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

[Tiberius]

Too bad then. You're out of luck.

Yeah, I'm not missing out on anything, because you haven't been able to show that there's anything for me to miss out on.

 

[Trailblazer]

It becomes a claim as soon as you say your beliefs represent reality.

No, not unless I assert that my beliefs represent reality. “I believe” is not a claim.

If the "evidence" can not be tested, it is worthless because there is no way to check that it's actually true.

This is not a difficult concept, yet you seem to be going out of your way to claim that non-testable claims should be given just as much credence.

There are ways to know they are true without testing, but obviously that is not something you can understand. It is a moot point whether testable claims should be given more credence since religious claims are not testable in the manner you want them to be tested.

I never said that nobody ever changes, did I? I said people want to maintain their belief, and find it difficult to change. I never said change was impossible.

Fair enough.
But even for the ones who hold onto their beliefs that is not an agenda, it is a tendency.

Yeah, if all you have is quibbling over wordplay like this, you've got no argument of any merit.

I have no argument because I am not trying to prove anything.

I know they aren't testable. That's the point. If you can't test them, then you have no way of telling them apart from absolute bulldust.

You can only speak for yourself, you cannot speak for other people. I and other people can tell them apart.

Ah yes, the completely unsupported CLAIM that it is "obvious," yet the only reason you say it isn't meant literally is because to do otherwise is to have your position destroyed.

My only position is that religious beliefs are not testable. I do not need to support that.

If there is a testable claim that can only be explained by some spiritual reality being real, I'd love to hear about it.

I do not think anything that the Bab or Baha’u’llah did would pass your scrutiny so why should I bother? You would just say there is another explanation for what they did, that it cannot be because there is a spiritual reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps, and if so, I'd appreciate it.

I gave it a try and you can see what @Truthseeker9 said. He knows many more stories if you want to hear any.

To which I would say, "That's fine, and I'm perfectly willing to change my position, provided I get some testable evidence and that evidence withstands the testing."

You are not willing to change your position because you keep asking for testable evidence after I told you there is no such evidence.

But the religious "evidence" presupposes that there is a spiritual reality there at all, when such may not be the case. It assumes that there is a spiritual reality and then attempts to explain it. I could, with just as much justification, assume there is an invisible and intangible elephant in my living room and come up with an untestable method of verifying it. But the elephant still wouldn't exist.

But that does not mean that the spiritual reality does not exist.

You do not have to assume there is a spiritual reality before you believe in a religion, that is going about it backwards. I knew nothing about God or religion so I first had to investigate the religion and come to believe the religion was true, and after that I learned about spiritual reality.

That is incorrect.

You said, "If you really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by exposing the Baha'i Faith think again. It is people like you who have engendered interest in the Baha'i Faith and caused it to grow. All you succeed in doing is to provide free advertising. Go right ahead but bear in mind that adding fuel to the fire only makes it burn brighter. The disbeliever's work has always been the cause of guiding men to a discovery of the truth."
I said, "So you subscribe to the point of view that any publicity is good publicity, I take it?"

You said, "Yes, because that has proven to be true."

I then gave a few examples of where the publicity has NOT been the case.

Since you were talking about religion, I must conclude that you were saying that "any publicity is good publicity" in the context of religion, since I had given examples of a non-religious nature where publicity was NOT good.

So either you are claiming that publicity can sometimes be bad when it comes to non-religious things, but it is always good when it comes to religion (in which case you are committing the Special Pleading fallacy), or you are claiming that publicity is always good no matter what it's about, in which case you are just plain wrong.

Take your pick.

I am saying that any publicity, good or bad, is good for spreading the Baha’i Faith, because it gets the word out and then curious people ask questions. Some people don’t just “believe” the negative things people say about the Baha’i Faith, they investigate it further and then they discover the truth. That was explained in this passage:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! Obey the words of Bahá’u’lláh and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led into a knowledge of the Faith.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks

I did not say that any kind of publicity, good or bad, is good for other religions such as Christianity, because everyone already knows about Christianity and the other older religions so most people have already formed an opinion of them. If they have a positive opinion and then people say negative things about those religions that could sway them away from those religions. Do you understand the difference?

Your explanation of why it is an exception was to quote a passage from a book that says, "Yeah, but religion's methods are different." That's not an explanation.

I just explained it above. I suggest you read this short talk on the link below and then you will understand it even better. All new religions benefit from slander when they are new.

ON CALUMNY, Paris Talks, pp. 102-106

 

[Trailblazer]

Biased towards your religion (thanks for admitting that, by the way) or prejudiced towards your religion, all the same thing.

I give you an inch and you take a mile. Biased is not the same as prejudiced, that is why they are two separate words. I might be biased in favor of my religion but that does not mean I am prejudiced against other religions.

