do you think all evidence can be tested? All evidence is not testable:

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

Evidence comes in many forms, and even if it’s not admissible in court it can still be relevant to a case and provide valuable insight during an investigation

Posted by Dawn Lomer on April 6th, 2016

1. Analogical Evidence
While not a kind of evidence you’d use in court, this kind of evidence can be useful for increasing credibility by drawing parallels when there isn’t enough information to prove something in a workplace investigation. Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy.

2. Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence isn’t used in court, but can sometimes help in a workplace investigation to get a better picture of an issue. The biggest problem with this kind of evidence is that it is often “cherry picked” to present only anecdotes that support a particular conclusion. Consider it with skepticism, and in combination with other, more reliable, kinds of evidence.

3. Character Evidence
This is a testimony or document that is used to help prove that someone acted in a particular way based on the person’s character. While this can’t be used to prove that a person’s behavior at a certain time was consistent with his or her character, it can be used in some workplace investigations to prove intent, motive, or opportunity.

4. Circumstantial Evidence
Also known as indirect evidence, this type of evidence is used to infer something based on a series of facts separate from the fact the argument is trying to prove. It requires a deduction of facts from other facts that can be proven and, while not considered to be strong evidence, it can be relevant in a workplace investigation, which has a different burden of proof than a criminal investigation.

Need a tool for tracking and reporting on your investigation and the evidence you collected? Download our free Investigation Report Template.

5. Demonstrative Evidence
An object or document is considered to be demonstrative evidence when it directly demonstrates a fact. It’s a common and reliable kind of evidence. Examples of this kind of evidence are photographs, video and audio recordings, charts, etc. In a workplace investigation, this could be an audio recording of someone’s harassing behavior or a photograph of offensive graffiti.

How to Record Digital Evidence with Camtasia Screencasting Software
6. Digital Evidence

Digital evidence can be any sort of digital file from an electronic source. This includes email, text messages, instant messages, files and documents extracted from hard drives, electronic financial transactions, audio files, video files. Digital evidence can be found on any server or device that stores data, including some lesser-known sources such as home video game consoles, GPS sport watches and internet-enabled devices used in home automation. Digital evidence is often found through internet searches using open source intelligence (OSINT).

OSINT is one of the most efficient ways to gather digital evidence online. Search online using this comprehensive link list of OSINT tools and resources.

Challenges of digital evidence
Collecting digital evidence requires a skillset not always needed for physical evidence. There are many methods for extracting digital evidence from different devices and these methods, as well as the devices on which evidence is stored, change rapidly. Investigators need to either develope specific technical expertise or rely on experts to do the extraction for them.

Preserving digital evidence is also challenging because, unlike physical evidence, it can be altered or deleted remotely. Investigators need to be able to authenticate the evidence, and also provide documentation to prove its integrity.

7. Direct Evidence
The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference. The evidence alone is the proof. This could be the testimony of a witness who saw first-hand an incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.

8. Documentary Evidence
Most commonly considered to be written forms of proof, such as letters or wills, documentary evidence can also include other types of media, such as images, video or audio recordings, etc.

9. Exculpatory Evidence
This type of evidence can exonerate a defendant in a – usually criminal – case. Prosecutors and police are required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they find or risk having the case dismissed.

10. Forensic Evidence
Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court.

11. Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by witnesses who are not present. While hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, it can be relevant and valuable in a workplace investigation where the burden of proof is less robust than in court.

12. Physical Evidence
As would be expected, evidence that is in the form of a tangible object, such as a firearm, fingerprints, rope purportedly used to strangle someone, or tire casts from a crime scene, is considered to be physical evidence. Physical evidence is also known as “real” or “material” evidence. It can be presented in court as an exhibit of a physical object, captured in still or moving images, described in text, audio or video or referred to in documents.

13. Prima Facie Evidence
Meaning “on its first appearance” this is evidence presented before a trial that is enough to prove something until it is successfully disproved or rebutted at trial. This is also called “presumptive evidence”.

14. Statistical Evidence
Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence. This type of evidence is based on research or polls.

