Is atheism a religion?

[ecco]

​

Skipping redundant comments...
As I said in the post I referred you to, I do not believe TV psychics.

Trailblazer before: All mediums are not created equal. It would cost more than $25.

ecco: So, are you saying that real mediums charge more money than fake mediums? Sylvia Browne was one of the highest priced mediums. She was a fraud.

I am saying that there are legitimate mediums and they cost more than $25. They might charge something like $100 an hour but some charge more than that.

Yes, she was a fraud. How stupid do I look? (don’t answer that... )

First you indicated that it was a matter of how much was charged. Now you are backtracking...





The question isn’t why I would believe her, the question is why so many other people are duped. The answer is that people are desperate and/or naïve and they don’t do their homework.

Yeah. Just like beliefs in Gods and Messengers. You don't see the correlation, do you?





Scientists can deny the truth of mediums talking to spirits, but science cannot prove that is a bogus claim since the spiritual world is outside of the scope of science.

Nonsense. Science has shown that every medium/psychic/paranormal that has ever been tested is a fraud. Ditto Messengers.





ecco:
Allah is the only true god.
Everything was created Last Thursday.
The Universe and the earth were created 6000 years ago.
All are equally possible.



So, the words of a mortal human messenger have more truth for you than the words of an eternal God(s). Interesting.

Are you implying that what you just posted above are the words of an eternal God (s)? Sorry but no.
Try rereading with your comprehension switch turned on.




Trailblazer before: The words of Messengers of God are the same as the words of God because they perfectly represent the will of God.

ecco: The big problem with that is there is NO way to KNOW who is a true messenger and who is delusional or who is a con man. Many people considered David Koresh to be a true messenger.

There sure as hell is a way to know who the real Messenger of God is. You just have to do your homework as assigned by God.


Nonsense.

There is also a way to know who the con men are and who the true Prophets are... Jesus explained how we know a true prophet from a false prophet...

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

So you ignore the words of Jesus. OK.

 

[ecco]

I'm more interested in having a way to tell real mediums from fake ones than a medium for my own sake.

I'll assume you have read about "cold reading". After that, just pay attention to the hits and misses.

However, some few of these people are very good at their professions. Amateurs cannot be expected to spot the flaws.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm looking to expose frauds and charlatans, so I guess you could say that I'm looking for fake mediums.

I'm more interested in having a way to tell real mediums from fake ones than a medium for my own sake.

Mainly, if some are real, I won't denigrate them.... but so far, none seem real.

Edit: is there a reason why you're skirting my question?

I do not really know much about mediums. I used quite a few animal communicators in the past, but I have not used communicators to communicate with people who have passed on except once after my mother died. My brother has used communicators more than I have.

Just as with things like building contractors or car mechanics, the best way to get a good one is a referral from someone who recommends them. To find a communicator, it would have to be someone you trust that referred you, someone you think has knowledge of communicators.

What question did I skirt?

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. And who the Christians want are the politicians and judges that they think will force their ideology on everyone else through governmental edict; like banning abortion and gay marriage while encouraging unfair trade practices and preaching religious dogma in public schools.

True, let's just hope they do not get their way.

 

[gnostic]

Religionists should never subjugate others to their religious beliefs and ideals. Faith is not a free pass to subjugate others. Religion should not be mixed with politics. However, in a democracy people have a right to vote for whoever they want.

And yet, in many cases, they do.

Once they have the taste of powers, either political or military, or worse both, they will often to press their advantages.

Your Baha’i may not have powers now, but if it ever did, the probability that your people would oppress others, would seem likely to occur, especially because of Baha’i Faith connection to the Abrahamic religions. And Abrahamic religions have the tendencies to play favoritisms.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, science hasn't proven that no pigs can fly, it can only prove that at least 100 pigs can't fly. Maybe there is one pig out there that can fly. But based on the evidence, pigs can't fly.

No, based upon biology, pigs cannot fly. No pigs have ever been found that can fly because pigs cannot fly. Only birds can fly.

So, if a thousand bogus prophets have been exposed, and not one true prophets found, true prophets don't exist.

No, that is completely illogical because the fact that there are many, many false prophets in no way precludes the possibility that there are true Prophets. Moreover, we already have examples of true Prophets such as Moses and Jesus Christ, so you just lost this argument.

We are not talking about ordinary claims. We are talking about claims that defy the laws of reality itself, and deposit faith as the only evidence. In both cases the experiments are consistent with the expected outcome. Pigs don't fly, and prophets don't exists.

Of course we know that pigs don’t fly but no experiment has ever proven that Prophets of God do not exist?

How do Prophets defy the laws of reality? Unless you can explain HOW they do, you have lost this argument. Moreover, faith is not evidence and the two terms are contradictory. There e is ample evidence of men who were Prophets, you just do not *accept it* as evidence.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

Is there any other human being in the history of the world that has had as profound an effect upon humanity as Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

What is your evidence that confirms that you know that a God or a Messenger exists?
Do you think that people who make supernatural knowledge claims, should be able to demonstrate how they know?
Is your Belief based on evidence, or faith?
What is the empirical evidence for the existence of a Messenger for a God?
What specific prediction by Anyone has turned out to be true and specific? Like predicting the dates and times of the Kennedy Assassinations.

Nobody can confirm that God exists or that Messengers were sent by God. All we have is evidence. Some of the evidence as to how we know if someone is a Prophet is in that passage above. How I know is based upon the evidence, not upon faith. I have to have faith in God because God cannot be *proven to exist* but I know Bahaullah existed so I can look at all the evidence that surrounds His life and mission, I can read His writings, I can verify the prophecies of older religions that He fulfilled, and I can verify predictions he made that came to pass. With all that evidence, there is no question in my mind that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God/Prophet.

Baha’u’llah made many predictions that came to pass. In this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass and the explanations of how they came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

I'm afraid you can't create only premises that support your own conclusion. Perhaps God IS Unjust. Perhaps He doesn't exist at all. Perhaps it is us that is creating a false God. What is your objective evidence?

As I have said many times to my atheist friends on other forums, based upon the empirical evidence, there are only three logical possibilities.

1. God exists and sends Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate with humanity (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

Someone might want to argue that there are other possibilities such as “God exists and communicates to me personally” but that has no empirical evidence to support it, so I did not list it.

