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

[CG Didymus]

The hundred-dollar question is why you bother talking to me about my beliefs that you have decided are false.

Pointing out the flaws in your position that I see, purely for the sake of those who are watching the thread.

Exactly, this is where we debate and question religious beliefs. If a Baha'is says that something is true, they have to give reasons why it is true... And something more than because Baha'u'llah said so.

The Baha'i position is that all revealed religions were true as originally revealed, before men messed them up and corrupted them.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Okay, when were they true? How long before men "messed" them up?

Unfortunately, without the original versions of those religions, there's no way to verify that claim.

How interesting, once again a religion makes a claim that is completely unfalsifiable.

Yes, and what were those "original" versions of the other religions?

All religions have scriptures. The original versions are the scriptures of those religions that were written by men who claimed to know what the Messenger said or taught. They were not written by the Messenger so they are not authentic like the Writings of Baha'u'llah but that is the best we have for the older religions.

So the "original" Scriptures of the other religions were written by men, so we don't know if what is written there is really what the messenger said. So there are no "original" Scriptures that we can trust? Except for Baha'u'llah's writing and maybe the Quran?

So you are claiming that we have lost the opriginal versions of those religions, and moreso, that there never were original versions?

And why didn't God think to get his earlier messengers to write anything down?

So no, the original Scriptures were never lost. The original Scriptures were written by men, so they aren't reliably authentic? And God let people write things down that caused problems with how his message was interpreted? And, by what the Baha'is say, it was interpreted wrong? So again, Baha'is, when was any of the other religions ever right? They have no original message from God... Only what some people wrote that may or may not be correct. And then those things that were written down got misinterpreted? Okay, the only thing that is true then, surprise, surprise, is what the Baha'i Faith says about those other religions. They themselves, are wrong and untrustworthy for what they teach as truth.

Okay, Baha'is, but what about those things in your religion that are questionable? That don't sound true? That even Baha'is can't prove them? They just have to accept them? Why can't people question you about those things? And we do... But because you have no answer what can you do or say? "Stop asking"?

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly, this is where we debate and question religious beliefs. If a Baha'is says that something is true, they have to give reasons why it is true... And something more than because Baha'u'llah said so.

We have given our reasons why we believe the Baha'i Faith is true, over and over and over again. Our reason is not because Baha'u'llah said so. Our reasons are not accepted.

Okay, when were they true? How long before men "messed" them up?

Yes, and what were those "original" versions of the other religions?

I don't know and I don't care. As a Baha'i it is not my job to explain what happened to the older religions.

So the "original" Scriptures of the other religions were written by men, so we don't know if what is written there is really what the messenger said. So there are no "original" Scriptures that we can trust? Except for Baha'u'llah's writing and maybe the Quran?

I can only pass along what the Guardian said:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Okay, Baha'is, but what about those things in your religion that are questionable? That don't sound true? That even Baha'is can't prove them? They just have to accept them? Why can't people question you about those things? And we do... But because you have no answer what can you do or say? "Stop asking"?

You do not have to accept anything that Baha'is believe and you can question whatever you want to until the cows come home, but don't expect to get answers other than the answers you have already been given. Does it make sense to keep asking the same questions and expect to get different answers? If you have a new question that is a different story, but don't expect to get answers to questions for which we have no answers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Okay, when were they true? How long before men "messed" them up?

Well, for example, Christianity... since the words weren't written down right away, and who knows if the gospel writers were even eyewitnesses, that it could very well be that they based their gospels on legends and traditions. Then, even from the beginning, Christianity could be filled with false beliefs. Things like Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead.

I don't know and I don't care. As a Baha'i it is not my job to explain what happened to the older religions.

So I'd have to assume that none of the other religions were ever true. We don't know what the messenger said or taught. You might not want the job, but as someone that believes in the Baha'i Faith, a religion that supposedly has the answers, we look to you. And by what you quoted, the Bible is not "wholly" authentic. Except...

What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.

The Quran too? But there's a verse that says that Jesus made clay birds, breathed on them and they came to life. Which, I'm sure, you don't take literally, and I've never heard a Baha'i talk about that. So what and who can we trust?

...don't expect to get answers to questions for which we have no answers.

And that's the problem. All the other religions and their Scriptures are made essentially false... unless the Baha'i Faith quotes a verse says it is true and accurate. The rest? Not true? Or true, but not literally true?

