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

[Trailblazer]

I'm not asking if the evidence contradicts what they believe.

I'm asking if the word "know" is the appropriate word for what they believe.

If they think they know it is the appropriate word.

I'm not talking about honesty here.

I'm using "truth" in the sense of "What is actually real, not just what they perceive to be real."

How do you know what truth is actually real?

 

[Trailblazer]

But, then don't tell me that you don't cherry-pick. 'Cause I won't believe you.

Cherry-picking is okay as long as you pick the right cherry.

Sorry, I am degenerating, time to go do some exercise.

 

[night912]

Then why did you say you had refuted my evidence?

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

You denying the facts has no effect on the facts. And I already went over denyers.

As the saying goes:

Truth hurts.

 

[Trailblazer]

You denying the facts has no effect on the facts. And I already went over denyers.

As the saying goes:

Truth hurts.

What facts? I have never seen you present any facts. I cannot deny facts that were never presented.

You denying the facts has no effect on the facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

As the saying goes: Truth hurts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is part of verifying that a prophecy was actually fulfilled. I've given my reasons why I don't think Isaiah 7:14 was a Messianic prophecy. If you're okay with taking verse fourteen and making about an event that happens centuries later, then fine. But, then don't tell me that you don't cherry-pick. 'Cause I won't believe you.

I see it more of putting a puzzle together.

Each piece is part of a larger picture, and each pice tells its own part of the story that must be examined to see how it fits.

Look how Abdu'lbaha interprets Daniel and Chapters 11 and 12 of Revelation, the prophecy unfolding traverses centuries.

Now if I spend time adding my ideas, it will only muddy the water further.

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

If they think they know it is the appropriate word.

A person can think that a bear is a large dog, doesn't make it a dog no matter how much they believe it to be so. And no one can KNOW that it's a dog if it's actually a bear.

How do you know what truth is actually real?

Whether or not I'm aware of it is irrelevant. My perceiving it and my believing it are not required for it to actually exist.

Now, could you please answer the question.

 

[Trailblazer]

By never making any falsifiable claims, and when there are falsifiable claims about a religion (say, certain passages in a holy text), they handwave it away as, "Oh, that passage wasn't meant to be literal."

To be honest, if the claims made in the Bible were true, if Christians were able to drink poison and get bitten by snakes and yet never died from them, or if they could pray for a mountain to move and the mountain actually did, yes, I would consider that pretty strong evidence that they had it right.

But you are not going to get that kind of evidence because those passages were never intended to be interpreted literally and as such they cannot be tested.

Yeah, any line of argument that ends with, "When it happens, you'll know" is meaningless. There needs to be some way of actually verifying that the results were a direct result of prayer being acted upon by some supernatural entity.

Sorry, that is not possible for obvious reasons. We can never know what God is doing at any time.

Otherwise, how do you know that what you got wasn't just believing it because you wanted it to be true, or latching onto any coincidental event that would appear to answer your prayers and concluding that it was a result of those prayers?

One cannot know if what they got was just their believing or if it was an answer from God. They can believe but they cannot know.

If you have concluded that Baha'i is true, why do you bother talking about it in here?

Because certain people keep posting to me and asking me questions, so I answer them.

I try to answer all posted that are posted to me, unless someone is disrespectful.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then what are we perceiving? A figment of our imagination? Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing at all unless someone is looking at it?

I am saying it is a perceived reality we look at, it is a creation and we are created to be part of it in a specific state of being. If we were not in this state of being, we would not be perceive it as we do now.

When we pass on we are still part of this world,but in a different state of being, so where are all those that have passed on, why do we not see or hear them? (well not most of us anyway, maybe some indeed do).

This talk by Abdu’l-Baha offers what I am thinking in this discussion.

The Other World is Within This World
"… The answer to the first question: The souls of the children of the Kingdom, after their separation from the body, ascend unto the realm of everlasting life. But if ye ask as to the place, know ye that the world of existence is a single world, although its stations are various and distinct. For example, the mineral life occupieth its own plane, but a mineral entity is without any awareness at all of the vegetable kingdom,…

"As to the second question: The tests and trials of God take place in this world, not in the world of the Kingdom.

"The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.

"And the answer to the fourth question: The centre of the Sun of Truth is in the supernal world—the Kingdom of God. Those souls who are pure and unsullied, upon the dissolution of their elemental frames, hasten away to the world of God, and that world is within this world. The people of this world, however, are unaware of that world, and are even as the mineral and the vegetable that know nothing of the world of the animal and the world of man."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá: Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 194-95)

I see we are but one heart beat away from being removed from this matrix, into the worlds to come.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Given the number of times you have dismissed Christian beliefs as being incorrect interpretations, you'll understand, I'm sure, that I do not believe that you practice what you preach.

I never preached that I agree with Christian beliefs, only the scriptures. There is quite a wide disparity between the two.

Did you just ignore completely what I said?

