• 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.

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Special pleading. You claim religion must use different methods to prove it is true, yet you fail to see an alternative solution - that religion is just all bunk.
That is because I am logical. Just because religion required different methods to prove it is true that does not mean that religion is all just bunk. It would be illogical to expect scientific methods to prove religion is true because science cannot study the supernatural, only the natural.
Please, give me an example of such a thing. I bet you have to resort to some wishy washy "I verified it in a way that can't be checked by anyone else" excuse.
No religious beliefs can be verified to be false but that does not mean that no religious beliefs are true. That can be checked by anyone but not everyone will get the same results because religion is not science.
Okay then. You're still stuck with a premise that you can't prove, and since your entire argument depends on that premise being true, the fact you can't prove it leaves your whole position rather shaky.
I have no premises or conclusions because I have no logical argument. Since beliefs about God and Messengers of God can never be proven true or false they are not subject to logical arguments.
No it does not prove that God exists.
I never said that it proves that God exists, I said that Baha'u'llah provided evidence. Evidence is not proof.

By carrying out His agenda items 1-3, Baha'u'llah provided evidence that:

(a) He was a Messenger of God, and
(b) God exists.
God does not need to exist in order for someone to represent him. Lots of people have claimed their religion is Jedi because they want to represent the ideals of the Jedi, but that doesn't mean the Force is real.
A real God has to exist in order to have a real Messenger of God who represents Him.

Put another way, if a real Messenger of God exists that means a real God has to exist.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
One can not be aware of the truth or factuality of something if that thing is not the truth or a fact.

Thus, if a person claims to KNOW something, then what they claim to know must be true. One cannot claim to know a thing if the thing is false.

A flat earther claiming to know that the earth is flat is wrong, because what they claim to know is false, and thus it can't be known, only believed.
A person can 'claim' to know something even if it is not true, people do that all the time.

Likewise, a person can claim to know something that is true, even if it cannot be proven as a fact.
The definition says: aware of the truth or factuality of something.
Sure sounds like reincarnation to me.

In any case, you completely failed to address the point that I made.

You don't have proper evidence when it comes to Mr B being a <<whatever you want to call it>> of Jesus.
There is evidence. Just because you do not consider it proper that does not make it non-evidence.
But part of believing in Mr B is believing that he was sent by God, isn't it?
That's true, that is part of it, but there are also the teachings, and that is what I believed in at first. Belief in God came later.
How do you not see the flaw here?

If you only look at the evidence that SUPPORTS the claims, you are going to get a very one sided view.

If a person hears about the moon landing hoax and only looks at the evidence that SUPPORTS the claim that it was faked, then they won't get the full picture and could well reach the incorrect conclusion that it wasn't real.

Do you see how this is a problem?
No, I do not see a flaw. Evidence FOR a claim supports that claim. Now, if I wanted to disprove the claim, I would look for evidence that refutes the claim. For example, I would try to dig up some dirt on Baha'u'llah and what He did on His mission.

If I was not already a Baha'i and i was a seeker I would want to look at everything that is available to look at that has been written about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, both pro and con, but I have already seen the pro and the con so I have no need to look at it again.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I supplied an answer that was applicable to what was said about this reality being the illusion a construct of our relative state of being.

There is not a yes or no answer that is applicable, nor is it needed.

The blind man will not see the elephant as I do, it's existence in this world is thus perceived by the blind man in his relative state. The elephant I see, is not the one he can see and such is the same for all things. Now if we could see the elephant in the light it is made of, we may consider the entire subject in new frames of reference.

Meanwhile on the other hand we know what we see, exists in our current reality, as ii also does in other realities.