15. Testimonial Evidence
One of the most common forms of evidence, this is either spoken or written evidence given by a witness under oath. It can be gathered in court, at a deposition or through an affidavit.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations
Again, if it can't be tested, how can you say it is evidence?
See above.
And your agenda is to maintain your belief.
I said: "I have no agenda whatsoever because I already have a belief and I don't care what others believe or disbelieve."
Why do you contradict what I say? Do you think you know me better than I know myself?
Do you really think I have a problem maintaining my belief? Why would I?
Let me rephrase my question.

How could it be unreasonable for one person and yet reasonable for another person when the only difference is what they believe?

A person's belief system does not change the definition of "reasonable".
Do you really think that people all think alike? How many years have you lived?
What is reasonable to one person will not be reasonable to another person unless they so happen to agree on what they are considering.

For example, you think my beliefs are unreasonable because I don't have the kind of testable evidence to support them that you require but I think you are unreasonable to require testable evidence. I think I am reasonable to believe what I do based upon the evidence I have because I have the only kind of evidence one could procure for a Messenger of God. What is reasonable to me is not reasonable to you.
Again, how can you say it is evidence if it can't be tested?
Again, see what I said above. Then explain what you mean by tested so we know we are on the same page.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Okay then. Using only what he did, and not referring to what he said (or anything that is based off what he said), show that Mr B was a messenger from God.
I am not going to show you because that is not my job. If you want to know you would have to read the books that address what He did.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.
There is no kind of reality that is different for different people.
However, reality is perceived differently by different people.
No reason for anyone who values actual evidence over belief to think that.
I value evidence, just not the same kind of evidence that you value, at least not when it comes to religion.
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.

Special pleading - Wikipedia

Your claim that publicity for religion is always beneficial to that religion is such an example of the special pleading fallacy.
I asked you WHY it is the special pleading fallacy. You did not explain why.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Prejudice in favor of one thing.

Specifically, you are prejudiced in favor of your beliefs.
You are misusing the word prejudice. The fact that I believe my religion is true is not prejudice. Are Christians prejudiced because they believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father?

Prejudice
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"prejudice against people from different backgrounds" prejudice meaning - Google Search
Then you should have no problem using the Baha'i writings to determine if it is moral.
I would certainly consult the Baha'i Writings, but I don't know whether or not they would help me determine if it is moral.
Well, in just the post I am responding to here, you have asserted the following.
  • It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries.
  • Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral.
  • Baha'u'llah knew much more than He ever wrote about.
  • Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more.
  • if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded.
Giving my opinion (first two bullets) and quoting and explaining what Baha'u'llah wrote and explaining whayt it means (last three bullets) is not asserting it.

Assert: state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.
assert means - Google Search
 

WonderingWorrier

Active Member
You have provided word play, nothing more. It's the text version of numerology. Meaningless.

Wordplay is a simple way of putting it.
It is word structure.

Following the words shows word association. Words are in groups.
The words are woven into their specific positions. Words from the same group.

The four directions of the twelve specific positions of words combine to form a new Zodiac wheel.
An Israel Zodiac.

The sentences are speaking a Zodiac language.

The signs, miracles, prophecies are just word weaving. Wordplay.
The bible is like what is said about the Quran. The Bible itself is the miracle.


Like how the mighty wind has made the fig trees into stars:

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Revelation 6:13

That prophecy happened the moment it was written.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Effect precedes cause?
I don't know what you mean by that.
I was asking why God wants us to believe in him.

And the idea that the benefit we get is something from God seems arbitrary. Why can't God just give it to us whether we believe or not?
Give what to us? Do you mean why can't God force people to believe whether people want to believe or not?

The reason God would never make us believe is because God wants us to use our free will to choose to believe or not believe.
 

WonderingWorrier

Active Member
But, that's not what Baha'is say. They say they do believe in all the other religions. And they do believe in the scriptures of all the other religions. Then they wiggle out of it by saying that those stories were not literally true, but were symbolically true. And to that I ask... did the writers know that what they were writing was not actual events but only symbolic stories?


What appears to be different stories is just the one story being repeated in many different ways.
The stories are different but they are also woven together. The weaving of the words.
So there is only one story, one message, one symbol, to all.

As it says in the Quran:

To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. 10:47

Then sent We our messengers in succession: every time there came to a people their messenger, they accused him of falsehood: so We made them follow each other (in punishment): We made them as a tale (that is told): So away with a people that will not believe! 23:44

There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe. 12:111


(This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways. 17:77

Thus do We explain the signs in detail; and perchance they may turn (unto Us). 7:174
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
I think you all are being to harsh on @TB. She has said before she only has an MA in counseling psychology which is an 18 month arts degree. She does not claim to have an MA in science or an MA in medical degree in psychology.

