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

[Trailblazer]

I'm biased by Judaism? Because I read the verses in context and agreed with them?

I dunno. Am I biased towards Christianity because I read the verses in context and agree with Christians?

 

[Trailblazer]

Bill Sears "clearly" demonstrated? There you go. You say the same stuff again and again and I ask... again and again.... How could an earthquake in Portugal, a smoky day and a meteor shower in I think it was Canada... be a fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy in Persia?

Why wouldn't it be? As I said before, these events happened in the exact order the Jesus predicted and then Baha'u'lah came. Coincidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm referring to all the stuff that is prophesied in Revelation. There is a gospel verse that I quote all the time about there being wars and rumors of wars, but that is not the end. To me, if there are still wars and rumors of wars, then the end hasn't happened yet. But, since it's one of those questions that I ask over and over again, don't worry about it.

These vague prophecies are not very useful. There have always been wars and rumors of wars. There were before Baha'u'llah and after.

The prophecy does not say that there would be no more wars or rumors of wars after Christ returned.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So all the laws regarding the animal sacrifices, God really needed animals killed and offered to him?

That was more than 2000 years ago, so why would it now be an issue?

How do we know what it was like to live then?

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

I do not care if you think I am no different from any other religious person, although I know I am different. How would you like it if I said that you are no different from any other atheist? Do you think all atheists are the same? To say that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Every religious person thinks they are different than the others. The difference they believe they have is that they think they have it right and other people of different faiths have it wrong.

But what does that have to do with what I said in my post? What you just said has nothing to do with what you are replying to.

How does it have nothing to do with what you said?

You had a go at me for me saying how what you do is exactly the same thing as what I've seen just about every other religious person do in these discussions. You also accused me of making claims but not producing any evidence to back them up (I've provided plenty of evidence), you claimed you have not committed any logical fallacies (you have, and I've pointed them out).

I then directly addressed this by saying that if you have acted in exactly the same way that I've seen most other religious people act when I've debated with them, and said that if you keep doing it, I'm going to keep responding to it.

Even if I do what other religious people do that does not mean I deserve to be treated with disrespect. I see atheists posting to Christians all the time and they stick to the points they are discussing rather than getting personal and criticizing the person they are posting to. If what I say bother you that much then perhaps it is best to not post to me or read anything I write.

You insisted that you have verified your beliefs. I said that what you have done is not actually verification. You continually insist that it is, I continually insist that it is not. This is not me disrespecting you, it is me pointing out that you are wrong, even if you are certain you are right.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones because we all say things in the fly and I am not a person to hold grudges. I think what you said was based upon a misunderstanding of me so all I can do is explain what I really think and feel and hopefully you will believe me.

I'd be happy to continue our discussion, but I fear that if you keep claiming you have verified your beliefs, then we will just end up right back here.

 

[Tiberius]

Please explain how science can be used to prove a religion is true.

First, you have to understand that science does use "proof" like that. Technically speaking, we haven't even proved that gravity exists. All we have done is gather a huge amount of evidence that our theories about gravity are correct. But there could possibly be a single experiment tomorrow that contradicts everything we know about gravity, showing us that our theories about gravity are wrong. We can never prove that something is true, no matter how many experiments we have that support our theories. Because no matter how many experiments we do that support it, it could always be the very next experiment that proves it wrong. But it is easy to prove a theory wrong, because we only need one experiment to show that it's wrong.

But, if we take your question to mean, "How can science be used to support a religion" in the same way that science can be used to support the theory of gravity, then the answer is simple.

Just take the instances where a religion makes a testable claim, and we put that claim to the test. If it passes the test, then it is scientific support that the religion is true.

But the important thing is that the claim is FALSIFIABLE. That is, there must be some conceivable result that (if we got that result) would prove whatever we were testing was wrong. It doesn't matter if we actually GET that result or not, but in theory, such a result needs to be possible.

For example, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, because the theory says that if I drop a hammer, it will fall to the ground. We can conceive of a result that would falsify this - I drop a hammer and it just remains floating in mid air. If that happened, even just once, it would indicate that there was something wrong with our ideas about gravity.