You don't like the same questions, but you and other Baha'is keep putting your religion out there as the ultimate truth. Why do Baha'is believe Ishmael and not Isaac was taken to be sacrificed by Abraham? Because Baha'u'llah said so. How can Baha'is make three "Woes" into Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah? Because Abdul Baha said so. And on and on. You believe it, fine. But Baha'is keep saying the same thing, they are right and have the truth. Okay, and I along with others will keep throwing questions out at you. Oh, and you keep putting the same verses out there that you think shows that Jesus' work is done and, therefore, not coming back. So you're a little repetitive yourself, but I'm sure that's okay.

You have a religion that might be true, but it might not. Expect a lot of questions and if you give unsatisfactory answers or you don't have an answer, expect a lot of the same questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, for example, Christianity... since the words weren't written down right away, and who knows if the gospel writers were even eyewitnesses, that it could very well be that they based their gospels on legends and traditions. Then, even from the beginning, Christianity could be filled with false beliefs. Things like Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead.

So I'd have to assume that none of the other religions were ever true. We don't know what the messenger said or taught. You might not want the job, but as someone that believes in the Baha'i Faith, a religion that supposedly has the answers, we look to you. And by what you quoted, the Bible is not "wholly" authentic. Except...

Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to Shoghi Effendi. Please note that when He says that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books, so the letter applies to all the holy books, not only the Bible. Those details that you get bogged down in do not matter to anyone except you.

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

And that's the problem. All the other religions and their Scriptures are made essentially false... unless the Baha'i Faith quotes a verse says it is true and accurate. The rest? Not true? Or true, but not literally true?

No, that is not true at all. According to the letter above the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books.

You don't like the same questions, but you and other Baha'is keep putting your religion out there as the ultimate truth.

Show me where I did that. I did not put my religion out there as the ultimate truth.
Rather, this is what has been happening: I am constantly being told that my religion has various problems and there is no evidence to prove it is the truth, etc, etc. etc. I should not bother to answer anymore. Do you see any other Baha'is answering these posts?

You believe it, fine. But Baha'is keep saying the same thing, they are right and have the truth.

No, we do not say that. We say we believe our religion is true, just like all believers say they believe their religions are true.
And we only say that when others keep prodding us. Show me where I ever said it unsolicited.

Okay, and I along with others will keep throwing questions out at you.

You have a religion that might be true, but it might not. Expect a lot of questions and if you give unsatisfactory answers or you don't have an answer, expect a lot of the same questions.

It is not my job to determine for you whether my religion is true or not. It is your job to determine if it is true, if you want to know.
You can keep asking the same old tired questions and you can expect me to start ignoring those posts.

 

[Tiberius]

You know Tiberius, a question like "why did god not do this instead of that" is something you need to ask God right? I mean logically.

Let me ask you a question.

Why did God not opt to make sure the Christians get the exact correct version of the epistles of John to all Christians from day one? Can you think of an answer, and prove the answer with some external textual evidence where God told you "this is the reason I did that"?

Back in the 1960s, there was an early episode of Star Trek in which several of the crew are stuck on an alien planet. They can't beam them up because there's a transporter malfunction, but the conditions on the planet are getting worse and worse and it won't be long before the crew members freeze to death. Now, the question that is usually asked is, "Why don't they just fly down in one of the shuttlecraft?" And it's a good question. After all, we see many times that the Enterprise has many such shuttles that can easily make it to the planet. And yet the shuttles are never mentioned. Why not? The answer is because at the time, the shuttles had not been decided on, and there was no model built, and no set. They literally had no way to film it. And since the shuttles had not yet been mentioned, they just avoided the whole issue. However, when looked at in the whole, this serves as just one of many examples of how Star Trek has been inconsistent to it's own claims.

Likewise, when I say, "Well, why didn't God do this," I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the story of the Bible.

And, the answer that comes to mind is, "Because God doesn't exist and the whole religion thing is just stuff invented by people." It works to explain Star Trek's missing shuttle, and it works to explain The Bible's inconsistencies as well.

 

[Tiberius]

We have given our reasons why we believe the Baha'i Faith is true, over and over and over again. Our reason is not because Baha'u'llah said so. Our reasons are not accepted.

Well, you've said that you can show Baha'i is true without relying on the Bible, and now you say you don't need to rely on what Mr B said.

So can you show any supporting evidence for Baha'i faith being true without referring to the Bible, the Koran, any other holy book, and without referring to anything written by Mr B or anything based on the works of Mr B?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, you've said that you can show Baha'i is true without relying on the Bible, and now you say you don't need to rely on what Mr B said.

I did not say I can 'show' anyone that the Baha'i Faith is true. I can only say why 'I believe' it is true.
I said that I do not need the Bible in order to 'know' that the Baha'i Faith is true.
I said I do not rely upon the claims of Baha'u'llah to know the Baha'i Faith is true.
I said the claims are not the evidence and I told you what the evidence is.

