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

[ratiocinator]

My subjective opinion does not change the objective evidence into something other than what it is.

Indeed it doesn't, so stop pretending that it's objective evidence for your god.

No, nothing rests upon my subjective opinion, nothing except my own personal belief.

It's only your own personal belief that connects the objective evidence you have to the truth about god. Hence you don't have any objective evidence for the truth about god. You only have objective evidence for a set or criteria you've made up.

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

Now you're getting close to Lewis's trilemma nonsense. People are complicated. It's perfectly possible that he was wise in some respects and had some good ideas and teaching and still be a liar or deluded in other respects.

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed it doesn't, so stop pretending that it's objective evidence for your god.

Do you understand what I have been saying? My subjective opinion is not objective evidence for God! My opinion does not amount to a hill of beans because my opinion plays no part in determining whether God exists or not. God either exists or not. Those are the only two logical possibilities. My opinion has no bearing upon whether God exists or not.

It's only your own personal belief that connects the objective evidence you have to the truth about god. Hence you don't have any objective evidence for the truth about god. You only have objective evidence for a set or criteria you've made up.

What I have is a subjective opinion about the objective evidence for the set of criteria I devised.

It is my own personal belief about the objective evidence that connects the objective evidence I have to what I believe is the truth about God. The objective evidence is the objective evidence regardless of whether I believe it indicates a truth about God. It is no different from objective evidence that is presented to a jury. The juror's personal opinions about the evidence that is presented to them does not alter the evidence. The evidence remains the same regardless of whether the jurors believe it means that defendant is guilty or not.

Now you're getting close to Lewis's trilemma nonsense. People are complicated. It's perfectly possible that he was wise in some respects and had some good ideas and teaching and still be a liar or deluded in other respects.

Anything is possible. It is also possible that Jesus rose bodily from the grave but it is highly unlikely.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to about Baha'u'llah but please bear in mind that I have the benefit of knowing about Baha'u'llah from studying His life, His mission, and His Writings, so I have an advantage over you.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

So what do you think that means?

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."

It is drop dead obvious to me why people agree in scientific subjects. How can they disagree given that scientific facts are facts and they cannot mean different things? You just said it yourself: "The speed of light in a vacuum is objective, and all measurements of it give the same result." That is not true with the objective facts about a religion, they do not give the same result because people can assign various meanings to the same facts.

A religion is either true or not, there is no such thing as objectively true.

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.

I am not only posting it for YOU to read. When I am making a point I like to back it up with the definition but please note that I did not accuse you of committing the fallacy, I said to be careful not to. By contrast you accuse me of committing fallacies just because you believe I did.

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

Fine then, I will remember that if you ever say that the Baha'i Faith cannot be true because it is still a small religion.

Once again you commit the special pleading fallacy.

And this is why I will continue to point out the fallacies, because you won't stop pointing them out, but at least I explain why you may have committed them whereas you just accuse me without explaining why.

I said: "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?"

How the hell is this special pleading? You should not accuse me of fallacies unless you are willing to explain why.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

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

I never once said that objective evidence to support the idea that Baha'u'llah spoke to God, I told you such a claim cannot ever be proven.

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

No there is no way and there is no reason to think that is necessary. In fact it is not even a good thing, God wants us to have OUR OWN OPINION about the evidence, not someone else's opinion.

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.

But we don't have to remove our biases when it come to religion and that is impossible. By comparing science with religion you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence, since science is not equivalent to religion.
All people are going to look at the evidence with a bias and there is no reason why that would prevent them from interpreting the evidence.

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

bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

We went over this before, a bias is a prejudice in favor of or against something compared to something else, usually in a way considered to be unfair. A preference is not necessarily unfair and it does not necessarily imply that I have a prejudice. If I have a preference for cats does that necessarily mean I have a prejudice against dogs? Is it unfair ton the dogs that I prefer cats?

How is it UNFAIR form me to prefer my religion over Christianity or any other religion? You can bet your bottom dollar that I have a preference towards a religion that does not claim to be "the only way" and that is one reason I became a Baha'i and not a Christian. If you want to call that a bias I don't care, and I am proud of my bias.

