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

[Trailblazer]

*sigh*

But is such a person justified in claiming that they KNOW it?

How could they KNOW the election was stolen if the election was actually completely fair?

That was my point. People still say they know the election was stolen even though the evidence shows it was not stolen.

No, they are not justified in saying they know the election was stolen but they can still say they know.

 

[night912]

Saying that you have refuted the evidence is not the same as doing what you say you have done, refuting the evidence. I see no demonstration that any of the evidence I have presented has been refuted and thus you are making a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Now sometimes this is alright - if it's painfully obvious. Like the definition of a common word or nine by seven being sixty three. You shouldn't waste everyone's time asking your opponent in a debate to prove nine by seven is sixty three, accusing him of bald assertion. It's true he did assert something baldly, but it's logical to do that sometimes when it's very common knowledge and not even a matter of any debate whatsoever.

You don't need to cover and cite sources behind every thing you say, just behind the key points, and their key ingredients. The topics being argued over. They're the focus of the day anyway.

Bald assertion is when you state something without backing it up. For example, merely stating your position statement would be this type of fallacious.

Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

What information? You have presented no information. All you is a bald assertion.
You have a 'personal opinion' about the evidence and what it represents, nothing more.

I said all what needed to be said about deniers already. The purpose of it is so thst I won't be wasting my time repeating things over and over again.

And sorry but you can list as many logical fallacies as you want, but it does nothing to show that what I said is false. Reasoning has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or not. So I suggest you try new and different tactics.

Here's a word that I think is important for you to know and understand that's relevant to this discussion.

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.[1][2][3] In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,[4] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs
Source

 

[Trailblazer]

I said all what needed to be said about deniers already. The purpose of it is so that I won't be wasting my time repeating things over and over again.
Obfuscation will get you nowhere.

You said: You're still a Baha'i, even after your so called "evidence" were refuted. So clearly, that statement above is not true.

Saying that you have refuted the evidence is not the same as doing what you say you have done, refuting the evidence. I see no demonstration that any of the evidence I have presented has been refuted and thus you are making a bald assertion.

And sorry but you can list as many logical fallacies as you want, but it does nothing to show that what I said is false. Reasoning has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or not. So I suggest you try new and different tactics.

Evidence is the only thing that has any bearing as to what is true or false and since you have no evidence to prove that what you said is true, it is a bald assertion. So I suggest you try new and different tactics such as presenting the evidence to show that your assertion -- that my evidence was refuted -- is true.

 

[night912]

People still say the earth is flat. Are you offering, as they put forward their evidence for a refutation of a round world, that on that basis it is correct?

This is irrelevant to what I said.

If not, people can refute all they want, they can provide their chosen evidence, but if it does not stand up, then the choice of being a Baha'i remains valid.

Regards Tony

Nope, because the so called "evidence" was refuted. And it did stand up to it. Denying it does nothing to change the fact that they were refuted. So within the context of this discussion, choosing to remain as being a Baha'i is invalid. A person with integrity would not be a Baha'i anymore. A person with integrity would stand behind his/her words and do what he/she said will do instead of backing down on those words whenever he/she gets hit with reality.

For context purposes:

I believe that the Bahai Faith is true because of the EVIDENCE so until and unless someone can refute that evidence I will continue being a Baha'i.

Friendly reminder:
Listing logical fallacies won't change the facts, neither does denial.

 

[Tiberius]

I talk of that same world, it is only a matter of perception, our relative understanding.

Ask what a blind or a death man from birth perceives the world like, it would radically different from those with sight or hearing.

So if we are not willing to embrace spiritual visions, how can we perceive what we do not look for?

Baha'u'llah has offered this for us to consider.

"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."

That to me offers that it is our choice, 100% so.

Regards Tony

Again, I am NOT talking about what we perceive the world to be! I am talking about the world that ACTUALLY EXISTS, separate to our perception of it!

 

[Tiberius]

They have gathered their evidence to suit that agenda, they want their stance to be the truth, they want to be justified in that stance.

With God, the evidence is given and asks us to look and make a choice, nothing needs to be fabricated, just as in the quote I will post again, as it answers this as well.

"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."

Regards Tony

This doesn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

For some fact to be "knowable," it has to be true. You can not KNOW that the moon is made of cheese, since that claim is demonstrably false.

I can't understand how you are so consistently not understanding the points I am trying to make.

 

[night912]

Evidence is the only thing that has any bearing as to what is true or false and since you have no evidence to prove that what you said is true, it is a bald assertion. So I suggest you try new and different tactics such as presenting the evidence to show that your assertion -- that my evidence was refuted -- is true.