Regards Tony
What? Hmmm? A simple little story. Five blinds monks touch a different part of the elephant and think they know enough to accurately describe what an elephant. To those of us who know what an elephant looks like, we see how they made their mistake. They were blind. They were only going by a limited amount of knowledge and arriving at a conclusion. Simple story. Why do you think you have to make it more than that?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That is because I am logical. Just because religion required different methods to prove it is true that does not mean that religion is all just bunk. It would be illogical to expect scientific methods to prove religion is true because science cannot study the supernatural, only the natural.
That's your answer to this? "You claim religion must use different methods to prove it is true, yet you fail to see an alternative solution - that religion is just all bunk."

So what methods to you use to show that some religious cult and its leader is "bunk"? Or, that some doctrines and beliefs of some religions are "bunk"? Like the usual story... The gospels and acts say Jesus came back to life. You say it is "bunk". How do you know that is bunk when born again Christians say it is true? Is there a method? Do you have proof? Or is it just that you believe they are wrong and they believe they are right and neither has any real proof of their beliefs?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
O thou who art the fruit of My Tree and the leaf thereof! On thee be My glory and My mercy. Let not thine heart grieve over what hath befallen thee. Wert thou to scan the pages of the Book of Life, thou wouldst, most certainly, discover that which would dissipate thy sorrows and dissolve thine anguish.

Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.

God grant that thou who art the fruit of My Tree, and they that are associated with thee, may be shielded from its evil consequences.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 132-133

That is a great passage, that I have come to see is a good thing to implement in my life. The way I have come to understand this Susan, is that the best prayer for all people is may God's Will be done and that we do not try to change our given end.

Working in an Old age home has shown me what happens when people can not let go and always pray to alter theirs or another's impending fate and when there is a fear of death. People suffer because of this, but think they are doing good holding a person from passing on. I have seen people living, that are not living yet the family still prays for them to stay.

So the closing part of that passages is where I get my thought from.

".... God grant that thou who art the fruit of My Tree, and they that are associated with thee, may be shielded from its evil consequences."

May God's Will be done for all people. That is the prayer I have for my family in time of illnesses and when life is throwing its challenges. Ask the best for them entirely according to God's Will and not what I may desire for them. To me there is no more positive way to look at life and what we all face.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what methods to you use to show that some religious cult and its leader is "bunk"? Or, that some doctrines and beliefs of some religions are "bunk"? Like the usual story... The gospels and acts say Jesus came back to life. You say it is "bunk". How do you know that is bunk when born again Christians say it is true? Is there a method? Do you have proof? Or is it just that you believe they are wrong and they believe they are right and neither has any real proof of their beliefs?

The simple answer CG is Abdul'baha.

"Look at me, follow me, be as I am", is what was asked of us.

Abdu'lbaha was the perfect example of how to live our life, the perfect example of Faith in action and all the fruit faith can produce.

If one wants to know what any Faith has taught, past and future, then study the life of Abdu'lbaha and we would know what the Mesengers came to teach and how we should live according to those teachings.

Personally, as a Baha'i, I now see I should have offered no more than that to prove what Faith is.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That's your answer to this? "You claim religion must use different methods to prove it is true, yet you fail to see an alternative solution - that religion is just all bunk."

So what methods to you use to show that some religious cult and its leader is "bunk"? Or, that some doctrines and beliefs of some religions are "bunk"? Like the usual story... The gospels and acts say Jesus came back to life. You say it is "bunk". How do you know that is bunk when born again Christians say it is true? Is there a method? Do you have proof? Or is it just that you believe they are wrong and they believe they are right and neither has any real proof of their beliefs?
The method is called use your rational mind and reasoning abilities and do the necessary research and investigation.

Speaking of the resurrection, I think you should watch this excellent video. It is a "must see" video, only 13 minutes long.

 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I said that Baha'u'llah provided evidence. Evidence is not proof.
And why do those born again Christians believe in God? Because there is proof. God said he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and he did. When Elijah called to him, God sent fire from heaven. And there proof? The Bible said so and the Bible is the Word of God. But then, do Baha'is support that evidence and proof? No, they say those stories didn't really happen. So there goes the proof. The Bible is not historically true, so bye, bye proof.

