• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ella S.

*temp banned*
This is the world we live in, a lot of debating, and debate forums. I can't change that.

Humans disagree about a variety of topics. The civil way to address these disagreements is not to avoid talking about them, letting them bubble up beneath the surface. It's to put forward why you think the way you do and search for common ground with those who hold a contradictory position.

Debate is, ideally, meant to further its participants' quests for truth or at least expand their perspectives.

It's better than the historical alternative of killing everyone that doesn't agree with you.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Unfortunately, we live in a world that doesn't do what Baha'is call consultation.:( If you don't know what that is exactly, I'll try to explain what that is. Anyway, it takes two to consult. If the other person debates, there will be no consultation.:( This is my last post in this thread (I think).
I am well aware what Baha'i consultation is but it is not relevant to posting on a forum. In an Assembly or a marital situation people consult with each other but on a debate forum people debate each other. On a discussion forum two people have a discussion with each other.

I know you don't like debating, but as my mother always said "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen."
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Small, big, meteors come in all sizes. There is no reason to assume that any are sized for a deliberate action somewhere in the universe, and directed towards a target deliberately, as you have done. And it occurred to me, God slaming a meteor into a planet to kill off most of the life forms on it (that God created in the first place, right?) is hardly "fine tuning" anything. It sounds as clumsy and incompetent as flooding a whole planet to get rid of all humans and animals except for a select few on a boat. Your God would try to fix a cell phone with a hammer. At least the Hindus have gods that serve certain purposes that actially explain a rational narrative. They have gods that are a creator, a sustainer, and a destroyer, among others. They all serve a purpose and the narrative is vastly more rational than the clumsy and inept God of Abraham.


Do you think the efforts NASA has done to create a rocket that can hit a asteroid and knock it off its course is going against God's will? I mean if there is another asteroid heading right for New York city and will destroy all life is it wrong for us to stop it? The way you're talking using asteroids is how God changes things that he doesn't like, so what do you suggest?

And you do realize you are using the highdsight fallacy in your thinking, yes? Does it not seem arrogant to you that some humans (like yourself) assume all the natural disasters on the planet over time that led to humans evolving was for OUR benefit?

Again - there's 'fine tuning' and there's 'weird co-incidences.'
And the Biggest Question of all - how did the universe create itself when it didn't exist, and why.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Once again, too many digits. The Earth's tilt varies from 22 to 24.5 degrees. And yes, that is normal.
Second, I found the paper that your claim about the Yucatan crater. You were partially right. There is a paper that says the location made it worse. It is fairly recent, and it is only one paper on the topic so it is hardly settled. But as usual the popular press got it wrong. Here is a link to the paper:

Site of asteroid impact changed the history of life on Earth: the low probability of mass extinction | Scientific Reports.

And the quote from the source that tells us it could have happened elsewhere:

". This significant event could have occurred if the asteroid hit the hydrocarbon-rich areas occupying approximately 13% of the Earth’s surface. "

Though 13% is not the whole Earth, it is still a large fraction of it. This was not a "fine tuned" event.

WTF are you talking about, do not assume what i think, you have no idea of my knowledge of cosmology and astrophysics

FYI Over a period of around 40,000 years, the tilt of earths axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. It wobbles, nothing precise about it..

Take a look at any star forming constellation and tell me how it is fine tuned

Rare events happen in a chaotic universe, not in a fine tuned one, fine tuning would by its very nature ensure rare, catastrophic events cannot happen.

'That is normal' - really? The earth just flops onto its side to help form seasons? WHY ???
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Nope, nothing freakish about the chaos of the early solar system.

When viewed in a human timescale it may seem ordered, however zoom out to (say) 4.5 billion years or 13.8 billion years and watch the fhaos unfold

Sure, you need chaos to create a stable world, and you need HUGE amounts of TIME as well.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
'That is normal' - really? The earth just flops onto its side to help form seasons? WHY ???
Because the Earth, and other planets, were formed by th collision of smaller objects. Those collisions are not perfect. Did you not read the article? That was what it was there for. There is a range of how much planets are off. From almost zero for Mercury, to almost 180 degrees for Venus. We are not on our side, Uranus is on its side.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
All 93% of the believers who believe in God are guilty of confirmation bias in their thinking, but no atheists are ever guilty of confirmation bias. Atheists are smarter than all those stupid believers. This is drop dead illogical, the fallacy of black and white thinking.

You post about psychology of belief, so here is a little basic psychology for you. The reason you need to knock down believers is to raise yourself up, so you can feel superior. Thankfully, not all atheists do this but there are two on this thread that are notorious for this kind of posting.

I hope you don't put me in the same category as the hateful, oversimplified drivel you're responding to.

I've been trying to improve on making my rebuttals look less like personal attacks or the condemnation of entire categories of people. There are definitely some posts in this very thread I think I could have phrased better.

In particular, when I said this thread sounded like Kindergarteners bickering, that wasn't meant as a condemnation of either side; more of a recognition that the arguments at that point had become circular. I think the way I wrote that could have easily been taken as an insult, which wasn't my intention, and it reminds me to be more careful with my analogies in the future.

Personally, I agree that it's completely ridiculous for anyone to think that "everyone who disagrees with me is irrational." I also think it's flat-out incorrect to think that a person who makes a particular fallacious or biased argument is stupid or irrational as an individual. We all make errors in reasoning. Yes, obviously, that includes atheists.

There is a little bit of abusiveness being levied against you in the past few pages. I would try not to take it too personally. I think much of it comes from the growing frustration as this thread continues to grow and grow without resolution.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I hope you don't put me in the same category as the hateful, oversimplified drivel you're responding to.