So can you show any supporting evidence for Baha'i faith being true without referring to the Bible, the Koran, any other holy book, and without referring to anything written by Mr B or anything based on the works of Mr B?

I cannot 'show' anything to anyone and that is not my job. I can only tell you the evidence is and where to research it yourself.

I do not need to refer to the Writings of Baha'u'llah or anything based upon those Writings in order to know that the Baha'i Faith is true. I only need to look at the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission.

 

[firedragon]

Back in the 1960s, there was an early episode of Star Trek in which several of the crew are stuck on an alien planet. They can't beam them up because there's a transporter malfunction, but the conditions on the planet are getting worse and worse and it won't be long before the crew members freeze to death. Now, the question that is usually asked is, "Why don't they just fly down in one of the shuttlecraft?" And it's a good question. After all, we see many times that the Enterprise has many such shuttles that can easily make it to the planet. And yet the shuttles are never mentioned. Why not? The answer is because at the time, the shuttles had not been decided on, and there was no model built, and no set. They literally had no way to film it. And since the shuttles had not yet been mentioned, they just avoided the whole issue. However, when looked at in the whole, this serves as just one of many examples of how Star Trek has been inconsistent to it's own claims.

Likewise, when I say, "Well, why didn't God do this," I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the story of the Bible.

And, the answer that comes to mind is, "Because God doesn't exist and the whole religion thing is just stuff invented by people." It works to explain Star Trek's missing shuttle, and it works to explain The Bible's inconsistencies as well.

Bad argument.

 

[Tiberius]

Bad argument.

How so?

 

[firedragon]

How so?

Your argument is like "because Newton got the theory wrong gravity doesn't exist".

 

[Tiberius]

Your argument is like "because Newton got the theory wrong gravity doesn't exist".

You think I'm saying, "The Bible has inconsistencies, therefore there is no God"?

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying, "The Bible has inconsistencies, therefore we can't be sure that its claims about the existence of God are accurate."

To apply it to your Newton example, it would be like saying, "Newton's equations don't quite match up with what we see in reality, therefore we much conclude there's something else going on that we haven't accounted for."

 

[Trailblazer]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't assert it, I believe it. My evidence that already presented. If you don't like it you can dismiss it.

Citation required for the claim that's what atheists think.

I did not claim it, I noted it. I have posted to enough atheists to know what they 'generally' think about such matters.

Given that there is absolutely zero evidence that can be verified, I don't see why I should accept that there is anything spiritual in nature.

Then don't.

No, I am not biased against your beliefs. I am biased against any claim that is made yet has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

I am not going around that block again.

And of course, we come up with the excuses to explain it away.

I need no excuses for what is obviously allegorical.

There is no spiritual reality.

I'd be careful not to assert that as a fact unless you can prove it because tat would constitute a bald assertion.

But you have come straight out and told people that their interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

No, I just stated my interpretation. Other interpretations might be right but others might be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet you immediately turn to words written by Mr B.

I honestly don't understand how you don't see the conflict there.

I see no conflict because there is no conflict.
Again, your bias prevents you from thinking logically.

Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is responsible to tell us what the evidence is that backs up His claims. That is why Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Who else would tell us what the evidence is, Santa Claus?

If I claimed that I have a brand new red car in my garage and you wanted the evidence I would be required to prove that to you by telling you what the evidence is.

In short, the claimant is responsible to provide the evidence. Baha'u'llah was the claimant so He was responsible to tell us what the evidence is that backs up His claims, if He wants us to believe His claims..

A nice VALID reason why your claims are correct would be nice.

What is valid for me will never be valid for you.

I fail to see the logic in basing your conclusion on a premise that can not be verified.

I have no premise because religious beliefs cannot be proven true. I have a belief and my conclusions are based upon my belief.

So you subscribe to the point of view that any publicity is good publicity, I take it?

Yes, because that has proven to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

And why would God not want it to be that clear, since he obviously puts so much importance on it?

It seems far more likely to me that the reason it is unclear is because it's all untrue, and it's confusing because of the huge amount of double-talk required to explain away all the inconsistancies.

God wants it to be believable but God does not want it to be so obvious that everyone can see it because then there would be no way to separate the godly from the froward, as that passage said. The paragraph that preceded that one explains how God operates when it comes to people believing in Him.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people it means that God could have made all people believe in Him, but If God has pleased means that God did not want to make all people into believers, since we know that God could have if He had wanted to. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to do our own homework and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (the wayward and perverse).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This really is philosophical conjecture.