I didn't but I do not see how it is related to what I just said.

You have beliefs that you have not been able to demonstrate the validity of to anyone else. You have convictions, not evidence.

I have evidence and that is what convinced me. I cannot make other people be convinced by the evidence and that is not my responsibility.

Have I ever denied that he was a real person? Have I ever denied that he did the things that are attributed to him? Have I ever denied that he said the things you've told me he said? No. Not once. The opposite, in fact. I have agreed with you that those particular claims are verifiable, and I have agreed that they have indeed been verified.

But NONE of those verifiable facts show that Mr B was an actual messenger from God.

Have I ever told you that they show that He was a Messenger from God. I told you that such a claim cannot be proven, and that all we can do is believe Baha'u'llah was being truthful, based upon the evidence.

That's incorrect.

If a person presents the evidence that shows they are correct but does not show the evidence that shows they are wrong, then they deliberately misrepresenting the evidence.

I am not deliberately misrepresenting the evidence. All I can so is present the evidence I know about. I cannot present any evidence that shows that I am wrong because I have no such evidence. If people believe I am wrong then they have to present the evidence that shows I am wrong.

 

[samtonga43]

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.

Someone believes they have evidence that God spoke to MrB.
This does not mean that she/he has evidence that God spoke to MrB.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have repeatedly said that the Christian interpretation of various passages in the Bible is wrong and presented your own interpretation.

That is because I was backed into a corner and I can only tell the truth about what I believe.

You do realise that the claim that a particular religion is less true because it is smaller establishes a direct correlation between size and how true it is, yes?

I know that, but that is not what I claimed. I did not say that the larger religions such as Christianity and Islam are truer than Judaism just because they are larger than Judaism. They are also not truer than the Baha'i Faith just because they are larger than the Bahai Faith. All these religions are true religions of God and there are logical explanations as to why some are smaller than others.

Tell me again how you DON'T claim that the way other religions interpret their own holy texts is wrong, but Baha'is get it right.

I said that the teachings of the religions have been corrupted by the religious leaders and that means that in some cases the way other religions interpret their own holy texts is wrong. If/when Baha'is get it right that is because Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha explained what the verses mean.

 

[samtonga43]

Truth is always relative.

Regards Tony

No objective truth? Are you sure?

 

[Trailblazer]

A person can think that a bear is a large dog, doesn't make it a dog no matter how much they believe it to be so. And no one can KNOW that it's a dog if it's actually a bear.

Well then, "I think" would be a better way to say it.

Whether or not I'm aware of it is irrelevant. My perceiving it and my believing it are not required for it to actually exist.

That's correct. You can perceive or believe something exists that is nonexistent and conversely something can exist even though you do not believe or perceive it exists.

Now, could you please answer the question.

How do I know what truth is actually real? I know by various means. I know the the truth about the physical world is real because I can see it and experience it and it is confirmed to be real by science. I know of the spiritual world is real because the Bible and the Baha'i Writings say it is real and I can sense its presence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Someone believes they have evidence that God spoke to MrB.
This does not mean that she/he has evidence that God spoke to MrB.

Someone believes they have refuted the evidence that God spoke to Baha'u'llah.
This does not mean that she/he has refuted the evidence that God spoke to Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No objective truth? Are you sure?

No, but what happens when we magnify sand, and what happens when we look even smaller, I personally do not think creation can be magnified down, nor can we look further out to find a beginning or an end, so what we see now, fits our state of being.



Regards Tony

 

[samtonga43]

Someone believes they have refuted the evidence that God spoke to Baha'u'llah.
This does not mean that she/he has refuted the evidence that God spoke to Baha'u'llah.

You got my point. At last.

 

[samtonga43]

No, but what happens when we magnify sand, and what happens when we look even smaller, I personally do not think creation can be magnified down, nor can we look further out to find a beginning or an end, so what we see now, fits our state of being.
Regards Tony

I mentioned neither sand nor creation. I question your statement that "Truth is always relative", because it is not always relative.

 

[samtonga43]

Well then, "I think" would be a better way to say it

Exactly. "I think" is believable.
"I know"? Not so much.

 

[night912]

Why not just admit you have nothing that demonstrates that anyone has refuted my beliefs?

Because I'm not a liar and I would be lying if I was to say that.

Why would you expect anyone to believe you have something you cannot even present?

You need to ask yourself that question.

Just because someone believes they have refuted my beliefs that does not mean they have refuted my beliefs.

Just because someone denys it being refuted, doesn't mean that it wasn't refuted.

 

[night912]

What facts? I have never seen you present any facts. I cannot deny facts that were never presented.

I already covered and said what was needed to deniers.

You denying the facts has no effect on the facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

That statement is only true if those facts actually do exist.

As the saying goes: Truth hurts.

Apparently it does hurt you, enough to make a threat towards me.

And there's no need for me to repost it since you're just going to deny it.