If an unjust God existed it would be the same as no God existing because there would be no reason to ever worship an unjust God.

Atheism does not claim that God cannot exist. Atheist believe that God(s) does not exist, because of the lack of evidence. But maybe outside of our reality a God can Exist. I don't know.

There is a serious flaw in what you said. You cannot say that God can exist and then say that God does not exist, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.As I have said repeatedly, evidence is not what determines whether God exists or not because God could exist and not *provide* any evidence at all.

My personal opinion is that a God can't exist within my reality. If a God did, then all the laws of physics would collapse, and reality would end.

Why would the laws of physics collapse if God existed?

Therefore, no God(s) have existed, does exist, or will exist. But that is just my opinion. What you mean to say is there is no absolute proof/evidence that a God(s) exists. But there is infinitely more than enough empirical evidence to suggest that a God does not exist. Now contrast this to absolutely zero objective evidence to even warrant a discussion on the existence of a God.

There is no empirical evidence that shows that God does not exist, but there is infinitely more than enough empirical evidence to suggest that a God does exist. You just do not *like* that evidence because it does not meet your criteria. Lol, the Tanakh and the Bible alone are evidence that God exists, and then we also have the Qur’an and the extensive Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. It is self-evident that these scriptures are more than the writings of an ordinary man. That is self-evident not only by reading them, but also because of the impact these scriptures have had upon humanity. That is not to mention the scriptures of other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.84 percent of the world population has a faith, and all these religions have scriptures that were written by a Founder, some kind of Messenger of God. Logically speaking, if there are Messengers “of God” then there has to be a God.

Let me make this perfectly clear. There can never be any*objective evidence* of God because God is not a material entity. Moreover, God is above and beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by anyone. The Messengers so God know God, but *how* they know God is beyond our understanding because their very nature is beyond our understanding.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166​

All we are able to know about God are some Attributes of God that are revealed by Messengers and reflected in Creation. We can also know God’s will for man in every age because it is revealed by the Messengers of God, but we can never know the intrinsic nature of God. God sits on the All-Highest Throne, the Habitation of everlasting might and glory. We cannot know any more about God than Messengers reveal.

There is also, something that is neither A and B, something that is not A and not B, or I just don't know. This is just pseudo-sophistry, twisting logic to fit the claim.

No, it is pure logic, plain and simple. If a Prophet claims to speak for God that has to be either true or false. The fact that we cannot *know* for certain is a separate matter.

This is why you need independent, objective evidence to support any of these claims. We can certainly demonstrate that many claiming supernatural/paranormal abilities, really don't have them(A). But we have no experience with even one true prophets with true abilities. Do you know of any we can test? This story is not new. The need to believe in something greater than ourselves, far outweighs the why we need to believe this in the first place.

None of this has to do with *needs.* We need to stick with the evidence and not conjecture as to why people believe in God or Prophets, because why people believe has no bearing on whether they exist or not.

We have objective evidence to support the claims of the Messenger.Baha’u’llah did things that were supernatural/paranormal, but that is not the best evidence of who He was. If I told you some stories of what He did, would you even believe me?

What you fail to understand is, what if you are right? What if there are Messengers from a God? What if each religion is right and culture specific? What if miracles can happen? What if the power of prayer does work. What if people can see into the future, and can make accurate predictions. What if all Gods, lesser Gods, deities, lesser deities, or demigods all exist? What if death is not the end, but the beginning of an everlasting state of awareness? What if there is a different reality outside of this one? Why would even an Atheist NOT want to know? Not simply believe. You make the assumption that Atheist simply want to disbelieve in the existence of a God? The truth is that there is zero evidence to even suggest that a God exists, except the evidence we create in our mind.

If you really *care* about those things you listed above, then you should be willing to *look* at the evidence that is available with an open mind, rather than just discounting it out of hand. I am and always have been willing to answer any questions or explain anything. For the last five years, my primary avocation has been posting to atheists on various forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

More important, Christians and Jews worship a God. Muslims also worship a God but put a lot of reverence into the Messenger. Bahai's, on the other hand, put more reverence into the Messenger and his words than into the words of God(s?).

No, that’s not true. Baha’is worship only God, but we put reverence into the writings of Baha’u’llah because we believe that He speaks for God. To be more specific, we believe that the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God. As such, anything Baha’u’llah wrote is just as if God wrote it Himself.

Jews and Muslims worship God, but most Christians worship Jesus because they believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You really must be more careful with your punctuation and word usage. What you meant to say is:

No evidence is the foundation for religious beliefs.

Let me reword that so it more accurately reflects what I meant...

Evidence is the foundation for my Baha’i beliefs.

Other belief systems may or may not have evidence to support them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I should be easy for you to state just two predictions that Baha’u’llah made. Clear, concise, unambiguous predictions.

I vaguely recall that we did this exercise before, but maybe I am remembering another atheist.

Prediction #1: The fall of Napoleon from power.

Here are some excerpts from a long Tablet to Napoleon III. The specific prediction is in bold.

“Give ear, O King, unto the Voice that calleth from the Fire which burneth in this verdant Tree, on this Sinai which hath been raised above the hallowed and snow-white Spot, beyond the Everlasting City: ‘Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Merciful!’ We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth. Arise thou to serve God and help His Cause. He, verily, will assist thee with the hosts of the seen and unseen, and will set thee king over all that whereon the sun riseth. Thy Lord, in truth, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty......

O King! The stars of the heaven of knowledge have fallen, they who seek to establish the truth of My Cause through the things they possess, and who make mention of God in My Name. And yet, when I came unto them in My glory, they turned aside. They, indeed, are of the fallen. This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow…....

For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We see abasement hastening after thee, whilst thou art of the heedless. It behoveth thee when thou hearest His Voice calling from the seat of glory to cast away all that thou possessest, and cry out: ‘Here am I, O Lord of all that is in heaven and all that is on earth!’ Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, pp. 18-20​

That Tablet was written in 1869 when Napoleon was at the height of His glory. . In 1870, Napoleon III fell in battle:

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.

Napoleon III - Wikipedia

EVERYTHING that Baha’u’llah prophesied came to pass. All those who rejected His Tablets fell from power just as He had warned them would happen. Those who persecuted Him and exiled and banished Him met with an ever sorrier fate. This is all history so it cannot be refuted.

