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

[Trailblazer]

You've already admitted that the connection is your own subjective opinion.

One’s subjective opinion about the objective evidence is what connects the two.

Now you've contradicted yourself again.

There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

If there is a god, of course this is true. And we've discussed this at length before. If a god chooses not to provide objective evidence, then it can't expect rational people to believe it exists. If it has an important message, and it withholds objective evidence, it is being cruel, unjust, and unfair.

I am not going down that rational people road with one more atheist. The implication is that only atheists are rational and that is not true at all.

Objective evidence, Objective evidence, Objective evidence. God give me objective evidence.

God should give you what you want or else God is being cruel, unjust, and unfair. I consider that childish.

God gives people what they need, not what they want. There is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah but there can never be objective evidence for God, so God is not withholding what there can never be.

I'm seeing lots of evidence in your posts that suggests that you don't really get what evidence is.

I know exactly what it is. There are many kinds of evidence and all of it is not objective.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

You are obsessed with the IDEA of objective evidence just like all atheists and that makes it impossible for you to see the evidence that is right there.

Your attempts to justify this (IIRC) rest of some mythical 'original messages' that wouldn't actually be contradictory. When you have to make up stuff to make it make sense, that isn't really an explanation. Why would a god allow its messages to be corrupted?

I do not make stuff up. I explain what happened.

God allows for free will so God does not intervene in human free will decisions. Why would God prevent His messages from being corrupted? Does God prevent anything else humans choose to do? God knew it would all get straightened out when He sent Baha’u’llah. And those who have recognized Baha’u’llah know why the previous messages were corrupted although it does not matter anymore because the past is gone.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

Absurd and contradictory. The existence of a person who starts a religion cannot be proof that a god exists, not even evidence, and, even if it were true, it would contradict the first part of your sentence that there is no objective evidence for god. If there's objective evidence for Baha’u’llah and Baha’u’llah is proof of god, then that would be objective evidence for god. Something you said doesn't and cannot exist.

You really, really do need to make up your mind.

The implication is that only atheists are rational and that is not true at all.

False.

Objective evidence, Objective evidence, Objective evidence. God give me objective evidence.

God should give you what you want or else God is being cruel, unjust, and unfair. I consider that childish.

Yet again: I don't care if god (assuming it exists, for a moment) gives me objective evidence or not, but if it doesn't, then it can't expect rational people to believe it exists, and if it has an important message, then it is playing cruel and unjust games and discriminating against the rational. This is as simple as 2+2=4.

I do not make stuff up. I explain what happened.

No, you made a claim about what happened - one without evidence (again).

Why would God prevent His messages from being corrupted?

Because it has an important message and cares about humanity...?

Does God prevent anything else humans choose to do?

I don't know but an awful lot of people die and suffer because of natural disasters and disease, all of which would be the fault of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, if one existed. Free will is a nonsensical idea anyway with respect to such a creator, who would, effectively, have chosen all of our nature and all of our nurture.

God knew it would all get straightened out when He sent Baha’u’llah.

So everybody who died in ignorance, well, who cares, eh? Back to the cruelty and injustice.

 

[samtonga43]

There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

Please, Tb, THINK about what you have said here.
You speak continually about logic and rational thinking, and then you write the above.

Please try to work out for yourself what is wrong with it, because when others try to explain what is wrong with many of your 'logical' conclusions, you become defensive and upset.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please, Tb, THINK about what you have said here.
You speak continually about logic and rational thinking, and then you write the above.

Please try to work out for yourself what is wrong with it, because when others try to explain what is wrong with many of your 'logical' conclusions, you become defensive and upset.

Why not just cut to the chase and tell me what is wrong with what I said?

Who has ever tried to explain it? NOBODY.

Is it because you are too busy that you can won't take a few minutes to explain "what is wrong" with what I said?
Or is it because there is "nothing wrong" with what I said?

Step up to the plate and defend your statements.

Why talk about what other people think is wrong about what I say? Why does that matter what other people think?

Trailblazer said: There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists.

• There is no objective evidence for God.

• There is objective evidence for Baha'u'llah.

• Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists.

Step up to the plate instead of hiding behind convoluted statements about me. Have a real discussion for a change. Which one of those statements do you think is illogical or irrational? If there is objective evidence for God please present it. There is objective evidence for Baha'u'llah and you cannot deny that because it exists. Whether that evidence indicates that He was a Messenger of God or not is a moot point, the evidence still exists.

"Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists" is my belief, so it is not subject to logical proofs.

You can disagree with my belief but that in no way makes it illogical or irrational.

