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

[Tiberius]

Because how we perceive objective facts is subjective.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about how we perceive the real world, I'm talking about the real world itself. This is not the first time I've had to clarify this to you.

It is part of the evidence.

Circumstantial at best.

And that's being generous.

What do you expect to get, other than an account from people who witnessed it?

How about the original shorthand that was written? Signed and dated preferably.

How could I show that now? All we have are first hand accounts. I already believed in Baha'u'llah long before I ever read about it. That was just like icing on the cake.

I've mentioned about how people are very willing to accept any claims that support what they already believe without casting a critical eye over them, haven't I?

 

[Tiberius]

I have objective facts and I interpret them is subjective. How you interpret the same facts is also subjective.
Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote:

However, you would have one person saying, "Baha'u'llah was just a man," and another person saying, "No, Baha'u'llah was a man who was a Messenger of God.

My point was that people have different subjective opinions about objective facts regarding the real world.

And again, I am not talking about people's perceptions of the real world, I am talking about the real world itself.

Sure, you can have one person who says, "Mr B was just a man," and another person who says, "Mr B was a messenger from God," but at the end of the day, one of them is right and one of them is wrong because Mr B was either objectively just a guy, or he was objectively a messenger from God.

And if you're the person saying he was a messenger from God, you have to support that position, since it is far more common for a person to be just a regular person.

 

[Tiberius]

It is known that Harry Potter is a fictional character, not just because Wikipedia says that.
Now you are just playing games now because you know there is no real person called Harry Potter, as portrayed in the novel.

No, you're making assumptions. You need to PROvE it.

The difference is that it is not known that God is fictional.

And people could well say the same thing about Mister Potter after 2000 years.

You can discount anything you want to discount.

I know, I've seen you do it many times regarding interpretations of Bible passages you don't agree with.

That is a straw man. I don't use any such argument..

Yes you did.

You said, "Fictional stories can be written about God... But that does not mean that God is not real."

That's essentially, "Just because people write fiction about God, it doesn't mean God isn't real." Add to that your claim, "God is not known to be fictional or real," and you've got the argument, "You can't prove God is fake, so that means he could be real."

 

[Tiberius]

I would ask so what?

So, you miss out on using magic.

So what?

So, your faith is no different.

Nope.

As I said in my last post, yep.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How can truth be relative if the real world exists independently to us? If there is any kind of real world, then truth is not relative, it is absolute.

I do not have all the answers, I am not a scientist. My ignorance of the topic is easy to see.

A Leo Smith Ma Engineering from Cambridge University 1972 has posted online this comment.

There are no ‘scientific’ truths. Science deals with (inductive) hypotheses and theories, none of which can ultimately be proved to be true. Only false.

C.f. the philosophical ‘problem of induction’.

Truth is an idea - not a real thing. At the bottom of everyone’s understanding is the basic idea that there is a ‘real world’, and it exists in a single state only ,at any given time. And what that state is, is the truth.

Attempts to describe that state in terms of high level concepts is what science does. Science is and activity as much as anything. The point about science is that its descripotions are emanable to testing, and if they fail teh tests they are discarded as ‘unscientific’ and if they cannot be tested they are relegated to the realms of metaphysics.

And one of the ideas that cannot be tested is that there is in fact such a thing as truth, and that it has but a single value at any instant of time.

Science is good because its predictions come true. That doesn’t mean that the high level constructs that constitute scientific theory are therefore true. Merely that they are incredibly useful.

Many many problems in the world occur because people confuse knowledge, with fact. Gravity is an explanation for the agreed facts of e.g. stones falling. It explains the fact of stones falling by means of a mathematical formula, and because the formula works, people start to believe that ‘gravity’ has an existence every bit as real as stones. It doesn’t, and Einstein showed that as an explanation it didnt worlk all the time anyway. Gravity wasn’t a fact, or a truth, and it was a false theory, as well. Relativity, that redrew our understanding of the world completely, into a form we still dont feel comfortable with, worked better.

That still didn’t make it true.

What we as humans crave, is certainty of explanations. We seek to know why things are the way they are, and how they will be tomorrow. The body of invisible entities that we invent as explanations, we call ‘knowledge’ , The ones that make accurate predictions that both can be tested and haven’t failed the tests yet, we call ‘scientific knowledge’.

It represents a degree of reliabilty that we crave, but it does not grant certainty.

If you want certainty, you have to go to religion and apply faith.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Qjjh6BAgsEAE&usg=AOvVaw2Yq0K6HxhPWTJWSUnPDHeu

As to Spiritual truths being relative, Baha’u’llah offers this;

"The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh … is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society…."


Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

I do not have all the answers, I am not a scientist. My ignorance of the topic is easy to see.

A Leo Smith Ma Engineering from Cambridge University 1972 has posted online this comment.

There are no ‘scientific’ truths. Science deals with (inductive) hypotheses and theories, none of which can ultimately be proved to be true. Only false.

C.f. the philosophical ‘problem of induction’.