I've been trying to improve on making my rebuttals look less like personal attacks or the condemnation of entire categories of people. There are definitely some posts in this very thread I think I could have phrased better.

In particular, when I said this thread sounded like Kindergarteners bickering, that wasn't meant as a condemnation of either side; more of a recognition that the arguments at that point had become circular. I think the way I wrote that could have easily been taken as an insult, which wasn't my intention, and it reminds me to be more careful with my analogies in the future.

Personally, I agree that it's completely ridiculous for anyone to think that "everyone who disagrees with me is irrational." I also think it's flat-out incorrect to think that a person who makes a particular fallacious or biased argument is stupid or irrational as an individual. We all make errors in reasoning. Yes, obviously, that includes atheists.

There is a little bit of abusiveness being levied against you in the past few pages. I would try not to take it too personally. I think much of it comes from the growing frustration as this thread continues to grow and grow without resolution.
I don't think anyone has said that to her. I have seen her logical fallacies identified quite often. I have probably done so myself. But that is done in the hopes that she learns from those errors.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I don't think anyone has said that to her. I have seen her logical fallacies identified quite often. I have probably done so myself. But that is done in the hopes that she learns from those errors.

I think @Trailblazer kind of has a different style when it comes to debate threads than what I'm accustomed to - she seems to throw out every possibility that can support her side, while I'm more the type who talks for 3-5 pages about one narrow idea.

That being said, I'm not taking this thread too terribly seriously myself, I more consider it a place to "hang out" around a subject with an emphasis on debate.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I think @Trailblazer kind of has a different style when it comes to debate threads than what I'm accustomed to - she seems to throw out every possibility that can support her side, while I'm more the type who talks for 3-5 pages about one narrow idea.

That being said, I'm not taking this thread too terribly seriously myself, I more consider it a place to "hang out" around a subject with an emphasis on debate.

You're wrong, you take it very seriously, a messenger told me. :D
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Personally, I believe that I am much better off on my own, without praying to or relying on any deities to help, protect, or save me. That was something I had to learn the hard way throughout my life. I'm not saying it's best for you or anyone else, but it works for me. I don't see why I should put my faith in a supposedly loving and merciful God who abandoned me in a hellhole of abuse and neglect.

I learned how to stand on my own without the help of God or any other deities. I learned to survive on my own, how to protect myself from harm, and I saved myself from the abuse and neglect I suffered while growing up. I don't know you, so I don't know if that would be the best option for you or not, but renunciating my Christian faith and learning to stand on my own (without praying to or relying on deities) were certainly the best decisions that I've ever made for myself. It wasn't easy for me at first, but it was worth the struggle.
I have a different experience. My life has been so far very merciful to me and my family. For many years I have also had good experience with being religious. Faith made everything look brighter and it seemed God took good care for me... It wasn't easy for me to realize that my faith was blind (no matter how nice it was) ...
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
God is awfully busy fielding calls from disgruntled customers so I suggest you try again later. God loves persistence. :)
Maybe he should use social media.

social-network-profile-hashtags-button-follow-god-vector-illustration-82175091.jpg
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That’s it? That’s what a meaningful life looks like to you?


why would you imagine this example was the totality of one's life?
To answer what seems to be a further question, no, I find no meaning in holding myths about supernatural beings to be true. There are ethics to be heard, but that is the case for much of the great literature as well as well as philosophy and secular morality and so on.
We create our meaning in life. If worshipping a fictional deity is meaning for some then great. Because for the other 2/3 of believers it's worshipping a different set of deities. Since you all cannot be correct this demonstrates devotion to a fiction can give just as much meaning as the version you consider real.
For others there are many different sources of meaning.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

In addition to what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' .....

Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
Thank you for explaining what is meant as evidence. I have some objections though.

1. His own Self. - A good person can also be self-deluded and sincerely believe something that is false.

2. His Revelation. - OK. He was devouted to his mission and wrote a lot. So what?

3. The words He hath revealed. - The words are his claims. As you said what he claimed is not evidence. It's not true only because he claimed so.

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies. - The prophecies are not enough concrete and specific to determine this. Too open for different interpretations... For example there should be peace in the world but there isn't. This means no Messiah so far.

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. - OK. I have to check this... That would make him a someone who can see future but not necessarily a Messenger of God.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Sure, you need chaos to create a stable world, and you need HUGE amounts of TIME as well.

Actually the world coalesced quite quickly, very soon after the sun in universe time scales.

And chaos refutes a fine tuned argument
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
God did not say that. The person who wrote the OT said that God said that.
There is a world of difference between one and the other.
Just more of the anthropomorphisms of God in the OT.
If you want to believe that that's your prerogative, just count me out.


Super, you are half way there. And the Bahai person who said God gave HIM messages also was not telling the exact truth. Man-made stories.

Your beliefs are of zero importance. Evidence is what matters. So I would ask how you know God did not say that in the OT yet you think the much lesser quality writing in Bahai is actually from a God. And if you believe a God gave a person messages why couldn't a God treat the early Israelites in a different way with actual speaking? As if God has limits?

Your religion claims progressive revelations, so why were these OT stories not just a different type of communication?

I have been over and over the Bahai evidence so I know that doesn't exist but how did you draw these conclusions about the OT? I am confused because you believe in the same deity but seem to feel you have it all figured out regarding what the God did and didn't do yet millions of other believers disagree?
Atheists don't disagree. We all have a lack of belief.


update:

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 75-76."

Uh, your religion says there IS A HUMAN VOICE OF GOD?
 
Top