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

[Trailblazer]

That is the key, we must look at ourselves for the change. That is also the greatest proof of the Messenger, they are the first to offer the word in their lives. As Jesus said if you want to enter the Kingdom, pick up the cross and follow me. The first step, is actually taking the first step toward that required change.

Luke 9:23
“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have beliefs that you think do NOT represent reality?

No. Why would I believe something I did not think represented reality?

No, there are no ways of knowing some claim is true without testing it. You are again committing the special pleading fallacy by assuming that religious claims are different for some reason.

Maybe there is no way for you to know but there is a way for me to know, but I am not going to cover that same old tired ground.

Your argument is the position you hold.

argument
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=argument+means#cobssid=s

The position I hold is not an argument unless I am trying to persuade others. I'm not.

Completely irrelevant.

If a belief can not be tested, it can not be verified. If it can not be verified, then it could just as easily be complete bulldust.

That is not true for everyone. Speak for yourself.

And I agree with you on that.

Since they can not be tested, they can not be shown to have any connection to reality, and thus believing that a religious faith is a representation of reality is completely unjustifiable.

That is your position but it is not my position or the position of others.
They can be tested but not in the way you want them to be tested.

Once again, let me say that if there is some testable claim and the claim withstands testing, I will accept it. But you've gone out of your way to convince yourself that I'm a closed-minded person to give yourself a reason to not even bother.

I suspect the reason is not that you think I will reject anything you provide, but that your faith doesn't have anything that will meet the most basic standard of verifiable evidence to support its supernatural claims.

There is no basic standard of verifiable evidence to support supernatural claims because supernatural claims cannot be verified.
Yes, I think you will reject anything I have, so now what? You cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[Trailblazer]

And why should I accept any so-called "evidence" if I can't test it to make sure it is valid?

I never said you should accept it, given you have your own individual standards for evidence.
I have a way of knowing evidence is valid but it differs from your way of knowing.

And it doesn't mean the invisible elephant in my living room doesn't exist, yet if someone said they believed in at least the possibility of the elephant really being there, you'd say they were pretty silly

I would say that because there would be no reason to believe that there is an.invisible elephant in your living room.

That's a poor argument. If there was suddenly a child abuse scandal in the Baha'i faith, would you think, "Oh, goody, now lots of people are going to hear about Baha'i and we could get new converts!" Of course not.

No, I would not think that is a good way to get converts. I was referring to falsehoods and slanders about the Baha'i Faith, things that we can respond to and explain, thus engendering a conversation.

And you have not done this.

It says, "we do not wish to dispute with them," and yet you have disputed the standard Christian interpretation of many passages from the Bible. It says, "we bring forth proofs and arguments," and yet you have admitted that there is no actual testable proof. You can't even provide testable evidence.

It means we do not wish to dispute with them about the Baha'i Faith. Why bring Christianity into this? No, we do not agree with the standard Christian beliefs as we would be Christians if we believed them. Traditional Christian beliefs cannot be reconciled to Baha'i beliefs so why pretend? For one thing if Jesus is the only way then Baha'u'llah cannot be a Messenger of God. For another thing if Christianity is the only true religion then all the other religions that Baha'is believe are true cannot be true.

Yes, we do have proofs and arguments, you just do not LIKE our proofs and arguments.

This is nothing more than the typical religious "We're right and everyone else has it wrong" claim.

No, it is not the same as other religions who believe only they are right. Baha'is believe all religions are right because of the spiritual truth they reveal and they were all right for the ages in which they were revealed.
What other religion says that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'i has about 8 million followers. That's a TINY fraction of the world population. I'd hardly call it major. By that definition, the Church of Scientology is a more major religion.

Being a major religion has nothing to do with how many followers there are. ALL religions were small in the beginning and it took many centuries for them to grow large. Scientology is not a religion because it has no association with God.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many or most people do not believe in the Baha’i Faith because it is the new religion at the narrow gate. Below are the primary reasons why most people do not believe in a new religion.

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. If they are irreligious they have become fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So in January of 1913, when he met with the renowned British actress and playwright Gabrielle Enthoven and several others at her home, Abdu’l-Baha asked her: “What is your great interest in life?” and she said “The Drama.”

