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

[Tiberius]

Keep talking, but you are not going to convince me. Why is it so important to convince me? I don't care about convincing you.

Then again I ask: Why in the world are you here?

Also: How in the world do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you freely admit that you are happy to deny reality whenever it suits you?

 

[Tiberius]

I have no problem with that as you are not obligated to believe that just because I believe it.

Then why do you expend so much effort telling me that I am wrong and arguing against my position?

It is only your opinion that I have committed logical fallacies. I disagree with your opinion.

The commission of logical fallacies is not an opinion. It's a clearly demonstrable fact.

Showing what? How is that related to what I said?

Showing what the Baha'i faith actually teaches. I very clearly stated what I was talking about. This is not the first time that you've missed something that was clearly stated either.

"I am not telling you what you have done, only you know that, but I doubt you really understand what the Baha'i Faith actually teaches, from what you have said."

What it has to do with is that Baha'is do not drop out of the Bahai Faith at the same rate that Christians drop out of Christianity and there is a good reason for that. Christianity is also growing at a much slower rate than the Baha'i Faith, statistics show that.

So what? Since very few people are born into Baha'i, you won't get the people who are raised in it dropping out. Yet you do have that with Christianity and Islam.

Statistics show that from 1910-2010, the Baha’i Faith grew at a rate of 3.54%, whereas during that time Islam grew at a rate of 1.97% and Christianity grew at a rate of 1.32%.

And in the same time, atheism grew at a rate of 6.54%. You really want to play the argument from popularity card? And this is yet another example of you resorting to a logical fallacy.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).

No, actually it was the Daoists, at 1.73%.

Statistics from: Growth of religion

Thanks for citing your source.

 

[Tiberius]

That is a one sided view.

Here is one report with more open findings;

Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

One also has to know the purpose of prayer, and until science comes to that understanding, there will be little progress.

Regards Tony

Hold on there, you're comparing two different things.

What you cited was a study where people were praying for their own health. They classify prayer as a form of meditation and they say that meditation can have health effects. I agree, but that only works for the person doing the praying. In studies where they have people praying for the health of different people, there is no effect shown.

In other words, if Joe Bloggs is sick and he prays for his own recovery, then he may experience some benefit - not because God is answering him, but because prayer is a kind of meditation and meditation can have a beneficial effect. But if Joe Bloggs is sick and John Smith prayers for him, Joe Bloggs won't get any benefit from that.

It's intellectually dishonest to try to pass off the first case as support for the second case.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said you prayer, so you obviously believe that prayer does something.

Thus, your position is that prayer has some effect.

I do not have a position on the efficacy of prayer. If I pray it is just because I feel like it at the time. I am not hoping for an outcome except in rare cases when I am desperately needing help.

I think that prayer does something because it connects us to God and that is its primary purpose, not to get something from God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hold on there, you're comparing two different things.

What you cited was a study where people were praying for their own health. They classify prayer as a form of meditation and they say that meditation can have health effects. I agree, but that only works for the person doing the praying. In studies where they have people praying for the health of different people, there is no effect shown.

In other words, if Joe Bloggs is sick and he prays for his own recovery, then he may experience some benefit - not because God is answering him, but because prayer is a kind of meditation and meditation can have a beneficial effect. But if Joe Bloggs is sick and John Smith prayers for him, Joe Bloggs won't get any benefit from that.

It's intellectually dishonest to try to pass off the first case as support for the second case.

I leave you with those thoughts, and with a prayer that to me will be answered.

May God's Will for you and all be done and may that will be merciful and bountiful.

I also see that In the next world we will see how all the prayers were answered.

Regards Tony.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because if other people check it and get the same result as you, then it indicates that what you have is legitimate evidence and not just opinion because it's unlikely that a large number of people would have the same opinion about an issue that you have.

Other people do check it and get the same result. That is why they are also Baha'is.

A large number of people will not have the same opinion about the Baha'i Faith and there are reasons for that I can post them if you like. Meanwhile, I'd be careful not to commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe we could ever fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later

The value comes from the fact that there is widespread agreement about it. That is not likely to happen for an opinion, but it is likely to happen for objective evidence.

That is only true for science, not for religion. There is widespread agreement among Christians that Jesus rose from the dead, so does that mean it is true? Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, so does that mean that Christianity is true?

You can have whatever belief you want.

I only take issue when you start talking about your belief as though it was objectively true when there is no evidence to support that position.

I never once said that my religion is objectively true, all I ever said is that there is objective evidence.

In other words, anyone who reaches the same opinion as you has verified it, and that means it's true.

That's not how legitimate evidence works, you know.