The problem with religion is that it is UNFALSIFIABLE. That means that any possible result that could prove it wrong can always be explained away, no matter what it is. Such a theory is utterly useless, because if it can explain any result, we can't use it to explain things. All it could tell us is, "Something will happen, but it could be literally anything." Such a theory has no explanatory power at all.

So, religions (certainly every single religion I've ever seen) goes out of its way to remain unfalsifiable. And every single time religion - any religion - makes a falsifiable claim, then it fails. And those falsifiable religious claims that do pass the test are always things like the Bible's claim that Egypt exists. Nothing that requires a religion in order to be true.

So, simply put, religion deliberately hides itself from the one method we have of verifying that claims are true, even though it wouldn't need to if the claims were true.

Please explain how a religious belief can be tested. Do you think we can test beliefs by seeing is the predictions a Messenger predicted actually came true? Would that be enough to prove He was actually a Messenger of God?

I've already given an example of this. The Bible's claim that praying to a mountain to move will result in it moving.

I do not believe that anyone can ever verify that God exists or that a man was a Messenger of God, except in their own mind, and I believe that is what God expects us to do. The human mind is fallible but that is all we have.

If you can only do it in your own mind and the Human mind is fallible, then it's not really verification, is it?

I do not know what you mean by reality itself. If you mean what we can observe in the physical reality how could that lead us to verify that a religious belief is true?

No. I do not mean what we observe. I mean the real world itself. That real world is not determined by what we observe of it.

Jesus never intended for the verse to be taken literally since Jesus knew that actual mountains would be moved by faith. The following is not a Baha'i interpretation, it is a Christian interpretation, with which I fully agree. It concludes as such:

"Faith that can move mountains is not meant to imply a faith that can literally move literal mountains. The point Jesus was making is that even a little bit of faith—faith the size of a tiny mustard seed—can overcome mountainous obstacles in our lives."

Read more: Can faith really move mountains? | GotQuestions.org

Now, that might be testable, but first you would have to be a believer. I can say for myself that my faith has allowed me to overcome numerous obstacles in my life but that would not be meaningful to you.

This is an example of what I was talking about earlier. Whenever religion makes a testable claim, there's always a way to explain it away when it fails the test. In this case it's like this. The Bible makes a testable claim that praying to a mountain to move will result in it moving. When we actually put this to the test, the claim fails, each and every time. The explanation given is, "But it's figurative, not literal, so it doesn't count, so the claim hasn't really been falsified."

verify

make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verified+means

I said I have verified that my religious beliefs are true the only way they can be verified. I have demonstrated to myself that my beliefs are accurate and justified. I have not demonstrated that my beliefs are accurate and justified to other people because that is not my responsibility and that would be impossible.

You can replace the word conditioned with the word justified in the following quote.

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

But since you've only done it in your mind, and the Human mind is fallible, that means you can't be sure that your verification is accurate. So it's not verified.

 

[Truthseeker]

Right now or back fifty years ago, I didn't expect the decisions to be perfect. But, what I did see, like with the people involved with the Dialogue magazine and my Baha'i friends, there was a tension between the Baha'i in leadership positions and these other Baha'is.

That tension is unfortunate and is caused by those criticizing. That's the whole point of not criticizing publicly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Every religious person thinks they are different than the others. The difference they believe they have is that they think they have it right and other people of different faiths have it wrong.

What is different about the Baha'i Faith is that we do not believe"we have it right and all the other religions have it wrong."

The proof is right in the authoritative Baha'i Writings. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote the following and he was one of the two appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Writings.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

How does it have nothing to do with what you said?

You had a go at me for me saying how what you do is exactly the same thing as what I've seen just about every other religious person do in these discussions. You also accused me of making claims but not producing any evidence to back them up (I've provided plenty of evidence), you claimed you have not committed any logical fallacies (you have, and I've pointed them out).

No, that is not what I was upset about. What set me off is you saying I have a "holier than thou" attitude, but even before that you were speaking for me when you said things like I believe because I want to believe and that I am biased against Christianity because I am a Baha'i.