Prediction #2: WWI and WWII.

Baha’u’llah also prophesied WWI and WWII in His Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I. Below is an that Tablet.

“O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I did not say it was a personal attack on me... I Said “Below is what I consider personal. I did not say it was a personal attack. I said it was critical and derogatory and it is directed at my person, it is not about my beliefs per se.” However, it is critical and derogatory to say that I “look” for opportunities to sermonize, editorialize, and proselytize my faith, as if I have some kind of devious motive or “plan.” I have no such motives. I am not looking for any opportunities. Those are negative things you think I am doing so it is an attack on my character. Moreover, you are doing it again, speaking for me as if you know my motives. You cannot KNOW what I am looking for; all you can know is what I post. You can have an opinion about why but you cannot know why.

No, it is not a reasoned valid conclusion based on an inordinate amount of time you have spent arguing with me, and other members of my faith. It is just your personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less. There is no sermonizing because no Baha’is are preaching at you and telling you what to believe, quite the opposite. There is no proselytizing because no Baha’is are trying to convince you of what you believe. In fact, you are the one who is asking us to convince you and we have declined, since that is not our responsibility. I have no idea what you mean by editorializing.

It is as honest as the day is long. Let’s look at why this is honest. You ask me a question about evidence, I give you an answer. I tell you that is all the evidence I have (honest). I tell you that you do not have to *accept* my evidence (in the sense of believing it is good evidence) but I cannot give you anything else because that is all the evidence I have (honest). Yes, I have a problem with you asking me for some kind of objective evidence I cannot provide because I don’t have any such evidence and I have already told you that, yet you keep asking. I am not obfuscating or avoiding the question. I am just honestly telling you I don’t have any more evidence. To be clear, I never said that you have to *accept* my evidence as good evidence for you. I said you have to *accept* that is all the evidence I can provide because I don’t have anything else. If a man holds me up in a dark alley and I give him my wallet and my jewelry because that is all I have, hopefully he would accept that because he can see that is all I have to give him. It would be unfair for him to expect me to give him something I do not have.

The conversation about evidence is over if I gave you all the evidence I have and you don’t like it, just as the holdup in the dark alley is over after I have given the robber everything I have to give him. He can either *accept* what I gave him and walk away with the wallet and jewelry (logical choice) or he can shoot me dead because he wanted something from me I did not have (illogical choice).

Bzzzt! You just created a straw man. I never said that my evidence should satisfy your non-belief. I only ever said that it is all I have.

If my evidence does not satisfy you non-belief, but that is all the evidence I have, it is logical to conclude that the conversation is over because there is nothing more to be said.

If you don’t like my evidence the logical thing to do is say so and either (a) look somewhere else for evidence, or (b) forget about evidence altogether and just accept that you are a confirmed atheist.

I do not think you are aware of what you are saying, I think you are just confused. I have told you myriad times that (a) I just have a certain belief and that (b) I am not trying to convince anyone of that belief, because that is not my responsibility. Yes, I realize it is extraordinary to *say* that Baha’u’llah spoke for God, but nevertheless I can only provide you with the evidence I have that demonstrates why *I believe that.* Moreover, and this is important: I am not the one who made the claim to speak for God, so I am not the one on whom the onus lies to prove the claim. It is Baha’u’llah who was responsible to prove that, if he wanted people to believe in Him.

It is irrational to expect any evidence other than the evidence that Baha’u’llah provided of the Truth of His mission and station. Where else would we get evidence, and how reliable would that evidence be? Sure, we can look at evidence that comes from other sources but it is not the best evidence because it is further from the original source, which is Baha’u’llah Himself. Then after we look at the evidence Baha’u’llah provided we can try to verify its accuracy by looking at other sources. This is the logical way to proceed when investigating religious Truth.

Bzzzt! The problem with what you just said is that what stands up to scrutiny is not the same for everyone. My evidence stands up to MY scrutiny but it does not stand up to YOUR scrutiny. It is reliable to ME because it stands up to my scrutiny, but it is not reliable to YOU because it does not stand up to your scrutiny.

I have presented some of the evidence that supports what I believe, but I really should not even be doing that because everyone should do their own research. I have told you that time and again. I can lead you to the evidence room but I cannot look at the evidence and assess it for you. Any assessment of the evidence I might come up with is only good for my belief, it is no good for your belief because it is not YOUR assessment.

I can explain why I believe in Baha’u’llah, what evidence led me to believe, but I cannot demonstrate how *I know* my belief about Baha’u’llah is true because that is an inner knowing.

You make a good point, that we learn about ourselves through interactions with other people, but that is not the only way we learn about ourselves. We can also come to know ourselves through introspection. I do not believe that the only way I can know myself is to develop an objective perspective from outside of myself, and in fact it is treading on dangerous ground to form an opinion about myself according to what others think about me. Other people can never know as much about me as I can know, all they can have are opinions about me. Some of those opinions might be true and helpful, but some may be false and destructive.

For example, as a child growing up my mother said things to me that were very negative and thus she caused me to feel guilty of things I was not guilty of. As an adult, I carried those feelings but through much therapy and introspection I have come to realize I am not the person she made me out to be. Through observation of and interaction with other people, as well as introspection, I have come to realize in my mind that the guilt I have is inappropriate, but I still feel guilty a lot of the time because I was damaged as a child. I just have to try to override the feeling with rational thoughts.

Comparing humans to dogs is not a valid comparison because humans have a soul and can therefore think in the abstract and make free will decisions, whereas other animals are led by instinct. There is no limit to what humans can learn, and how much they can grow and change, but animals have a limited capacity. This is why animals are predictable and humans are not.

I am sure my husband knows things about me that I am unaware of, but I know myself better than he knows me and he knows himself better than I know him.

Wow. I make a valid comparison of how dogs and humans are subjected to the same social assimilation and association processes, relating to how their position in the social group is influenced by the group, and you simply state that I was comparing dogs to human. Obfuscating my point, by claiming that animals are predictable(humans are also), humans have a soul(animals don't?), animals are led by their instincts(humans also), and humans by their free-will(wrong). None of this is even remotely relevant to my point. Then you conclude this straw man with, "This is why animals are predictable and humans are not". Just nonsense and avoidance. You also don't understand what an objective perspective is. You ignored my statement that it was impossible to step outside of yourself, to develop an objective perspective. So stating "I do not believe that the only way I can know myself is to develop an objective perspective from outside of myself", is meaningless and another straw man. I realize now, that no matter how clear or simple I illustrate my points, it will never get through all the filters of a fundamentalist mindset.