Truth is an idea - not a real thing. At the bottom of everyone’s understanding is the basic idea that there is a ‘real world’, and it exists in a single state only ,at any given time. And what that state is, is the truth.

Attempts to describe that state in terms of high level concepts is what science does. Science is and activity as much as anything. The point about science is that its descripotions are emanable to testing, and if they fail teh tests they are discarded as ‘unscientific’ and if they cannot be tested they are relegated to the realms of metaphysics.

And one of the ideas that cannot be tested is that there is in fact such a thing as truth, and that it has but a single value at any instant of time.

Science is good because its predictions come true. That doesn’t mean that the high level constructs that constitute scientific theory are therefore true. Merely that they are incredibly useful.

Many many problems in the world occur because people confuse knowledge, with fact. Gravity is an explanation for the agreed facts of e.g. stones falling. It explains the fact of stones falling by means of a mathematical formula, and because the formula works, people start to believe that ‘gravity’ has an existence every bit as real as stones. It doesn’t, and Einstein showed that as an explanation it didnt worlk all the time anyway. Gravity wasn’t a fact, or a truth, and it was a false theory, as well. Relativity, that redrew our understanding of the world completely, into a form we still dont feel comfortable with, worked better.

That still didn’t make it true.

What we as humans crave, is certainty of explanations. We seek to know why things are the way they are, and how they will be tomorrow. The body of invisible entities that we invent as explanations, we call ‘knowledge’ , The ones that make accurate predictions that both can be tested and haven’t failed the tests yet, we call ‘scientific knowledge’.

It represents a degree of reliabilty that we crave, but it does not grant certainty.

If you want certainty, you have to go to religion and apply faith.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Qjjh6BAgsEAE&usg=AOvVaw2Yq0K6HxhPWTJWSUnPDHeu

As to Spiritual truths being relative, Baha’u’llah offers this;

"The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh … is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society…."


Regards Tony

Again, this is just talking about perceptions of the real world, not the real world itself.

The real world is an objective fact. The nature of reality is an objective fact. Our perceptions of it are subjective.

Science is the only tool we have that allows us to get close to what that objective nature is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Again, this is just talking about perceptions of the real world, not the real world itself.

The real world is an objective fact. The nature of reality is an objective fact. Our perceptions of it are subjective.

Science is the only tool we have that allows us to get close to what that objective nature is.

I do not think you read what was posted, we do not see it the same anyway.

Sorry, as I see this world is the Illusion. It is a chimera, like a vapor in the desert. How can anything about it be objective, to me, in my current frame of reference, it is all relative to our current understanding of it.

But as I offered, this is way above my pay grade.

Regards Tony

 

[night912]

I already believed in Baha'u'llah long before I ever read about it

I thought you said that you didn't know about him or God until after you came across the baha'i religion, which after doing your own investigation, then you became a believer.

If you believed in him before verifying that he was a messenger of God, then it's confirmation bias that made you believe that he was a true messenger of God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Again, this is just talking about perceptions of the real world, not the real world itself.

The real world is an objective fact. The nature of reality is an objective fact. Our perceptions of it are subjective.

Science is the only tool we have that allows us to get close to what that objective nature is.

Not sure about that. It seems that the more closely science looks at the material world, at the subatomic level anyway, the more uncertain and indefinite the view becomes. The Uncertainty Principle would be just one example of this phenomenon in action.

I imagine almost all Quantum Theorists would have a lot of trouble with your assertion that "The nature of reality is objective fact".

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you want certainty, you have to go to religion and apply faith.

Sure, and we might all believe such no doubt were it not for the spectrum as to such (religious beliefs), the history, and the conflicts between most of them - now and during their long history. So where would any particular truth, or true belief lie?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

Hello infrabenji, so far as I'm concerned there can be no debate with an atheist, an atheist is a temporary lost soul, at least for as long as the believer denies their divine heritage. It is like a ghost asking a living soul for a debate!

 

[Aupmanyav]

A Leo Smith Ma Engineering from Cambridge University 1972 has posted online this comment.
"There are no ‘scientific’ truths. Science deals with (inductive) hypotheses and theories, none of which can ultimately be proved to be true. Only false."

".. all the great religions of the world are divine in origin .." Based on what Bahaollah is supposed to have said.

People post all kind of messages and who cares about that? Leo Smith (if he is the person you are talking about), probably posted this too:Leo Smith MA Electrical Sciences – STOP THESE THINGS (wind power generation of energy)

India is producing 21,000 MW of wind power energy. We have big plans for solar energy also. I fail to understand if a Government or a corporation finds this economical and beneficial for them, what problem Leo Smith has with it? This is the need of the times, more so since India does not have enough oil, and the need for energy is always increasing. That tells me of what kind of person Leo Smith is or was.

Well, Buddhism (and some philosophies of Hinduism) does not have the concept of 'divine'. Are you including it in your great religions?

 

[night912]

Hello infrabenji, so far as I'm concerned there can be no debate with an atheist, an atheist is a temporary lost soul, at least for as long as the believer denies their divine heritage. It is like a ghost asking a living soul for a debate!