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

No, that is not what happened. You have that backwards. Before I became a follower I had already accepted the claims made by Baha'u'llah and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

170 years of study of what?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I never claimed that those facts validate the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah. In fact, I said they don't.

 

[samtonga43]

What do the bolded words mean in the language of today?

They are meaningless.

 

[samtonga43]

No, that is not what I meant. I meant what I said, that God only answers prayers that He chooses to answer.

You mean He does not answer prayers He does not choose to answer?
Logical fallacy: Stating the obvious.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I do not deny that I disagree with you about certain things we have been discussing.

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.

It is only a matter of opinion that I have, yet you state it as a fact. I will admit when I do something but I won't admit when I don't do it because that is unjust. I have pointed out many times when you have committed fallacies. You may not believe you have, but that d0oes not mean you haven't, and when I point it out I explain why.

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."

I guess you missed my main point. I said 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.

I never said anything about the validity of the religion, this was about the reasons Baha'is join the religion in adulthood and why they do not drop out and become atheists or go back to join older religions. Another thing I did not mention is that Baha'is don not switch religions like some people switch a pair of shoes. Have you ever read all the threads on this forum about how commonly people switch religions?

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

Because we were talking about going from the Baha'i faith to atheism and the growth rate of the different religions is related to that.

Tiberius 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.

Trailblazer said: That 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.

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%.

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

Statistics from: Growth of religion

 

[samtonga43]

Do you mean what is salvation?

No. I know what salvation means. I mean attain unto salvation.

 

[Tiberius]

So what do you think that means?

I think it means that what they are getting is subjective opinion, not objective fact. And as such, it is not an accurate reflection on reality.

It is drop dead obvious to me why people agree in scientific subjects. How can they disagree given that scientific facts are facts and they cannot mean different things? You just said it yourself: "The speed of light in a vacuum is objective, and all measurements of it give the same result."

Yes I know. That was my point. How in the world did you think I was saying anything other than that?

That is not true with the objective facts about a religion, they do not give the same result because people can assign various meanings to the same facts.

And here we go again with the special pleading. "Religion works differently because it's religion!"

A religion is either true or not, there is no such thing as objectively true.

And you are contradicting yourself. Just a moment ago you said, "How can they disagree given that scientific facts are facts and they cannot mean different things?" Or are you saying that religious facts can mean different things? If that is the case, why is it that religious facts can have varying meanings but scientific facts can't? Just saying, "Because religion is different" isn't good enough.

I am not only posting it for YOU to read. When I am making a point I like to back it up with the definition but please note that I did not accuse you of committing the fallacy, I said to be careful not to. By contrast you accuse me of committing fallacies just because you believe I did.

So if you are not saying I am committing the fallacy, why do you even bother bringing it up?

Fine then, I will remember that if you ever say that the Baha'i Faith cannot be true because it is still a small religion.

I'm not aware of ever using that argument against you (expect perhaps ironically when you've used the "This religion cannot be true because it is still small" argument in regards to Judaism).

And this is why I will continue to point out the fallacies, because you won't stop pointing them out, but at least I explain why you may have committed them whereas you just accuse me without explaining why.

I have always explained what you have done that constitutes the fallacy.

I said: "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?"

How the hell is this special pleading? You should not accuse me of fallacies unless you are willing to explain why.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

Because you said religion should be bound by different rules. It should not.

I never once said that objective evidence to support the idea that Baha'u'llah spoke to God, I told you such a claim cannot ever be proven.

I think you missed a few words there. Did you mean to say, "I never once said that there was no objective evidence to support the idea that Baha'u'llah spoke to God"? Because, if so, you have made that claim several times.

No there is no way and there is no reason to think that is necessary. In fact it is not even a good thing, God wants us to have OUR OWN OPINION about the evidence, not someone else's opinion.

So God WANTS us to be influenced by personal biases?

REALLY?

How in the world is that ever going to be a good method of finding the truth?