For example, I am biased in favor of cats because I love cats, but that does not mean I am prejudiced against dogs. I simply prefer cats to dogs.

From Dictionary.com:

· any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
· unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

That definition definitely does not fit my attitude towards the Baha’i Faith. For one thing it says Notice that it says “any preconceived opinion or feeling” and I don’t have that. It also says” “feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature” and that is against another religion (or a ethnic, racial, social group). I am not against any other group just because I am for the Baha’i Faith.

Again, special pleading. Christians believe that their faith is just as relevant to today as you believe yours is. And there's no indication that a religion loses relevance as time passes.

Special pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard. Wikipedia

The special pleading fallacy does not apply. The Baha’i Faith is an exception because it is a new religion so it is the most current religion or all the major world religions. Christians can believe whatever they damn well please but they cannot change history. EVERY religion is the most current when it was originally revealed by God but as time goes on it is not current anymore; it is outdated, like an old newspaper that has really old news. The good news Gospel was once new news but now it is old news. The funny thing is that Christians talk about spreading the Gospel message but it had already spread to every corner of the globe by the mid 19th century, so whoever wants to be a Christians has had their opportunity. It is well past time to move on to the new Day of God and leave the past behind.

Because religious beliefs are not based on reason.

Some are and some arent’t. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say all religions are the same. Even if some religions are not based on reason that does not mean that no religions are based on reason.

Okay then, tell me, if you were to state those as facts, how would you phrase them? (And I promise I won't use that as an example of you stating your belief as fact.)

I will have to pass on that because I am not going back through all these posts looking for what I said before. Suffice to say if I post a quote from Baha’u’llah and explain it, I am not saying it is a fact, because beliefs are not facts.

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Without clarification, people will take it in the broadest sense. If you say, "It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries," people aren't going to assume you meant to limit it to your opinion.

That is fair enough because maybe I assume people know more than they do about the jobs of Messengers. However, I would normally say something is my belief if was stated in the Baha’i Writings and otherwise it is just my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

It is a Christia

So all manifestations had the power and authority to forgive sins? This thing about sins and needing forgiveness is mostly a Christian thing. In Judaism the Laws God told to Moses had the people offer a sacrifice to God.
(W)hen a private individual sins, his offering must be either a female kid or a female lamb without blemish, or, if he is too poor to provide one of these, a turtle-dove.

That Jewish prescription sounds right, without checking it rigorously right now. However, remember progressive revelation. Baha'u'llah, I know offered to forgive his half bother Mirza Yayha if he repented. So Baha'u'llah also had the power to forgive on behalf of God. God gives both Jesus and Baha'u'llah that power.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is completely indistinguishable to "no God whatsoever."

Why is it indistinguishable from no God if God does not force people to believe?

Why?

Because the omnipotent/omniscient God decided that was the way it would be, and God is in charge, you aren’t.

Unsupported claim.

It is not a claim, it is a belief. I am sorry if you don’t like it because it puts the choice to believe or not believe squarely in your lap, but I don’t make the rules, God does.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's very rude to call me closed-minded in the third person when I'm right here, particular when I've already made it clear that I will accept any evidence that can be verified.

Please learn some manners.

And I have made it clear that there is no verifiable evidence, so I consider it rude to keep asking for it. The evidence can be researched and studied and verified by you, but that is the only way it can ever be verified. That requires work that you are unwilling to do, you even said so, but that is what God requires. I did not come to know everything I now know without a lot of effort.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

“Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting. Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God’s mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth…” Gleanings, p. 149

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, I'm not missing out on anything, because you haven't been able to show that there's anything for me to miss out on.

I don't care. I am indifferent to what you think.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of religions have done that.

No religion except the Baha'i Faith has done this:

Have a worldwide community worshiping God, who uses to be divided across many Faiths, races nations and gender. That have embraced that message and changed their lives to embrace the Oneness of Humanity, the Oneness of God and the Oneness of all Messengers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is not exactly a detailed account of what happened in that article. This cleric loved Baha'u'llah because of Baha'u'llah's character, and I would say that according to 'Abdu'l-Baha's account he believed in Baha'u'llah's station. He was Muslim in name only. There was no apostasy either. Baha'u'llah believed in Muhammad very much.
You don't know Baha'u'llah at all. In another part of this thread I quoted 'Abdu'l-Baha's account, which this is based on. Perhaps you didn't see that. I trust Abdu'l-Baha's word. He has shown from all accounts that he can be trusted in his word, in my opinion.

You are a despicable human being, distorting the Baha'i Faith purposely, in my opinion. I am indifferent about all that, I feel no sorrow for you or angry. That is the honest truth.

