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

[Trailblazer]

I know. But I couldn't pass up giving you a hard time. Sorry. Well I'm posting from page 112. I know that lots of my posts will be coming up in later, but I gotta quit. I'm sure you won't mind that. I don't know how you can keep going. See you tomorrow.

I keep going by sheer force of my will. I still have posts to answer so I will not quit till they are all answered.
Then I will hope I don't get any more posts today, but I probably won't be so lucky.

 

[Trailblazer]

It has been explained to you why it is irrational. You have demonstrated why it is irrational. Denying that does not work.

It works fine for me because I will not tolerate the injustice of being labeled as irrational just because you think I am irrational. It has been explained why YOU THINK I am irrational. It all boils down to that. You think I am irrational. There is nothing more to it than your personal opinion. Nothing has been demonstrated because personal opinions cannot be demonstrated to be true or false.

Is there a reason why you cannot answer a simple question:
Do you understand that you do not determine what is rational or irrational for anyone except yourself?

 

[Trailblazer]

There's a reason it's called a "holier than thou" attitude. Because it's arrogant.

If you read anything I post on this forum you would know that the last thing I consider myself is holy.
The fact that I am sure of one thing in this life, that my beliefs are true, does not make me arrogant. All it means is that I have certitude, not because I am great in any way, not because I am smarter than anyone else. I am completely unworthy of God's grace.

You'll need to do better than just making excuses like, "Oh, it will happen soon, once everyone realises that we're right."

That is a straw man if I ever saw one. I never said that. a religion only gets documented by historians after it is more well-known and historians have a reason to be interested in it. That does not happen for a long time after it is revealed.

Your conclusion is that there are mutliple truths revealed by multiple messengers.

You have no idea what I desire unless I tell you what I desire. I do not desire for the Baha'i Faith to be true, I only believe that it is true. Do you understand the difference? One is emotional, the other intellectual.

You seriously expect me to believe that saying, "My beliefs can't possibly be wrong" isn't arrogant?

I don't give a rip what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me because I know myself better than you can ever know me.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

As I said before, this is not about ME being right. It is about certitude of my belief, which is bestowed by God.

“Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise. “ Gleanings, p. 145

An exaggerated sense of one's own abilities...

You mean like believing that you have the ability to be completely correct regarding your religious beliefs?

Go on, tell me again that's NOT arrogance.

I never said I am completely correct about my religious beliefs, but I believe I am correct about who Baha'u'llah was. God has ability to confer upon me that kind of certitude, as noted above, because God is omnipotent and benevolent.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

Once again you resort to quibbling over wordplay to avoid actually addressing the question.

I did answer it, you just did not like the answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

When someone gives their opinion, in regards to religion, I take it as it's their opinion and leave. But when someone is making truth claims, like how you've done on numerous occasions, I have to check/test to see if my reality is truly like how they claimed it to be.

You can call them truth claims if you want to call them that, but I have only stated what I believe is true.
If you are interested in knowing if they are true or not you should check them out for yourself.

I'm not gullible to just take what they said as being true, nor am I arrogant to automatically dismiss it as being false. And after finishing my investigation, if possible, I would compare my results with that person and ask more questions to in order to be more accurate and/or closer to the truth.

And that is what you should do, investigate for yourself, rather than assuming a belief is false.

“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

You might find light shining brilliantly in the lamp or not but you cannot know unless you go into the room and check it out.
Then if you think there was light in the lamp you can ask more questions of the person who sent you to that room.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a flawed epistemological method to knowing the truth. What's important here is knowing the truth about a particular thing. By simply just knowing what's false, it does not necessarily take you to the truth.

EX:
If a person asked me, "I have one thing in my pocket, is it?"
A. a real live adult elephant
B. a metal coin
C. a small finger ring

Thinking about it, I can logically say that "A" is not true because reality shows that a real live adult elephant would not fit in the pocket. But I still don't know what's truly in his pocket. But either the coin and ring can be what's in his pocket, because both of them can fit in it. With this information, I don't know if it's a coin, a ring or even something else, that's in his pocket.

That's right, simply knowing what's false does not necessarily take you to the truth. But that is not what I was implying. I meant that once one knows the truth about a particular thing then they know that what contradicts that truth must be false. So if you know there is no elephant in your pocket then you know that "there is an elephant in my pocket" is a false statement.

So one can come to a rational conclusion that, since you claimed to know that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God, and only give your opinions about it but cannot provide any evidence to support your claim.

I have stated what the evidence is on innumerable occasions. If people do not like the evidence that is not my problem. Baha'u'llah is the one who provided the evidence, I only report the evidence. If people don't like what I report they can walk away or look for other evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Believers choose to believe when they have faith.
Believers choose to no longer believe when they lose their faith.
Atheists choose not to believe because they have no faith.

You say it's a choice, but it seems to directly correlate to whether a person has faith or not, and that is not a choice. At least, not by what you said earlier when you said you couldn't choose to disbelieve because you still had your faith.

So your argument here makes about as much sense as saying a skydiver chooses to fall when they are no longer in the plane.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

With your prophet, it's probably different. Maybe it's all true. And I think some things are true. But still, there's some things I don't believe are true. So what can I do but keep asking questions.

Baha'u'llah answered that for you.

I will put it under a spoiler with the words that are applicable showing.

Spoiler: Immerse Yourself in the Ocean of My Words

"THE world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.
Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths. Take heed that ye do not vacillate in your determination to embrace the truth of this Cause—a Cause through which the potentialities of the might of God have been revealed, and His sovereignty established. With faces beaming with joy, hasten ye unto Him. This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.
Say: This is the infallible Balance which the Hand of God is holding, in which all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth are weighed, and their fate determined, if ye be of them that believe and recognize this truth. Say: Through it the poor have been enriched, the learned enlightened, and the seekers enabled to ascend unto the presence of God. Beware, lest ye make it a cause of dissension amongst you. Be ye as firmly settled as the immovable mountain in the Cause of your Lord, the Mighty, the Loving."

Your fate CG, is in your own hands.

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

No, I am not looking at everything. I don't look at what I consider to be crackpots or conspiracy theorists but I look at other views that I consider valid. This is a very good example of what people believe is objectively true being absolute truth. It isn't, because nobody has proven it and they cannot prove it, all they have is an opinion.

That's why I prefer to go with only those viewpoints that have TESTABLE EVIDENCE to support their claims.

Pretty handy stuff, that testable evidence, isn't it?

One cannot prove the damage a vaccine does to the overall immune system that people will need to fight off 'other diseases' in the future and the so-called experts don't want you to know about that because they are pushing the vaccine. No other vaccines were ever put on the market in a year, all were researched for 16-10 years and they were not put on the market if there were any adverse reactions to them. This is researchable. Nobody knows what might be discovered about the Covid vaccines in the future because the future is not here yet. Wake up and smell the coffee.

You do realise that we've known about and studied corona viruses for a very long time, right? The first coronavirus was identified in the 1920s, so that's a century or so that we've known about them.

And we get a new flu vaccine every year, or do you not count those?

Sure we know that the the Covid vaccines prevent severe illness and death in most cases based upon the statistics, but you are rather naive if you believe it is safe just because the experts say that. Many people have died from the vaccine and many have had severe adverse reactions that caused permanent disabilities.

Sure we know that seatbelts prevent severe injuries and death in most cases based upon the statistics, but you are rather naive if you believe it is safe just because the experts say that. Many people have died from seatbelts and many have had severe injuries that caused permanent disabilities.

See how stupid that argument is?

I don't want to hear that getting Covid is worse because more people have died of Covid than have dies of the vaccine because getting Covid can cause severe illness or death, because that is a moot point.

No it's not.

If people are around other people all the time then they should take the vaccine or be routinely tested, but it they are not at risk of getting Covid there is no reason to get the vaccine.

If a person is not at risk of getting into a car crash, there's no reason that they need to wear a seatbelt.

Again, your argument is just stupid.

I do not need the vaccine because I never come into contact with anyone except my husband so me getting the vaccine would be like me wearing a seat belt around the house in case I might get in a car accident.

And what about your husband? Do the two of you have absolutely no contact with nobody apart from yourselves?

I never read conspiracy websites. There are scientists who have been studying virology who do not agree with the scientists who support everyone taking the vaccine.

And yet you repeat many of the conspiracy nuts' arguments.

No, it is not the same. I can check something out by reading about it. I don't need to test it.

So you just read someone's opinion and decide whether or not it's true based on whether it makes sense to your fallible mind, and you do NOTHING to make sure you have it right.

All historical facts cannot be tested. What is valid for you is not valid for everyone and vice versa.

But many can.

And what is real for one person is real for all people, even if they don't believe it.

That's why we need to test it.

You can base your worldview on anything you want to base it on and I will base my worldview on what I want to base it on. We can all choose because we have free will.

And when you refuse to base your worldview on anything that can be verified, I'm sure you'll understand when I say your worldview is fantasy.

My religion does not say that Christianity proves it is true, all we say is that we believe the Bible is a holy book.

Rubbish. You've cited countless verses from the Bible to show that Baha'is have it right.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

It works fine for me because I will not tolerate the injustice of being labeled as irrational just because you think I am irrational. It has been explained why YOU THINK I am irrational. It all boils down to that. You think I am irrational. There is nothing more to it than your personal opinion. Nothing has been demonstrated because personal opinions cannot be demonstrated to be true or false.

Is there a reason why you cannot answer a simple question:
Do you understand that you do not determine what is rational or irrational for anyone except yourself?

It may work for you, but that does not make it a rational belief. People often conflate rationalization with rational thought. Making excuses to convince oneself does not make a belief rational. That is why the standard is usually to get others to check out one's thought processes. It is far to easy to believe what we want to believe.

I have explained to you why your beliefs are irrational. The unjustified claims, the failed prophecies. There were quite a few. You did not respond with rational reasoning.

 

[Tiberius]

If you read anything I post on this forum you would know that the last thing I consider myself is holy.

Is English not your first language?

to say someone has a "holier than thou" attitude is to say that the person believes themselves to be better than others.

The fact that I am sure of one thing in this life, that my beliefs are true, does not make me arrogant. All it means is that I have certitude, not because I am great in any way, not because I am smarter than anyone else. I am completely unworthy of God's grace.

It's more about the attitude, really.

That is a straw man if I ever saw one. I never said that. a religion only gets documented by historians after it is more well-known and historians have a reason to be interested in it. That does not happen for a long time after it is revealed.

You said, "As soon as historians start to believe the Baha'i Faith is worthy of serious study there will be more written."

You have no idea what I desire unless I tell you what I desire. I do not desire for the Baha'i Faith to be true, I only believe that it is true. Do you understand the difference? One is emotional, the other intellectual.

And you have shown many times in this thread that you let your desires determine your beliefs.

I never said I am completely correct about my religious beliefs, but I believe I am correct about who Baha'u'llah was. God has ability to confer upon me that kind of certitude, as noted above, because God is omnipotent and benevolent.

Do you believe that God would give you certainty about a belief that was wrong?

I did answer it, you just did not like the answer.

No you did not answer it.

The question called for a "yes" or a "no."

You instead went waffling on about what it could mean for other people, and quibbled over what "capacity" meant.

 

[Trailblazer]

It may work for you, but that does not make it a rational belief. People often conflate rationalization with rational thought. Making excuses to convince oneself does not make a belief rational.

The problem is that you don't know that I rationalized anything or made any excuses in order to convince myself.
What you just stated could apply to anyone, including you, so why direct it at me? I could just as easily say that you rationalize and make excuses to convince yourself that you are right about what believers believe about God and their religion but that does not make your non-belief rational. But I do not say that because it is not my place to analyze the behavior of other people and I have no need to.

That is why the standard is usually to get others to check out one's thought processes. It is far to easy to believe what we want to believe.

Who made that the standard? Why would others be any more correct about any given belief? Do you run your thought processes by other people? How do you know what I want to believe?

I run my thought processes by other people all the time. Have you seen any of the threads I have posted? Most of them are to elicit other opinions and I take all other opinions into consideration.

I have explained to you why your beliefs are irrational. The unjustified claims, the failed prophecies. There were quite a few. You did not respond with rational reasoning.

Unjustified by who? Failed prophecies by whose standards? Unless you can prove any of that it is true all you have is your personal opinion.

What is rational reasoning, what you consider rational?

It really never works to have a dialogue when people talk at other people and tell them how it is for them.

 

[night912]

You can call them truth claims if you want to call them that, but I have only stated what I believe is true.
If you are interested in knowing if they are true or not you should check them out for yourself.

Nope, you're the one whose calling it by whatever you want. I'm going by the definition of "claim." It was actually the definition that you posted. And you have admitted yourself here that you made a claim. You "stated," which means that you made a claim, according to the definition that you posted.

And that is what you should do, investigate for yourself, rather than assuming a belief is false.

Please stop with the projecting. I did my own investigation and found no evidence. I didn't assume, like how you did with the crucifixion of Jesus.

You might find light shining brilliantly in the lamp or not but you cannot know unless you go into the room and check it out.
Then if you think there was light in the lamp you can ask more questions of the person who sent you to that room.

Sorry, but I don't just see the "light" because I wanted to see the light, eventhough there was no lamp present. There was no lamp, that's why I didn't see any light.