What logical fallacies were those? I can defend anything you dish out but I need to know how you think I committed them.

I then directly addressed this by saying that if you have acted in exactly the same way that I've seen most other religious people act when I've debated with them, and said that if you keep doing it, I'm going to keep responding to it.

And you act like most atheists act when I have debated with them about my beliefs and if you keep doing it there is no guarantee I will keep responding to it.

You insisted that you have verified your beliefs. I said that what you have done is not actually verification. You continually insist that it is, I continually insist that it is not. This is not me disrespecting you, it is me pointing out that you are wrong, even if you are certain you are right.

When you contradict me like that it is disrespecting me. When you insist I am wrong about what I know I did that is disrespectful. What I have done is verify my beliefs according to the definition of verify.

verify: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verify+means

How do you think you can know that I did not demonstrate to myself that my beliefs are accurate and justified?
You cannot know what I have demonstrated to myself becaue you are not me.

I'd be happy to continue our discussion, but I fear that if you keep claiming you have verified your beliefs, then we will just end up right back here.

You have a different idea of what constitutes verification, that is all this is about. Why not just agree to disagree and move on? Why do you have to insist you are right and I am wrong?

 

[Truthseeker]

Really? You're the first Baha'i to say that. I thought Abdul Baha said it was allegorical?

What I understand is that the meaning of the resurrection is allegorical, but how much of the resurrection story is allegorical? It could be a mixture of both. Personally I don't think Christ saying He had physical bones and the like was allegorical, it was a mistaken transmission of the story. The flying up to heaven by Jesus in the beginning of Acts looks allegorical to me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Likewise, when I say, "Well, why didn't God do this," I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the story of the Bible.

And, the answer that comes to mind is, "Because God doesn't exist and the whole religion thing is just stuff invented by people." It works to explain Star Trek's missing shuttle, and it works to explain The Bible's inconsistencies as well.

Hi…
I’m coming in late to the story, but I noticed the Star Trek analogy, and it caught my attention, I love Star Trek!

Can you provide 1 or 2 examples of the inconsistencies that you say exist in the Bible?

Please, not a Gish. Just a couple we could hash over, maybe.

 

[Tiberius]

What is different about the Baha'i Faith is that we do not believe"we have it right and all the other religions have it wrong."

The proof is right in the authoritative Baha'i Writings. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote the following and he was one of the two appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Writings.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

Every religious faith believes it has something which PROVES it is correct. Your faith is no different.

No, that is not what I was upset about. What set me off is you saying I have a "holier than thou" attitude, but even before that you were speaking for me when you said things like I believe because I want to believe and that I am biased against Christianity because I am a Baha'i.

You miss my point. EVERYONE has biases, and EVERYONE is going to be more accepting of anything that supports what they already believe is true.

What logical fallacies were those? I can defend anything you dish out but I need to know how you think I committed them.

You've committed the special pleading fallacy repeatedly, as well as confirmation bias.

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

And you act like most atheists act when I have debated with them about my beliefs and if you keep doing it there is no guarantee I will keep responding to it.

And what am I doing that all other atheists have done?

When you contradict me like that it is disrespecting me.

It is not disrespectful of me to hold a viewpoint that contradicts a viewpoint you hold. If you're going to complain of being disrespected every time someone on the net disagrees with you, you're gonna have a bad time.

When you insist I am wrong about what I know I did that is disrespectful.

You have claimed to be certain. You KNOW you are certain, and I have never argued against that. I fully agree that you are certain that you are correct.

I am only pointing out that when you claim you have VERIFIED it, you have not actually done so. I am pointing out that the world you are using does not reflect what you have done. The word you are using is incorrect. It is not disrespectful for me to do so. If a person had been repeatedly saying, "For all intensive purposes," and I repeatedly corrected them by saying that the phrase was "For all intents and purposes," that would not be disrespectful. They might even complain that I was being disrespectful by repeatedly correcting them, but that does not change the fact that they were wrong.