Do you even know what the word evidence means? Do you think that as long as you state that you have presented evidence, that you have actually presented evidence? Even if anyone questions it, or claims that it is not evidence? Do you even consider why anyone would not accept your evidence, even though it is good enough for you? Evidence is the use of facts or verifiable/reliable information, that will support or reject a hypothesis or a knowledge claim. It is not an opinion, a personal belief, a whim, an utterance, or just hearsay. It is a necessary inclusion, to give any argument legitimacy, validity, and certainty. Evidence is not personal, it is impersonal. It must be able to withstand any rational/logical scrutiny. It must always be objective, to avoid any human confirmation biases. If you believe that you can fly, or that someone else can fly, the evidence would not be about why you believe that you, or someone else can fly. The evidence should only be about whether you, or someone else can or cannot fly. Anything else is just distracting and unnecessary rhetoric.

​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I did not say it was a personal attack on me... I Said “Below is what I consider personal. I did not say it was a personal attack. I said it was critical and derogatory and it is directed at my person, it is not about my beliefs per se.” However, it is critical and derogatory to say that I “look” for opportunities to sermonize, editorialize, and proselytize my faith, as if I have some kind of devious motive or “plan.” I have no such motives. I am not looking for any opportunities. Those are negative things you think I am doing so it is an attack on my character. Moreover, you are doing it again, speaking for me as if you know my motives. You cannot KNOW what I am looking for; all you can know is what I post. You can have an opinion about why but you cannot know why.

No, it is not a reasoned valid conclusion based on an inordinate amount of time you have spent arguing with me, and other members of my faith. It is just your personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less. There is no sermonizing because no Baha’is are preaching at you and telling you what to believe, quite the opposite. There is no proselytizing because no Baha’is are trying to convince you of what you believe. In fact, you are the one who is asking us to convince you and we have declined, since that is not our responsibility. I have no idea what you mean by editorializing.

It is as honest as the day is long. Let’s look at why this is honest. You ask me a question about evidence, I give you an answer. I tell you that is all the evidence I have (honest). I tell you that you do not have to *accept* my evidence (in the sense of believing it is good evidence) but I cannot give you anything else because that is all the evidence I have (honest). Yes, I have a problem with you asking me for some kind of objective evidence I cannot provide because I don’t have any such evidence and I have already told you that, yet you keep asking. I am not obfuscating or avoiding the question. I am just honestly telling you I don’t have any more evidence. To be clear, I never said that you have to *accept* my evidence as good evidence for you. I said you have to *accept* that is all the evidence I can provide because I don’t have anything else. If a man holds me up in a dark alley and I give him my wallet and my jewelry because that is all I have, hopefully he would accept that because he can see that is all I have to give him. It would be unfair for him to expect me to give him something I do not have.

The conversation about evidence is over if I gave you all the evidence I have and you don’t like it, just as the holdup in the dark alley is over after I have given the robber everything I have to give him. He can either *accept* what I gave him and walk away with the wallet and jewelry (logical choice) or he can shoot me dead because he wanted something from me I did not have (illogical choice).

Bzzzt! You just created a straw man. I never said that my evidence should satisfy your non-belief. I only ever said that it is all I have.

If my evidence does not satisfy you non-belief, but that is all the evidence I have, it is logical to conclude that the conversation is over because there is nothing more to be said.

If you don’t like my evidence the logical thing to do is say so and either (a) look somewhere else for evidence, or (b) forget about evidence altogether and just accept that you are a confirmed atheist.

I do not think you are aware of what you are saying, I think you are just confused. I have told you myriad times that (a) I just have a certain belief and that (b) I am not trying to convince anyone of that belief, because that is not my responsibility. Yes, I realize it is extraordinary to *say* that Baha’u’llah spoke for God, but nevertheless I can only provide you with the evidence I have that demonstrates why *I believe that.* Moreover, and this is important: I am not the one who made the claim to speak for God, so I am not the one on whom the onus lies to prove the claim. It is Baha’u’llah who was responsible to prove that, if he wanted people to believe in Him.

It is irrational to expect any evidence other than the evidence that Baha’u’llah provided of the Truth of His mission and station. Where else would we get evidence, and how reliable would that evidence be? Sure, we can look at evidence that comes from other sources but it is not the best evidence because it is further from the original source, which is Baha’u’llah Himself. Then after we look at the evidence Baha’u’llah provided we can try to verify its accuracy by looking at other sources. This is the logical way to proceed when investigating religious Truth.

Bzzzt! The problem with what you just said is that what stands up to scrutiny is not the same for everyone. My evidence stands up to MY scrutiny but it does not stand up to YOUR scrutiny. It is reliable to ME because it stands up to my scrutiny, but it is not reliable to YOU because it does not stand up to your scrutiny.

I have presented some of the evidence that supports what I believe, but I really should not even be doing that because everyone should do their own research. I have told you that time and again. I can lead you to the evidence room but I cannot look at the evidence and assess it for you. Any assessment of the evidence I might come up with is only good for my belief, it is no good for your belief because it is not YOUR assessment.

I can explain why I believe in Baha’u’llah, what evidence led me to believe, but I cannot demonstrate how *I know* my belief about Baha’u’llah is true because that is an inner knowing.

You make a good point, that we learn about ourselves through interactions with other people, but that is not the only way we learn about ourselves. We can also come to know ourselves through introspection. I do not believe that the only way I can know myself is to develop an objective perspective from outside of myself, and in fact it is treading on dangerous ground to form an opinion about myself according to what others think about me. Other people can never know as much about me as I can know, all they can have are opinions about me. Some of those opinions might be true and helpful, but some may be false and destructive.

For example, as a child growing up my mother said things to me that were very negative and thus she caused me to feel guilty of things I was not guilty of. As an adult, I carried those feelings but through much therapy and introspection I have come to realize I am not the person she made me out to be. Through observation of and interaction with other people, as well as introspection, I have come to realize in my mind that the guilt I have is inappropriate, but I still feel guilty a lot of the time because I was damaged as a child. I just have to try to override the feeling with rational thoughts.

