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

[CG Didymus]

Nobody made them prophets or Manifestations. Baha'u'llah revealed that is what they were and I believe Him.

That's is what I'm questioning. If we look at some of the others, Krishna, the claim is that his is an incarnation of one of the many Hindu Gods. Buddha, became enlightened and taught a way that others could follow to also become enlightened. If he was a manifestation, others could not become like him. Then the main ones I question are those that are all part of the Jewish religion. The stories about all of them have things in them that Baha'is believe to be metaphorical... especially Adam. And why even believe that Adam wasn't metaphorical himself? So, what are Baha'is left with? They don't believe the Genesis story about Adam but believe he was real and a manifestation? And why is that? You answered that... Because Baha'u'llah said so.

And again, to do so, the Baha'i Faith destroys the beliefs of at least two religions, Judaism and Christianity and maybe even Islam. But that's okay with me. I believe they are literally true also... just not metaphorical. And, if they are just made up legendary, mythical characters of an ancient Hebrew traditions, why make them manifestations? Oh, I said "make" again. Is that another word game you're starting? Okay, I'll play along, if Baha'u'llah "reveals" that they were real and also manifestations, then that is making them something more than they were in Judaism and Christianity. And again, Adam is the worst, because the NT has Adam as someone who got deceived and disobeyed God. So, is the NT wrong? Or are the NT writers making a metaphor about a metaphorical story from Genesis?

Anyway, see you on one of the other threads. This one was interesting, but it looks like it's slowly fading away.

 

[Trailblazer]

if Baha'u'llah "reveals" that they were real and also manifestations, then that is making them something more than they were in Judaism and Christianity. And again, Adam is the worst, because the NT has Adam as someone who got deceived and disobeyed God. So, is the NT wrong? Or are the NT writers making a metaphor about a metaphorical story from Genesis?

As far as I am concerned, much of the Bible is wrong as far as conveying historical facts or anything accurate about the Manifestations of God, but then I am a Baha'i.

Anyway, see you on one of the other threads. This one was interesting, but it looks like it's slowly fading away.

I am not posting that much lately, but the quickest way to track down what threads I am on is by looking at my Profile Page. I am mostly only posting to @Nimos and @Tiberius and of course my bff @Truthseeker9.

I might start a new thread if something comes to mind but I need a break so I am taking a break, at least from talking about God and religion.

 

[samtonga43]

I said: "I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else."

You know that something is true, but you are not claiming that what you know is true is knowledge. Am I correct?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe first of all the Bible says so and second by experience.

I believe he asked how we could know the claims are true, simply stating you believe them doesn't really tell us anything. The bible is filled with claims that are demonstrably errant nonsense, even were it not it cannot evidence its own claims. Anymore than the Harry Potter books can evidence wizardry.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know that something is true, but you are not claiming that what you know is true is knowledge. Am I correct?

Close but not quite...I know that something is true, but I am not claiming that what I know is true.

 

[Sheldon]

I know that something is true, but I am not claiming that what I know is true.

They're still the same thing, sorry.

 

[samtonga43]

Close but not quite...I know that something is true, but I am not claiming that what I know is true.

Tb, please think about what you have just said. It is completely irrational, and I don't understand why someone who claims to be interested in logic cannot see that it is completely irrational.

You have fallen into the rabbit hole, Tb; even deeper than Alice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb, please think about what you have just said. It is completely irrational, and I don't understand why someone who claims to be interested in logic cannot see that it is completely irrational.

You have fallen into the rabbit hole, Tb; even deeper than Alice.

There is absolutely NOTHING illogical about what I said:

"I know that something is true, but I am not claiming that what I know is true."

I can know something is true without claiming it is true. I suggest you use your brain to think. This is not that difficult.

Hint: Knowing is a thought process, claiming is an action. Claiming is asserting that what I know is true.

 

[samtonga43]

There is absolutely NOTHING illogical about what I said:

"I know that something is true, but I am not claiming that what I know is true."

I can know something is true without claiming it is true. I suggest you use your brain to think. This is not that difficult.

It's not difficult for someone who does understand how to think logically (most people on this thread) to see that you are tying yourself in knots.

