If anybody is responsible for you getting the Message of Baha’u’llah, it is the Baha’is. God certainly is not responsible because Baha’u’llah entrusted the Baha’is with the duty to carry the message to other people. God is not “coming on down” to earth to make sure you get the message.
Then it is god's fault for using such an utterly daft method for delivering its message, which make it look just like all the other superstitions/religions in the world.
Why should I, when, at first glance, it's just another religion/superstition? What tells me that looking into your religion is "worthy" other than the Baha’is telling me so? That's what many other religions say.
Starting another religion and getting its followers to tell people how right it is, is a patently absurd way for a god to deliver an important message to humanity.
Of course God already knows who will prove themselves worthy, but that is irrelevant. The point is that people have to prove they are worthy in order to become worthy.
Well, duh. The Troy in the Iliad fell over 2500 years ago. So, yes. I am talking about history.
That's ridiculous. We have farm reports and personal letters from ancient Egypt. Scientific evidence that individuals wrote farm reports and personal letters.
Are you writing from a script? Because that isn't even close to being true. The effects of radiation, heat and force are predictable. If the characteristics of the area don't match then the claim is falsified.
Who wrote them, can you verify the letters are actually written by the claimed authors? How accurate the reports are? Can you verify? It only shows that you have no idea of what history is.
You can't even evidence what you yourself ate a week ago. That's what history is. Get a clue!
Well, duh. The Troy in the Iliad fell over 2500 years ago. So, yes. I am talking about history.
That's ridiculous. We have farm reports and personal letters from ancient Egypt. Scientific evidence that individuals wrote farm reports and personal letters.
Are you writing from a script? Because that isn't even close to being true. The effects of radiation, heat and force are predictable. If the characteristics of the area don't match then the claim is falsified.
What? 1000 years later you can still measure the radiation to determine the exact scale of a nuclear bomb and to identify that no TNT is involved? It only shows that you know nothing about what science is. You have no evidence to examine if the site is developed into a city full of humans. That's what history is. If you go back to 1000 years ago to place a nuclear bomb (better with 1 kilo of TNT) under today's most populated city, you get nothing to measure, not to mention your inability to figure out the 1 kg TNT used. That's what history is. The false claim that it's a pure nuclear blast cannot be falsified as the truth is it is with 1kg TNT. That's what science is. Get a clue!
Again like I said, science requires you to repeat the blast in the same exact way infinitive number of times such we can figure out a effective way to identify the 1kg TNT used together with a nuclear blast. That's what science is!
You are going down the route of trying to claim that if I don't have evidence of everything that I don't have evidence of anything. That is a crap line of reasoning.
You are going down the route of trying to claim that if I don't have evidence of everything that I don't have evidence of anything. That is a crap line of reasoning.
You miss the point. What you applied is one of biggest fallacies that humans rely on evidence to get to a truth. They don't. They rely on faith in testimonies to get to a truth instead. That's why 99.99% humans know for a fact that black holes exist (wow a science) don't actually have the evidence, as this piece of fact is not conveyed by evidence to the majority. Only an extremely few scientists professed in black holes actually have the evidence from precious equipment. They act as eyewitnesses for this fact to convey in a form as their testimonies. That's what it is!
It is so because humans lack the capability to get to a truth directly. That's the part you fallaciously leveraged!
We ever dropped two atomic bombs. So in your theory we can still trace the scale after 2500 years, even by chance that they may have buried under the ocean and perhaps nuked over again? The scale is actually not determined even now, neither the actually death tolls!
Drop one more bomb (a bigger one) over the same spot, wait for 2500 then tell us what is caused by which? That's what history is! Science will have to give up on this, unless you can make both repeat over and over again. That's what science is. You are so clueless!
You miss the point. What you applied is one of biggest fallacies that humans rely on evidence to get to a truth. They don't. They rely on faith in testimonies to get to a truth instead.
That's why 99.99% humans know for a fact that black holes exist (wow a science) don't actually have the evidence, as this piece of fact is not conveyed by evidence to the majority.
First, you are pulling [percentages out of your butt. Second, if they don't have evidence they don't know it. Knowledge is, in philosophy, defined as justified true belief. Without evidence, it is not knowledge.
