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

[CG Didymus]

It appears to be foretelling the events before and after the birth of Jesus.

It appears to be saying that before Jesus is accepted another 2 religions "Kings" of that land will be rejected.

These passages are difficult to put meaning to, much knowledge of the past and of Baha'u'llah's Message would be needed, but more importantly a heart such as Abdu'lbaha had.

Regards Tony

Tony, I didn't know you were going to look it up. Well, if it weren't for the gospels saying that Jesus was born of a virgin... From the rest of the context why would a Jew, especially before the time of Jesus, think that chapter was a Messianic prophecy? It says it's a sign for this King Ahaz and there were two kings preparing to attack Judah. But, in the sign, it says that by the time this child gets older, those two kings will be dead.

 

[samtonga43]

I don't have faith that there can be proof. I know there is proof because Baha'u'llah said so.

And there we have it.
This is a cult.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, I didn't know you were going to look it up. Well, if it weren't for the gospels saying that Jesus was born of a virgin... From the rest of the context why would a Jew, especially before the time of Jesus, think that chapter was a Messianic prophecy? It says it's a sign for this King Ahaz and there were two kings preparing to attack Judah. But, in the sign, it says that by the time this child gets older, those two kings will be dead.

I do not see they would know. After Jesus gave a Message, they could have known, they could have asked Jesus.

Remember Jesus offered in John 5:46 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

The same with Baha'u'llah, accepting the Message allows for the proof to be given and found.

Rejection leads to ignorance of those possibilities.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

It's potentially provable, that's why it's an objective truth belief.

Call it what you like, these are just labels. Objective evidence can mean more than one thing depending upon what we are trying to prove as we discover when we look it up on the internet.

I just found a new definition of evidence which I like better than the ones I have been citing and within the context of religion I would consider this to be the *objective evidence* that shows a man is a Messenger of God.

evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Unless if you really want it to be a subjective truth belief. Because it's a subjective, it's meaningless. And since it's meaningless, why continue to argue and defend it? Someone only need to say that Baha'u'llah was not a messenger of God, and the conversation should just end at that.

Basically it all comes down to the belief that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God is equivalent to believing that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream.

Whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not is not subjective, it is objective, because *in objective reality* Baha'u'llah was either (a) a Messenger of God or (b) a false prophet who made false claims.

I was only ever saying that how people interpret the evidence for Baha'u'llah is subjective and that is precisely why most people say that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, and the conversation is over.

That Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is potentially provable, but it can only be proven to oneself, because not everyone will ever view the evidence the same way. That is why people need to look at the evidence *for themselves* and come to their own conclusions instead of asking Baha'is to prove it to them that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

So now the question is, why are you talking about Baha'u'llah being a messenger of God so much?

The only reason I talk about it is because people ask about Baha'u'llah or it comes up in conversation. Go ahead, look at my Profile at all the threads I have posted. The last thing I want to talk about is Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith. I only respond to posts and discuss it at all because I consider that courteous. I am not discussing it on any other thread except this one and that is only because people keep bringing it up.

But the minute people start telling me why I do what I do I will no longer respond to their posts. Nobody has any right to speak for other people's motives. Worse yet is to contradict someone when they have already stated their motives. I have no obligation to be courteous to people who are not respectful and I am not doing them any favors by allowing them to disrespect me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong. You have an unjustified true belief because you made it clear that you've logically accept that there is no evidence for the claim that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God.

And no, I'm not putting words in your mouth. What I'm doing is simply stating the facts from observing, in this case, it's simply reading what you wrote.

You read what I wrote but you misunderstood what I meant by what I wrote, but I cleared that up in my last post.

To be clear, there is evidence for the claim that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

What cannot be potentially proven to be true, has no evidence whatsoever to support it as being true.

3. If it's impossible for claim X to be potentially true, then it's also impossible for it to have information indicating that it is potentially true.