Apparently I need to repeat and remind you again. I'll just have repeat what I said one last time.

I said all what needed to be said about deniers already. The purpose of it is so thst I won't be wasting my time repeating things over and over again.

BTW,
Copying someone else's material and using it, lacks the "punch" like how the original had. But I guess that's the only thing left that they can do or say. And obviously their lack of integrity does play a lot in their actions.

Word of the day is, INTEGRITY.


Here's something to think about:

Not all traps have the same purpose. So the one who got trapped is not always the intended target. Sometimes, the target and purpose is for the audience, so that they can see what's being shown regarding beliefs, ideas, people, arguments etc.

 

[Tiberius]

That was my point. People still say they know the election was stolen even though the evidence shows it was not stolen.

No, they are not justified in saying they know the election was stolen but they can still say they know.

But you wouldn't say the term "knowledge" describes their belief, would you? They may be totally convinced, they may believe their conviction equates to knowledge, but since the belief is false, is "know" the right word?

After all, "know" carries with it connotations of truthfulness, and truthfulness exists apart from our convictions. Thus, we can only KNOW something if that thing is true. If it is not true, we may think we know, but we don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope, because the so called "evidence" was refuted. And it did stand up to it. Denying it does nothing to change the fact that they were refuted.

Claiming that the evidence was refuted does not make it a fact that it was refuted. Stand up to who? Who refuted it and how was it refuted? If you cannot answer these questions all you have is a bald assertion that it was refuted.

So within the context of this discussion, choosing to remain as being a Baha'i is invalid. A person with integrity would not be a Baha'i anymore.

A person with integrity would not be a Baha'i anymore because some people on a forum CLAIM to have refuted the evidence for Baha'u'llah and cannot even demonstrate how they refuted it?

A person with integrity would back up their assertions to have refuted the Baha'i Faith with evidence of the refutations or not make any such assertions.

A person with integrity would stand behind his/her words and do what he/she said will do instead of backing down on those words whenever he/she gets hit with reality.

I am still waiting for evidence of the the refutations. I don't see any such evidence.

Go ahead and refute the evidence for Baha'u'llah and I will drop out of the Baha'i Faith. Can you make the Person of Baha'u'llah, the History of the Baha'i Faith and the Writings of Baha'u'llah go away? That is the evidence whether you like it or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you wouldn't say the term "knowledge" describes their belief, would you? They may be totally convinced, they may believe their conviction equates to knowledge, but since the belief is false, is "know" the right word?

They believe they know but the evidence contradicts what they believe.

After all, "know" carries with it connotations of truthfulness, and truthfulness exists apart from our convictions. Thus, we can only KNOW something if that thing is true. If it is not true, we may think we know, but we don't.

But if they believe they know they are not being untruthful. Sure, if something is not true, we may think we know, but we don't. The presidential election being stolen was proven not to be true but it is not possible to prove a religion is not true. All we have is the evidence for the religion and some people will believe that evidence indicates the religion is true and some people will not believe that evidence indicates that the religion is true. Nobody can refute actual evidence, all they can do is say it does not prove anything to them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why would the scribes change the story? What makes you think they ever knew the story? How would they know it? Who were they anyway? We don't even know.

I never said the the Scribes were involved in any plot. Do you really believe that the Bible is historically accurate? I guess you cannot imagine that the Scribes made a mistake, but you sure can imagine that the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings are mistaken.

The process of making copies of the Bible...

In 586 B.C., Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians. The Temple was looted and then destroyed by fire. The Jews were exiled.

About 70 years later, the Jewish captives returned to Jerusalem from Babylon....
From then on, the Jewish scribes solidified the following process for creating copies of the Torah and eventually other books in the Old Testament.

1. They could only use clean animal skins, both to write on, and even to bind manuscripts.
2. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
3. The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
4. They must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
5. They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the word "Jehovah," every time they wrote it.
6. There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
7. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
8. The documents could be stored only in sacred places (synagogues, etc).
9. As no document containing God's Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah - a Hebrew term meaning "hiding place." These were usually kept in a synagogue or sometimes in a Jewish cemetery.

It goes on to say how accurate the scribes were at copying. So when did this alleged "change" happen? Centuries before Jesus? Again... Why? What would be there motive?

The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. I

Baha'is do have a motive. Baha'u'llah said so. Zero evidence. And it is not a question of being historically accurate. But if it's not historically accurate why would Baha'u'llah say that it was Ishmael? Does it matter in a fictional story?