Comparing humans to dogs is not a valid comparison because humans have a soul and can therefore think in the abstract and make free will decisions, whereas other animals are led by instinct. There is no limit to what humans can learn, and how much they can grow and change, but animals have a limited capacity. This is why animals are predictable and humans are not.

I am sure my husband knows things about me that I am unaware of, but I know myself better than he knows me and he knows himself better than I know him.

Atheism is based entirely on the evidence. Belief is not necessary to explain natural phenomena. Everything in our Universe is based entirely on cause and effect. Anything that causes an effect on something else, can be detected. Even at the Quantum level of reality, causes and effects can be determined accurately through the Quantum laws of probability. And, at the classical level of reality by the four forces in nature. There are no exceptions. Even if we can't observe the cause, we can observe the effects, and determine the cause. There has never, ever been even one verifiable example of any supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, extra-terrestrial, or metaphysical event. Ever. No miracles, no real magic, no God(s), demigods, no faith healing, clairvoyance, no mediums, or any human with real supernatural abilities. Which in itself is evidence against. Everything that exist can be explained without any need to invoke the supernatural. If only you could point to just one verifiable example of anything existing outside of the physics of reality. But you can't, can you? So why would anyone believe in the impossible? Faith?

I believe that many people need to believe, because they have been lead to believe that everything has a purpose. Therefore they conclude that there must exist something that must give things their purpose. This is an equivocation fallacy between the cause of something, and the purpose of something. They are not the same. One is specific, and the other is subjective. The only purpose of humans, is to survive long enough to pass on their genetic material to their offspring, and die. Nothing more. The cause of human development, is the result of genetic mutations, evolution, and changes in the environment. Nothing more.

It is totally presumptuous to assume that if people don't like your evidence, it must be because of their worldview. It just could be that your evidence sucks, or that you have no perspective of what constitutes evidence. It is also arrogance for you to keep stating that you have evidence for your claims, and then say, "Yes, I have a problem with you asking me for some kind of objective evidence I cannot provide because I don’t have any such evidence and I have already told you that, yet you keep asking.". Did you think that subjective personal revelations, and anecdotes are even classed as evidence? They are not. But the worst claim is "It is irrational to expect any evidence other than the evidence that Baha’u’llah provided of the Truth of His mission and station(editorializing). Where else would we get evidence, and how reliable would that evidence be(many other sources, and very reliable)? Sure, we can look at evidence that comes from other sources but it is not the best evidence(source is irrelevant to evidence) because it is further from the original source, which is Baha’u’llah Himself(sermonizing).". No, it is very rational. What is irrational, is to expect a different perspective from a single, or some other approved source. Would you expect to learn the truth about democratic social ideals, from the Clan? Especially if you are a Clansman. Would you expect to learn about a Honda, only from the Honda dealer? Oops, more clear examples to be ignored.

The mind is plastic. It can change over time. Substituting one form of repression with another, is certainly not the answer.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Repeated analysis has shown this pattern:
1. prophet aaaaa was a false prophet
2. prophet aaaab was a false prophet
8497. prophet csttw was a false prophet
9246. prophet etrvd was a false prophet
Therefore, it is highly likely that prophet 10,658 fueht is also a false prophet.

Additionally, no prophet has ever been shown to be a true prophet. Therefore, concluding that all prophets are false prophets, is neither hasty nor a generalization. It is a reasoned conclusion.

I guess you mean that no prophet has ever been *unequivocally proven* to be a true prophet of God.

However, many Prophets have *evidence* that indicates that they were true Prophets.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer: I did watch that video you posted. Obviously that woman is not on the up and up. I doubt she contacted any dead people. She was just preying on peoples’ emotions, which is easy to do when someone has lost a loved one and they are desperate. This is immoral. I cannot understand how people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of scheme,...

ecco: So far, so good.

Trailblazer: That is not to say that there are no mediums who can contact departed spirits, but they are not the ones you see on TV. They are ones who do individual readings.

ecco: Oh no. Just when you were doing so well. I cannot understand how people are dumb enough to fall for this kind of scheme (your words).

Your problem is that you just lump everyone together... All mediums are frauds, all prophets are false. Fine, if that is what you believe, but keep in mind you have no proof of either *assertion.* Moreover, there is no reason why I am obligated to prove what I believe any more than you are obligated to prove what you believe. NOBODY is obligated to prove anything to anyone else except themselves. God gave us all a brain so we can make our own determinations.

It seems you are making the same basic argument for psychics and prophets: Most are phony but mine (Trailblazer) are the real deal.

No, this has nothing to do with *yours and mine.* Some psychics are phony and some are genuine. Some prophets are false and some are true Prophets sent by God. One reason God gave all of us all a brain is so we could distinguish between truth and falsehood, but that requires looking at the *evidence* rather than just making assumptions, facts not in evidence.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103​

 

[Trailblazer]

Skipping redundant comments...

First you indicated that it was a matter of how much was charged. Now you are backtracking...

I said: “I am saying that there are legitimate mediums and they cost more than $25. They might charge something like $100 an hour but some charge more than that”

I said that a medium that only charged $25 was a fraud. That means that legitimate mediums cost more than $25. I did not say that there are NO high-priced psychics who are frauds. Some high-priced mediums are legitimate and some high-priced mediums are frauds.

Trailblazer: The question isn’t why I would believe her, the question is why so many other people are duped. The answer is that people are desperate and/or naïve and they don’t do their homework.

ecco: Yeah. Just like beliefs in Gods and Messengers. You don't see the correlation, do you?

I do see a correlation between belief in psychics who are frauds and *purported* messengers who are frauds, those such as Jim Jones. However, I see no correlations between belief in fraudulent psychics and belief in *legitimate* Messengers of God.

Trailblazer: Scientists can deny the truth of mediums talking to spirits, but science cannot prove that is a bogus claim since the spiritual world is outside of the scope of science.

ecco: Nonsense. Science has shown that every medium/psychic/paranormal that has ever been tested is a fraud. Ditto Messengers.

But only the psychics who were *tested* were proven to be frauds. Not all psychics have been tested, in fact probably very few have been tested compared to how many psychics there are. As for Messengers, show me ANY scientific tests that have been done on Messengers that prove they are frauds.