She has also stated many times, she is here for entertainment purposes, not to convince any one else she has the truth about all things God or the proof that her religion is the "truth".

What is probably very interesting to her and most who observe the back and forth, circular and repeated, non changing arguments, is that people continue to engage in them. Thousands of posts of the same back and forth yet people continue to want to try to convince her she is wrong in her logic. No matter how many try, they always fail to escape the circular logic and the urge to expose the percieved double speak. It is like an irresistible challenge to be the one to finally prove her wrong.

That will never happen but it provides entertainment. Like true crime shows, the psychology of it all is just plain addictive in trying to understand it and impossible to turn away from.
There will always be new attempts at proving her wrong with the same exact arguments because there is an endless supply of curious people who believe they can achieve the impossible.

One would think it would grow old but it never seems to. Why that is, is the really interesting question.
I think you all are being to harsh on @TB. She has said before she only has an MA in counseling psychology which is an 18 month arts degree. She does not claim to have an MA in science or an MA in medical degree in psychology.

She has also stated many times, she is here for entertainment purposes, not to convince any one else she has the truth about all things God or the proof that her religion is the "truth".

What is probably very interesting to her and most who observe the back and forth, circular and repeated, non changing arguments, is that people continue to engage in them. Thousands of posts of the same back and forth yet people continue to want to try to convince her she is wrong in her logic. No matter how many try, they always fail to escape the circular logic and the urge to expose the percieved double speak. It is like an irresistible challenge to be the one to finally prove her wrong.

That will never happen but it provides entertainment. Like true crime shows, the psychology of it all is just plain addictive in trying to understand it and impossible to turn away from.
There will always be new attempts at proving her wrong with the same exact arguments because there is an endless supply of curious people who believe they can achieve the impossible.

One would think it would grow old but it never seems to. Why that is, is the really interesting question.
Ex
I think you all are being to harsh on @TB. She has said before she only has an MA in counseling psychology which is an 18 month arts degree. She does not claim to have an MA in science or an MA in medical degree in psychology.

She has also stated many times, she is here for entertainment purposes, not to convince any one else she has the truth about all things God or the proof that her religion is the "truth".

What is probably very interesting to her and most who observe the back and forth, circular and repeated, non changing arguments, is that people continue to engage in them. Thousands of posts of the same back and forth yet people continue to want to try to convince her she is wrong in her logic. No matter how many try, they always fail to escape the circular logic and the urge to expose the percieved double speak. It is like an irresistible challenge to be the one to finally prove her wrong.

That will never happen but it provides entertainment. Like true crime shows, the psychology of it all is just plain addictive in trying to understand it and impossible to turn away from.
There will always be new attempts at proving her wrong with the same exact arguments because there is an endless supply of curious people who believe they can achieve the impossible.

One would think it would grow old but it never seems to. Why that is, is the really interesting question.
@Truthseeker9 . I have just been able to have time to respond to responses to my post. Can you please tell me why you gave a funny frubal to my post? It may help me understand what I can do to better to understand the circumstances. It may help me to explain to myself and others, the resistance to leaving suffering, preconceptions, and guilt behind in this short and confusing life we all endure.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Okay, you say that originally all revealed religions were true, the people messed them up. So I ask...
When were they true and how long before they got messed up?
I don't know and I don't care. As a Baha'i it is not my job to explain what happened to the older religions.
Okay, you don't know when they were originally true and you don't care when people messed them up. So you are taking for granted that the Baha'i teachings are correct and true?
So again you say something you can't back up. But what were the Baha'i writings that you're using to base those things you said on?
No, I do not take it for granted, I believe it after having done my due diligence and coming to believe that the Baha'i Faith is the truth.
What don't you take for granted? And what is this due "diligence" you speak of?

One more time... you said, "all revealed religions were true", then that people messed them up. How do you know that? Can you give me an example when a revealed religion was true and then got messed up? Apparently not, because you don't know and don't care? But you "know" it's true? Because you've done you due diligence? And you wonder why I have ask you the same questions over and over again.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
When were they true and how long before they got messed up?