Afraid of ghosts.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

No, it's not relevant. And repeating the same flawed claims based on nothing more than wordplay is just a waste of your time and my time.

Find a better argument.

You say they are flawed claims based on nothing more than wordplay.

But the wordplay is the claim.

I have shown you that the stories, signs, miracles, and prophecies in the bible are true in their own way.

Tell me, can you explain exactly why you think they are flawed claims?



Remember I showed you and explained this verse about moving the mountains into the sea.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21


There is also part of the verse about the fig tree:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21



It was the mighty wind that withered the Fig tree:

Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew. Ezekiel 17:10



Wordplay is a very simple way of putting it.

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

The words of the bible are spoken in levels.
The keywords of the twelve gates.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sure, and we might all believe such no doubt were it not for the spectrum as to such (religious beliefs), the history, and the conflicts between most of them - now and during their long history. So where would any particular truth, or true belief lie?

I see It lays in our ability to accept God in Faith.

I see knowing of and loving God is the apex of Truth in this Matrix, yet it is a Relative Truth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

People post all kind of messages and who cares about that? Leo Smith (if he is the person you are talking about), probably posted this too:Leo Smith MA Electrical Sciences – STOP THESE THINGS (wind power generation of energy)

India is producing 21,000 MW of wind power energy. We have big plans for solar energy also. I fail to understand if a Government or a corporation finds this economical and beneficial for them, what problem Leo Smith has with it? This is the need of the times, more so since India does not have enough oil, and the need for energy is always increasing. That tells me of what kind of person Leo Smith is or was.

Well, Buddhism (and some philosophies of Hinduism) does not have the concept of 'divine'. Are you including it in your great religions?

Actually I saw a very good documentary on this the other day and green energy is not green, it is big business. Leo Smith might just be one of those brave enough to call it for what it is.

Our biggest problem is driving a materialistic industrial world and I know we have become very soft in our use of energy, not many conserve it as they should.

Anyway another topic I would say. Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not believe in any life after death. That is for zombies and vampires. Being a strong atheist, I am far away from any God. But I am in no way inconvenienced by that.
That kind of spiritual world will be very hard for atheists, since we are accustomed to material things. I wish you happiness in your nearness with Allah without any material things. I think at least you would not be required to cook or wash dishes. The meals will will flash out of nowhere and heavenly maidens will take care of the washing.

I am also pretty far away from God so my afterlife is not looking very good at the moment, but I still have some time left to work on that.

I don't see that as a very big problem though because I feel close to Baha'ullah, and according to Shoghi Effendi we will still have to go through the Prophets to experience God in the next world. I look forwards to meeting Baha'u'llah and Jesus but I don't care to meet God.

"We will have experience of God's spirit through His Prophets in the next world, but God is too great for us to know without this Intermediary. The Prophets know God, but how is more than our human minds can grasp. We believe we may attainin the next world to seeing the Prophets. There is certainly a future life. Heaven and hell are conditions within our own beings."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, November 14, 1947)

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

 

[CG Didymus]

Why would it matter who obeyed the laws? They are still God's laws regardless.

No, people did make up some Gods. And they said those Gods had laws, but they didn't, because those Gods didn't exist. And, even the God that Baha'is believe exists, had laws that restricted what people could do on one of the days of the week. If a person broke the law, they could be stoned to death. And it was the religious leaders that defined what people could and couldn't do on that day. I don't think God made that law and some of the others. I think people did.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where is that in Acts?

You were the one who brought up Revelation so you tell me what verses those are.

I've quoted that verse in Acts several times. I went through Revelation with Adrian and some others. So it's the same thing you complain about. Is it really worth putting verses out there that you know are going to be ignored?

You've said you don't care what the Bible says didn't you? If so, then you're not the right Baha'i to have a Bible discussion with. Tony said a few things that I thought he should give some verses to me to back up what he said. But, he blew me off.

Since the verse in Acts is at the very beginning, I get the feeling you've never really read Acts. And Revelation? I'd be very surprised if you've read it. Have you read what Abdul Baha' has said in SAQ? I think he comments on at least two chapters. But really... you know we're not going to agree, and I doubt you have the time, you get yourself involved in so many threads, so do you really want to get into it?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, people did make up some Gods. And they said those Gods had laws, but they didn't, because those Gods didn't exist. And, even the God that Baha'is believe exists, had laws that restricted what people could do on one of the days of the week. If a person broke the law, they could be stoned to death. And it was the religious leaders that defined what people could and couldn't do on that day. I don't think God made that law and some of the others. I think people did.

I believe that if people made up gods then the laws are also made up, but the Laws revealed by the Prophets/Messengers came from God.

No Baha'is are going to get stoned to death for not following Baha'i laws. The personal laws such as prayer and fasting are between a believer and God but other laws that affect other people like murder or adultery have penalties. Those Laws are in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas but they are not being enforced now since we don't live in a Baha'i world.