Trailblazer said: There is also a way to know who the con men are and who the true Prophets are... Jesus explained how we know a true prophet from a false prophet...

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
ecco: So you ignore the words of Jesus. OK.

Why am I ignoring the words of Jesus? Please explain.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet, in many cases, they do.

Once they have the taste of powers, either political or military, or worse both, they will often to press their advantages.

Your Baha’i may not have powers now, but if it ever did, the probability that your people would oppress others, would seem likely to occur, especially because of Baha’i Faith connection to the Abrahamic religions. And Abrahamic religions have the tendencies to play favoritisms.

It is not logical to make a generalization like that. The Baha'i Faith has a connection to Abrahamic religions and technically speaking it is an Abrahamic religion, but it is very different from the other Abrahamic religions because this is a new religious cycle, a new age of mankind.

Baha'is are disallowed from being involved in politics and Holy War was abrogated in Baha'u'llah's Book of Laws. As you can see in the following quote, the Baha'i Faith does not play favorites, since we believe that the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation. It is free from any form of ecclesiasticism, has neither priesthood nor rituals, and is supported exclusively by voluntary contributions made by its avowed adherents. Though loyal to their respective governments, though imbued with the love of their own country, and anxious to promote at all times, its best interests, the followers of the Bahá’í Faith, nevertheless, viewing mankind as one entity, and profoundly attached to its vital interests, will not hesitate to subordinate every particular interest, be it personal, regional or national, to the over-riding interests of the generality of mankind, knowing full well that in a world of interdependent peoples and nations the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole, and that no lasting result can be achieved by any of the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are neglected….”
The Promised Day Is Come, vi - vii​

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you even know what the word evidence means? Do you think that as long as you state that you have presented evidence, that you have actually presented evidence? Even if anyone questions it, or claims that it is not evidence? Do you even consider why anyone would not accept your evidence, even though it is good enough for you?

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

YOU do not determine what evidence is and neither does anyone else on this forum. What I have is evidence *to me* because it indicates to me that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. It is not evidence *to you* because it does not indicate to you that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Why can’t you understand that human thought processes differ so not everyone is going to interpret the same evidence the same way?

If people ask for evidence I will present what I have but I do not care if anyone accepts my evidence.

What is good enough *for me* is not going to be good enough for other people.

Yes, I know why people do not accept my evidence. It is because they view it differently than I do because all people are different. It is really that simple.

Evidence is the use of facts or verifiable/reliable information, that will support or reject a hypothesis or a knowledge claim. It is not an opinion, a personal belief, a whim, an utterance, or just hearsay. It is a necessary inclusion, to give any argument legitimacy, validity, and certainty. Evidence is not personal, it is impersonal. It must be able to withstand any rational/logical scrutiny. It must always be objective, to avoid any human confirmation biases. If you believe that you can fly, or that someone else can fly, the evidence would not be about why you believe that you, or someone else can fly. The evidence should only be about whether you, or someone else can or cannot fly. Anything else is just distracting and unnecessary rhetoric.

None of what you delineated is the definition of evidence. You added to the meaning of evidence, to include what *you think* evidence should be. What you defined is proof, not evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

I have a body of facts and information that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God so I have evidence.

I do not have evidence that establishes as a fact that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God so I do not have proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheism is based entirely on the evidence. Belief is not necessary to explain natural phenomena. Everything in our Universe is based entirely on cause and effect. Anything that causes an effect on something else, can be detected. Even at the Quantum level of reality, causes and effects can be determined accurately through the Quantum laws of probability. And, at the classical level of reality by the four forces in nature. There are no exceptions. Even if we can't observe the cause, we can observe the effects, and determine the cause. There has never, ever been even one verifiable example of any supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, extra-terrestrial, or metaphysical event. Ever. No miracles, no real magic, no God(s), demigods, no faith healing, clairvoyance, no mediums, or any human with real supernatural abilities. Which in itself is evidence against. Everything that exist can be explained without any need to invoke the supernatural. If only you could point to just one verifiable example of anything existing outside of the physics of reality. But you can't, can you? So why would anyone believe in the impossible? Faith?

I believe that many people need to believe, because they have been lead to believe that everything has a purpose. Therefore they conclude that there must exist something that must give things their purpose. This is an equivocation fallacy between the cause of something, and the purpose of something. They are not the same. One is specific, and the other is subjective. The only purpose of humans, is to survive long enough to pass on their genetic material to their offspring, and die. Nothing more. The cause of human development, is the result of genetic mutations, evolution, and changes in the environment. Nothing more.

It is totally presumptuous to assume that if people don't like your evidence, it must be because of their worldview. It just could be that your evidence sucks, or that you have no perspective of what constitutes evidence. It is also arrogance for you to keep stating that you have evidence for your claims, and then say, "Yes, I have a problem with you asking me for some kind of objective evidence I cannot provide because I don’t have any such evidence and I have already told you that, yet you keep asking.". Did you think that subjective personal revelations, and anecdotes are even classed as evidence? They are not. But the worst claim is "It is irrational to expect any evidence other than the evidence that Baha’u’llah provided of the Truth of His mission and station(editorializing). Where else would we get evidence, and how reliable would that evidence be(many other sources, and very reliable)? Sure, we can look at evidence that comes from other sources but it is not the best evidence(source is irrelevant to evidence) because it is further from the original source, which is Baha’u’llah Himself(sermonizing).". No, it is very rational. What is irrational, is to expect a different perspective from a single, or some other approved source. Would you expect to learn the truth about democratic social ideals, from the Clan? Especially if you are a Clansman. Would you expect to learn about a Honda, only from the Honda dealer? Oops, more clear examples to be ignored.
​

The mind is plastic. It can change over time. Substituting one form of repression with another, is certainly not the answer.

Nobody is asking you to believe in anything. Everything in the physical world can be observed and studied because we live in the physical world. We do not live in the spiritual world so we cannot see it, observe it, or study it. I do not expect objective proof of that which cannot be proven objectively. I know a spiritual world exists. I am aware of it even though I cannot see it. I do not need to see it. I will see it soon enough, after I die.

You can call it faith if you want to, but I have factual evidence surrounding the Revelation of Baha’u’llah that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. That is the only reason I believe in Him. I have no need to believe and I do not even want to believe much of the time. A life of service to God is not an easy life.

