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

[Tiberius]

There was no subgroup, there was just one man. That is why the verse says "he."

Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

Is your obstinance deliberate? Because it's starting to seem like you're just trying to troll.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not only does this show that prayer is no better than random chance, but it's also a case where a testable claim of a religious faith has been put to the test and failed.

That would only be testable if that religious faith claimed that God answers prayers. The Baha'i Faith does not claim that God answers all our prayers. We believe that God answers only the prayers He chooses to answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

See, this is how this typical debate tactic works. Derail the conversation, hope that lots of time is wasted so that by the time everyone gets past the time wasting bits, no one can remember what the original topic was. That way, the believer can claim victory, but it's only because they tried to avoid the discussion altogether. Like I said, you're guilty of using the same tricks I've seen in pretty much every other debate between believers and atheists. So remember this the next time you cry, "You can't say all religious people are the same!" Because I've just pointed out how you've been using the same sneaky tricks that the others use, and it's not the first time either.

I have no tricks and I have no tactics, I just respond to posts that are posted to me and sometimes others. Claim victory? Only in your imagination and I in a debate with you because a debate implies someone is trying to win and I have no interest in winning anything. You might be in a debate to win but I am not.

My point, which I made all the way back in post 2551, was that you can pray all you want and you can never be sure that what happens was a result of your prayer, because the results of prayer are no different to what we'd expect from random chance, and you'd get results just as effective if you prayed to your toaster.

And my point is that there is no way to prove that since we can never know if God answered a prayer or if what happened would have happened anyway.

But you decided that you'd rather waffle on for the next 500 or so posts about who these toaster-praying people actually were rather than actually try to discuss the claim that prayer is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

I will not concede to that prayer is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing because that can never be proven. What I prayed for might have happened anyway or it might not have happened if I had not prayed. Nobody except God knows. Moreover, even if I did not get what I prayed for that does not mean that praying was a waste of time, not unless I am a selfish sob who only prays to get something from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is your obstinance deliberate? Because it's starting to seem like you're just trying to troll.

Just because I do not agree with you that does not make me obstinate but your need for me to agree with you says something about you.

Everyone here knows I am no troll. I am a serious poster with many Featured threads. Trolls don't post threads, they troll other people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure there is reliable evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah. It is unfortunate for people who they deny this.

It is too bad that you have not been able to post any. And I am serious about that. If there is such evidence please try to make it clear. Failed prophecies are not reliable evidence. It is not good enough for the prophecy to just "sort of" match. That alone is a failed prophecy. The burden of proof is to show that without a doubt it is about Baha'ullah. Or else it could be about Elvis, or Elton John, or countless other people.

 

[Trailblazer]

That works for me as long as you concede that this kind of "validation" isn't enough to determine whether it is true or false.

My own validation is enough for me to figure out if it is true or false.

So what? Sure each religion has it's own thing, but they all serve to accomplish the same purpose. There are things that Christianity has that Baha'i does not have, and Christians could say with as much conviction as you that those things make Christianity better than Baha'i.

No, all religions do not serve to accomplish the same purpose. Every religion has its own Messenger who came for a different purpose. Did you forget what I posted to you before?

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

You've given me no reason to think they are any different.

If you looked at the religion you would know how it is different, but you have never done that so you cannot know.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

 

[Trailblazer]

It is too bad that you have not been able to post any. And I am serious about that. If there is such evidence please try to make it clear. Failed prophecies are not reliable evidence. It is not good enough for the prophecy to just "sort of" match. That alone is a failed prophecy. The burden of proof is to show that without a doubt it is about Baha'ullah. Or else it could be about Elvis, or Elton John, or countless other people.

I never said that prophecies are reliable evidence and in fact I said they are not good evidence because they can be so easily misconstrued. You want to use them as evidence, I don't want to use them as evidence.

There is no way any prophecy can be shown without a doubt to be about anyone.

There are some prophecies that are an exact match but you cannot know how they match unless you are familiar with Baha'i history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said that prophecies are reliable evidence and in fact I said they are not good evidence because they can be so easily misconstrued. You want to use them as evidence, I don't want to use them as evidence.

There is no way any prophecy can be shown without a doubt to be about anyone.

There are some prophecies that are an exact match but you cannot know how they match unless you are familiar with Baha'i history.

Then waht is your evidence? If It only involves confirmation bias then that is very poor quality evidence. Evidence where one's idea passes a reasonable test is much more convincing. But theists never want to test their beliefs with a proper test that could show them to be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem determined to miss the point.

The point is that you get the same results praying to God that you'd get praying to a toaster (or anything else that you want to use instead).

I'd be careful not to assert that unless you can prove it. If you cannot prove it it is a bald assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd be careful not to assert that unless you can prove it. If you cannot prove it it is a bald assertion.

The efficacy of intercessory prayer has been tested. All hail mighty Toaster!

 

[Trailblazer]

Then waht is your evidence? If It only involves confirmation bias then that is very poor quality evidence. Evidence where one's idea passes a reasonable test is much more convincing. But theists never want to test their beliefs with a proper test that could show them to be wrong.

I already told you what the evidence is so I see no point posting it again. No confirmation bias is involved when one independently looks at the evidence and assesses to determine what it means.