4. If any evidence do exist, it would negate the the whole concept of "impossible,"

That is all correct.

With all that being said, since the claim in "Baha'u'llah being a messenger of God," is impossible to prove that it's true, it's also impossible for the existence of evidence that supports this claim.

But as I pointed out in my last post it is *not impossible to prove* the claim that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is true so it is *not impossible* for the existence of evidence that supports this claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ironic how you posted the two definitions for the word, "evidence." Those definitions actually show that you are wrong. Someone can look at the information that you called evidence, and determine that it actually isn't evidence according to the two definitions you posted. So according to your two definitions, none of the information you presented that you called "evidence," are actual evidence for your claims. So your claim that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, have no evidence to support it as being true.

Everything I have posted as evidence is evidence according to the three definitions of evidence below.
The fact that everyone is not convinced by this evidence is entirely moot. Evidence is evidence.
Please show me any evidence for anything (not just religion) that convinces everyone.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

BTW,
The claims made by Baha'u'llah does not help prove that he was a messenger of God. Someone's claims are not evidence for those exact same claims. Just sharing some information on logic to those who are ignorant of logic.

Not once in my life did I ever say that the claims of Baha'u"llah constitute evidence. Numerous times I have stated that the claims are not the evidence because that would be circular reasoning. Anyone can 'claim' anything they want to but that is not proof of anything at all.

Let me make this perfectly clear by FIRST stating the claims and THEN the evidence that supports those claims.

CLAIMS:

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

EVIDENCE:

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

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

 

[Trailblazer]

These passages are difficult to put meaning to, much knowledge of the past and of Baha'u'llah's Message would be needed, but more importantly a heart such as Abdu'lbaha had.

And a Revelation from God such as Baha'u'llah had.

A revelation from God - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

And there we have it.
This is a cult.

The world's faithful account for 83% of the global population; the great majority of these fall under twelve classical religions--Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.Jul 2, 2021
Major Religions of the World - Infoplease

The Baha'i Faith is a dynamic world religion with several million adherents from a variety of different religious and cultural backgrounds. The central figure of the religion is Baha'u'llah, and Baha'is consider him to be the latest in a series of divine messengers.Sep 23, 2019
An introduction to the Baha'i Faith - The British Library

 

[Trailblazer]

I used to be a believer, and now I'm not. Did I just "choose" to disbelieve?

In any case, even if I grant your premise (which I don't), how can a person just "choose" to believe in something? Could you "choose" to believe in fairies? Could you "choose" to believe in an invisible elephant living in your living room?

You did choose to disbelieve because you no longer believed.
I cannot choose to disbelieve because I still believe.

I never said that you could choose to believe. I said that belief is a choice, but it is not necessarily a choice people make.

Trailblazer said: Who said anything about requirements? Belief in God or religion is a choice.

No, the problem is that you assume that God exists, then you decide that since science can't show any evidence for God or religion, that some other tool must be required. This other tool, naturally, has no way of checking the validity of its results, so it can be used to reach any conclusions you want it to reach, and if anyone says you are wrong, you can rest assured that they can never actually PROVE your conclusions are incorrect.

I can do the same thing with anything that doesn't exist. For example, since science can't be used as a tool to show that Hogwarts doesn't exist, we need to use another tool. We'll call iot "magic." I know that Hogwarts is real because I have felt its magic. I can't prove it to you, because what is proof to me may not be proof to you. But I know it exists.

That's the same exact logic you are using, and yet I'm sure you would agree that it's not valid reasoning. And yet you seem happy to use it to support your own religious beliefs.

I do not "assume" that God exists, I believe that God exists and I believe because I have evidence.

You can do the same thing with anything that doesn't exist but that does not mean that God does not exist.
Do you understand why that is illogical? It is illogical because God exists is either true or false and whether Hogwarts exist has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

Nobody can prove my conclusions are incorrect but that does not mean they are correct. They are either correct or incorrect.