That is not what I meant at all. Independent investigation of truth is a process that a person does by themself, they do not rely upon what others think about the evidence. If someone verified the evidence for themself and they reached the same opinion as me, that the Baha'i Faith is true, all that means is that they just happen to view the evidence similarly to me.

YES. You encountered the Baha'i faith and once you were a follower you were biased to believe all that the Baha'i faith leads to.

The word bias does not apply. I told you that a long time ago but you are obsessed with thinking I am biased.

Thinking I am biased distorts your thinking. Before I heard of the Baha'i Faith I was a blank slate. I had no bias. After I became a Baha'i I had a 'preference' towards the Baha'i Faith but that is not a bias. Christians have a preference towards Christianity but they are not biased.

I encountered the Baha'i Faith and once I became a follower I believed all that the Baha'i Faith teaches.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then again I ask: Why in the world are you here?

Also: How in the world do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you freely admit that you are happy to deny reality whenever it suits you?

I could ask you the same question: Why in the world are you here?

If you think I am here to be convinced or to convince anyone of what I believe you must be projecting your own thought process onto me. That is a good question, why am I here? It is not for the reasons you think and often I wonder why I am still here.

I do not deny reality, I accept reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why do you expend so much effort telling me that I am wrong and arguing against my position?

Show me when I ever did that. Stating my position is not arguing against yours.

The commission of logical fallacies is not an opinion. It's a clearly demonstrable fact.

The problem is that you have never demonstrated that I have committed any. You just believe you have.
Now I wish you would knock it off with accusing me of committing logical fallacies. It is unbecoming and unnecessary.

So what? Since very few people are born into Baha'i, you won't get the people who are raised in it dropping out. Yet you do have that with Christianity and Islam.

That is not the only reason fewer people drop out of the Baha'i Faith but I don't want to get into that right now. Suffice to say that most Baha'is who were not raised as Baha'is chose to convert from other religions so they researched the Baha'i Faith and made a conscious choice to join. It was not a passive choice, they were actively involved. Having put that much effort into research and investigation and having left the religion they were raised in order to join the Baha'i Faith, they are not likely to drop out. Baha'is do not go backwards in time and become Jews or Christians or Muslims, and they do not lose faith in God.

And in the same time, atheism grew at a rate of 6.54%. You really want to play the argument from popularity card? And this is yet another example of you resorting to a logical fallacy.

No logical fallacy was committed because I never said it is true became it grew faster. I was just listing the statistics. Newer religions are smaller but they generally grow faster. That is one reason Islam is growing faster than Christianity.

 

[Tiberius]

I leave you with those thoughts, and with a prayer that to me will be answered.

May God's Will for you and all be done and may that will be merciful and bountiful.

I also see that In the next world we will see how all the prayers were answered.

Regards Tony.

Right.

Before you pray, read THIS. And then reconsider praying for me.

 

[Tiberius]

Other people do check it and get the same result. That is why they are also Baha'is.

And lots of other people check it and get a different result.

A large number of people will not have the same opinion about the Baha'i Faith and there are reasons for that I can post them if you like. Meanwhile, I'd be careful not to commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum

No, I'm not trying to make any connection between the number of people who hold a belief and the validity of that belief.

I'm simply saying that if something was objectively true, then we'd see the vast majority of people agreeing on it. The speed of light in a vacuum is objective, and all measurements of it give the same result. Why does the same not happen for religious belief? The simplest explanation for this is: "Because religion is not objectively true."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

I'm well aware of what it is, and your constant habit of cut-n-pasting an explanation of every single logical fallacy you mention comes across as arrogant, like you assume the person you are talking to is like a stupid child or something. So please stop it.

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe we could ever fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later

As I have made clear, that is not in any way the argument I am making.

That is only true for science, not for religion. There is widespread agreement among Christians that Jesus rose from the dead, so does that mean it is true? Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, so does that mean that Christianity is true?

Once again you commit the special pleading fallacy.

I never once said that my religion is objectively true, all I ever said is that there is objective evidence.

You have stated several times that there is no objective evidence to support the idea that Mr B spoke to God.

That is not what I meant at all. Independent investigation of truth is a process that a person does by themself, they do not rely upon what others think about the evidence. If someone verified the evidence for themself and they reached the same opinion as me, that the Baha'i Faith is true, all that means is that they just happen to view the evidence similarly to me.

But there's no way to prevent a person's biases and opinions from influencing their judgement when it comes to this, is there?

The word bias does not apply. I told you that a long time ago but you are obsessed with thinking I am biased.

You are biased. We all are. That's why we need to take any potential biases into account and take steps to remove them. That's what science does. And I've told you this many times already.