So again you say something you can't back up. But what were the Baha'i writings that you're using to base those things you said on?
Why would it matter now how long they were true and how long it too for them to get messed up?

The Baha'i writings that back up that they got messed up (which I have posted numerous times) are as follows:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when 172 the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172
What don't you take for granted? And what is this due "diligence" you speak of?
I never took anything in the Baha'i Writings for granted. Due diligence is the research and investigation we are enjoined to do before we believe.
One more time... you said, "all revealed religions were true", then that people messed them up. How do you know that? Can you give me an example when a revealed religion was true and then got messed up? Apparently not, because you don't know and don't care? But you "know" it's true? Because you've done you due diligence? And you wonder why I have ask you the same questions over and over again.
Christianity is one example of a religion that was originally true and then it got messed up, as noted below:

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “

(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Why do you insist upon arguing about this? I alone know if I am making a claim. I am not making a claim becaue I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims, I believe His claims.

Do you want to say my belief is a claim so you can tell me I am obligated to prove it is true?

So you do not claim that your beliefs represent reality?


Then don't act like it.

Why do you think all evidence can be tested? All evidence is not testable:

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

Evidence comes in many forms, and even if it’s not admissible in court it can still be relevant to a case and provide valuable insight during an investigation

Posted by Dawn Lomer on April 6th, 2016

1. Analogical Evidence
While not a kind of evidence you’d use in court, this kind of evidence can be useful for increasing credibility by drawing parallels when there isn’t enough information to prove something in a workplace investigation. Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy.

2. Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence isn’t used in court, but can sometimes help in a workplace investigation to get a better picture of an issue. The biggest problem with this kind of evidence is that it is often “cherry picked” to present only anecdotes that support a particular conclusion. Consider it with skepticism, and in combination with other, more reliable, kinds of evidence.

3. Character Evidence
This is a testimony or document that is used to help prove that someone acted in a particular way based on the person’s character. While this can’t be used to prove that a person’s behavior at a certain time was consistent with his or her character, it can be used in some workplace investigations to prove intent, motive, or opportunity.

4. Circumstantial Evidence
Also known as indirect evidence, this type of evidence is used to infer something based on a series of facts separate from the fact the argument is trying to prove. It requires a deduction of facts from other facts that can be proven and, while not considered to be strong evidence, it can be relevant in a workplace investigation, which has a different burden of proof than a criminal investigation.

Need a tool for tracking and reporting on your investigation and the evidence you collected? Download our free Investigation Report Template.

5. Demonstrative Evidence
An object or document is considered to be demonstrative evidence when it directly demonstrates a fact. It’s a common and reliable kind of evidence. Examples of this kind of evidence are photographs, video and audio recordings, charts, etc. In a workplace investigation, this could be an audio recording of someone’s harassing behavior or a photograph of offensive graffiti.

How to Record Digital Evidence with Camtasia Screencasting Software
6. Digital Evidence

Digital evidence can be any sort of digital file from an electronic source. This includes email, text messages, instant messages, files and documents extracted from hard drives, electronic financial transactions, audio files, video files. Digital evidence can be found on any server or device that stores data, including some lesser-known sources such as home video game consoles, GPS sport watches and internet-enabled devices used in home automation. Digital evidence is often found through internet searches using open source intelligence (OSINT).

OSINT is one of the most efficient ways to gather digital evidence online. Search online using this comprehensive link list of OSINT tools and resources.

Challenges of digital evidence
Collecting digital evidence requires a skillset not always needed for physical evidence. There are many methods for extracting digital evidence from different devices and these methods, as well as the devices on which evidence is stored, change rapidly. Investigators need to either develope specific technical expertise or rely on experts to do the extraction for them.

Preserving digital evidence is also challenging because, unlike physical evidence, it can be altered or deleted remotely. Investigators need to be able to authenticate the evidence, and also provide documentation to prove its integrity.

7. Direct Evidence
The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference. The evidence alone is the proof. This could be the testimony of a witness who saw first-hand an incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.

8. Documentary Evidence
Most commonly considered to be written forms of proof, such as letters or wills, documentary evidence can also include other types of media, such as images, video or audio recordings, etc.

9. Exculpatory Evidence
This type of evidence can exonerate a defendant in a – usually criminal – case. Prosecutors and police are required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they find or risk having the case dismissed.