A real God has to exist in order to have a real Messenger of God who represents Him.

Put another way, if a real Messenger of God exists that means a real God has to exist.
Same old problem, the Baha'i Faith says Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were also manifestations. Were they? Did they really exist? Are the Bible stories about them accurate? Why did one religion need to have four manifestations? Plus, not one of them was the "perfect" reflection of God, so if they don't fit the description of a manifestation, why make them manifestations? Then, some sects in Hinduism have several incarnations of Vishnu, but Baha'is never mention them, only Krishna.

So how reliable are the teachings of Baha'u'llah? Are there questionable beliefs? I think there is enough there to question whether or not he is a true messenger... to question whether or not he is the fulfillment of every major religion. And those are things we can check and verify. What were the prophecies? What was supposed to happen when Kalki, Maitreya, Jesus, and all the others, returned? When were they supposed to return? Where were they supposed to return to? These are all things we know. Baha'is say that Baha'u'llah, along with The Bab, fulfilled them all. And after we check just a few, none of them are not without some problems.

So we could go over all of them again, but you know that nothing will be proven... only to Baha'is has Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies. So, to everyone else, why believe he is a real messenger from God? So without the prophecies, what is the proof? What is the evidence? Again, things that satisfy you and other Baha'is, isn't real, tangible evidence and proof to others.

And I understand that the Baha'i Faith sounds way too profound not to be true in so many ways. And maybe it is all true. But again, JW's, Mormons, Hare Krishna's, Ahmadiyya every religious group has their "evidence" and "proof". And all those groups have about the same amount of followers as the Baha'i Faith. So things that we might think are totally fake and made up, do get a lot of people believing it and following it.

So why do we reject their claims? What do they offer as proof? And why don't we accept it? Baha'is are in that same boat. The Baha'i Faith is just another new religion making all sorts of claims about God and who are his messengers. Okay, why should we believe Baha'u'llah? Why should we trust him? It's very, very similar to what those other religious movements say as to why we should believe them. But we don't believe them. And we could argue with believers in any one of those religious movements and I'll bet that it would sound very similar to what we have going on here.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What? Hmmm? A simple little story. Five blinds monks touch a different part of the elephant and think they know enough to accurately describe what an elephant. To those of us who know what an elephant looks like, we see how they made their mistake. They were blind. They were only going by a limited amount of knowledge and arriving at a conclusion. Simple story. Why do you think you have to make it more than that?

Because life and Faith in God is more than a simple story.

Spiritual understanding needs the use of metephor given in stories as the spirit is not perceived by our material senses, but by our spiritual connection. That spiritual connection is life, this material world is not life.

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The simple answer CG is Abdul'baha.

"Look at me, follow me, be as I am", is what was asked of us.

Abdu'lbaha was the perfect example of how to live our life, the perfect example of Faith in action and all the fruit faith can produce.

If one wants to know what any Faith has taught, past and future, then study the life of Abdu'lbaha and we would know what the Mesengers came to teach and how we should live according to those teachings.

Personally, as a Baha'i, I now see I should have offered no more than that to prove what Faith is.

Regards Tony
I agree. People do look at those that claim to "believe" to see how they've changed and to how well they live up to the teachings of their own religion. But, that's always a problem. Who's going to always do the right thing? Who's not going to do something stupid. How many preachers have gotten caught embezzling money and having affairs? Are people in any religion immune? So follow Abdul Baha's example. One thing I think that is attributed to him was that if a person has ten bad qualities and one good, then focus on the one good one. I think there's another one about that similar or maybe it's the same one that says Baha'is should focus on what we have in common and not our differences. Unfortunately, here on the forum, we are usually looking at our differences. But, thanks for trying to do that every once in a while.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The method is called use your rational mind and reasoning abilities and do the necessary research and investigation.

Speaking of the resurrection, I think you should watch this excellent video. It is a "must see" video, only 13 minutes long.