What I have done is verify my beliefs according to the definition of verify.

verify: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verify+means

How do you think you can know that I did not demonstrate to myself that my beliefs are accurate and justified?
You cannot know what I have demonstrated to myself becaue you are not me.

All I'm saying is that you are using the word "verify" incorrectly.

You have certainly satisfied yourself that your beliefs are true. I will not argue with that. All I have been saying is that "verify" is not the correct word to use because verification requires that the conclusions be tested, and you, by your own admission, can't do so.

You have a different idea of what constitutes verification, that is all this is about. Why not just agree to disagree and move on? Why do you have to insist you are right and I am wrong?

The word verification has a clearly specified meaning. This is not a case of my opinion against yours. The definition you provided says, "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." How have you been able to MAKE SURE that your conclusion is correct, when by your own admission it can only happen in your own mind, and the human mind is fallible?

 

[Trailblazer]

First, you have to understand that science does use "proof" like that. Technically speaking, we haven't even proved that gravity exists. All we have done is gather a huge amount of evidence that our theories about gravity are correct. But there could possibly be a single experiment tomorrow that contradicts everything we know about gravity, showing us that our theories about gravity are wrong. We can never prove that something is true, no matter how many experiments we have that support our theories. Because no matter how many experiments we do that support it, it could always be the very next experiment that proves it wrong. But it is easy to prove a theory wrong, because we only need one experiment to show that it's wrong.

But, if we take your question to mean, "How can science be used to support a religion" in the same way that science can be used to support the theory of gravity, then the answer is simple.

Just take the instances where a religion makes a testable claim, and we put that claim to the test. If it passes the test, then it is scientific support that the religion is true.

But the important thing is that the claim is FALSIFIABLE. That is, there must be some conceivable result that (if we got that result) would prove whatever we were testing was wrong. It doesn't matter if we actually GET that result or not, but in theory, such a result needs to be possible.

For example, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, because the theory says that if I drop a hammer, it will fall to the ground. We can conceive of a result that would falsify this - I drop a hammer and it just remains floating in mid air. If that happened, even just once, it would indicate that there was something wrong with our ideas about gravity.

The problem with religion is that it is UNFALSIFIABLE. That means that any possible result that could prove it wrong can always be explained away, no matter what it is. Such a theory is utterly useless, because if it can explain any result, we can't use it to explain things. All it could tell us is, "Something will happen, but it could be literally anything." Such a theory has no explanatory power at all.

So, religions (certainly every single religion I've ever seen) goes out of its way to remain unfalsifiable. And every single time religion - any religion - makes a falsifiable claim, then it fails. And those falsifiable religious claims that do pass the test are always things like the Bible's claim that Egypt exists. Nothing that requires a religion in order to be true.

So, simply put, religion deliberately hides itself from the one method we have of verifying that claims are true, even though it wouldn't need to if the claims were true.

I was following you until the last sentence. How does religion 'deliberately' hide itself from the one method we have of verifying that claims are true? Why wouldn't it need to if the claims were true?

Back to what you said about gravity while it is on my mind.
You said: "But there could possibly be a single experiment tomorrow that contradicts everything we know about gravity, showing us that our theories about gravity are wrong. We can never prove that something is true, no matter how many experiments we have that support our theories. Because no matter how many experiments we do that support it, it could always be the very next experiment that proves it wrong. But it is easy to prove a theory wrong, because we only need one experiment to show that it's wrong."

So if we an never prove that something is true, no matter how many experiments we have that support our theories, why do you think we can prove that the claims of any religion are true? And if a religion cannot be proven true are you going to discount it?

I've already given an example of this. The Bible's claim that praying to a mountain to move will result in it moving.

And I already explained that the Bible does not mean that a mountain would literally move because someone said a prayer, so that test is not a valid test.

If you can only do it in your own mind and the Human mind is fallible, then it's not really verification, is it?

It is still verification. Scientists verify things to the best of their ability and they are fallible so religious people can also verify things to the best of their ability, although the methods of verification is not the same. Only God and His Manifestations are infallible but fallible humans can still verify things to the best of their ability and a point is reached where we are satisfied with our results.