Abdu’l-Baha replied “I will give you a play. It shall be called “The Drama of the Kingdom.” He then dictated this entire script, speaking without notes and only pausing for simultaneous translation. Initially written down by Mary Blomfield Hall and included in Volume 6 of “The Baha’i World”, Abdu’l-Baha’s play begins by describing the world and its people when the Herald of the Kingdom appears and blows his trumpet.

https://bahaiteachings.org/abdul-bahas-play-drama-of-the-kingdom

This play demonstrates what would happen if Christ returned, how various people would react

Just needed to post that again, the spontaneous giving of this play, that perfectly reflects this world and how Faith unfolds, is ample proof in itself.
Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Because a God who is hands off is no different than a God who does not exist.

I asked: "Why is it indistinguishable from no God if God does not force people to believe?"
So you expect God to force you to believe? Why would God want to do that given we are allowed to choose everything else we do?

I've found that when people answer a question with some variation of, "Because that's just the way it is," it means that they just don't have a good answer.

That was not only a good answer, it was a logical answer.

"Because the omnipotent/omniscient God decided that was the way it would be, and God is in charge, you aren’t."

You just don't LIKE the answer because it means that God knows more than you know and you are not going to get what you want. But that is the way it is if God exists.

Nah. it's a claim. You are CLAIMING God gave all of us innate intelligence and free will.

I believe it, I don't claim it. So you don't believe you have any intelligence or free will to choose?

 

[Trailblazer]

And why should anyone ever believe something which can never be verified as real?

I never said you should. How we verify it is another matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christianity has done it.

Worldwide? Check.
Lots of people are Christian who used to be other faiths? Check.
Lots of different races? Check
Practiced in many nations? Check.
People of all genders are Christians? Check.
Preaching that all people are one? Check.
Preaching that there is one God? Check.

Preaching that all people are one? Not check.
Preaching that there is one God? Not check

Christianity has not done anything but divide humanity -- us and them -- for 2000 years.

And the last one is just a Baha'i specific claim designed to eliminate all others, so it can be discounted.

No, what you said is the biggest fattest straw man I have ever heard in my entire life.

The last one is a Baha'i specific claim designed to INCLUDE everyone and not eliminate anyone.
It is the Christians who are trying to ELIMINATE everyone who is not a Christian.

Oneness of Humanity, the Oneness of God and the Oneness of all Messengers.

Not check for Christianity since Christians divide humanity into us and them, Christians believe that the Bible God is the only God, and Christians believe that Jesus is the only way and there are no Messengers of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

The B.man is the Messiah? Evidence?
(Ooops, I forgot – you don’t have any).

There's lots of prophecies about the Messiah. Some Baha'is might still want to discuss them. But, as with other things they say, claim, believe etc. it's usually unprovable. It's their interpretation, and sometimes doesn't fit exactly with the prophecy.

Hmmm.. interesting. What makes you think CG Didymus is 'on the fence'?

Yeah. Thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

I suspect that if I was to ask for the other parts of this evidence, I'd find that, like the writing, they can all happen without requiring a God.

In my opinion none of these could have happened without a God since God was required to send a Messenger and ONLY a Messenger could have done these things.... but YMMV.

Irrelevant. You presented prolific and fast writing as evidence that Mr B was from God. If it is evidence that one person was from God, it must also be equivalent evidence that anyone else who has done it is also from God. Otherwise you are committing the special pleading fallacy yet again.

No, that is completely illogical!

How much Stephen King wrote is completely irrelevant because he never claimed to be a Messenger of God.
Moreover, Stephen King did not write fast like Baha'u'llah. There is no evidence of that whereas there were eyewitnesses who saw how fast Baha'ullah wrote:

"according to the testimony of Nabíl, who was at that time living in Baghdád, the unrecorded verses that streamed from His lips averaged, in a single day and night, the equivalent of the Qur’án! As to those verses which He either dictated or wrote Himself, their number was no less remarkable than either the wealth of material they contained, or the diversity of subjects to which they referred."
God Passes By, p. 138

So then it's not really how much he WROTE, it's how much he SPOKE and had other people write down. Lots of people can say a lot, and if you get ten people writing the words down, they can write much more than a single person.

That is completely irrelevant. Lots of people do not claim to be a Messenger of God nor do they MEET the other criteria for a Messenger of God.

the unrecorded verses that streamed from His lips averaged, in a single day and night, the equivalent of the Qur’án!

No, nobody ever did that except Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you miss the point.

