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

[Tiberius]

There are golf fans. They think golf is the best sport in the world. They watch it, play it, read about it, buy the dreadful jumpers, the lot.
There are soccer fans. They think nothing beats a good game of soccer - play it, watch it, talk about it, punch other people about it. Golf is boring, but hey ho, each to their own.
There are baseball fans. They love to get a game together, read about their team and watch a game on the TV and as for the world series eh, played all over...America. Why would you care about golf or soccer when you've got baseball? It's the best.
There are volleyball fans. It's the only sport for them - playing it, sharing news about it on social media or going down to the beach to watch it - whether or not the participants have much in the way of clothing on. Now here's the thing. Golf, football and baseball are all simply earlier forms of volleyball. You want proof? They all involve the use of a spherical object. Obvious when you think about it. The fact that the golf fans, the football fans and the baseball fans all totally disagree with the notion that their chosen sports are all just forms of volleyball is due to the fact that their understanding of these volleyball variations is faulty - in respect of its rules and origins. Such fans are well meaning, but misled. Ultimately it's all just volleyball, only with different kinds of balls.

Brilliant!

And let's not forget, you have people killing other people over the shape and size of the ball!

 

[samtonga43]

They would not be facts unless they were true.

Exactly. So, I repeat, are your facts true?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I am not talking about versions. I am distinguishing between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teaching.

I was referring to sects.

Does Buddhism have different sects?

Most world religions have different sects or branches, each with their own school of thought. Similarly, Buddhism can be broken down into three main schools. ... They are Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Vajrayana Buddhism.Sep 30, 2019

The Branches of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana & Vajrayana

In summary then, Buddhists are wrong about Buddhism, but Bahai's have got it right.

No, I did not say that the Baha'is got it right. What I said and asked is as follows:

But what you have in common with Christians and Hindus is that your scriptures came to you by way of oral tradition. All you have are what men wrote about what the Buddha taught, so what reason is there to believe that is what the Buddha actually taught?

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. So, I repeat, are your facts true?

As far as I know.

 

[Secret Chief]

Does Buddhism have different sects?

Yes. And they all accept the seals, otherwise they would not be Buddhists.

"The Three Marks of Existence provide a deeper understanding of what is meant by dukkha. These three characteristics of existence are accepted by all schools of Buddhism."
- Three Marks of Existence | Buddhists.org

All you have are what men wrote about what the Buddha taught, so what reason is there to believe that is what the Buddha actually taught?

Yes, only what Buddhist monks wrote, begun with a strong oral tradition by Buddhist monks who actually knew the Buddha. Maybe not as authoratitive as the baha'i take though.

The manner of thorough oral and then written record by monks is well documented.

"The First Buddhist Council collected together and arranged the Buddhist Scriptures known as the Pali Tipitaka, which have since been handed down from one generation of monks to another. In the early days of Buddhism, there was no written record of the teachings. The monks had to memorise the scriptures and then teach the next generation of monks in the same way, it being an oral tradition."
- Life of Buddha: The 1st Buddhist Council (Part 2)

 

[Trailblazer]

This really does make no sense at all to me. It looks like (assuming god exists and god knew it would have important messages to give to people) god is incompetent as well as cruel and unfair.

God is not incompetent because God knows that the *best way* to deliver messages to humans is through Messengers. It has worked fine, except for a few stragglers who are atheists because they don't like the way God chose to communicate.

You can stomp your little feeties and call it cruel and unfair till the cows come home but that will not change the way God communicates to humans.

Which is a terrible idea that obviously isn't working.

It has worked just fine, except for atheists, who are only about 7% of the world population.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

We know it has worked fine because 84 percent of the world population has a faith and because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. Other religions that comprise most of the rest of believers also have a Messenger (or messengers) they believe in. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few stragglers, believers who believe in God but not a Messenger; this comprises about 9% of the world population, but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers, very few people would believe in God.

Nobody is entirely rational. The point I was trying to make is that I've seen no rational reason in all your posts here to think that your god is real, and plenty of rational reasons to think that if it is, it is incompetent, and/or cruel and unfair.

That is just your personal opinion and it is based upon what you want that you are not getting. There would be NOTHING rational about God communicating directly to everyone in the world, all 7.7 billion people. Nothing could be more ridiculous or more unnecessary even if people could understand God speaking to them. God knows better. God knows that Messengers have been successful in getting their messages across.

Which makes it entirely unclear that any of them actually had real messages from a real god.

It can never be proven that any of them actually had real messages from a real God. All one can do is prove it to themselves by doing the research necessary in order to uncover the facts about the Messenger and the religion he established.