 

[night912]

That's right, simply knowing what's false does not necessarily take you to the truth. But that is not what I was implying. I meant that once one knows the truth about a particular thing then they know that what contradicts that truth must be false. So if you know there is no elephant in your pocket then you know that "there is an elephant in my pocket" is a false statement.

But you don't know, you admitted it yourself. You said that it's impossible to know as a fact, that God communicated with him.

I have stated what the evidence is on innumerable occasions. If people do not like the evidence that is not my problem. Baha'u'llah is the one who provided the evidence, I only report the evidence. If people don't like what I report they can walk away or look for other evidence.

You stated claims and reported opinions. And you used circular reasoning to get to your conclusion, which is irrational. In order for you to verify that he was a messenger of God, you followed his criterion for verifying a messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You say it's a choice, but it seems to directly correlate to whether a person has faith or not, and that is not a choice. At least, not by what you said earlier when you said you couldn't choose to disbelieve because you still had your faith.

So your argument here makes about as much sense as saying a skydiver chooses to fall when they are no longer in the plane.

To a certain extent faith is a choice and once I had faith I could not choose to disbelieve because I still had faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

I got that verse from a Christian friend who I posted to for about seven years on other forums, and he came to this forum when I told him about it so he is here among us.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. God wants us to have faith and that explains why God does not provide absolute proof. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence we need to believe, but God will not force us to accept the evidence. That is a choice.

 

[night912]

But everyone on this forum knows that I am a Baha'i, so my question still stands: why does it bother bothers other people so much that I believe with certainty?

I already explained it in my earlier post. From my observations, majority of the people who engage with you, myself included, do so not because you believe with certainty. The reason is because you make claims that our reality is true like how you claim it is. It's only when your arguments are refuted, only then, do you change your stance from a claim to, "it's only my belief." Another tactic would be you committing the equivocation fallacy. From the comments that I've seen, you're the only person in RF that does this. Everyone else, when it comes to talking about "belief/believe" in general, and not specifically about believing vs knowing, you are being intellectually dishonest by using a strawman. The whole time, this discussion was about what you believe in. It wasn't about you actively believing, until you dishonestly used it as a strawman.

Noun vs verb. It's the noun form that is being used, not the verb form.

 

[Truthseeker]

From a Modest Proposal...

Since the fourth epoch of the Age of Transition has dawned, and momentous events both within and without the Baha'i community have ushered in our rapid emergence from obscurity, a new sense of maturation and openness has begun to infuse the followers of Baha'u'llah. No longer a minuscule band of true believers braving the odds in a hostile world, the worldwide Baha'i community is now a dynamic, awakening force; its millions of adherents flexing new spiritual muscle...

No objective observer could fail to recognize the signal growth and maturation of the American Baha'i community since its inception 91 years ago. Moving from a tiny enclave of co-religionists to what has now become a well-known and dynamic community of faith, the Baha'is of the United States far outweigh in activity and influence our modest size of about 100,000 believers. However, there is clear and compelling evidence that the fortunes of the United States Baha'i community have stagnated, at least by some objective measures, within the past decade. Americans are loathe to face such stagnancy or admit that any decline is occurring, but even a cursory look at a few basic facts and indicators reveals the trends...

Declarations have slowed to a maintenance pace... Youth declarations have dropped even more precipitously... the American Baha'i community has yet to achieve anything close to widespread enrollments and the beginning of the process of "entry by troops" expected here for over a decade... Inactivity and alienation are difficult to measure quantitatively. However, the most commonly accepted gauge of inactivity-Baha'is who are listed as being "address unknown" status-now comprise a staggering percentage of the total community: 40-45,000 names of 100,000 believers...

The purpose of this essay is to attempt a beginning at the discussion of potential remedies for our plight. `Abdu'l-Baha assures us that the solutions to tests and difficulties come from frank and honest consultation. Hopefully, this proposal will serve to launch earnest and soul-searching discussion within the community...
​

After going through different issues and proposing a remedy, at the end the editor wrote this...

This article never appeared in print. The editors submitted it for "review" (in-house official Baha'i prepublication censorship) to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, and actually met with two members of that body in the spring of 1988. At National Convention in April 1988, the authors and editors were condemned for even thinking about publishing such a document. The editors, heart-broken, ceased publication of Dialogue.
​

I can see why this document was rejected by the National Assembly. It has criticisms of the National Assembly and Local Assemblies embedded in it. Baha'i are not supoosed to do this.