It is irrational is to expect to get accurate information about a religion from people who don’t even know anything about it. It is rational is to get information about a religion form its own recorded history and scriptures and from people who belong to the religion. That is why people on forums ask Baha’is questions about the Baha’i Faith. They do not ask Jews about the Baha’i Faith.

If you want to know what Christians believe you read the Bible, not the Hindu scriptures.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, based upon biology, pigs cannot fly. No pigs have ever been found that can fly because pigs cannot fly. Only birds can fly.

No, that is completely illogical because the fact that there are many, many false prophets in no way precludes the possibility that there are true Prophets. Moreover, we already have examples of true Prophets such as Moses and Jesus Christ, so you just lost this argument.

Of course we know that pigs don’t fly but no experiment has ever proven that Prophets of God do not exist?

How do Prophets defy the laws of reality? Unless you can explain HOW they do, you have lost this argument. Moreover, faith is not evidence and the two terms are contradictory. There e is ample evidence of men who were Prophets, you just do not *accept it* as evidence.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

Is there any other human being in the history of the world that has had as profound an effect upon humanity as Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

Nobody can confirm that God exists or that Messengers were sent by God. All we have is evidence. Some of the evidence as to how we know if someone is a Prophet is in that passage above. How I know is based upon the evidence, not upon faith. I have to have faith in God because God cannot be *proven to exist* but I know Bahaullah existed so I can look at all the evidence that surrounds His life and mission, I can read His writings, I can verify the prophecies of older religions that He fulfilled, and I can verify predictions he made that came to pass. With all that evidence, there is no question in my mind that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God/Prophet.

Baha’u’llah made many predictions that came to pass. In this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass and the explanations of how they came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

As I have said many times to my atheist friends on other forums, based upon the empirical evidence, there are only three logical possibilities.

1. God exists and sends Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate with humanity (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

Someone might want to argue that there are other possibilities such as “God exists and communicates to me personally” but that has no empirical evidence to support it, so I did not list it.

If an unjust God existed it would be the same as no God existing because there would be no reason to ever worship an unjust God.

There is a serious flaw in what you said. You cannot say that God can exist and then say that God does not exist, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.As I have said repeatedly, evidence is not what determines whether God exists or not because God could exist and not *provide* any evidence at all.

Why would the laws of physics collapse if God existed?

There is no empirical evidence that shows that God does not exist, but there is infinitely more than enough empirical evidence to suggest that a God does exist. You just do not *like* that evidence because it does not meet your criteria. Lol, the Tanakh and the Bible alone are evidence that God exists, and then we also have the Qur’an and the extensive Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. It is self-evident that these scriptures are more than the writings of an ordinary man. That is self-evident not only by reading them, but also because of the impact these scriptures have had upon humanity. That is not to mention the scriptures of other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.84 percent of the world population has a faith, and all these religions have scriptures that were written by a Founder, some kind of Messenger of God. Logically speaking, if there are Messengers “of God” then there has to be a God.

Let me make this perfectly clear. There can never be any*objective evidence* of God because God is not a material entity. Moreover, God is above and beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by anyone. The Messengers so God know God, but *how* they know God is beyond our understanding because their very nature is beyond our understanding.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166​

All we are able to know about God are some Attributes of God that are revealed by Messengers and reflected in Creation. We can also know God’s will for man in every age because it is revealed by the Messengers of God, but we can never know the intrinsic nature of God. God sits on the All-Highest Throne, the Habitation of everlasting might and glory. We cannot know any more about God than Messengers reveal.

No, it is pure logic, plain and simple. If a Prophet claims to speak for God that has to be either true or false. The fact that we cannot *know* for certain is a separate matter.

None of this has to do with *needs.* We need to stick with the evidence and not conjecture as to why people believe in God or Prophets, because why people believe has no bearing on whether they exist or not.

We have objective evidence to support the claims of the Messenger.Baha’u’llah did things that were supernatural/paranormal, but that is not the best evidence of who He was. If I told you some stories of what He did, would you even believe me?

If you really *care* about those things you listed above, then you should be willing to *look* at the evidence that is available with an open mind, rather than just discounting it out of hand. I am and always have been willing to answer any questions or explain anything. For the last five years, my primary avocation has been posting to atheists on various forums.

At least we agree that Pigs can't fly. Not because of biology, but because of physics. Claiming that Christ an Moses were prophets is illogical, unless you can somehow prove their existence first. Otherwise, just more empty unproven assertions, simply because the Bible says so. So can you demonstrate a none-make-believe true prophet, that we can examine? I didn't think so. So no true prophets exists, unless you can demonstrate that any does. I'm using that same science that demonstrates that pigs can't fly. So at least, I'm not begging the question. But on the common sense level, what would you do, if you had the true gift of prophecy? If you could do any paranormal activity? Keep it a secret?

s there any other human being in the history of the world that has had as profound an effect upon humanity as Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

Totally irrelevant. Elvis, Martin Luther King, Mandela, The Beatles, Harry Potter, and Star Trek, all had a great influence on people. This doesn't make them a prophet. What you are claiming as a prophet is a true Messenger for a God. What is the mechanism by which he(only a he in the Baha'i faith) communicates with a God? Where does He get this information from? How can you test the truth/validity of what the Messenger says?

The argument was over the minute you started sermonizing and quote mining from a man-written text. Especially, when you assume that the text represents some factual and objective authority. It doesn't. It is only as real, as you want to be. I think you are confused. I also stated that faith and evidence were opposites. In fact faith is the total absence of evidence. I don't mind you repeating what I say. But implying that I thought they were both the same, is not very honest. Is it?

No, it is pure logic, plain and simple. If a Prophet claims to speak for God that has to be either true or false. The fact that we cannot *know* for certain is a separate matter.

Really? He might be just bat-s**t insane. If someone in the subway was chanting that he was a Messenger from a God, and claims that he knows the true nature of a God, I can think of more that just two options. But this is just more distraction and misdirection. You are simply hiding behind the fact that this claim is unfalsifiable. It is just another gap-filling argument from ignorance. Now that is really plain and simple logic.
​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, based upon biology, pigs cannot fly. No pigs have ever been found that can fly because pigs cannot fly. Only birds can fly.