I don't really want to bring it up again, but scientists verified that the Covid vaccines are safe to the best of their ability so them they were approved and released. However, as you said, "no matter how many experiments we do that support it, it could always be the very next experiment that proves it wrong. But it is easy to prove a theory wrong, because we only need one experiment to show that it's wrong." One year of testing is not enough to verify that the vaccines are completely safe but the vaccines were needed to save lives so they were approved. Under normal circumstances experiments would have been conducted for 6-10 years before the vaccines could be approved and if there had been anywhere near as many adverse reactions and deaths as from the Covid vaccines a vaccine was not approved for use in the past.

No. I do not mean what we observe. I mean the real world itself. That real world is not determined by what we observe of it.

What do you mean by real world?

This is an example of what I was talking about earlier. Whenever religion makes a testable claim, there's always a way to explain it away when it fails the test. In this case it's like this. The Bible makes a testable claim that praying to a mountain to move will result in it moving. When we actually put this to the test, the claim fails, each and every time. The explanation given is, "But it's figurative, not literal, so it doesn't count, so the claim hasn't really been falsified."

You are a smart guy so I cannot understand why you don't understand that the Bible never intended to mean that praying will move an actual mountain. Didn't you read that article that explains what Jesus meant?

"Faith that can move mountains is not meant to imply a faith that can literally move literal mountains. The point Jesus was making is that even a little bit of faith—faith the size of a tiny mustard seed—can overcome mountainous obstacles in our lives."

Read more: Can faith really move mountains? | GotQuestions.org

But since you've only done it in your mind, and the Human mind is fallible, that means you can't be sure that your verification is accurate. So it's not verified.

So by those standards, since the Human mind of a scientist is fallible, we cannot be sure that what the verification of the Covid vaccines safety and efficacy by scientists is accurate.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What is different about the Baha'i Faith is that we do not believe"we have it right and all the other religions have it wrong."

The proof is right in the authoritative Baha'i Writings. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote the following and he was one of the two appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Writings.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

That is a great quote, that really says it all.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hi…
I’m coming in late to the story, but I noticed the Star Trek analogy, and it caught my attention, I love Star Trek!

Can you provide 1 or 2 examples of the inconsistencies that you say exist in the Bible?

Please, not a Gish. Just a couple we could hash over, maybe.

Bring on Season 3 of Star Trek Discovery



Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Every religious faith believes it has something which PROVES it is correct. Your faith is no different.

That is the God given way.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You miss my point. EVERYONE has biases, and EVERYONE is going to be more accepting of anything that supports what they already believe is true.

Except, one has to consider when one embraces a New Faith, they have to embrace all things made new.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am only pointing out that when you claim you have VERIFIED it, you have not actually done so

I would offer that Susan has very much verified her Faith with the available data and logic.

I personally have used much the same methods to verify the Faith I also embraced.

That may not be how you would choose to verify a point of interest, but it is the way a Messenger of God asks us to verify what they offer.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Except, one has to consider when one embraces a New Faith, they have to embrace all things made new.

Regards Tony

But unfortunately, most people usually don't embrace the New Faith for a very long time.

Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Jesus was right, as that is what actually happens... Christians or Jews or any older religious believers who have drunk the old wine do not desire the new Baha’i wine; they say the old is better. That is why we do not see a massive increase in Baha’is.

 

[CG Didymus]

I dunno. Am I biased towards Christianity because I read the verses in context and agree with Christians?

Christians don't take it in context. They take one verse. How is that "in context"? So many things in the Bible, Baha'is blow off as not literally true. Why would the virgin birth be "literally" true and not allegorical?

 

[Trailblazer]

Every religious faith believes it has something which PROVES it is correct. Your faith is no different.

That is not what we were talking about. We were not talking about a religion having something that proves it is correct. We were talking about a religious person being different from other religious people

Tiberius said: Every religious person thinks they are different than the others. The difference they believe they have is that they think they have it right and other people of different faiths have it wrong.

Trailblazer said: What is different about the Baha'i Faith is that we do not believe"we have it right and all the other religions have it wrong."