There are ways to test religious claim but there is no test such as the kind you want.

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.”

Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

 

[Trailblazer]

The efficacy of intercessory prayer has been tested. All hail mighty Toaster!

Oh? How was that done?

 

[Tiberius]

That would only be testable if that religious faith claimed that God answers prayers. The Baha'i Faith does not claim that God answers all our prayers. We believe that God answers only the prayers He chooses to answer.

So God answers SOME prayers. That should still show more prayers answered than we'd get by random chance. And yet there is not a single bit of evidence to show that any faith's prayers are answered at a rate that is any different to random chance.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not assume there is magic, I believe there is. The reason I believe it is because of what special glasses reveal, and there are also other books written on such subjects as wicca, spells, etc.

I do not expect science or religion to be able to provide evidence of what is magical because that would be an unrealistic expectation.

Now you believe in magic?

Then why don't we see that happening with things like the speed of light?

Because science is not religion so the objective evidence cannot be interpreted to mean more than one thing.

Someone may believe that a particular argument is logical or illogical, but their opinion does not make it so.

That's right.

How can there possibly be a LOGICAL reason for believing in something unfalsifiable?

Evidence that shows it is true which means it isn't false.

Ah yes, this unfalsifiable "evidence" definitely shows God exists!

It sure does.

 

[Tiberius]

I have no tricks and I have no tactics, I just respond to posts that are posted to me and sometimes others. Claim victory? Only in your imagination and I in a debate with you because a debate implies someone is trying to win and I have no interest in winning anything. You might be in a debate to win but I am not.

Are you not attempting to show that your belief is correct?

And my point is that there is no way to prove that since we can never know if God answered a prayer or if what happened would have happened anyway.

And as I have repeatedly mentioned, that is not true.

We can figure out at what rate prayers would be "answered" if it was just left up to random chance. We can look at the rate that prayers are actually "answered". If the rate predicted by random chance and the rate we actually see are the same, then we can safely conclude that God answered none of the prayers.

I will not concede to that prayer is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing because that can never be proven. What I prayed for might have happened anyway or it might not have happened if I had not prayed. Nobody except God knows.

I've already shown that's not really true.

Moreover, even if I did not get what I prayed for that does not mean that praying was a waste of time, not unless I am a selfish sob who only prays to get something from God.

Then what kind of things do you pray for?

 

[Trailblazer]

So God answers SOME prayers. That should still show more prayers answered than we'd get by random chance. And yet there is not a single bit of evidence to show that any faith's prayers are answered at a rate that is any different to random chance.

And yet there is not a single bit of evidence to show that any faith's prayers are not answered at a rate that is different to random chance.

 

[Tiberius]

Now you believe in magic?

Once again you are using that trick of trying to derail the conversation, this time by pretending you don't know what an analogy is. I can only conclude that it's because anything else would put you in the position of revealing your double standard - that this line of reasoning is valid if it supports what you believe, but is invalid if it's used to support something you don't believe.

Because science is not religion so the objective evidence cannot be interpreted to mean more than one thing.

Special pleading. This is nothing more than crying, "But we shouldn't hold religion to the same rules as science, because religion's different!"

That's right.

So you'll understand when I say that religious beliefs are NOT logical, no matter how much you believe they are.

Evidence that shows it is true which means it isn't false.

Falsifiable is not the same thing as falsified.

It sure does.

If it's not falsifiable, then it's not evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Just because I do not agree with you that does not make me obstinate but your need for me to agree with you says something about you.

Everyone here knows I am no troll. I am a serious poster with many Featured threads. Trolls don't post threads, they troll other people.

Then I can't for the life of me come up with another reason why you do not understand the point I am trying to make.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence. Just because you want to say that it is evidence, does not make it evidence.

There is evidence. Just because you want to say that it is not evidence, does not make it not evidence.

You said it existed only in your mind and thus couldn't be checked by others.

I never said that. All the evidence can be checked by anyone.

So you were biased towards believing it.

No, I was not biased towards believing in Baha'u'llah because I had no desire to believe in God.

And why should I believe it if there is no way to test it to see if it is true?

There is a way to test it as I just posted to SZ.

#3111 Trailblazer, 18 minutes ago

 

[Tiberius]

My own validation is enough for me to figure out if it is true or false.

But you can't claim that it's an objective fact that your beliefs are true.

No, all religions do not serve to accomplish the same purpose. Every religion has its own Messenger who came for a different purpose. Did you forget what I posted to you before?

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

Yeah, I've already explained how this is contradicting itself.

Once again, to make it clear...

In January, the doctor says, "The remedy the patient needs now in January can never be the same as what the patient will require in June." In June, the doctor says, "It's little wonder that the treatment I prescribe today is identical with what I prescribed in January."

In January, the doctor says that the January treatment and June treatment are going to be different. In June, he says that we shouldn't be surprised that they are the same.

If you looked at the religion you would know how it is different, but you have never done that so you cannot know.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

I was a believer for the first 20 years of my life, you know, so don't start telling me what I've done, okay? You'll find many atheists in the same boat, believers when younger, but they left religion when they started thinking about it.