Was the Bart Ehrman? I'm fine with the resurrection, and the virgin birth, being embellishments added into the Jesus story. But then, why call any of it true? And Baha'is do. But what? Virgin birth and a moving star? Satan and hell? Inherited sin from Adam? etc. etc. I asked you that question and you said that it was the parables that you believed were true. Well that's great, but that ain't much. And it was the same writers that told the other things that wrote down these parables. How well did they remember them? Was there a long oral tradition of the sayings and parables of Jesus going around before the gospels were written? There's tons of reasons to doubt and not to believe, but we know... people do believe. They'll believe all sorts of religious things, because most of the time, the religion requires them to believe it all... Even if stupid.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree. People do look at those that claim to "believe" to see how they've changed and to how well they live up to the teachings of their own religion. But, that's always a problem. Who's going to always do the right thing? Who's not going to do something stupid. How many preachers have gotten caught embezzling money and having affairs? Are people in any religion immune? So follow Abdul Baha's example. One thing I think that is attributed to him was that if a person has ten bad qualities and one good, then focus on the one good one. I think there's another one about that similar or maybe it's the same one that says Baha'is should focus on what we have in common and not our differences. Unfortunately, here on the forum, we are usually looking at our differences. But, thanks for trying to do that every once in a while.

I think that is our challenge CG, it is also most likely the place you will find those who are reflecting this faith as Abdu'lbaha asked us to do, that is doing it silently out in their communities in service.

All the best and Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It is you bringing up the Bible, I just respond to what you bring up.

I do not have time to do Bible research in order to find out The daily sacrifice was taken away and the abomination was set up. Maybe someday i will have time and I will let you know what I find out.
Yeah sure, if you say so. This is all you need to know for now. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem has nothing to do with the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination. This is history and fits very well into the "prophecy" in Daniel. Although, some say that Daniel might have been written during the time of some of these events and then made into a story that took place centuries before.

But believing this as the start of counting the days, instead of the decree in 457BC, blows the whole thing of getting to 1844. So I don't expect you to care or do any reading up on it... you know personal investigating truth rather than just believing what your religion tells you.

The prophet Daniel prophesied of an “abomination of desolation” (Daniel 11:31) within a long, detailed prophecy about the Greek kings who ruled over portions of the Greco-Macedonian empire after the death of Alexander the Great.

The kings of the North it focuses on (from Daniel 11:4-35) are known in history as rulers over the Seleucid Empire. They are named after one of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus I Nicator (approximately 358 to 281 B.C.), who emerged as one of the strongest generals after Alexander’s death. He ruled over a large swath of Alexander’s old empire that included the city of Babylon, Mesopotamia and central Asia (land generally to the north of Jerusalem).

Daniel’s prophecy of the “abomination of desolation” describes events that occurred in Jerusalem around 168/167 B.C. during the rule of the eighth Seleucid king, Antiochus IV. He is better known in history as Antiochus Epiphanes (Greek for “manifestation of god”).

Daniel’s prophecy described it this way: “Forces shall be mustered by him [Antiochus Epiphanes], and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation” (verse 31).

Antiochus Epiphanes was hostile to Jewish worship and attempted to Hellenize (or enforce the adoption of Greek culture and religion on) the Jews in Judea. He outlawed all forms of Jewish worship and placed a Hellenized high priest over the temple who was sympathetic to his rule. He eventually outlawed practices like circumcision, the biblical dietary laws and Sabbath observance.

While Antiochus was on a military campaign in Egypt in 168 B.C., a group of Jews revolted against the high priest that Antiochus had appointed and took control of Jerusalem. Antiochus returned to Jerusalem and violently put down the rebellion, killing thousands of Jews and selling others into slavery.

In 167 B.C. Antiochus erected a statue of the Greek god Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. He also ordered that swine, biblically unclean animals, be offered on the temple altar, desecrating the holy place (fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy). These acts were loathsome, abhorrent and detestable to the Jewish people and were the first fulfillment of the abomination of desolation.