Thinking I am biased distorts your thinking. Before I heard of the Baha'i Faith I was a blank slate. I had no bias. After I became a Baha'i I had a 'preference' towards the Baha'i Faith but that is not a bias. Christians have a preference towards Christianity but they are not biased.

Having a preference towards something is literally the definition of bias.

I encountered the Baha'i Faith and once I became a follower I believed all that the Baha'i Faith teaches.

Exactly my point. Once you became a follower, you had motivation to accept the claims made by the faith you were following.

 

[Tiberius]

I could ask you the same question: Why in the world are you here?

If you think I am here to be convinced or to convince anyone of what I believe you must be projecting your own thought process onto me. That is a good question, why am I here? It is not for the reasons you think and often I wonder why I am still here.

I do not deny reality, I accept reality.

It's hard to believe you accept reality when you reject 170 years of study simply because you think they're wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

I have posted it numerous times.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

I have not seen ANYONE in here argue against those facts. Can you point to any place they have? What people have said is that those facts do not validate any of the supernatural claims about Mr B.

 

[Tiberius]

Show me when I ever did that. Stating my position is not arguing against yours.

You said many times that my interpretation of Bible passages was wrong. Or have you forgotten our discussion about how the Bible makes testable claims like prayer can move a mountain, and believers can handle snakes. You were very clear that you believed a literal interpretation was wrong.

The problem is that you have never demonstrated that I have committed any. You just believe you have.
Now I wish you would knock it off with accusing me of committing logical fallacies. It is unbecoming and unnecessary.

I have pointed out many times when you have committed them. You may not believe you have, but both myself and others have pointed them out.

That is not the only reason fewer people drop out of the Baha'i Faith but I don't want to get into that right now. Suffice to say that most Baha'is who were not raised as Baha'is chose to convert from other religions so they researched the Baha'i Faith and made a conscious choice to join. It was not a passive choice, they were actively involved. Having put that much effort into research and investigation and having left the religion they were raised in order to join the Baha'i Faith, they are not likely to drop out. Baha'is do not go backwards in time and become Jews or Christians or Muslims, and they do not lose faith in God.

And that's what I said in post 3150 when I said, "Probably because it's such a small religion, there are very few people to pick from. And how many people are actually raised as Baha'i rather than coming to it later in life? Because anyone who goes from some faith to atheism is not very likely to start out in Baha'i, and if they are going to go from a non-Baha'i faith to atheism, it's not very likely they will pass through Baha'i on the way.

So your claim comes down to statistics, and the validity of the faith has nothing to do with it."

No logical fallacy was committed because I never said it is true became it grew faster. I was just listing the statistics. Newer religions are smaller but they generally grow faster. That is one reason Islam is growing faster than Christianity.

So what did you intend to show by listing the statistics? Why exactly did you post it?

 

[Truthseeker]

You are. You made a claim and now are trying to get others to confirm it. It does not work that way.

If I claimed "Bahai is false, check it out for yourself" would you give that any credence at all?

Debate is unproductive. Debate is about winning an argument, not finding the truth. When the two try to win the argument, it only hardens each other's positions. Here's a prayer, evaluate it for yourself, since you won't look one up. Decide yourself on this matter. That's what the independent investigation of truth is all about:

Create in me a pure heart, O my God, and renew a tranquil conscience within me, O my Hope! Through the spirit of power confirm Thou me in Thy Cause, O my Best-Beloved, and by the light of Thy glory reveal unto me Thy path, O Thou the Goal of my desire! Through the power of Thy transcendent might lift me up unto the heaven of Thy holiness, O Source of my being, and by the breezes of Thine eternity gladden me, O Thou Who art my God! Let Thine everlasting melodies breathe tranquillity on me, O my Companion, and let the riches of Thine ancient countenance deliver me from all except Thee, O my Master, and let the tidings of the revelation of Thine incorruptible Essence bring me joy, O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!
—Bahá’u’lláh

(Bahá’í Prayers)
www.bahai.org/r/140746356

 

[Subduction Zone]

Debate is unproductive. Debate is about winning an argument, not finding the truth. When the two try to win the argument, it only hardens each other's positions. Here's a prayer, evaluate it for yourself, since you won't look one up. Decide yourself on this matter. That's what the independent investigation of truth is all about:

Create in me a pure heart, O my God, and renew a tranquil conscience within me, O my Hope! Through the spirit of power confirm Thou me in Thy Cause, O my Best-Beloved, and by the light of Thy glory reveal unto me Thy path, O Thou the Goal of my desire! Through the power of Thy transcendent might lift me up unto the heaven of Thy holiness, O Source of my being, and by the breezes of Thine eternity gladden me, O Thou Who art my God! Let Thine everlasting melodies breathe tranquillity on me, O my Companion, and let the riches of Thine ancient countenance deliver me from all except Thee, O my Master, and let the tidings of the revelation of Thine incorruptible Essence bring me joy, O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!
—Bahá’u’lláh

(Bahá’í Prayers)
www.bahai.org/r/140746356

Call it a discussion then. You have put the cart way before the horse. You have not even given any evidence that there is a God much less that he is your God. Nice prayers are not rational reliable evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

Call it a discussion then. You have put the cart way before the horse. You have not even given any evidence that there is a God much less that he is your God. Nice prayers are not rational reliable evidence.