 

[samtonga43]

Why not just cut to the chase and tell me what is wrong with what I said?

From past experience it would be a waste of time. It is obvious that you just cannot accept any explanation, from anyone, of the irrationality embedded in many of your posts. The only way you are going to learn is if you look objectively at, for instance ---"There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah, who is the proof that God exists".

Who has ever tried to explain it? NOBODY.

Explain what? Why many of your statements are irrational and often contradictory? Many people have tried to explain. (and I am well aware of argumentum ad populum, so please do not C/P that info. again).
If many people are trying to tell you the same thing, it doesn’t mean that you are wrong and it doesn’t mean that you are right. I hope you understand.

Is it because you are too busy that you can won't take a few minutes to explain "what is wrong" with what I said?

See above

Or is it because there is "nothing wrong" with what I said?

No, it’s not because there is nothing wrong with what you said.

Why talk about what other people think about what I say? Why does that matter what other people think?

It seems to matter quite a lot to you what others think, although you will deny this, of course. However, that is the impression your posts leave in their wake.

 

[samtonga43]

Which one of those statements do you think is illogical or irrational?

It is the connections between statements which are irrational.
A man called Baha'u'llah existed. He wrote some stuff down, very quickly. He said that God spoke to him and gave him messages. This is NOT proof that MrB is proof that God exists. If you cannot see this, I cannot help you.
"But I don't need help!", you say?
You need help, Tb.

You can disagree with my belief but that in no way makes it illogical or irrational.

Neither does it make it logical or rational.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is the connections between statements which are irrational.
A man called Baha'u'llah existed. He wrote some stuff down, very quickly. He said that God spoke to him and gave him messages. This is NOT proof that MrB is proof that God exists. If you cannot see this, I cannot help you.

I never said that "He wrote some stuff down, very quickly. He said that God spoke to him and gave him messages" is proof that Baha'u'llah was proof that God exists.

However I believe that Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists just as Jesus was proof that God exists.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[Trailblazer]

Neither does it make it logical or rational.

Neither does it make it illogical or irrational.

If you do not understand the problem by now you never will. Beliefs are not subject to logic because they can never be proven true or false.

Just because you disagree with my beliefs that does not mean they are illogical or irrational, and the converse also applies. All you have is a personal opinion about my beliefs. Likewise I also have a personal opinion about your beliefs, but that is all it is.

Name calling and labeling people as illogical and irrational makes it impossible to have a fruitful discussion because it leads to defensiveness. There is no need to do this. I post to numerous atheists who never do this, they stay on topic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Absurd and contradictory. The existence of a person who starts a religion cannot be proof that a god exists, not even evidence, and, even if it were true, it would contradict the first part of your sentence that there is no objective evidence for god. If there's objective evidence for Baha’u’llah and Baha’u’llah is proof of god, then that would be objective evidence for god. Something you said doesn't and cannot exist.

You really, really do need to make up your mind.

Obviously we are talking past each other because you do not understand what I meant by what I said. I did not mean that the existence of a person who starts a religion is proof that a God exists, or even evidence. When I said that there is no objective evidence for God I meant we cannot examine and evaluate the God being and the reason we cannot do that is because God is beyond our reach or our understanding. It helps to have an understanding of what God is:

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

Read more : God in the Baháʼí Faith

Yes, Baha’u’llah is objective evidence for God.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

Yet again: I don't care if god (assuming it exists, for a moment) gives me objective evidence or not, but if it doesn't, then it can't expect rational people to believe it exists, and if it has an important message, then it is playing cruel and unjust games and discriminating against the rational. This is as simple as 2+2=4.

Hold on a minute. You said “If there's objective evidence for Baha’u’llah and Baha’u’llah is proof of god, then that would be objective evidence for god.” Are you now taking that back? From the definition of God I posted above, can you understand why there can never be objective evidence of the God being itself? There is nothing rational about such as expectation, it is irrational.

What IS rational is for God to send Messengers as evidence of His existence because that can be seen and heard and they can write down what is necessary for humans to obtain knowledge of God and what God wants of us. Only a human can v-convey information to humans but since Messengers of God are also divine they can understand and receive communication for God.

No, you made a claim about what happened - one without evidence (again).

The evidence of what happened throughout religious history is in the history books. Why it happened is explained in the Baha’i Writings.

I don't know but an awful lot of people die and suffer because of natural disasters and disease, all of which would be the fault of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, if one existed. Free will is a nonsensical idea anyway with respect to such a creator, who would, effectively, have chosen all of our nature and all of our nurture.