Both people would agree that there was a brand new car that was coloured red.

You would not have one person saying, "It's a brand new red car," and another person saying, "No, it's a group of hippy musicians rehearsing for Woodstock."

Having different subjective opinions about objective facts regarding the real world is NOT the same thing as holding that the objective facts about the real world are different to different people.

And you missed my point.

If two people looked at the history of the Baha'i Faith both people would agree that a real man existed and His name was Baha'u'llah. (This incontrovertible because it is a known fact that can be found in the Encyclopedia)

However, you would have one person saying, "Baha'u'llah was just a man," and another person saying, "No, Baha'u'llah was a man who was a Messenger of God.

My point was that people have different subjective opinions about objective facts regarding the real world.

 

[Trailblazer]

Known how? You have a very bad habit of making claims and not supporting them.

In any case, your argument here boils down to, "Well, you can't prove it's NOT true!"

Harry James Potter is a fictional character and the titular protagonist in J. K. Rowling's series of eponymous novels. The majority of the books' plot covers seven years in the life of the orphan Harry, who, on his eleventh birthday, learns he is a wizard. Wikipedia

No, I never said that anything I believe is true because it cannot be proven false. That is idiotic because there are many tings that cannot be proven false, but that does not mean they are true. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is a case in point.

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't prove I AM missing out either.

No, it does not prove that you are missing out. You might be missing out or not and that is for you to decide upon.
It is your choice if you want to reject it and lose the reward you could have had by believing.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings, p. 339

Again the weak argument of "You can't prove it's NOT true."

As I just said in my last post that is not my argument at all.

 

[Truthseeker]

We don't believe in original or an inherited sin or sin nature from Adam. We don't believe that if a person dies without accepting Jesus they will be sent to hell to pay for their sins. Forgiveness from Jesus allowed a person, even though they had and will continue to sin against God, to be accepted into heaven... as if they had never sinned. Jesus paid the penalty for them.

It is not as if the person never sinned or Jesus paid the penalty for them. The New Testament never taught inherited original sin, either. That doctrine was started by Augustus in the early 5th century. The Orthodox Christians didn't agree with that, so they don't believe in inherited original sin today. I just learned that recently.

The sin of Adam is inherited by all human beings. Already in his pre-Pelagian writings, Augustine taught that Original Sin is transmitted to his descendants by concupiscence,[161] which he regarded as the passion of both soul and body,[j] making humanity a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd) and much enfeebling, though not destroying, the freedom of the will.[162] Although earlier Christian authors taught the elements of physical death, moral weakness, and a sin propensity within original sin, Augustine was the first to add the concept of inherited guilt (reatus) from Adam whereby an infant was eternally damned at birth.

Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

 

[Truthseeker]

I know it gets to be annoying and bothersome. And some of us deserve to be told off, but... Baha'is are supposed to be the peace makers, the ones that love and respect all people no matter what they believe. So, in theory, should Baha'is care about all people, even those that are being a pain?

I don't care what he thinks. It's not my business. Let God take care of him. I can't offer any other service to him. I am also imperfect, as are all people. I don't care for his attitude, that is true.

I personally like discussing prophecies and some of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, but there's no substantial answers from Baha'i with them either. Like how do three woes become three manifestations. How 666 becomes the year the Umayyads took power. How everything that can be made into 1260 lunar years, no matter when it started or when it ended, is made to start in 621AD with the Hegira and end in 1844 with the declaration of the Bab? How trials and tribulations will get worse and worse, and just before all people are destroyed, Jesus, or "Christ", comes back. When was the daily sacrifice stopped and the abomination put in place? But Baha'is are tired of me asking.

I think it's a similar case. We can only help you only so far. There comes a point where only God and you can help you understand. I know you're confused, and that to me is different from the attitude of Tiberius in my view. In my view, he doesn't want to understand, he's just trying to poke holes in Trailblazer's logic. Trailblazer I don't think sees it this the same as I.

We can't get through to you that prophecies are not very important, and that is frustrating, that is true.

 

[Tiberius]

Oh? Really? Okay then, if you're buying it, who am I to disagree. I guess it must be true.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to present a convincing argument!

 

[Tiberius]

Its a bit more than that.
Its not quite like concluding star trek is a sequel to star wars because they both have star in the title. And its not quite like your other comparison of connecting Winnie the Pooh to Attila the Hun because they both share the word The.