The history of this tragic event in Jewish history, and the Maccabean revolt it inspired, are recorded in the noncanonical books of the Maccabees. These books give some useful history, though they aren’t considered part of the inspired Scripture.​
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Before the Bab and Baha'u'llah appeared no Messenger of God ever wrote their own scriptures so we have no idea what the hell they really said. That or course also applies to Jesus. These are all the words of men who never even knew Jesus and the same applies to all the other so-called scriptures that allegedly represent the teachings of the Messengers of God.
Exactly, like with Krishna... He is in the Bhagavad Gita, which is part of a greater work, the Mahabharata, then there's also the Ramayana, and all sorts of other Holy books. Which one do Baha'is accept as true and the real Scripture of Hinduism? 'Cause I'm good with believing that people wrote them. That they told stories of their Gods and the incarnations of their Gods. Just like the Bible told the story of how the Jewish people came to be. The stories were written after the events they described and, I doubt, that they were written by any of the actual characters. So was there an actual Adam, or Noah or anybody else in Genesis? I doubt it. I could easily believe that all those stories were made up... That they all were written by people. Of course would a good Jew believe that? Some of them, I'm sure, hold it sacred and as being true. Same with some Christians. Then they add their NT to the Bible stories. And most of the NT was written by Paul? A guy who maybe never even met Jesus but had a vision of Jesus. Sure, the writings are sacred to Christians, but why would anybody else believe them to be absolutely true? Like really? A guy walking on water and floating off into space and being born of a virgin? Who believes those things? Other than religious believers.

And by believing they obligate themselves to follow the laws and rules and moral codes of the religion. Do we need those stories to believe we need to follow those rules? Yes, people do. They believe that stuff came from God. And that God will do horrible things to them if they don't follow those rules.

Gee, why wouldn't that be true? An invisible God who knows all and sees all, that killed others in the past for not obeying, so you better obey or he might kill you too? But as long as you fear him and pray to him, and, as with the case with the Israelites, sacrifice animals to him, he will forgive you for screwing up every now and then.

Sure, the Baha'i Faith is much better than those old religions. But it is still an invisible, unknowable God. Way too easy for people to make things up about him. You choose to believe, then fine. You choose to be here on the forum talking about your beliefs, fine. But then don't get all weird about people questioning you about your religion.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
No, I was not quoting the Bible, I was talking about what I believe the verses in Daniel 12 mean.

Baha'u'llah is the key character in the Book of Revelation and He is the ONLY returning character.

Baha’u’llah means Glory of God in Arabic and the following verses refer to Him.

Revelation 21:22-23 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Jesus was the Lamb of God and Baha'u'llah was the return of the Lamb of God. Simple dimple, not hard math.


There might be other verses that refer to the Bab because the Bab was also the return of the Spirit of Christ.
So a man takes the title "Glory of God" and lo and behold, he just fulfilled a bunch of prophecies? Why didn't he call himself the "Lamb"? Anyway, in Revelation where do you see the description of the Lamb not being Jesus? Did Baha'u'llah ever refer to himself as the "Lamb of God" or the "Lamb that was slain"? As you might remember other Baha'is made the case for the Bab being the "Lamb that was slain". There reasoning.... Jesus was crucified, not slain. Whereas The Bab was shot.

Oh and the Glory of God and the Lamb seem like to different entities. And the "glory" seems to be describing why there is no need for the sun, because the "glory" or could it be the "light" radiating from God and the light from the Lamb are its light?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
God speaks through the Holy Spirit and that is as direct as it gets. Remember Moses at the burning bush? that was God's Spirit speaking to Moses. Remember Jesus and the dove? That was the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus and speaking to Jesus.

Matthew 3:16-17 NIV
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Then we have Baha'u'llah.