No, the logic I am using is NOT that God exists because God cannot be proven NOT to exist. My logic is that God exists because there is evidence that shows that God exists.

The inescapable fact is that you cannot use science as a tool to prove God exists, for obvious logical reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it will.

I can show ANYONE the evidence that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That evidence is objective fact. It can be tested and verified by anyone. If people do not accept it, it is not a fault with science, it is a fault with the person.

Give it up for lost. Religion is not science. It is not an objective fact that can be tested and verified by anyone.
There are objective facts surrounding the religion but not everyone will interpret those objective facts the same way.
If people do not accept the objective facts of the Baha'i Faith as true then it is the fault of the person who cannot see.

If someone views ACTUAL evidence (not opinion) differently, then they are wrong, as I explained above.

If someone views ACTUAL evidence *for a religion* differently that is because no two brains are alike so no two brains will ever interpret the same evidence the same way. You can't be this dumb, you just can't, so I have to accept that you just refuse to look at what is so drop dead illogical because of your bias.

Nah, it's not magic. It's called SCIENCE..

Science will never be able to prove that religion is true. You can't be that dumb, so I guess you are just being stubborn. But if you think you have a point show me how science could ever prove that a religion is true or that God exists. If you don't think that is possible then this conversation is over because there is nothing more to say.

Yes, it's very illogical of me to reject a method of finding things out about the universe that is not checkable in any way whatsoever. SO illogical... *Rolls eyes*

It is check-able, just not in the way that YOU want it to be check-able. Tough tiddlywinks.
If you do not accept that why are we still talking about this?

If there is valid evidence, yes. I am open to anything.

What evidence might that be, check-able evidence for Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you open to the idea that you are wrong? What would it take to show you that you are wrong?

A Messenger of God saying I am wrong.

I am currently just as critical of Christianity as I have always been.

And just as critical of the Baha'i Faith as of Christianity.

Yes there is.

If you count the corners of a particular shape and see there are four, then that is obecjtively true. It is not possible for you to count four and for me to count five. You can measure the angle of each corner, and if you measure it to be 90 degrees, that is likewise objectively true. And if you measure the length of each side and find that they are all equal, then that is also objective. And it is an objective fact that the shape is a square. It is nopt a square for you and a circle for me.

Yes, there is objective evidence and there is objective evidence that surrounds the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, but that evidence will be viewed differently by different people because no two brains think alike so not two brains interpret the evidence the same way.

You have said that it does. "Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true." Your post 2058.

That's right, I said that, but the SAME applies to you. That is why I said:

"Likewise, the validity of the evidence does NOT depend on whether it indicates what YOU want it to indicate."

Again, you are contradicting something you have said before.

What was that?

I don't. I dismiss it because there is no support, and thus it is not evidence.

It is not evidence TO YOU.

Still an opinion, not evidence.

No, I have a belief and it is based upon the evidence that Baha'u'llah delineated..

You don't test it to see if it is evidence. You test it to see if it is CORRECT.

I do not need to test the evidence because I have the capacity to recognize the evidence.
Maybe you do not trust your own capacity but I trust my capacity.

"every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”

 

[Tiberius]

We all see the world subjectively. The closest we are able to come to an understanding of objective reality, is by confirming our subjective observations with each other. If several people observe an event or process, and all agree on what they have witnessed, then we call this objective reality. But is it? Or is what we observe a function of a particular perspective, which we all happen to share?

For centuries, all people believed the stars and sun rotated round the earth - because, from our perspective here on earth, that’s what our ancestors collectively witnessed. When Copernicus first suggested this was not the case, he had a hard time convincing his contemporaries that what they had been witnessing was in illusion brought on by perspective.

But the point is that when you get many different people all saying the same thing, then any subjective opinions they have are likely to be removed since others may not share those same subjective biases. And thus what we are left with is as close to objective truth as possible.