Its like there is a connection between Winnie the Pooh and Jack the Ripper, because they both share the word The.
But even though Attila the Hun shows us he also has "The" he is not part of the group.


Its also like if Jack the Ripper was able to transform into Winnie the Pooh.
Because Winnie the Pooh is Jack the Ripper.
That would not be magic. That would be understanding who Jack the Ripper is.


Yes. I am concluding there is a connection between words.



I have just showed you some more connections to "mighty".

Did you not see and understand the horses and chariots around the mountain?

Did you not see and understand how the wolf and the lamb are together?

Did you not see and understand the words around mighty go into the gate on the East?




I am showing you the place of the mighty wind.

Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt. Hosea 12:1


It is relevant.

No, it's not relevant. And repeating the same flawed claims based on nothing more than wordplay is just a waste of your time and my time.

Find a better argument.

 

[Tiberius]

No. Why would I believe something I did not think represented reality?

Then you assert your beliefs represent reality.

Thus you are claiming that your beliefs are true.

Maybe there is no way for you to know but there is a way for me to know, but I am not going to cover that same old tired ground.

No. You do not know. You merelky think you know because you believe it very strongly. But if it can't be shown to be objectively true, then you don't actually KNOW, no matter how certain you are of it.

argument
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=argument+means#cobssid=s

The position I hold is not an argument unless I am trying to persuade others. I'm not.

And my source defines argument as "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory." You have done that, therefore you have presented an argument.

That is not true for everyone. Speak for yourself.

Yes, it is true for everyone.

Your argument would have different realities for different people.

That is your position but it is not my position or the position of others.
They can be tested but not in the way you want them to be tested.

If they can not be tested, then you can not claim they describe the real world.

There is no basic standard of verifiable evidence to support supernatural claims because supernatural claims cannot be verified.

Special pleading.

Yes, I think you will reject anything I have, so now what? You cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip.

I will reject anything you present that is based on logical fallacies.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said you should accept it, given you have your own individual standards for evidence.
I have a way of knowing evidence is valid but it differs from your way of knowing.

Can both of our positions be accurate representations of reality given they contradict each other?

I would say that because there would be no reason to believe that there is an.invisible elephant in your living room.

So? The existence of the elephant can't be found by reason. But it's really there.

No, I would not think that is a good way to get converts. I was referring to falsehoods and slanders about the Baha'i Faith, things that we can respond to and explain, thus engendering a conversation.

Sadly, not a theory born out by reality. If people are told a story that paints something in a negative light, they will continue to hold negative thoughts about it, even if they are given an explanation which eliminates the negativity and puts a positive spin on it.

That's why people still believe Hillary Clinton really had child sex slaves in the basement of a pizza shop.

It means we do not wish to dispute with them about the Baha'i Faith. Why bring Christianity into this? No, we do not agree with the standard Christian beliefs as we would be Christians if we believed them. Traditional Christian beliefs cannot be reconciled to Baha'i beliefs so why pretend? For one thing if Jesus is the only way then Baha'u'llah cannot be a Messenger of God. For another thing if Christianity is the only true religion then all the other religions that Baha'is believe are true cannot be true.

So you twist other religions into strawmen to support your own religion.

Wow.

You don't see a problem there?

Yes, we do have proofs and arguments, you just do not LIKE our proofs and arguments.

I thought you said you weren't making arguments.

In any case, I'd like them just fine if they weren't riddled with logical fallacies.

No, it is not the same as other religions who believe only they are right. Baha'is believe all religions are right because of the spiritual truth they reveal and they were all right for the ages in which they were revealed.
What other religion says that?

Please show that's the best criteria for measuring the validity of a religious belief.

I could just as easily say, "Star Trek is the best TV show because what other show has talked about the United Federation of Planets so much?"

 

[Tiberius]

Being a major religion has nothing to do with how many followers there are. ALL religions were small in the beginning and it took many centuries for them to grow large. Scientology is not a religion because it has no association with God.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many or most people do not believe in the Baha’i Faith because it is the new religion at the narrow gate. Below are the primary reasons why most people do not believe in a new religion.

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. If they are irreligious they have become fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

All those words, and yet you never actually say why Baha'i should be considered a major religion.

Like many religious arguments, there's a lot of attempts to quash dissenting opinions, but very little to actually support the claims it makes.