We ever dropped two atomic bombs. So in your theory we can still trace the scale after 2500 years, even by chance that they may have buried under the ocean and perhaps nuked over again? The scale is actually not determined even now, neither the actually death tolls!
I got your point. My point is that relying on faith is boneheaded.
First, you are pulling [percentages out of your butt. Second, if they don't have evidence they don't know it. Knowledge is, in philosophy, defined as justified true belief. Without evidence, it is not knowledge.
Then it is god's fault for using such an utterly daft method for delivering its message, which make it look just like all the other superstitions/religions in the world.
God’s Purpose was to make it tough for people to recognize the Messenger that thereby the really sincere people who made an effort could be separated from the people who did not care enough to do the required work. But also it is about faith, as those who had enough faith would keep searching for truth.
God guides those who have faith and make efforts which implies that those who do not have faith and make efforts will not be guided. Since one cannot believe in God without God guiding them, those who are not guided will never be able to believe in God.
Why should I, when, at first glance, it's just another religion/superstition? What tells me that looking into your religion is "worthy" other than the Baha’is telling me so? That's what many other religions say.
You nailed it on the head when you said “at first glance.” Most people are not going to SEE the difference between the Baha’i Faith and other religions at first, they have to at least understand the primary teachings and underpinning theology and they would have to see the truth in these in order to me motivated to do more research.
Starting another religion and getting its followers to tell people how right it is, is a patently absurd way for a god to deliver an important message to humanity.
That is not what we tell people. We tell them what the religion teaches and let them decide for themselves if it us something they might be interested in.
If you know of a better way that God could deliver a message to humanity by all means tell me, but please do not tell me God could deliver the message Himself because that is idiotic as well as impossible and unnecessary.
I believe that Baha'u'llah has met His burden of proof quote adequately.
“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 Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause). That is covered in the following book, and there is more written elsewhere.
His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause). That is covered in the following book, and there is more written elsewhere.
I do not care what is adequate for you, I only care what is adequate for me, since I am only responsible for my own beliefs, not the beliefs if others.
Nothing is ever good enough for atheists so they make their own beds and will have to lie in them.
His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause). That is covered in the following book, and there is more written elsewhere.
I do not care what is adequate for you, I only care what is adequate for me, since I am only responsible for my own beliefs, not the beliefs if others.
Lots and lots of things are good enough for atheists. I personally believe a lot of propositions, both concrete and abstract. What I do not believe are the propositions which lack a rational foundation. Yours being just one example of many. My bed is the only bed worth laying in.
Lots and lots of things are good enough for atheists. I personally believe a lot of propositions, both concrete and abstract. What I do not believe are the propositions which lack a rational foundation. Yours being just one example of many. My bed is the only bed worth laying in.
Wrong. Nothing is ever good enough for atheists. I have been in long arguments with secular types before. There is literally nothing you can do to convince them, because they don't want to be convinced.
You have no idea what this bed of yours looks like or you wouldn't want to lie upon it.
What do you think the Bible means when it says 1000 Years of Peace?
Everyone who hasn't made it to the afterlife is dead either of famine, pollution, or war. The physical world is ruined.
For the record, this fate isn't about Christian exceptionalism. This is about not having an immortal soul. When you don't believe in or want an afterlife, you live and die as a useful idiot to supernatural forces. Atheists aren't immune to demonic possession, ghosts, and sorcery because they don't believe in the supernatural. Rather, they have no defense at all against it. They also fall easily to hysterias like weather forecasters declaring that "in two days a storm will wipe out your house."
Logic and reason allow one to use one's faith to decide what is worth our fear, as well as giving us strength to stand against it.
Disbelieving in all religion gives you no power. However, a person who at least believes in themselves, and the power of the mind against the supernatural world can discern illusion. In order to do this, you need belief in the supernatural world AND belief that something is capable of standing against it.
What atheists should be doing is developing a working psychic defense system. As far as I know, believing in God is secondary to not allowing people to prey on your fears.
Not to be repetitive, but the Messengers of God are evidence for God. That is something I believe to be true.
You say that the Messengers of God are not evidence for God. That is something you believe to be true. You do not know it is true, you just believe it is true. There is a difference.