Much of science is conjecture, especially is it found in the life sciences.

You’ve gotten a lot of responses to this OP; have you stopped replying? I ask because I posted a question to you on this thread, a couple weeks ago.

 

[danieldemol]

Your argument is like "because Newton got the theory wrong gravity doesn't exist".

Your analogy is loaded, you are comparing God to something like gravity which demonstrably and obviously exists, whilst there is no known evidence for God whatsoever.

ETA Therefore a more relevant analogy would be like saying, "because the ancient greeks got the theory wrong, Zues doesn't exist"

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

It means I now believe I understand what you mean when you said they were similar but not the same.

I think a lot of our conflict stems from a lack of clear communication.

I can certainly agree with that. It is lack of clear communication but also lack of understanding communication the other thought was clear.

Do you think there's a chance that you could read some writing you have not yet read, and that you could conclude from that writing that your beliefs are wrong? (Say, if something that it says contradicts something you currently believe.)

If there was something in those Writings that contradicted what I have already read that would be a cause for concern and I would want to understand why it was contradictory but I don't think it would cause me to conclude my beliefs are wrong. Even if I did not agree with something Baha'u'llah wrote I would not think I know more than Him.

So the official Baha'i position is that such modification would be okay?

As I said, the Baha'i Faith takes no position on scientific matters.

So you are claiming that we have lost the original versions of those religions, and moreso, that there never were original versions?

And why didn't God think to get his earlier messengers to write anything down?

I said there was nothing written by the Messengers but what men wrote about them, what they said or taught, counts for the original scriptures since that is the closest we have to originals. It opens up a Pandora's box if we start asking how those scripture writers knew what the Messengers said or taught. Of course, Christians believe that the Bible authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is plausible and some Baha'is believe that.

Why none of the earlier Messengers of God wrote anything in their own pens like Baha'ullah did is because humanity was not yet ready for scriptures that came directly from the Messenger since humanity was not yet that spiritually evolved. Even now, most people are not ready and many people cannot understand how Baha'u'llah's Writings, but since they were written for the next 1000 years (from 1852 AD) people will gradually evolve spiritually and more people will be able to understand them. Fortunately, for people who cannot understand what Baha'u'llah wrote we have other Baha'i Writings that interpreted what He wrote since Baha'u'llah appointed interpreters in His will.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The argument makes unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Everything must have a cause, but an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole?

The answer to this, is revealed in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy, in some form or another, has always existed.
Hence, this discovery answers that question, and accommodates a view that supports an eternally-existing God.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Yeah, your arguments based on wordplay are entirely unconvincing. I'm not going to respond to an argument when you haven't even shown it's a valid argument.

Yes I have shown you. Many times.
Are my many explanations of bible verses not logical, are they not reasonable?
Was my explanation of the Exodus not logical, not reasonable?
Was my explanation of the process of turning lead into gold not logical, not reasonable?

What about my explanation of how Moses separated the sea, and Muhammed separated the moon, being exactly the same thing as Jesus picking the corn. Was that not logical, not reasonable?


I am not a man of faith Tiberius.


Listen:

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

Does that validate, or not?


.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't assert it, I believe it. My evidence that already presented. If you don't like it you can dismiss it.

You said, "the reason the religions contradict each other is because the original messages from the Messenger have been misinterpreted and thus misunderstood by the religious believers."

That was your assertion, and since you have nothing to support it, I dismiss it.

I did not claim it, I noted it. I have posted to enough atheists to know what they 'generally' think about such matters.

And once again you commit the same crime you have accused me of.

You did not say, "I have noticed that atheists do such and such." You just made the statement that they do. Thus, you made a claim.

And you have had a go at me for speaking for believers in the past, and yet now you presume to speak for non-believers.

Then don't.

I don't. But if your position depends that there are things spiritual in nature, then I'm going to ask you to provide evidence for the claims you make.

I am not going around that block again.

You can avoid it by producing testable evidence for the claims you make.

I need no excuses for what is obviously allegorical.

Claiming that it is obviously allegorical does not mean it is. The only reason, I suspect, that you claim it is allegorical is because you know it falls apart as soon as it is interpreted any other way.

I'd be careful not to assert that as a fact unless you can prove it because tat would constitute a bald assertion.

Given that there is no valid evidence whatsoever to support anything spiritual in nature, and the claims of those who believe in a spiritual nature are often wildly inconsistent, I see no reason to assume it exists. As a result, a lack of belief in the spiritual is the most reasonable course of action.

No, I just stated my interpretation. Other interpretations might be right but others might be wrong.

You did not phrase it as your opinion.