Tell me, Tb, is the following a valid argument:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise 2: All poodles are mammals.

Conclusion: All poodles are dogs.

?

 

[Sheldon]

There is absolutely NOTHING illogical about what I said:

I know you might take this personally, and others will vilify me for it, but it isn't, however it is manifest that your posts are relentlessly irrational, whether you see it, or admit it, or even care.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not difficult for someone who does understand how to think logically (most people on this thread) to see that you are tying yourself in knots.

Tell me, Tb, is the following a valid argument:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise 2: All poodles are mammals.

Conclusion: All poodles are dogs.

?

That response is totally unrelated to what I posted to you.
I see you could not respond to what I said so you threw out a red herring.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
Red herring - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no contradiction in that sentence because a person can know something and say they know something without claiming that it is true.
Moreover, I explained why I am not making a knowledge claim:

I said: "I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else."

Why bother with these silly semantic games?

No, I am not making a claim and I already explained why in great detail so there is no need for me to repeat myself.
I am making a belief statement

Tb, please think about what you have just said. It is completely irrational,

I can know something is true without claiming it is true.

Okay... let's get this straight... You know something is true. Like that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God. But you don't claim that, because you can't prove it? And to say you "know" it is true is not a claim? It is just your belief? But, you know it's true? And if asked how you know it is true, you say you've proven it to yourself. And I think you've said you've proven it with objective evidence, but that objective evidence is rejected and you are told that it is not objective evidence? Sorry, but it all sounds nuts to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay... let's get this straight... You know something is true. Like that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God. But you don't claim that, because you can't prove it? And to say you "know" it is true is not a claim? It is just your belief? But, you know it's true? And if asked how you know it is true, you say you've proven it to yourself. And I think you've said you've proven it with objective evidence, but that objective evidence is rejected and you are told that it is not objective evidence? Sorry, but it all sounds nuts to me.

You have that pretty much correct. There is only one thing I would like to add regarding how I know it is true. It is not all because of the objective evidence because I knew the Baha'i Faith was true even before I looked at much of that evidence. I did not think much about it when I first became a Baha'i or for years after that, I just knew it was true, and I have never lost that certitude, and here is why I knew...

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

My certitude is not anything you or any non-Baha'i could ever understand because that certitude comes from God.

 

[Truthseeker]

My certitude is not anything you or any non-Baha'i could ever understand because that certitude comes from God.

You really laid it upon him this time.

 

[Trailblazer]

You really laid it upon him this time.

And it was intentional.

 

[Truthseeker]

And it was intentional.

I use the new version of the Baha'i Reference Library. It says there in your version:

A new version of the Bahá’í Reference Library is now available. This ‘old version’ of the Bahá’í Reference Library will be replaced at a later date.

When I use the new version, it does not show the page number outwardly in a forum like this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I use the new version of the Baha'i Reference Library. It says there in your version:

A new version of the Bahá’í Reference Library is now available. This ‘old version’ of the Bahá’í Reference Library will be replaced at a later date.

When I use the new version, it does not show the page number outwardly in a forum like this.

I really don't like the new version. My life will be over if they ever take the older version off the internet because I have hundreds of Word documents linked to it. Newer is not always better.

 

[samtonga43]

That response is totally unrelated to what I posted to you.
I see you could not respond to what I said so you threw out a red herring.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
Red herring - Wikipedia

*Sigh* Yes, we all know what a red herring is, Tb. Tell me, what was the relevant or important issue from which I was distracting you?

However, I see you are unable to respond to my question, which is related to what you posted; you just don't see that it is.

 

[samtonga43]

You have that pretty much correct. There is only one thing I would like to add regarding how I know it is true. It is not all because of the objective evidence because I knew the Baha'i Faith was true even before I looked at much of that evidence. I did not think much about it when I first became a Baha'i or for years after that, I just knew it was true, and I have never lost that certitude, and here is why I knew...

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

My certitude is not anything you or any non-Baha'i could ever understand because that certitude comes from God.

Well, you assume that your certitude comes from God. because you assume that God spoke to MrB.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, you assume that your certitude comes from God. because you assume that God spoke to MrB.

No, I believe that my certitude comes from God. because I believe that God spoke to Baha'u'llah.