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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can't really have an informed discussion when you don;t understand what the words mean, or have idiosyncratic ideas regarding what words mean.Ah, the Definition Nazis have arrived!
Dismissal by definition? Ignorance by decree? Pretended secret insight as to what some term 'really means!'?
..can't have a forum discussion without them!
"While these are among the Manifestations mentioned in the Bahá'í writings, there are others mentioned by name in Bahá'u'lláh's writings and he indicates that there are many more prophets than are named."
Remember you are addressing a person who denies there are agnostic atheists even though there's an entry for them in Wikipedia.
Yeah, he denies lots of things.
It is history that Napoleon III fell from power in1870.
It is history that WWI and WWII came to pass.
And likewise for those who "believe" there are no gods unless it can be proven otherwise. Their "fantasy" is that they would be able to recognize and validate proof if it were forthcoming.
Irrelevant even if they existed, because atheists lie about what they 'unbelieve'.
I have no idea what you mean by "intersubjective". (I assume you mean 'relative', which is then automatically subjective, i.e., subject to relationship). Which is why I said I would seek context, not "verifiable evidence". But I am not a materialist. I do not presume ideological objectivity to be anything more than one conceptual tool among several that we humans have available to us or ascertaining the "truth" of existence.
Exactly: it's an act of faith, and of hope, not of presumed knowledge. So why are atheists constantly asking theists for "objective evidence"? Theism is based on the LACK of such evidence. It is a way of taking advantage of the unknown, and using it as a means of help rather than as a hindrance.
What do you care, if it's not you? Or is it?
No, I wouldn't. Because I would not assume to know what you meant by "have". I am not a materialist, so I am able to recognize that to "have" does not necessarily require physicality. Which is why I would seek to understand the context of that term, and not incredulously demand "objective evidence".
No one said anything about anyone being "absolutely certain" of anything. And again, I can't see how what I think atheists think would matter to you unless YOU are one of the atheists I'm referring to. In which case, you seem to be exemplifying my point.
Thanks.
I did not make it up. It was revealed by Baha’u’llah.
Why do you think that God should show Himself to you?