In all fairness, I may not agree with
@TransmutingSoul 's methods, and I didn't read every post..... but it seems like the question was whether the Baha'i writings would be considered evidence, and that was it. It kind of sounds like the OP wanted to stick with that, and cover greater subjects later on.[/quot]
Tony has a habit of manipulation, and he does what is called the "foot in the door" approach. He thinks if he can make a minor point that he has earned agreement and support.
Are the tests evidence for his claims. Of course. It is much like the police fining a knife in the street near a stabbing is evidence and is colleted. It turns out the knife wasn't the weapon, but it was still evidence. Just because something is evidence does not mean it is valid and is applicable to what is being investigated. Do you follow me here?
Tony and the Baha'i obviously respect critical thinkers and they are looking for agreement in any way they can, and they don't care how weak their case is.
If that's the case, I do that sometimes, too. Start small, and work from there. Though I haven't asked about how to read things as evidence, yet.
The thing is none of the Baha'i have anything past the small. They have extraordinary claims and they lack extraordinary evidence. That's the end of it. They seem to think that they believe is enough. They repeat their claims over and over which is what propaganda does. The more they behave this way the less credibility they have, it is desperate and manipulative. I doubt they understand what they are doing. Those who make poor judgments about things will tend to work hard to do things to avoid accontability and double down on poor judgment.
The reason is shame in having poor judgment. They have something about themselves they want to hide from themselves, and arguing defensively is a way to do this. Do people who admit they made a mistake keep arguing? No. So if they keep arguing that must mean they are correct in their beliefs. Look at the posts that blame skeptics for some sort of fault, or flaw, or not doing thorough investigation, etc. This is them not looking at their own thinking and deflecting blame elsewhere. I've seen this pattern of bahvior in theists since I started debating religion in 1996.
Look at the George Santos situation. Critics are blaming democrats for not catching his lies. Why is it their responsibility to check the credibility of an opponent, they are busy with their own message? Why is there not complete blame on false claims and deliberate fraud by Santos? We critical thinkers are examining the claims and claims of evidence (often not valid as evidence in these claims) and find flaws and misrepresention. These criticism get ignored and the claims of evidence is repeated again and again, and to my mind that is fraud. Once something is exposed as invalid it is invalid, it isn't repeated as if it will magically become valid.
So Baha'u'llah may not have thought hiumself a fraud (perhaps mentally ill) but what Baha'i followers are doing is fraud. They want us to take their word for it all and not think or scrutinize, and we don't do that. Our ethics follow a method and that is requesting valid evidence for any claims made in debate.