So who is making things up here? The Jews have their stories. And let's say there are legends and myths that were past down. Why would they pass a legend down about Ishmael? Ishmael is not part of the continuing story. He gets sent away and Isaac is the one that becomes a major patriarch of the Jewish people . Then centuries later when the stories get compiled and written down, they have Isaac. And no copy of Ishmael ever being the one. And why would it be?

So Baha'u'llah mistaken? No, I think what he said was intentional and is what he meant. And that's what worries me.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is the key about the Spirit behind the word CG. That is why God gives Faith and choice.

We can consider that the Universal House of Justice, who will be the giver of Law for Baha'i is on Zion. So is the Arc of the Covernant.

New Jerusalem - Wikipedia.

Regards Tony

From your link...

Ezekiel's prophetic vision of a city centered on the rebuilt Holy Temple, the Third Temple, to be established in Jerusalem, which would be the capital of the Messianic Kingdom, the meeting place of the twelve tribes of Israel, during the Messianic era.​

 

[Trailblazer]

I said all what needed to be said about deniers already. The purpose of it is so that I won't be wasting my time repeating things over and over again.

BTW,
Copying someone else's material and using it, lacks the "punch" like how the original had. But I guess that's the only thing left that they can do or say. And obviously their lack of integrity does play a lot in their actions.

Why not just admit you have nothing that demonstrates that anyone has refuted my beliefs?
Why would you expect anyone to believe you have something you cannot even present?
Just because someone believes they have refuted my beliefs that does not mean they have refuted my beliefs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is irrelevant to what I said.
Nope, because the so called "evidence" was refuted. And it did stand up to it. Denying it does nothing to change the fact that they were refuted. So within the context of this discussion, choosing to remain as being a Baha'i is invalid. A person with integrity would not be a Baha'i anymore. A person with integrity would stand behind his/her words and do what he/she said will do instead of backing down on those words whenever he/she gets hit with reality.

For context purposes:



Friendly reminder:
Listing logical fallacies won't change the facts, neither does denial.

Then I am happy to call it a night 912. It is naught but circular argument. So you to yours, me to mine, and as to the divine, we all may find that in time.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually, that is true. God has a special reward for them.

THE IMMORTALITY OF CHILDREN

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them. Some Answered Questions, p. 240

And when is this age of "discretion"?

 

[Trailblazer]

And when is this age of "discretion"?

I do not really know. Only Abdu'l-Baha knows since he said that.

Maybe it is age 15 because that is the age when a person can first become a Baha'i.

 

[night912]

Go ahead and refute the evidence for Baha'u'llah and I will drop out of the Baha'i Faith.

My initial post already covered this.

Can you make the Person of Baha'u'llah, the History of the Baha'i Faith and the Writings of Baha'u'llah go away?

Attention please. Eyes over here and not at your mirror.

Now that you're not staring at yourself in the mirror, here's my response to that. I don't dishonestly take information away because it benefits my argument. That's your tactic, not mine.

But that's irrelevant anyway because his existence is not evidence that the religion is true, nor is it evidence of him being a messenger of God.

And just a reminder, I don't need to refute claims that has no evidence to support it.

 

[CG Didymus]

out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

We do not have to transfer anything, because there is no such "place" as Mt. Zion.

The ancient Hebrew word Tsiyon (Zion) is “a Canaanite hill fortress in Jerusalem captured by David and called in the Bible ‘City of David.’" So again, Baha'is find ways to make things into whatever best suits them. And then it becomes the truth.​

 

[night912]

Then I am happy to call it a night 912. It is naught but circular argument. So you to yours, me to mine, and as to the divine, we all may find that in time.

Regards Tony

Please explain why you think that it's circular argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

1. As no document containing God's Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah - a Hebrew term meaning "hiding place." These were usually kept in a synagogue or sometimes in a Jewish cemetery.

It goes on to say how accurate the scribes were at copying.

What is the source of this information?
Copying what? God's Word? What makes you think that the scribes knew what God's Word was? How would they know? Did God speak to them? It is amazing you would believe this is God's Word and you don't wonder why while you wonder so much about other things that do not even matter, such as whether it was Ishmael or Issac.

Baha'is do have a motive. Baha'u'llah said so. Zero evidence. And it is not a question of being historically accurate. But if it's not historically accurate why would Baha'u'llah say that it was Ishmael? Does it matter in a fictional story?

We do not know if it was historically accurate or not, but Baha'u'llah knew what God intended to convey because
Baha'u'llah had the knowledge of God.

So Baha'u'llah mistaken? No, I think what he said was intentional and is what he meant. And that's what worries me.

Why does it worry you, because you believe that Jewish scribes were better able to know what God said than a Manifestation of God would know?