 

[Tiberius]

You did choose to disbelieve because you no longer believed.

So where does this "choice" you speak of come into it?

I never said that you could choose to believe. I said that belief is a choice, but it is not necessarily a choice people make.

How can there be a choice if no one is making it?

I do not "assume" that God exists, I believe that God exists and I believe because I have evidence.

No. For probably the hundredth time, your opinion is not evidence.

You can do the same thing with anything that doesn't exist but that does not mean that God does not exist.
Do you understand why that is illogical? It is illogical because God exists is either true or false and whether Hogwarts exist has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

You are completely missing my point.

You are presenting that line of reasoning to show that God could exist. I am using exactly the same reasoning to show that Hogwarts could exist. If you genuinely believed that the line of reasoning you used is valid, you MUST be open to the possibility of Hogwarts existing.

No, the logic I am using is NOT that God exists because God cannot be proven NOT to exist. My logic is that God exists because there is evidence that shows that God exists.

Again, opinion is NOT evidence!

The inescapable fact is that you cannot use science as a tool to prove God exists, for obvious logical reasons.

Because there is no God. That's why you have to rely on tools that are purely subjective and based on opinion.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Tiberius]

Give it up for lost. Religion is not science. It is not an objective fact that can be tested and verified by anyone.
There are objective facts surrounding the religion but not everyone will interpret those objective facts the same way.
If people do not accept the objective facts of the Baha'i Faith as true then it is the fault of the person who cannot see.

We are agreed in one thing.

Religion is not an objective fact.

If someone views ACTUAL evidence *for a religion* differently that is because no two brains are alike so no two brains will ever interpret the same evidence the same way. You can't be this dumb, you just can't, so I have to accept that you just refuse to look at what is so drop dead illogical because of your bias.

So why don't we ever see the same thing coming into play with two scientists disagreeing over the size of the moon? Why don't they just decide they are getting two completely different values for the size of the moon because "no two brains are alike so no two brains will ever interpret the same evidence the same way"?

Because, that sort of thing never happens, you realise?

Science will never be able to prove that religion is true. You can't be that dumb, so I guess you are just being stubborn. But if you think you have a point show me how science could ever prove that a religion is true or that God exists. If you don't think that is possible then this conversation is over because there is nothing more to say.

Oh for crying out loud...

I KNOW science will never prove religion is true! Do you not realise by now that I am an atheist? I believe that religion is NOT true! Why do you keep misrepresenting my position like this? Are you reduced to pathetic strawmen now?

It is check-able, just not in the way that YOU want it to be check-able. Tough tiddlywinks.

Rubbish. You've said on several occasions that the evidence can't be verified by anyone except the person who experiences it.

What evidence might that be, check-able evidence for Jesus?

Records of his crucifixion. How about that census when Herod was king? Any records of that? The Romans kept meticulous records. Let's get them out, huh?

 

[Tiberius]

A Messenger of God saying I am wrong.

Ah, but you get to decide who counts as a messenger from God. So if there was such a claim, you'd reject it by saying, "Yeah, well, they're not a messenger of God, are they?" Religion always has those convenient little "get out of jail free" cards for just such eventualities, doesn't it?

And just as critical of the Baha'i Faith as of Christianity.

Of pretty much all religion, really.

Yes, there is objective evidence and there is objective evidence that surrounds the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, but that evidence will be viewed differently by different people because no two brains think alike so not two brains interpret the evidence the same way.

And have I ever rejected any claim that is based on objective evidence?

That's right, I said that, but the SAME applies to you. That is why I said:

"Likewise, the validity of the evidence does NOT depend on whether it indicates what YOU want it to indicate."

And that's why we need some method to CHECK AND VERIFY the validity of the evidence. How long have I been saying that?

What was that?

"Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true."

In other words: "Does it indicate my beliefs are true? If it does, it is evidence. If it does not, it is not evidence. Behold, all the evidence indicates my beliefs are true."

It is not evidence TO YOU.

If you can't support it, it is opinion, not evidence.

No, I have a belief and it is based upon the evidence that Baha'u'llah delineated..

With a whole lot of stuff you believe to be true based on OPINION because there is no actual evidence to be checked.

I do not need to test the evidence because I have the capacity to recognize the evidence.
Maybe you do not trust your own capacity but I trust my capacity.

Ah yes, because no one ever overestimates their abilities, do they? If they are certain about something, then they MUST be correct!

 

[Truthseeker]

The world's faithful account for 83% of the global population; the great majority of these fall under twelve classical religions--Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.Jul 2, 2021
Major Religions of the World - Infoplease

The Baha'i Faith is a dynamic world religion with several million adherents from a variety of different religious and cultural backgrounds. The central figure of the religion is Baha'u'llah, and Baha'is consider him to be the latest in a series of divine messengers.Sep 23, 2019
An introduction to the Baha'i Faith - The British Library

So Van Gilmer grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. I lived there from 1966 to 1972, and there were no blacks in my high school, even though there were blacks in town. Not until after I became a Baha'i in 1970 did I know any blacks in Greensboro. It was a large community of Baha'is there compared to what I found in the Dayton area.

 

[Truthseeker]

I've seen Alex Jones do it lots on Infowars. Just talking and ranting nonstop.

He has his dialogue set up beforehand. You watch Alex Jones? Really? Never seen him myself, but he has a reputation.

Rachel Maddow also speaks rapidly non-stop, because she has a teleprompter, no doubt. Reveals my inclination, I know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But the point is that when you get many different people all saying the same thing, then any subjective opinions they have are likely to be removed since others may not share those same subjective biases. And thus what we are left with is as close to objective truth as possible.

It's 600 years since Copernicus told us everything we thought we new about our position in the universe was wrong. We've had time to get used to the idea since then.

It's a little over 100 years since Einstein told us everything we thought we knew about time was almost certainly wrong. And since Bohr and Schrodinger and Heisenberg told us that, at the sub atomic level, there are no certainties, only probabilities; that particles behave in ways which cannot begin to be explained by classical physics. That there are no fixed points, no certainties, and quite possibly no definable substance to the fundamental fabric of existence. This stuff has barely begun to sink in, even in the scientific community. The ground beneath our feet is shifting, the rock on which we stand is a whirling mass of interacting forces, not a thing so much, as a collection of events in a state of temporary equilibrium.

Don't take my word for it. Do some reading on Quantum Theory, there is a lot of accessible writing out there. I recommend starting with Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time, The Quantum Astrologer's Handbook by Michael Brooks, What is Real by Adam Becker.

I have just finished reading Helgoland, also by by Rovelli. Not sure I'll ever see the world quite the same way again.

 

[Trailblazer]

So Van Gilmer grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. I lived there from 1966 to 1972, and there were no blacks in my high school, even though there were blacks in town. Not until after I became a Baha'i in 1970 did I know any blacks in Greensboro. It was a large community of Baha'is there compared to what I found in the Dayton area.

You became a Baha'i in 1970? That is yet another thing we have in common Duane. I also became a Baha'i in 1970 while I was visiting my brother in Bellingham, WA. I lived in Santa Barbara back then, I was going to SBCC.

That feels like a lifetime ago.

 

[samtonga43]

The world's faithful account for 83% of the global population; the great majority of these fall under twelve classical religions--Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.Jul 2, 2021
Major Religions of the World - Infoplease

The Baha'i Faith is a dynamic world religion with several million adherents from a variety of different religious and cultural backgrounds. The central figure of the religion is Baha'u'llah, and Baha'is consider him to be the latest in a series of divine messengers.Sep 23, 2019
An introduction to the Baha'i Faith - The British Library

If all Bahais say that they
"know there is proof because Baha'u'llah said so",
then this is a religious cult.