The proof is right in the authoritative Baha'i Writings. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote the following and he was one of the two appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Writings.

You miss my point. EVERYONE has biases, and EVERYONE is going to be more accepting of anything that supports what they already believe is true.

And so? The same applies to you since you are part of everyone.

You've committed the special pleading fallacy repeatedly, as well as confirmation bias.

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

You mean you' believe' I committed them. I disagree.

I did not do any of the following things you accused me of doing.

Yes, you did. You've decided that the Bible needs to match your religious beliefs, which leads you to end up with a different interpretation than Christians.

Of course, you came up with ways to dismiss them all. I'm not surprised. People of all faiths come up with all sorts of ways to dismiss other religions whenever they want to. You're no different.

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

Special pleading - Wikipedia

No, there are no ways of knowing some claim is true without testing it. You are again committing the special pleading fallacy by assuming that religious claims are different for some reason.

No one casts stones at a tree without fruit. No one tries to extinguish a lamp without light! …….

And I say unto you that no calumny is able to prevail against the Light of God; it can only result in causing it to be more universally recognized. If a cause were of no significance, who would take the trouble to work against it!

But always the greater the cause the more do enemies arise in larger and larger numbers to attempt its overthrow! The brighter the light the darker the shadow! Our part it is to act in accordance with the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh in humility and firm steadfastness.” Paris Talks, pp. 105-106

Special pleading fallacy.

In both those cases I justified the exceptions so it was not special pleading.

And what am I doing that all other atheists have done?

Asking for verifiable evidence and saying I have no evidence.
Accusing me of committing fallacies I did not commit.
Saying all religions are the same.
Telling me I have the burden of proof to prove my religion is true...
And that's just for starters.

It is not disrespectful of me to hold a viewpoint that contradicts a viewpoint you hold. If you're going to complain of being disrespected every time someone on the net disagrees with you, you're gonna have a bad time.

I was not referring to a viewpoint that contradicts my viewpoint. I was referring to people contradicting what I say, such as when I say I have verified my beliefs and you say no, I haven't.

No, I don't feel disrespected when someone disagrees with me. It is HOW some people disagree that I object to.

You have claimed to be certain. You KNOW you are certain, and I have never argued against that. I fully agree that you are certain that you are correct.

I am only pointing out that when you claim you have VERIFIED it, you have not actually done so. I am pointing out that the world you are using does not reflect what you have done. The word you are using is incorrect. It is not disrespectful for me to do so. If a person had been repeatedly saying, "For all intensive purposes," and I repeatedly corrected them by saying that the phrase was "For all intents and purposes," that would not be disrespectful. They might even complain that I was being disrespectful by repeatedly correcting them, but that does not change the fact that they were wrong.

All I'm saying is that you are using the word "verify" incorrectly.

You have certainly satisfied yourself that your beliefs are true. I will not argue with that. All I have been saying is that "verify" is not the correct word to use because verification requires that the conclusions be tested, and you, by your own admission, can't do so.

That is just YOUR bias. Does that definition below say anything about requiring my conclusions to be tested? No, it does not.

There is more than one way to verify something and the methods we use depend upon what we are trying to verify. Testing is for science, religion cannot be tested. The way we verify that a religion is true is to look at all the facts that surround that religion such as the history, and we also have to look at the Writings of the Messenger and the character of the Messenger.

verify: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verify+means

The word verification has a clearly specified meaning. This is not a case of my opinion against yours. The definition you provided says, "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." How have you been able to MAKE SURE that your conclusion is correct, when by your own admission it can only happen in your own mind, and the human mind is fallible?

That is the only way it can happen, in the human mind. However, we should do our due diligence and research the religion so we know why we are believing it.

As I think I pointed out the only way of knowing that is infallible is through the bounty of the Holy Spirit and that is why when we are guided by God we can be sure. Of course the problem with that method is that many people say they are guided by the Holy Spirit and they have false beliefs such as that Jesus is God. That will have to be a discussion for another day.

“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. 298-299

Read more: 83: THE FOUR METHODS OF ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE