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

[CG Didymus]

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

"Strict" observance? That's what's scary. Maybe the Baha'i punishments aren't as bad, but with other religions God ordered people killed for breaking some of his laws.

 

[CG Didymus]

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 think you should take it as a compliment. They think you're smart enough to know better. They don't want to see you go down that path of unquestioning belief. They want you to keep examining, keep questioning, and too never just take someone else's word for it.

But, of course, they're wrong. You have found The Truth. Sorry if I and those others don't believe it.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

No, I don't think you will. You can't help say something that will illicit a response. And then, you will have to respond again... and again.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Are the people on the NSA or LSA perfect? No, as a governing body do they make perfect decisions? I doubt it. So somebody has to speak that old truth to power kind of thing. To me, it was meant to be helpful criticism. That's not allowed? Or, just through the right channels?

 

[CG Didymus]

I did not see that embedded in it.

Like I said, I had met some of these people, heard some of them speak and spoke with the editor of the magazine. This is what I was talking about, the liberal/conservative side of the Faith. I, on the liberal side, took it as being constructive criticism. But, if writing an article that does criticize how and why the Baha'i Faith is "stagnating", then I could see how it could upset some people.

 

[CG Didymus]

Are you speaking of John 16:12-14?
If so, Jesus spoke these words before the Cross and before Pentecost.

There's a few other quotes they use that mention the Holy Spirit, the Helper, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth etc. Christians told me all of them were predicting the Holy Spirit coming upon them at Pentecost. And I agree. In Acts it has Jesus telling them that the Holy Spirit will come not many days from now.... Not 2000 years later.

Baha'is, make the verses in John into prophecies about Baha'u'llah. He is the Spirit of Truth. He is the one that leads them into all truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not know or care how the Isaiah 7 was written. I never said that Baha'is support Isaiah 7, I said I uphold the Virgin Birth.

The "virgin" birth is based on Isaiah 7. Again, we are in a debate forum. Baha'is, I believe, have a belief that is very questionable. How could an unfertilized egg grow into a human? It only has half the genetic stuff. Baha'is believe science and religion go hand and hand. But not with this?

Two gospels have contradicting stories about the birth of Jesus. They weren't there, so where they get this story? Mary was there. But if she was the source why the contradictions? Then the gospels writers use the Septuagint translation and use one verse from Isaiah? You read the context. I think the Jewish interpretation makes perfect sense. The boy is not the sign. He is part of the sign. When he gets old enough to know to do good and reject bad, whenever that is, the two enemy kings would be dead.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'u'llah did not write specifically about the resurrection of Jesus

Then why do Baha'is reject it? Because of Abdul Baha? Is he really infallible, or can he be wrong?

 

[CG Didymus]

But once the SAME questions are answered, why are the SAME questions asked over and over again\?

Well, you just said that Baha'u'llah didn't say anything about the resurrection. So that's a new wrinkle. We keep learning more. The other thing is that you and other Baha'is keep saying the same types of questionable things about the Baha'i Faith and why you believe it is true. So you keep getting... "How do you know this?" "What proof do you have?" So you say I proved it to myself, but I can't prove it to you. So then it goes round and round again.

My thing is the very weak "fulfillments" of the prophecies. If Baha'is keep saying that Baha'u'llah fulfilled them, I'll keep questioning it. You shouldn't worry about those, because you've said you don't know and don't care. But some of the things you say does involve prophecies... like the virgin birth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Disagree. If a belief is supported by evidence, then it is rational to hold that belief to the degree that the evidence supports. Belief acquired without that evidence is irrational belief.

I agree that it is not rational to hold a belief that is not supported by evidence and that it is rational to hold that belief to the degree that the evidence supports it so when I said that belief is not rational or irrational, belief just is, that was said on the fly.

What does rational mean?

adjective. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
Rational Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

What we mean by 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. ... Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.
Evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

When an atheist tells you that he doesn't believe in gods because he needs evidence before believing and he doesn't have it, he is being rational. Reason supports his position.

Then when a believer says there is evidence and the atheist says “that’s not evidence” that is just the atheist’s personal opinion. It does not mean it is not evidence just because it did not cause that atheist to believe. As the definition says evidence is “anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. “ Everyone views the evidence differently because we all think and process information differently, so some people will believe in God and a Baha’u’llah because of the evidence that I present and some people won’t.

Incidentally, irrational is only a criticism when referring to thought and belief not arrived at solely through valid reasoning.

Who defines what valid reasoning is? What is valid to one person might not be valid to another person as people all reason differently and two different ways of reasoning can both be valid.

The other problem is when people think that they know how another person arrived at their belief when they don’t know the half of it. According to my beliefs, it is wrong to judge other people and call them names such as irrational, illogical and unreasonable. That is also a Christian belief, judge not lest ye be judged. Why are people compelled to do this? I see no other reason why people would criticize another person except ego: I am right and you are wrong, so the other person has to be labeled wrong in order for the criticizer to be right.

If a belief is not sufficiently supported by reason applied to evidence, it is irrational and probably wrong.

But what is reason and what is evidence? What is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another person and what is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person. The statement “you have no evidence” really means “I do not like the evidence that you presented and it gives me no reason to believe that your beliefs are true.” It does not make evidence non-evidence. The evidence for a religion is what it is. How people apply their reason to the evidence varies widely. Some people either recognize it as evidence that supports the religion being true and other people do not recognize it as such.

When a jury is presented with all the evidence for the commission of a crime some jurors will believe the evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict and some jurors won’t think that the evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict, but the juror’s views of the evidence does not change the evidence into non-evidence. The evidence is what it is, people just view it differently.

A skilled critical thinker's main skill is recognizing rational thought and distinguishing it from irrational thought. Such a person is qualified to judge the irrational thinking of others as such.

Who is a skilled critical thinker, is there a college degree one gets for that? No, there isn’t. Some people just ‘believe’ they are skilled, more skilled than someone else. I consider that arrogant.

Your definition of truth may be different from mine. Using mine, I conclude that there is only one path to truth. When I see others claiming truth that was arrived at without sufficient evidentiary support, I disregard their claim that what they believe is truth.

Well, we are right back to: what is evidence and how does it support the belief?

One illustration: There is only one set of rational rules for addition. 2+3 must always equal 5 for the adding to be rational (according to reason). In order to successfully add a column of numbers, every step in the process must be rational. 7+6 must always equal 13. 5+3 must always equal 8. As long as one sticks with reason alone, that is adding without using some irrational rule such as 5+6 equals 12, he will arrive at the truth, the correct sum. If there is even one deviation from strict reasoning, the answer will be wrong, except in the exceedingly rare event that two mistakes that cancel one another were made, which is about what the chances of arriving at the truth (correct sum) using irrational steps is, and why I say that faith-based (irrational, or insufficiently evidenced beliefs) are virtually always wrong.

So yes, there are people qualified to judge when somebody else's thinking is irrational.

Math is not religion. Who is to say what ‘sufficient evidence’ is for anyone except themselves?

I don't know if it bothers people that you or anybody else does that. It doesn't bother me. I translate such comments into my own language. She's certain, and given her method of arriving at her certain position, it is probably wrong. Believing by faith is guessing, and there are orders of magnitude more ways to guess wrongly than correctly.

The problem is that they do not know my method. I do not believe by faith, I believe by evidence. Just because it is not evidence to other people, that does not make it non-evidence.

Many people, but not most, are aware of the limits of knowledge not just for themselves, but for humankind. They know when others are making claims about reality that they can't know are correct. The can tell us that they are certain, but that doesn't mean that they are correct - just that they don't appreciate what philosophic doubt is.

No, nobody can know what another person can know and it is hubris to assume that can know. Not all people have philosophic doubt about everything.

For the experienced critical thinker, even when he feels no doubt (psychological doubt, or the feeling of uncertainty), he understands the limits of his knowledge and acknowledges that all of his beliefs about the world are tentative, that is, less than 100% certain (philosophical doubt, which is understood but not felt). And he knows that however certain the other guy may claim to be, that doesn't translate into he cannot be wrong.

I would never claim I know everything but that does not mean I don’t know anything and there are ways of knowing that only the person who knows can understand.

Anyone can be wrong about anything, but that does not mean they cannot be right about certain things. Even in science, absolute certainty does not exist, because a proven theory can always be proven wrong later.

It's a problem if it affects their judgment of whether it is true. You probably know how medical trials are conducted using double blinding of both the patient and clinician regarding who gets the therapy being studied and who gets placebo. They probably both want it to be true that the therapy works, and know that the placebo doesn't. If they know which is the case, then it clouds their judgment (confirmation bias).

Yes, it would affect their judgment if they wanted it to be true but I never said that they want it to be true. I said “And so what if most Baha's do want it to be true?” Just because someone believes something is true, it does not follow that they want it to be true. Only the person who ‘wants’ something knows what they want.

I do not want the Baha’i Faith to be true but I believe it is true, so I have a conflict. When certain people keep telling me I want my religion to be true they have nothing to base that upon and they are being very disrespectful by speaking for me. They cannot know what I want unless I tell them and once I tell them I expect to be believed.

The search for truth requires impartial, dispassionate evaluation. Reading the words of Baha'u'llah wanting them to be true is as much an impediment to an impartial evaluation as wanting them to be false is. Both establish confirmation biases that cloud judgment. One cannot arrive at truth unless one is willing and able to go where the evidence leads him rather than to what he wants to be true or untrue.

I fully agree that the search for truth requires impartial, dispassionate evaluation. One cannot arrive at truth unless one is willing and able to go where the evidence leads, but if nobody wants to look at the evidence they can never go where it leads.

Atheists just say “that’s not evidence” because they expect there to be some other kind of evidence other than what exists, and that desire and expectation is based upon their own biases that make it impossible to see the evidence that is standing right before them. It is not rational to expect to procure evidence that does not exist. The evidence for Baha’u’llah is what it is and it cannot be something else. I cannot produce evidence that does not exist. People can accept it or reject the evidence I present, that is their choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Strange and miraculous things happen to those the believe... no matter what they believe. And, for them, it's proof that what they believe is true.

I suppose that is the case for some believes but it has never been true for me. I do not believe because of any miracles, I believe because of the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Strict" observance? That's what's scary. Maybe the Baha'i punishments aren't as bad, but with other religions God ordered people killed for breaking some of his laws.

Strict observance is the ideal and it is possible to meet that ideal if one really understands why it is important.
But if they slip up it is not the end of the world, it is the intent and effort put forth that matter. Once a long time ago a Hand of the Cause told my husband that sincerity and effort are all that is expected of us.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you should take it as a compliment. They think you're smart enough to know better. They don't want to see you go down that path of unquestioning belief. They want you to keep examining, keep questioning, and too never just take someone else's word for it.

As I always say, if after 51 years I am still questioning whether Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be I would have to be pretty slow on the uptake. If I never believed in Him at all, which is your position, that would be different, but once I chose to believe why should I continue questioning my belief? Would I get married and then keep questioning whether I should have gotten married 51 years later? If I still questioned that maybe I should get a divorce.

But, of course, they're wrong. You have found The Truth. Sorry if I and those others don't believe it.

There is nothing to be sorry for. I have found what I believe is the Truth. You and others see what you see and I see what I see. If God had wanted us to all see things the same way God would have given us all the same eyes and brains and lives.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I don't think you will. You can't help say something that will illicit a response. And then, you will have to respond again... and again.

No, I wasn't that lucky because more posts came in later, but I decided that I do not need to respond to certain people again and again, or even at all, so I am lucky in that way. Free will is a charm.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's a few other quotes they use that mention the Holy Spirit, the Helper, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth etc. Christians told me all of them were predicting the Holy Spirit coming upon them at Pentecost. And I agree. In Acts it has Jesus telling them that the Holy Spirit will come not many days from now.... Not 2000 years later.

The Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost.