You can't turn the discordant cacophony of different and conflicting claims coming from the religions of the world into a 'clear message' just by repeated assertion. It simply isn't.

The 'clear message' regarding the 'work' God wants us to do in this age is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, not anywhere else. The older religions were the work that God wanted people to do in former ages.

There is a logical reason why different religions have different different claims and different messages.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

 

[samtonga43]

As far as I know.

As far as you know, the facts you have about your faith are true.

Are you admitting here that there is a possibility that these 'facts' are not true?

God knows that Messengers have been successful in getting their messages across.

How do you know that God knows this?

 

[samtonga43]

You can stomp your little feeties and call it cruel and unfair till the cows come home but that will not change the way God communicates to humans.

Have you considered, for even a moment, that you may be mistaken about the way God communicates to humans. And if you respond with the usual “I can’t be mistaken because Mr.B told me so”, have you considered that Mr.B may have been mistaken?

(I only see one person here stomping her little feeties).

 

[Tiberius]

They would not be facts unless they were true.

fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

Of course, believing something to be a fact doesn't make it a fact. There are lots of people who hold beliefs that they take to be facts, but to which you would disagree.

There are people who believe it is a fact that vaccines cause autism. There are people who believe it to be a fact that the earth is flat.

 

[Bree]

Honestly, my studies in religion have led me to lean more towards religion being a man made construct. Just the quality of evidence alone for any god or gods to exist should give anyone pause. Pause and then robust but thoughtful debate to test and test again the validity of the information new and old.

Hi infrabenjii, welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy your time here.

If the study of religion has led you to believe that there is no God, then that is understandable. Athiesm has its roots in the problem of religious institutions, the bad conduct of the worlds religions and the way religions have used the church to control and manipulate mankind. For some athiests, the problems existing in the world have led them to conclude there is no creator. They reason if there were a creator, the world would not be so full of suffering, disaster, war etc. Afterall, how could a loving God allow all this trouble upon innocent people?

But what about the study of science? Have you considered how the inner workings of the universe and life could perhaps point to evidence of a creator?

 

[Tiberius]

Have you considered how the inner workings of the universe and life could perhaps point to evidence of a creator?

There's a higher rate of disbelief among scientists than among the general population. It would seem that an understanding of the inner workings of the universe and life points towards a creator not being required. Source: Scientists and Belief

 

[Trailblazer]

As far as you know, the facts you have about your faith are true.

Are you admitting here that there is a possibility that these 'facts' are not true?

No, I am not admitting that.

How do you know that God knows this?

I know that God knows because God is all-knowing, which means that God knows everything; so God has to know that His Messengers have been successful, since they have been successful.

 

[Bree]

There's a higher rate of disbelief among scientists than among the general population. It would seem that an understanding of the inner workings of the universe and life points towards a creator not being required. Source: Scientists and Belief

some scientists do and some scientists dont.

I dont think statistics is what we should individually base our own decisions on, do you? People can be wrong and so can a scientist. They are not infallible. I think its best for every person to examine the facts on their own merit and come to their own determination of what they find reasonable to believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you considered, for even a moment, that you may be mistaken about the way God communicates to humans. And if you respond with the usual “I can’t be mistaken because Mr.B told me so”, have you considered that Mr.B may have been mistaken?

No, I have not considered that because I believe in Divine unity. That means that since God is infallible, Baha'ullah is also infallible, and that means that Baha'u'llah cannot be mistaken regarding how God communicates to humans.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

(I only see one person here stomping her little feeties).

I guess you need a new pair of eyeglasses if you cannot see that it is certain atheists on this thread who are calling God cruel and unfair because they are not getting what they want from God. All this is just water off duck's back for me. My feet are planted firmly on the ground.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, believing something to be a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Of course not.

There are lots of people who hold beliefs that they take to be facts, but to which you would disagree.

What other people believe is not my problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

*Sigh*

We were clearly talking about the capacity to believe, not messengers. Please try to actually follow the conversation.

Do you mean it would be like I left my capacity to believe in your garage and you cannot see my capacity to believe in your garage?

*Sigh*
Then, despite having the capacity to run a marathon, you DON'T have everything you need. You need motivation, which you do not have. You need TIME, which you do not have.

True, I do not have the motivation or the time, which I would need to run a marathon..

So don't say that everyone has everything they need to believe and then expect me to believe that the capacity to believe is all they need. Your own arguments show that the capacity to do something by itself is not sufficient to actually do it.

You are right, and I already told you that atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time.