Of course it's not rational evidence. I was not trying to show God exists. Calling it a discussion doesn't necessarily maker it one.

That's all I will say on this subject. You have your prayer. You decide on what you want to whether it has a lot of spiritual words which is what this discussion is about, it is your prerogative. I've carried on this discussion too much already.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right.

Before you pray, read THIS. And then reconsider praying for me.

That does not change the way I interact with all Humanity, all have my prayers, like it or not, all inclusive. It is no different than you wishing people all the best and then acting in such as way one means it.

Know with that prayer, that I will leave you to your choices and will cause you no harm.

That is life.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it's not rational evidence. I was not trying to show God exists. Calling it a discussion doesn't necessarily maker it one.

That's all I will say on this subject. You have your prayer. You decide on what you want to whether it has a lot of spiritual words which is what this discussion is about, it is your prerogative. I've carried on this discussion too much already.

My mistake. I was debating with another and somehow conflated the two of you.

 

[ratiocinator]

We can know what Baha'u'llah believed from what He wrote.

Of course you can't know, he could have been lying.

Yes, it's my subjective opinion that MY criteria indicate the truth of the person's claims.

Exactly, which is why you have no objective evidence of the god claims.

What would be an objective connection between my evidence and criteria and the actual truth of the God claims?

I've no idea - that's the problem with your whole approach to 'evidence'. You may have objective evidence of some things but none of it is objective evidence of the truth of the god claims because only your subjective opinion connects the things you have evidence for to the truth about god.

It is objective evidence evidence of the truth of the God-claims according to the definition...

Just repeating what objective evidence is, isn't going to help. As you admitted above, it is only your subjective opinion that connects the criteria/evidence to the truth of the god claims. This isn't rocket science. Nothing you have cited is objective evidence for your god because it all rests on your subjective opinion that the truth of the criteria are evidence for the truth about god.

It's like me saying "if somebody is wearing a blue hat, then what they say about science is true", then pointing to objective evidence of somebody in blue hat saying literal, six day creationism is supported by science, and then claiming I have objective evidence for six day creationism being scientific.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you can't know, he could have been lying.

Anything is possible, He could have been lying, but what would be the motive?

Exactly, which is why you have no objective evidence of the god claims.

I have objective evidence and I have a subjective opinion regarding what the evidence indicates.

I've no idea - that's the problem with your whole approach to 'evidence'. You may have objective evidence of some things but none of it is objective evidence of the truth of the god claims because only your subjective opinion connects the things you have evidence for to the truth about god.

All people have subjective opinions. My subjective opinion does not change the objective evidence into something other than what it is. It is objective evidence and my opinion about the evidence does not make any difference. Everyone will have a different opinion about the objective evidence which will be subjective, but the evidence will remain what it is.

Just repeating what objective evidence is, isn't going to help. As you admitted above, it is only your subjective opinion that connects the criteria/evidence to the truth of the god claims. This isn't rocket science. Nothing you have cited is objective evidence for your god because it all rests on your subjective opinion that the truth of the criteria are evidence for the truth about god.

It's like me saying "if somebody is wearing a blue hat, then what they say about science is true", then pointing to objective evidence of somebody in blue hat saying literal, six day creationism is supported by science, and then claiming I have objective evidence for six day creationism being scientific.

No, nothing rests upon my subjective opinion, nothing except my own personal belief. That is because what is true is not determined by what I believe. Baha'u'llah was either a true Messenger of God as He claimed to be or He is a false prophet. Those are the only two logical possibilities. It is not possible that He was just a wise man with good ideas and teachings because a wise man would not lie about being a Messenger of God. So whether the was Messenger of God or He was a false prophet, a man who was either deluded or a con-man

Anyone who wants to know the truth about Baha'u'llah has to determine that for themselves and they can do that by looking at the objective evidence. Nobody should ever have a religious belief because someone else told them it is true. They should always check it out for themselves.

“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

Baha'u'llah made it perfectly clear in no uncertain terms that we should all investigate for ourselves and this is called the independent investigation of truth.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“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.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

If you want to know what Baha'is mean by independent investigation of truth, you can watch this 5 minute video.