But we don't have to remove our biases when it come to religion and that is impossible. By comparing science with religion you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence, since science is not equivalent to religion.
All people are going to look at the evidence with a bias and there is no reason why that would prevent them from interpreting the evidence.

Yes, I know religion is not equivalent to science. Unlike science, religion can never be shown to be an accurate account of reality. It has no error correction methods. I can't think of any way in which religion as an explanatory mechanism has any benefit over science.

bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

We went over this before, a bias is a prejudice in favor of or against something compared to something else, usually in a way considered to be unfair. A preference is not necessarily unfair and it does not necessarily imply that I have a prejudice. If I have a preference for cats does that necessarily mean I have a prejudice against dogs? Is it unfair ton the dogs that I prefer cats?

How is it UNFAIR form me to prefer my religion over Christianity or any other religion? You can bet your bottom dollar that I have a preference towards a religion that does not claim to be "the only way" and that is one reason I became a Baha'i and not a Christian. If you want to call that a bias I don't care, and I am proud of my bias.

Note the bit where it says USUALLY. Also note that this word has a very different meaning to the word ALWAYS. Please do not substitute them.

No, that is not what happened. You have that backwards. Before I became a follower I had already accepted the claims made by Baha'u'llah and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.

Then you were motivated to follow the faith by your acceptance of the claims.

In any case, what you are saying now seems to contradict what you said before. In post 3210, you said, "I encountered the Baha'i Faith and once I became a follower I believed all that the Baha'i Faith teaches."

So, you followed, and afterwards you believed.

Now you are saying you believed, and so you decided to follow.

Which is it?

 

[Tiberius]

170 years of study of what?

170 years of study on the efficacy of prayer.

I very clearly stated what the study was on, in posts 3142 (which also included a link to a source) and 3151. Please try to actually follow the conversation.

 

[Tiberius]

I never claimed that those facts validate the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah. In fact, I said they don't.

And yet in post 3181, Ratiocinator was clearly referring to Mr B's claims about God. If what you provided doesn't serve to valid those claims in any way, why did you even bring them up?

 

[Tiberius]

I do not deny that I disagree with you about certain things we have been discussing.

So, you've said I was wrong and argued against my position.

It is only a matter of opinion that I have, yet you state it as a fact. I will admit when I do something but I won't admit when I don't do it because that is unjust. I have pointed out many times when you have committed fallacies. You may not believe you have, but that d0oes not mean you haven't, and when I point it out I explain why.

It's not just my opinion. Others have noted that you've committed these fallacies too.

I guess you missed my main point. I said 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.

Which is exactly what I said. The argument you made is based on statistics only.

I never said anything about the validity of the religion, this was about the reasons Baha'is join the religion in adulthood and why they do not drop out and become atheists or go back to join older religions.

Then why did you bring it up? What purpose did it serve?

Another thing I did not mention is that Baha'is don not switch religions like some people switch a pair of shoes. Have you ever read all the threads on this forum about how commonly people switch religions?

And, pray tell, how many times on average does a person change religions?

Because we were talking about going from the Baha'i faith to atheism and the growth rate of the different religions is related to that.

And your very strong implication was that many Christians may turn to atheism, but few Baha'i turn to atheism and this makes Baha'i somehow better. Perhaps you meant to suggest that Christianity has flaws which people find, causing them to leave, and the lower number of people leaving Baha'i means there are no flaws, making Baha'i better?

 

[Truthseeker]

Do you mean what is salvation? That is a BIG question. Suffice to say that there are some similarities and differences between what the Baha'i Faith and Christianity teaches regarding salvation.

Below are some excerpts from a long article on Salvation:

(2) Bahá'u'lláh as the Harbinger of Universal Salvation

The Bahá'í Faith can on good grounds be identified as a religion of salvation, and its Founder, Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892), be considered, in Max Weber's word, as a Heilbringer (Bearer of salvation). (Sociology of Religion 46). Bahá'u'lláh has asserted His claim to be the harbinger of universal salvation and the fulfillment of the age-old messianic promises of a universal peace, when "the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law" (Tennyson "Locksley Hall") and the earth "....be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:9) It is through this eschatological language of the fulfillment of the times that we sense most strongly the salvific claims of Bahá'u'lláh to be the Promised One of all ages:

The Revelation which, from time immemorial, hath been acclaimed as the Purpose and Promise of all the Prophets of God, and the most cherished Desire of His Messengers, hath now, by virtue of the pervasive Will of the Almighty and at His irresistible bidding, been revealed unto men. The advent of such a Revelation hath been heralded in all the sacred scriptures.

(Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh 156)

(3) Individual Salvation in the Bahá'í Faith

The basic meaning of individual salvation for a Bahá'í would be when the individual soul has faith ("conscious knowledge") in Bahá'u'lláh. This conscious knowledge includes the recognition of Bahá'u'lláh's station as the Divine Manifestation of God for our age, as well the practice of goodly deeds, deeds which are based on the observance of His teachings and laws in a spirit of love and sincerity for God, His Manifestation, and humankind. The knowledge of God is fundamental in the Bahá'í view to the process of salvation for `Abdu'l-Bahá states: "...that which is the cause of everlasting life, eternal honour, universal enlightenment, real salvation and prosperity is, first of all, the knowledge of God." (Some Answered Questions 300)

Salvation for a Bahá'í also means that the destiny of the individual human soul, both in this life and in the life beyond is secure and felicitous. The individual believer need never fear his own extinction, for the corollary of salvation is everlasting life. Bahá'u'lláh affirms the existence of paradise, (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh 189) a condition that is promised to the faithful and righteous soul ……

The Bahá'í Faith affirms further that man is not able, through his own unaided efforts, either individually or collectively, to attain to the means of his own salvation. He is in need of tutelage. In the Bahá'í perspective, this tutelage is offered to a superlative degree in the lives and writings of the Prophets ......

The faith of Bahá'u'lláh would, however, share the outlook of St. Thomas Aquinas that man stands in need of an intermediary to bring him into relationship with God. Aquinas wrote: "Strictly speaking, a mediator is one who joins together and unites those between whom he mediates; for extremes are united in the mean." (Summa Theologica, 111, question 26, a.1, c in An Aquinas Reader, 468) ......

While a Bahá'í may be confident in the salvation of his soul, the Bahá'í Faith warns against self-righteousness. There is nothing automatic in the process of salvation, even for the one who has lived righteously. All our acts, the Bahá'í Faith affirms, are conditioned upon the good-pleasure of God. Believers can and do change. The most ardent believer can sometimes grow cold. On the other hand, the non-believer who was once most contemptuous of God, can become steadfast in faith

(4) Universal Salvation in the Bahá'í Faith

Bahá'u'lláh's stated aim is not the salvation of an elitist group but that of the entire world whereby every soul on the planet will experience the bounty of knowing God's revelation: “I confess that Thou hast no desire except the regeneration of the whole world, and the establishment of the unity of its peoples, and the salvation of all them that dwell therein.” (Gleanings 243) It is also worth mentioning in this context that the Bahá'í Faith eschews the dichotomous saved/damned, chosen/rejected, people of truth /people of the lie mentality that we find in some religions. On the contrary "...all human beings are the sheep of God and He is the kind Shepherd. This Shepherd is kind to all the sheep, because He created them all..." (Selections From the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá 298).

The Bahá'í Faith views societal reconstruction as a consequence of personal salvation. The process of salvation works in what may be described as a two-way circular process: the regenerated individual reacts on the world. As the world changes, it creates a more favourable spiritual environment to react on the individual, and so on. Bahá'u'lláh is viewed by Bahá'ís as the Chief Architect of universal salvation. The world-wide community is to be rescued from its sorry state through the laws and administration designed by Bahá'u'lláh, a wonderous system called the new world order of Bahá'u'lláh which is moreoever the concrete embodiment of all of Bahá'u'lláh's teachings and His unique form of community government on the local, national and international levels.

Read more: Salvation

I have met Jack McLean on Facebook. Quite the learned man isn't he? I haven't been to Facebook much at all lately. Been busy here among other things.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it means that what they are getting is subjective opinion, not objective fact. And as such, it is not an accurate reflection on reality.