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104
It's not like we believe it really happened anyway, but here is what it said in Exodus...
Exodus 3:4 God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

And Moses said, “Here I am.”

5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.​
Earlier it said that the "angel of the Lord" appeared in the bush, then it says it is God. But then who is this "Holy Spirit"? Because Christians had the same problem... What is the difference between God and His Holy Spirit? Then what is the difference between God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus? So they made them all God.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
But believers don't pray to a toaster. If they did I can guarantee they'd get no answers but they might get answers if they prayed to God,

How you fail to understand the point I am making escapes me.

Group A believes in God, prays to God.

Group B believes in toaster, prays to toaster.

Both groups have the same amount of answered prayers.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Some people pray to Mary and have their prayers answered. I really don't think the Baha'is think she has the ability to answer prayers. In Ancient times people prayed to idols all the time. I'm sure some of their prayers were answered. Was it the idol or just chance?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Perhaps I mistakenly thought you thought that the Holy Spirit is a Person, since that is a Christian belief and you used to be a Christian.

So, what did you mean when you said: "So then, Mr B wasn't a messenger from God. He was a messenger of God's proxy."

Baha'ullah was God's proxy by your definition of proxy, since He was a Representative of God.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70


Actually, since you clearly stated that God spoke to Mr B through the Holy Spirit, Mr B would be more accurately described as God's proxy's proxy.

Their belief is valid for them because that is what they have concluded. I am not saying that their belief is true, only that they have validated it.

That only works if we agree that each person's validated belief is a subjective opinion and does not serve to actually describe the real world.

I will tell you that. Baha'is believe our interpretation of true because of what Baha'u'llah wrote about interpretations of the scriptures.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, so I understand the Bible according to what they wrote that the Bible means.

People of every faith have things that allow them to conclude that they are the only ones who have it right. Baha'i is nothing special in that regard.

The Baha'i Faith is not the only true religion from God, but it is the religion that represents God's will and purpose for this age. The reason the older religions are incorrect in some ways is because they have been misunderstood the scriptures and they have been corrupted by man over time.

Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe...

If you put it that way yes, most religions make that claim.

Then you'll understand when I find Baha'i's claim to be just as (un)convincing as all the others.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
That is because I am logical. Just because religion required different methods to prove it is true that does not mean that religion is all just bunk. It would be illogical to expect scientific methods to prove religion is true because science cannot study the supernatural, only the natural.

However, you are assuming that there IS a supernatural part of the world, inventing (whether you or others) a method of studying this thing you assume is there, and then when this method you've invented to study the supernatural shows that the supernatural is there, you take it as proof that your initial assumption about the existence of the supernatural was correct.

That, clearly, is ridiculous. I can assume that humans are surrounded by magic, and if I wear special glasses I can study the magical field. And then I put on a pair of diffraction glasses and lo and behold, I can see bright shimmering rainbows all over the place! This confirms the presence of magical fields in reality! My initial assumption has been proven correct!

That's exactly the same thing you are doing.

No religious beliefs can be verified to be false but that does not mean that no religious beliefs are true. That can be checked by anyone but not everyone will get the same results because religion is not science.

How can some religious belief be objectively true, and yet different people will get different results about it?

I have no premises or conclusions because I have no logical argument. Since beliefs about God and Messengers of God can never be proven true or false they are not subject to logical arguments.

And without a logical argument, there's no good reason for me to believe your faith's claims are anything more than fantasy, is there?

I never said that it proves that God exists, I said that Baha'u'llah provided evidence. Evidence is not proof.

By carrying out His agenda items 1-3, Baha'u'llah provided evidence that:

(a) He was a Messenger of God, and
(b) God exists.

A real God has to exist in order to have a real Messenger of God who represents Him.

Put another way, if a real Messenger of God exists that means a real God has to exist.

You are still using your conclusion (God exists) as one of your premises (God exists in order to have messengers).

You have admitted this in your last sentence, but of course, you've had to rely on a very big IF there.
 
Top