The honored members must with all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another, nay, he must with moderation set forth the truth, and should differences of opinion arise a majority of voices must prevail, and all must obey and submit to the majority. It is again not permitted that any one of the honored members object to or censure, whether in or out of the meeting, any decision arrived at previously, though that decision be not right, for such criticism would prevent any decision from being enforced. In short, whatsoever thing is arranged in harmony and with love and purity of motive, its result is light, and should the least trace of estrangement prevail the result shall be darkness upon darkness.…
(Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá)
www.bahai.org/r/231501782

 

[Tiberius]

To a certain extent faith is a choice and once I had faith I could not choose to disbelieve because I still had faith.

You say believing is a choice, but then you immediately say that believing is an unavoidable consequence of having faith. You contradict yourself.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. God wants us to have faith and that explains why God does not provide absolute proof. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence we need to believe, but God will not force us to accept the evidence. That is a choice.

No, it's apparently not a choice, since those who have faith are going to believe no matter what (at least from what you've said).

And again, no evidence. Just logical fallacies and opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, your argument is just stupid.

I do not need the vaccine because I never come into contact with anyone except my husband so me getting the vaccine would be like me wearing a seat belt around the house in case I might get in a car accident.

And what about your husband? Do the two of you have absolutely no contact with nobody apart from yourselves?

That's right. My husband never sees anybody but me. I only see people twice a week when I go to the grocery store at closing time when there are all of three people in the store with masks on and I also have a mask on. I am not going to worry that I might get Covid from that. That would be irrational. There is a better chance I might get in a car wreck on the way to the store.

So you just read someone's opinion and decide whether or not it's true based on whether it makes sense to your fallible mind, and you do NOTHING to make sure you have it right.

No, I do not read opinions, I read facts about the Baha'i Faith and the Writings of the Baha'i Faith and then I decided if they are worthy of belief.

There is no way to make sure one is right except through the bounty of the Holy Spirit.

"There are only four accepted methods of comprehension—that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods.

The first method is by the senses—that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the European philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views—that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments—so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.

The third method of understanding is by tradition—that is, through the text of the Holy Scriptures—for people say, “In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe, is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.

But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained."
Some Answered Questions, pp. 297-299

And what is real for one person is real for all people, even if they don't believe it.

That's why we need to test it.

That's true, what is real for one person is real for all people, even if they don't believe it, but there is no way to test a religious belief. Say it once more and I won't respond again.

And when you refuse to base your worldview on anything that can be verified, I'm sure you'll understand when I say your worldview is fantasy.

I have verified that my religious beliefs are true, the only way they can be verified.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is English not your first language?

to say someone has a "holier than thou" attitude is to say that the person believes themselves to be better than others.

It's more about the attitude, really.

And you have shown many times in this thread that you let your desires determine your beliefs.

You finally stepped over the line so I am finally done with this conversation. I do not allow people to tell me what my attitude is or what my desires are. I don't think I am better than anyone else; in fact I feel exactly the opposite way about myself.

It does not make any difference what I say about myself because you do not believe me anyway.
You have already decided you know all about me but you don't know me from Adam.

I thought you were different from some atheists on this forum but that just goes to show that I can be wrong.

This thread has become so toxic I might just leave altogether. Some people think they can say whatever they want to and they don't care about anything but being right. There is only one reason why people need to criticize other people. They need the other person to be wrong so that they can continue to 'believe' that they are right.

Sorry, but if people cannot be courteous I am not going to post to them anymore. Insulting other people and speaking for their motives and contradicting them is rude.

“O people of God! I admonish you to observe courtesy, for above all else it is the prince of virtues. Well is it with him who is illumined with the light of courtesy and is attired with the vesture of uprightness. Whoso is endued with courtesy hath indeed attained a sublime station. It is hoped that this Wronged One and everyone else may be enabled to acquire it, hold fast unto it, observe it, and fix our gaze upon it. This is a binding command which hath streamed forth from the Pen of the Most Great Name.”

(Baha’u’llah, Tablet of the World, p. 88.)

“O ye Cohorts of God! Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy.”
Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, p. 45

Beware! Beware! Lest ye offend any heart!
Beware! Beware! Lest ye hurt any soul!
Beware! Beware! Lest ye deal unkindly toward any person!
Beware! Beware! Lest ye be the cause of hopelessness to any creature!

Should one become the cause of grief to any one heart, or of despondency to any one soul, it were better to hide oneself in the lowest depths of the earth than to walk upon the earth.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Letter to the Baha’is of America)

 

[Trailblazer]

I can see why this document was rejected by the National Assembly. It has criticisms of the National Assembly and Local Assemblies embedded in it. Baha'i are not supoosed to do this.

I did not see that embedded in it.