I said: You are right, atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time. Everyone has time but we each have only have so much time and depending upon our life situation we might have more or less free time. However, if people are motivated enough they can make some time, but if they have no interest for example in a alleged Messenger or if they feel it would be a waste of time because it would be hopeless to find God that way, then they won't even bother to make the time.
#851 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 10:12 PM

*Sigh*
So again, we are agree that the capacity to do something is not sufficient to make sure that thing is done. So shall I take it that you withdraw your claim from post 772 where you said that everyone has been given what they need to be a believer, and all that they need is the capacity to believe?

I said: Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God, because if God had not given everyone the capacity to believe how could God expect people to believe?
I said: Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.
#772 Trailblazer, Sunday at 10:44 PM

I think you have the capacity to believe, but you do not have the motivation that you need to do the necessary investigation it would require to believe. You may or may not have the time. I hope we are done with this now.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to address my other question.

This person I have mentioned, does he count as a messenger of God? He's met your first five criteria, and as for your "Can't contradict any other religion," that's a standard that not even your faith can meet, so I think my individual meets it just as much as Mr B does, unless you want to count him out as well.

So, does my individual meet the criteria for being a messenger from God, or are there some other criteria he needs to meet first?

I am not going to answer that because I am not going to talk about hypothetical people who have no name since I consider it a waste of time. If you have a person in mind who met my criteria I will answer your question.

 

[Trailblazer]

You literally said, "The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

Which means that if the facts about a religion say that the religion is false, then the facts are incorrect. And if they are incorrect (by your logic) you can discard them.

So all you have is an easy way to justify you ignoring any fact about a religion that says the religion is wrong.

Facts are never wrong because they have been proven to be right.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

That is NOT how you find the actual truth about anything.

Facts are exactly how you find out the truth about anything.

I can use your exact same logic to say that the facts about Superman are evidence for the truth of Superman if those facts indicate that Superman is real.

Behold, evidence that Superman is real!

Superman is a real character in movies and comic books, but he is not a real person who exists.

There are no FACTS that show that Superman actually exists as a real person, but I know that Baha'u'llah was a person because that is a known FACT, and you will find it in any encyclopedia.

I never said that Baha'u'llah can be proven to be a Messenger of God just because I have FACTS about His life FACTS about what He did on His mission and FACTS about His Writings. This is evidence, not proof. Looking at the FACTS is just the first step in our investigation. The facts about the religion are only evidence for the truth of the religion ONLY if those facts indicate that the religion is true. There could be FACTS about a religion that indicate that the religion is false.

Yeah, looking at ALL the evidence. Not just the evidence that says what you want it to say. No lawyer is going to say, "I'm trying to get my client found innocent, so I'm going to ignore the evidence that says he is guilty."

The evidence does not SAY anything. We look at the evidence we have and interpret it to mean what we think it means. Not everyone is going to think the same evidence means the same thing. For example, two detectives could disagree about some evidence that was gathered at a murder scene.

I never ignored any evidence. A long time ago I told you that I would be perfectly willing to look at any evidence I have not already seen that would potentially prove that Baha'u'llah is not who He claimed to be. I have already looked at a lot of that evidence because it was presented to me by people on this forum and other forums. It was that very evidence that made me look more into the facts and further solidified my beliefs after I determined that their so-called evidence against Baha'u'llah was nothing but calumny.

 

[Truthseeker]

It is like I feel hopeless that what used to be a yard can ever be restored to what it once was so I feel it would be a waste of time to even try. Besides that, I am not motivated because it is just a yard, and people are more important to me than property, so I would rather be here posting to people. Besides that I have a lot of money so I could hire a landscaper if it really mattered that much to me. It does bother me though, and the inside of the house bothers me too; in fact my whole lifestyle bothers me, but if I decided to change my lifestyle that would take a lot of time and effort so I would not have time for anything else. I think we all make these sorts of decisions every day even if we are unaware if it.

Go ahead and get a landscaper. We pay ourselves pay money for women to clean our house. I know that's steorotypical for women to clean your house. They're called the Merry Maids, they come once a month.

 

[Truthseeker]

So don't say that everyone has everything they need to believe and then expect me to believe that the capacity to believe is all they need.

You may have the capacity, but the spiritual capacity is not manifest in you. It has to come to the surface.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, looking at ALL the evidence. Not just the evidence that says what you want it to say. No lawyer is going to say, "I'm trying to get my client found innocent, so I'm going to ignore the evidence that says he is guilty."

Not funny. Superman comic books? You're not serious. Why are you talking to her at all? Why is she talking to you? Theres no profit in this conversation.