In that case, that cleric also was a heretic and not a Muslim. A Muslim cannot bow, kneel down before anyone except Allah.
And moreover, it is reported by Abdul Baha, son of Bahaollah. One cannot rule out making-up a story and bias there (basically dishonesty). You are a Bahai, that is why you trust Abdul Baha. I am not a Bahai (and on top of it I am a strong atheist). I believe only when sufficient evidence available.
Those who are Muslims in name only are known as Munafiq. To believe in any messenger after Mohammad is apostasy in Islam.
You can't prove your point and are abusing me in this despicable language unfit for civilized people. Did I ever called you that? I think Bahaollah asked you to love all people, despicable or otherwise. You are not even a Bahai.

Writers can make any story sound real, but that does not mean it really happened.

Before you point a finger, remember that three are pointing towards you. So, a 'heavenly maiden' appeared before Bahaollah and informed him about his mission from Allah?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Lots of religions have done that.

Agreed that all had the potential, indicating that all of them are from God and in this age we have been gifted knowledge in Science to show that ancient superstitions need to be reavaluated.

It is not an coincidence that Science has progressed rapidly in the last 200 of years. The Message of the Bab released the potential of that knowledge to humanity and we were told we need to balance religious doctrine with science.

In this age it is building a united humanity on one planet under the One God, and science will only start finding its potential when our minds work together in Faith and Science.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Writing things quickly still doesn't prove that Mr B was sent by God.

I did not say that it did prove that, I only ever said it is "part" of the evidence that indicates that He was sent by God.

In any case, your claim is incorrect. Mr B wrote about 20,000 works, with a total word count of about 7 million words, according to THIS site. However, according to THIS list of Stephen King's works and their word counts, he has written over 11 million words.

What Stephen King wrote does not matter because he never claimed to be a Messenger of God. Also, he does not meet any of those other criteria I listed, remember those?

Also, the site I linked to regarding the works by Mr B show that he did not actually WRITE them all himself. He dictated many of them and they were recorded by an assistant in shorthand. Given that this shorthand could then be written out fully, perhaps with several people working at once on different sections, then that could inflate the word count unfairly.

I never said that Baha'u'llah penned everything in His own hand. He had secretary who wrote some of His Writings and after they were completed He carefully checked them and then He stamped them with His official seal. Baha'u'llah was poisoned twice and after that it was difficult for Him to write because He had a tremor in His hand for the rest of His life.

 

[Trailblazer]

If they have different meanings to different people, then I don't see how they could be describing the real world. The real world is not different to different people.

Oh Lord Jesus! Of course the real world is viewed differently by different people!
I might see a brand new red car and think it is ugly whereas another person would think it is beautiful. We all interpret what we see in the real world differently because no two brains think alike.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would Harry Potter be fictional just because fictional stories were written about him?

I've just shown that you can't disprove Harry Potter.

Harry Potter is "known" to be a fictional character in a book. That is how we know he is not a real person.

Fictional stories can be written about God, who can stop people from doing that? But that does not mean that God is not real. God is not known to be fictional or real, so people can choose to believe either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, I'm not missing out on anything, because you haven't been able to show that there's anything for me to miss out on.

Just because @Truthseeker hasn't shown you what you are missing out on that does not mean you are not missing out on anything. That is illogical.

 

[Tiberius]

No, not unless I assert that my beliefs represent reality. “I believe” is not a claim.

Do you have beliefs that you think do NOT represent reality?

There are ways to know they are true without testing, but obviously that is not something you can understand. It is a moot point whether testable claims should be given more credence since religious claims are not testable in the manner you want them to be tested.

No, there are no ways of knowing some claim is true without testing it. You are again committing the special pleading fallacy by assuming that religious claims are different for some reason.

But even for the ones who hold onto their beliefs that is not an agenda, it is a tendency.

Once again you resort to wordplay, the last refuge of those who have no valid position.

I have no argument because I am not trying to prove anything.

Your argument is the position you hold.

You can only speak for yourself, you cannot speak for other people. I and other people can tell them apart.

Completely irrelevant.

If a belief can not be tested, it can not be verified. If it can not be verified, then it could just as easily be complete bulldust.

My only position is that religious beliefs are not testable. I do not need to support that.

And I agree with you on that.

Since they can not be tested, they can not be shown to have any connection to reality, and thus believing that a religious faith is a representation of reality is completely unjustifiable.

I do not think anything that the Bab or Baha’u’llah did would pass your scrutiny so why should I bother? You would just say there is another explanation for what they did, that it cannot be because there is a spiritual reality.

Once again, let me say that if there is some testable claim and the claim withstands testing, I will accept it. But you've gone out of your way to convince yourself that I'm a closed-minded person to give yourself a reason to not even bother.

I suspect the reason is not that you think I will reject anything you provide, but that your faith doesn't have anything that will meet the most basic standard of verifiable evidence to support its supernatural claims.

 

[Tiberius]

You are not willing to change your position because you keep asking for testable evidence after I told you there is no such evidence.