I think it simply means that people view objective facts differently so they have differing opinions, not just religion, but since you view things differently than me, you will probably never be able to see it from my perspective.

Yes I know. That was my point. How in the world did you think I was saying anything other than that?

I thought your main point was that if a religion was objectively true, then we'd see the vast majority of people agreeing on it. Was that not your reason for giving the example of how people agree on scientific subjects?

And here we go again with the special pleading. "Religion works differently because it's religion!"

I wish you would knock it off with the fallacies. I will if you will. Religion works differently because religion is DIFFERENT from science. I think most atheists would agree about that.

And you are contradicting yourself. Just a moment ago you said, "How can they disagree given that scientific facts are facts and they cannot mean different things?" Or are you saying that religious facts can mean different things? If that is the case, why is it that religious facts can have varying meanings but scientific facts can't? Just saying, "Because religion is different" isn't good enough.

Religious facts mean different things to different people because they can be interpreted differently whereas scientific facts mean the same thing because they can't be interpreted differently. For example all the measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum give the same result. The objective facts about Baha'u'llah will not give the same result because they won't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, some people will view the facts that surround Baha'u'llah's earthly mission as no big deal, just a man traveling around, whereas other people will view them as evidence that He was a Messenger of God because they will realize He was both divine and human.

So if you are not saying I am committing the fallacy, why do you even bother bringing it up?

I was just saying to be careful not to commit it.

I'm not aware of ever using that argument against you (expect perhaps ironically when you've used the "This religion cannot be true because it is still small" argument in regards to Judaism).

I did not say that you did, I said "if you ever say..."

I have always explained what you have done that constitutes the fallacy.

I would prefer you just explain why you think I am wrong in what I said and not call out fallacies because that just creates defensiveness.

Because you said religion should be bound by different rules. It should not.

It does not MATTER if you think that religion should not be bound by different rules, religion IS bound by different rules because of its very nature of being precise and measurable and provable. Religion is not any of those things and you cannot make it what it isn't, not anymore than you can make science become supernatural.

I think you missed a few words there. Did you mean to say, "I never once said that there was no objective evidence to support the idea that Baha'u'llah spoke to God"? Because, if so, you have made that claim several times.

There is no objective evidence of Baha'u'llah speaking to God or of God speaking to Baha'u'llah and that is why I said such a claim can never be proven. However, there is objective evidence that supports the belief that Baha'u'llah received messages from God, making Him a Messenger of God.

So God WANTS us to be influenced by personal biases?

REALLY?

How in the world is that ever going to be a good method of finding the truth?

God wants us to have OUR OWN OPINION about the evidence, not someone else's opinion. An opinion is not a bias, you need to get that idea out of your head.

Bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Yes, I know religion is not equivalent to science. Unlike science, religion can never be shown to be an accurate account of reality. It has no error correction methods. I can't think of any way in which religion as an explanatory mechanism has any benefit over science.

Science is n accurate account of the physical reality whereas religion is about morality and spiritual reality.
Religion does not have a benefit over science, they are both as necessary as the other but they each have their own scopes. The Baha’i Faith does not contradict science but rather promotes it as absolutely necessary for humanity to progress.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”
Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Note the bit where it says USUALLY. Also note that this word has a very different meaning to the word ALWAYS. Please do not substitute them.

Always or usually, you are evading the point I was making by splitting hairs. How is it UNFAIR for me to prefer my religion over Christianity or any other religion?

Then you were motivated to follow the faith by your acceptance of the claims.

In any case, what you are saying now seems to contradict what you said before. In post 3210, you said, "I encountered the Baha'i Faith and once I became a follower I believed all that the Baha'i Faith teaches."

So, you followed, and afterwards you believed.

Now you are saying you believed, and so you decided to follow.

Which is it?

Both are true.
- Before I became a Baha'i I had accepted the claims made by Baha'u'llah and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.
- After I became a Baha'i I continued to believe the claims of Baha'u'llah and all that the Baha'i Faith teaches.
So both before and after I became a Baha'i, I believed in Baha'u'llah and in what the Baha'i Faith teaches.