10. Forensic Evidence
Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court.

11. Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by witnesses who are not present. While hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, it can be relevant and valuable in a workplace investigation where the burden of proof is less robust than in court.

12. Physical Evidence
As would be expected, evidence that is in the form of a tangible object, such as a firearm, fingerprints, rope purportedly used to strangle someone, or tire casts from a crime scene, is considered to be physical evidence. Physical evidence is also known as “real” or “material” evidence. It can be presented in court as an exhibit of a physical object, captured in still or moving images, described in text, audio or video or referred to in documents.

13. Prima Facie Evidence
Meaning “on its first appearance” this is evidence presented before a trial that is enough to prove something until it is successfully disproved or rebutted at trial. This is also called “presumptive evidence”.

14. Statistical Evidence
Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence. This type of evidence is based on research or polls.

15. Testimonial Evidence
One of the most common forms of evidence, this is either spoken or written evidence given by a witness under oath. It can be gathered in court, at a deposition or through an affidavit.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

Yes, you've trotted out this before. I dealt with it in THIS post.

See above.

Your "above" was a lousy argument.

I said: "I have no agenda whatsoever because I already have a belief and I don't care what others believe or disbelieve."
Why do you contradict what I say? Do you think you know me better than I know myself?
Do you really think I have a problem maintaining my belief? Why would I?

Because EVERYONE'S agenda is to maintain their belief. The reluctance of people to change their mind - particularly when it comes to long held or firmly held beliefs - is well documented.

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds

See! I was right: people are reluctant to change their minds, even when facts don’t match what they believe

Why people don’t change their minds — even when faced with the facts | MinnPost

Do you really think that people all think alike? How many years have you lived?
What is reasonable to one person will not be reasonable to another person unless they so happen to agree on what they are considering.

For example, you think my beliefs are unreasonable because I don't have the kind of testable evidence to support them that you require but I think you are unreasonable to require testable evidence. I think I am reasonable to believe what I do based upon the evidence I have because I have the only kind of evidence one could procure for a Messenger of God. What is reasonable to me is not reasonable to you.

The rules of logic are not subjective.

I think it is unreasonable to rely on untestable claims because doing so can result in people believing all sorts of nonsense to be true.

Again, see what I said above. Then explain what you mean by tested so we know we are on the same page.

See if the belief makes any claims that can be tested. I gave an example with the way the Bible says believers can pray to a mountain to move. Yes, I know you rejected that, and I've explained why your rejection was arbitrary.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I am not going to show you because that is not my job. If you want to know you would have to read the books that address what He did.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If you can't tell me what the relevant parts are, I'm not going to go searching for them myself.

However, reality is perceived differently by different people.

Their perceptions can be wrong.

I prefer to have my perception of reality be as close as possible to what it actually is.

I value evidence, just not the same kind of evidence that you value, at least not when it comes to religion.

And from my point of view, you only change your standards because you want a way to be able to accept evidence that wouldn't work in any other context.

I asked you WHY it is the special pleading fallacy. You did not explain why.

Yes I have.

You claimed that any and all publicity for a religion is good. I've shown you cases where publicity has been bad. You are essentially saying, "Yeah, but when it comes to religion, it's different." That's the special pleading, and it's quite clear.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You are misusing the word prejudice.

In what way?

The fact that I believe my religion is true is not prejudice.

Yes it is. You are prejudiced towards accepting evidence that supports your beliefs more easily than accepting evidence which denies your beliefs.

Are Christians prejudiced because they believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father?

Yes they are.

Prejudice
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"prejudice against people from different backgrounds" prejudice meaning - Google Search

And how does "opinion that is not based on reason" not apply to religious belief?

I would certainly consult the Baha'i Writings, but I don't know whether or not they would help me determine if it is moral.

I thought you said, "the Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral." Now you are saying that may not be true?

Giving my opinion (first two bullets) and quoting and explaining what Baha'u'llah wrote and explaining whayt it means (last three bullets) is not asserting it.

There was nothing in those two points to indicate that you were stating only your opinion and not presenting it as a fact.

Assert: state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.
assert means - Google Search

Which you certainly did when you said, "It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries."

If it was your opinion, then you would have said, "I think that it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries," or "In my opinion, it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries."
 
Top