And why should I accept any so-called "evidence" if I can't test it to make sure it is valid?

But that does not mean that the spiritual reality does not exist.

You do not have to assume there is a spiritual reality before you believe in a religion, that is going about it backwards. I knew nothing about God or religion so I first had to investigate the religion and come to believe the religion was true, and after that I learned about spiritual reality.

And it doesn't mean the invisible elephant in my living room doesn't exist, yet if someone said they believed in at least the possibility of the elephant really being there, you'd say they were pretty silly.

I am saying that any publicity, good or bad, is good for spreading the Baha’i Faith, because it gets the word out and then curious people ask questions. Some people don’t just “believe” the negative things people say about the Baha’i Faith, they investigate it further and then they discover the truth. That was explained in this passage:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! Obey the words of Bahá’u’lláh and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led into a knowledge of the Faith.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks

I did not say that any kind of publicity, good or bad, is good for other religions such as Christianity, because everyone already knows about Christianity and the other older religions so most people have already formed an opinion of them. If they have a positive opinion and then people say negative things about those religions that could sway them away from those religions. Do you understand the difference?

That's a poor argument. If there was suddenly a child abuse scandal in the Baha'i faith, would you think, "Oh, goody, now lots of people are going to hear about Baha'i and we could get new converts!" Of course not.

I just explained it above. I suggest you read this short talk on the link below and then you will understand it even better. All new religions benefit from slander when they are new.

ON CALUMNY, Paris Talks, pp. 102-106

And you have not done this.

It says, "we do not wish to dispute with them," and yet you have disputed the standard Christian interpretation of many passages from the Bible. It says, "we bring forth proofs and arguments," and yet you have admitted that there is no actual testable proof. You can't even provide testable evidence.

This is nothing more than the typical religious "We're right and everyone else has it wrong" claim.

 

[Tiberius]

I give you an inch and you take a mile. Biased is not the same as prejudiced, that is why they are two separate words. I might be biased in favor of my religion but that does not mean I am prejudiced against other religions.

For example, I am biased in favor of cats because I love cats, but that does not mean I am prejudiced against dogs. I simply prefer cats to dogs.

Funny thing about English is that we have different words that mean the same thing. You can raise a child, but you can also rear a child, for example.

And I agree prejudice generally has a pejorative feel about it, but it would still be an error to claim that it has nothing but a pejorative meaning.

That definition definitely does not fit my attitude towards the Baha’i Faith. For one thing it says Notice that it says “any preconceived opinion or feeling” and I don’t have that. It also says” “feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature” and that is against another religion (or a ethnic, racial, social group). I am not against any other group just because I am for the Baha’i Faith.

It never said that the feelings MUST be of a hostile nature. You are arguing against something that it does not say, thus you are committing a strawman fallacy.

Special pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard. Wikipedia

The special pleading fallacy does not apply. The Baha’i Faith is an exception because it is a new religion so it is the most current religion or all the major world religions. Christians can believe whatever they damn well please but they cannot change history. EVERY religion is the most current when it was originally revealed by God but as time goes on it is not current anymore; it is outdated, like an old newspaper that has really old news. The good news Gospel was once new news but now it is old news. The funny thing is that Christians talk about spreading the Gospel message but it had already spread to every corner of the globe by the mid 19th century, so whoever wants to be a Christians has had their opportunity. It is well past time to move on to the new Day of God and leave the past behind.

Baha'i has about 8 million followers. That's a TINY fraction of the world population. I'd hardly call it major. By that definition, the Church of Scientology is a more major religion.

Some are and some arent’t. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say all religions are the same. Even if some religions are not based on reason that does not mean that no religions are based on reason.

I've yet to see a single religion that doesn't base some part of it's fundamental belief on a logical fallacy of some kind.

 

[Tiberius]

Why is it indistinguishable from no God if God does not force people to believe?

Because a God who is hands off is no different than a God who does not exist.

Because the omnipotent/omniscient God decided that was the way it would be, and God is in charge, you aren’t.

I've found that when people answer a question with some variation of, "Because that's just the way it is," it means that they just don't have a good answer.

It is not a claim, it is a belief. I am sorry if you don’t like it because it puts the choice to believe or not believe squarely in your lap, but I don’t make the rules, God does.

Nah. it's a claim. You are CLAIMING God gave all of us innate intelligence and free will.

 

[Tiberius]

And I have made it clear that there is no verifiable evidence, so I consider it rude to keep asking for it. The evidence can be researched and studied and verified by you, but that is the only way it can ever be verified. That requires work that you are unwilling to do, you even said so, but that is what God requires. I did not come to know everything I now know without a lot of effort.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

“Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting. Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God’s mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth…” Gleanings, p. 149

And why should anyone ever believe something which can never be verified as real?