No, that is completely illogical because the fact that there are many, many false prophets in no way precludes the possibility that there are true Prophets. Moreover, we already have examples of true Prophets such as Moses and Jesus Christ, so you just lost this argument.

Of course we know that pigs don’t fly but no experiment has ever proven that Prophets of God do not exist?

How do Prophets defy the laws of reality? Unless you can explain HOW they do, you have lost this argument. Moreover, faith is not evidence and the two terms are contradictory. There e is ample evidence of men who were Prophets, you just do not *accept it* as evidence.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

Is there any other human being in the history of the world that has had as profound an effect upon humanity as Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

Nobody can confirm that God exists or that Messengers were sent by God. All we have is evidence. Some of the evidence as to how we know if someone is a Prophet is in that passage above. How I know is based upon the evidence, not upon faith. I have to have faith in God because God cannot be *proven to exist* but I know Bahaullah existed so I can look at all the evidence that surrounds His life and mission, I can read His writings, I can verify the prophecies of older religions that He fulfilled, and I can verify predictions he made that came to pass. With all that evidence, there is no question in my mind that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God/Prophet.

Baha’u’llah made many predictions that came to pass. In this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass and the explanations of how they came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

As I have said many times to my atheist friends on other forums, based upon the empirical evidence, there are only three logical possibilities.

1. God exists and sends Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate with humanity (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

Someone might want to argue that there are other possibilities such as “God exists and communicates to me personally” but that has no empirical evidence to support it, so I did not list it.

If an unjust God existed it would be the same as no God existing because there would be no reason to ever worship an unjust God.

There is a serious flaw in what you said. You cannot say that God can exist and then say that God does not exist, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.As I have said repeatedly, evidence is not what determines whether God exists or not because God could exist and not *provide* any evidence at all.

Why would the laws of physics collapse if God existed?

There is no empirical evidence that shows that God does not exist, but there is infinitely more than enough empirical evidence to suggest that a God does exist. You just do not *like* that evidence because it does not meet your criteria. Lol, the Tanakh and the Bible alone are evidence that God exists, and then we also have the Qur’an and the extensive Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. It is self-evident that these scriptures are more than the writings of an ordinary man. That is self-evident not only by reading them, but also because of the impact these scriptures have had upon humanity. That is not to mention the scriptures of other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.84 percent of the world population has a faith, and all these religions have scriptures that were written by a Founder, some kind of Messenger of God. Logically speaking, if there are Messengers “of God” then there has to be a God.

Let me make this perfectly clear. There can never be any*objective evidence* of God because God is not a material entity. Moreover, God is above and beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by anyone. The Messengers so God know God, but *how* they know God is beyond our understanding because their very nature is beyond our understanding.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166​

All we are able to know about God are some Attributes of God that are revealed by Messengers and reflected in Creation. We can also know God’s will for man in every age because it is revealed by the Messengers of God, but we can never know the intrinsic nature of God. God sits on the All-Highest Throne, the Habitation of everlasting might and glory. We cannot know any more about God than Messengers reveal.

No, it is pure logic, plain and simple. If a Prophet claims to speak for God that has to be either true or false. The fact that we cannot *know* for certain is a separate matter.

None of this has to do with *needs.* We need to stick with the evidence and not conjecture as to why people believe in God or Prophets, because why people believe has no bearing on whether they exist or not.

We have objective evidence to support the claims of the Messenger.Baha’u’llah did things that were supernatural/paranormal, but that is not the best evidence of who He was. If I told you some stories of what He did, would you even believe me?

If you really *care* about those things you listed above, then you should be willing to *look* at the evidence that is available with an open mind, rather than just discounting it out of hand. I am and always have been willing to answer any questions or explain anything. For the last five years, my primary avocation has been posting to atheists on various forums.

As I have said many times to my atheist friends on other forums, based upon the empirical evidence, there are only three logical possibilities.

1. God exists and sends Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate with humanity (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

​

Someone might want to argue that there are other possibilities such as “God exists and communicates to me personally” but that has no empirical evidence to support it, so I did not list it.

If an unjust God existed it would be the same as no God existing because there would be no reason to ever worship an unjust God.

What is the empirical evidence that you base your assumptions on? How about, "I don't know" as an option? How do you conclude that if God is unjust, that it is the same that no God exist at all? How do you know this? Considering the number of pagan and devil worshippers out there, I'm sure some would worship an unjust God. There is also more evidence to support an unjust God, than a just and caring God.

There is a serious flaw in what you said. You cannot say that God can exist and then say that God does not exist, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.As I have said repeatedly, evidence is not what determines whether God exists or not because God could exist and not *provide* any evidence at all.

My original statement was, "But maybe outside of our reality a God can Exist". Please try not to keep taking my statements out of context. I don't mind you arguing with your straw man, but it can get boring. It is sad that you must create your own argument to avoid mine. Maybe you should take your own advice, and also "provide any evidence at all".

Why would the laws of physics collapse if God existed?

It would take awhile to explain. But suffice to say, all of our physical laws are interdependent on each other. All of these properties are generally fixed or consistent. Nothing outside of our reality can enter our reality, without effecting these generally fixed limitations.​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

YOU do not determine what evidence is and neither does anyone else on this forum. What I have is evidence *to me* because it indicates to me that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. It is not evidence *to you* because it does not indicate to you that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Why can’t you understand that human thought processes differ so not everyone is going to interpret the same evidence the same way?

If people ask for evidence I will present what I have but I do not care if anyone accepts my evidence.

What is good enough *for me* is not going to be good enough for other people.

Yes, I know why people do not accept my evidence. It is because they view it differently than I do because all people are different. It is really that simple.


None of what you delineated is the definition of evidence. You added to the meaning of evidence, to include what *you think* evidence should be. What you defined is proof, not evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

I have a body of facts and information that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God so I have evidence.

I do not have evidence that establishes as a fact that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God so I do not have proof.

Did you also see the word "fact" as part of the definition of evidence? What do you think facts mean? Fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true. So, exactly, what part of your claim is known to be true, or what part has been proven to be true? What is this body of facts that indicates any of your statements are true, or that a Messenger exists is true? Absolutely nothing. Just more manipulating the meaning of terms, to justify a very weak narrative. What's next, putting "indicating" and "establishes" under your equivocation microscope?