I would not have become a Baha'i in the first place if I had not accepted the claims made by Baha'u'llah and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.

There was a time before I became a Baha'i while I was still investigating that I had not YET accepted the claims of Baha'u'llah or what the Baha'i Faith teaches but as soon as I accepted the claims made by Baha'u'llah and what the Baha'i Faith teaches I signed a card and became a Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have met Jack McLean on Facebook. Quite the learned man isn't he? I haven't been to Facebook much at all lately. Been busy here among other things.

Yes, he seems very knowledgeable.

 

[Trailblazer]

170 years of study on the efficacy of prayer.

I very clearly stated what the study was on, in posts 3142 (which also included a link to a source) and 3151. Please try to actually follow the conversation.

Please try to be a little more polite. I cannot read every post on this thread as I can barely keep up with the posts that are posted directly to me. If I am not planning on having a conversation about a subject I do not have time to read all the source links. I do not care about prayer studies because I don't think they prove anything, I already told you that.

Studies might show how many prayers were answered but that is not the only reason people pray, to get something from God. Studies do not prove the efficacy of prayer as that is a subjective thing and cannot be measured objectively.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet in post 3181, Ratiocinator was clearly referring to Mr B's claims about God. If what you provided doesn't serve to valid those claims in any way, why did you even bring them up?

The facts about Baha'u'llah are what *indicate* that He was a Messenger of God. In other words those facts *indicate* whether Baha'u'llah was telling the truth when He claimed He got messages from God. However, there is no objective proof that Baha'u'llah got messages from God because that is a supernatural claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not just my opinion. Others have noted that you've committed these fallacies too.

What does it matter what others think? What does that prove? Now can we knock off accusing each other of logical fallacies?

Which is exactly what I said. The argument you made is based on statistics only.

No, I was not using statistics to make my point, but never mind, it doesn't matter.

Then why did you bring it up? What purpose did it serve?

I brought it up because we were talking about how some people drop out of religions and become atheists..

And, pray tell, how many times on average does a person change religions?

I do not really know but many people on this forum have changed religions and some have changed more than once, but I don't know if this forum is representative of society at large.

And your very strong implication was that many Christians may turn to atheism, but few Baha'i turn to atheism and this makes Baha'i somehow better.

No, I never said that makes Baha'i better. My point was that Baha'is 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 and become atheists. Also, Baha'is do not lose faith in God the way many Christians who become atheists do.

Perhaps you meant to suggest that Christianity has flaws which people find, causing them to leave, and the lower number of people leaving Baha'i means there are no flaws, making Baha'i better?

No, that is still not what I meant. Flaws is not the right word to use. What commonly happens with Christians who drop out and become atheists is that they can no longer believe what they were taught in Sunday School Bible studies, all the Bible stories that are taught to be literally true, including Noah's Arc, Moses parting the Red Sea, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and that people will rise from the dead when Jesus returns, as well as the teaching that Jesus is literally God in the flesh.

The Baha'i Faith has no such superstitious beliefs and promotes science so in that sense it is more acceptable to a rational thinker. In addition to that the Baha'i Faith actually offers solutions to the real world problems that humanity is facing in the present age whereas Christianity has no solutions since it was not revealed for the present age, it was revealed for people living 2000 years ago. Need I go on?

 

[ratiocinator]

The objective evidence is the objective evidence regardless of whether I believe it indicates a truth about God.

Yes, but it's not objective evidence for the existence of any god or the truth of your faith. Hence introducing it as such, is misleading. When people ask you for objective evidence to back up your religious claims, they are not asking for objective evidence for something else entirely that you have a subjective opinion about that would connect it to the question if, and only if, said subjective opinion is true.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to about Baha'u'llah but please bear in mind that I have the benefit of knowing about Baha'u'llah from studying His life, His mission, and His Writings, so I have an advantage over you.

I don't have a particular opinion about him, I just observe that you have no more objective evidence to back up his religious claims than anybody else does for theirs.