Acts 2 King James Version (KJV)

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

And then the Holy Spirit was sent again in the last days that we are now living in. In that same chapter in which we find the Pentecost account, we have (Acts 2:17-21) showing that God would once again pour out His Spirit upon all flesh:

Acts 2:17-21 was spoken by the prophet Joel, and it was a prophecy that referred to the last days, the days when Christ would return.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Acts 2:17-21 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:17-21 is a prophecy and it has been fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah.

All these wonders in the heavens and signs on the earth happened before Baha’u’llah appeared, and thus He fulfilled the prophecies for the Return of Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

The "virgin" birth is based on Isaiah 7. Again, we are in a debate forum. Baha'is, I believe, have a belief that is very questionable. How could an unfertilized egg grow into a human? It only has half the genetic stuff. Baha'is believe science and religion go hand and hand. But not with this?

Baha'is believe science and religion go hand and hand but we also believe that miracles are possible.

Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.

Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.

Some Answered Questions, p. 100

22: MIRACLES

Two gospels have contradicting stories about the birth of Jesus. They weren't there, so where they get this story? Mary was there. But if she was the source why the contradictions? Then the gospels writers use the Septuagint translation and use one verse from Isaiah? You read the context. I think the Jewish interpretation makes perfect sense. The boy is not the sign. He is part of the sign. When he gets old enough to know to do good and reject bad, whenever that is, the two enemy kings would be dead.

The Jewish interpretation is biased because it is based upon what Jews want to be true, that Jesus was nobody. This is ludicrous and why only there are only 14.7 million Jews in the world and 2.5 billion Christians. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is messed up because they are still waiting for the Messiah. They don't believe any of the prophecies are about the Messiah because they are still waiting for the Messiah that has already come, twice. They believe that the Messiah is coming just for them, to vindicate them and restore the Torah so they, the chosen people, can be the ones who are above all others in the world. Nothing could be more wrong. It is much more elitist than Christianity because at least Christians want everyone to be saved.

 

[samtonga43]

The Jewish interpretation is biased because it is based upon what Jews want to be true, that Jesus was nobody

The Bahai interpretation is biased because it is based upon what Bahais want to be true, that MrB was a manifestation of God.

This is ludicrous and why only there are only 14.7 million Jews in the world and 2.5 billion Christians.

This is a logical fallacy --Bandwagon

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They sometimes enforced their laws. So for the law-breaker, it was a bad personal choice to go against God's, supposed, law. You know, things like picking up firewood on the wrong day. Getting too excited about someone and going too far, and then getting caught.

The good thing is we are enabled to embrace God's Laws for the age we live.

As such some old laws are not applicable, some are, as well as some new laws. We are enabled to the extent that we submit to God doeth as God Willeth.

If we do not, then men set their own rules and goals, and havoc and injustice prevails.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why do Baha'is reject it? Because of Abdul Baha? Is he really infallible, or can he be wrong?

I don't think Baha'u'llah concerned Himself with the bodily resurrection because it was not important enough to write about, and given everything else that He wrote He probably figured out it would be obvious to Baha'is that the bodily resurrection never happened, and of course Abdu'l-Baha confirmed that later.

Baha'u'llah did not say tat Jesus did not rise from the dead, but indirectly He said that when He explained the 'true meaning' of Resurrection.

Addressing the Muslims in regard to the Resurrection, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book. It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation. For verily, “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision.” 6” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 169-170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived…. Inasmuch as these undiscerning and wretched souls have failed to apprehend the true meaning of “Resurrection” and of the “attainment unto the divine Presence,” they therefore have remained utterly deprived of the grace thereof.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 145

“The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection. We cherish the hope that, quaffing from the choice wine of divine inspiration and the pure waters of heavenly grace, thou mayest attain the station of discovery and witnessing, and behold, both outwardly and inwardly, all that which thou hast mentioned.” The Tabernacle of Unity, pp. 62- 63

 

[Trailblazer]

My thing is the very weak "fulfillments" of the prophecies. If Baha'is keep saying that Baha'u'llah fulfilled them, I'll keep questioning it. You shouldn't worry about those, because you've said you don't know and don't care. But some of the things you say does involve prophecies... like the virgin birth.

And in my opinion the prophecies were strongly fulfilled.