That is a legitimate concern but it is off topic and would require a lot of explaining. Suffice to say I also wonder how a loving God would allow human and animal suffering, even though He does not cause it directly. There is so much suffering in the world and that is why I am not convinced that God is all-loving. There are reasons why God allows suffering as some suffering is beneficial to spiritual growth. However, I do not believe all suffering is necessarily beneficial, and some suffering is fated by God so it is not the result of human free will choices.

There is absolutely no reason to think that just because God is omnipotent God would choose our nature and our nurture, but free will, fate and predestination are big topics.

So everybody who died in ignorance, well, who cares, eh? Back to the cruelty and injustice.

Nobody knows what will happen to people who die in ignorance. I believe that the reason they died ignorant will be taken into consideration by God, whether they were responsible for their ignorance or not. If they were told of the truth and they rejected it they are accountable whereas if they never knew the truth they will not be held accountable as long as they led a moral life. In other words, once we know the truth, even if we rejected it, we will be held accountable by God in the afterlife.

"Then as to what thou hast asked me for pious people who died before they heard the Voice of this Manifestation. Listen: Those who have mounted to God before hearing the Voice, if they followed the rules of conduct as laid down by Jesus and always walked in the straight path, they have obtained this Dazzling Light after their rising to the Kingdom of God. I pray God to lift the veil for thee and to corroborate by the spirit of experience, so that all may be evident to thee, by the Holy Spirit of God."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 478)

 

[Tiberius]

Religion teaches that God created the universe but that is just one belief and it is not a good example of a crossover between religion and science.

It is literally an example of where science and religion are attempting to describe the same thing and contradicting each other. In what way is it NOT a good example?

Is the Baha’i Faith to be held responsible for what other religions teach? Baha’is do not attempt to explain physical reality except to say that God created it.

What on earth made you think I was demanding you answer for YECs? In any case, if you claim that God created the universe, then you are indeed overlapping with science.

My conclusion is just as justified as the other conclusions.

If you make assumptions and others don't, then no, your conclusions are not just as valid.

Go ahead, just don’t expect me to answer. I just decided today to dismiss the posts of two other atheists who are insulting me. I have free will to choose so I don’t have to tolerate insults. If you care more about pointing out how you think I erred than about me as a human being there is no reason that I have to post to you.

You're taking this rather personally, aren't you?

Me pointing out the use of a logical fallacy is not dehumanizing to the person I say committed that fallacy.

I believe that both the physical reality and the spiritual reality are part of ONE reality.

Then why do we need two different tools (according to you) to measure this one reality?

There is objective evidence but there is no objective evidence that proves that.

In that we are agreed.

No, not at all. God reveals new religions to keep pace with the changing times. God does not do the for Himself, He does it for humans who have changing needs.

Why would our needs change?

I don’t reject them, I am just not interested in them because I do not care if God answers prayers or not. If I had time I would look at them, but I rarely have a moment.

Your comments so far on the issue suggest you have a preferred side to the issue.

 

[Tiberius]

Quite the contrary. I never run away. There is not one single believer on this forum who would tolerate all the insults I tolerate from certain atheists. I should ignore them and I am getting close to doing so. I don't get guff from other believers, even though they do not share my beliefs.

When the going gets rough for some atheists they have no recourse but to hurl insults at believers, calling them irrational and illogical. It is really rather pathetic because it is so obvious they have nothing to back up their positions. People who have something to back up their positions use it, they don't have to resort to personal insults.

This would look much more convincing if you hadn't literally just said, "You can say whatever you want to but just don’t expect me to answer," and "Go ahead, just don’t expect me to answer. I just decided today to dismiss the posts of two other atheists who are insulting me. I have free will to choose so I don’t have to tolerate insults. If you care more about pointing out how you think I erred than about me as a human being there is no reason that I have to post to you."

That's the great thing about the Baha'i Faith. It's true, even if you don't believe it

However, you can not show anything which indicates that Baha'i is true and other possible explanations are not true.

Science can.

 

[Tiberius]

And as I said in a previous post, I have better things to do than post to people who cannot control themselves and just have to criticize. Only arrogant people cite logical fallacies constantly because what they are doing is putting other people down to raise themselves up - I am right and you are wrong.

I am not trying to put myself up.

I am trying to point out that your reasoning is flawed.

You are walking a thin line. You have no right to tell me what I was implying, after I already told I was not implying that.

I can't think of any other reason for mentioning it, unless you just wanted to waste everyone's time.

People can use the Baha’i Writings to determine what would be considered moral but there is nothing specific that addresses these developments.

So it doesn't do what you claimed it was here to do. It's almost like whoever wrote them had no idea what was coming, just like a guy who had no contact at all with an all-knowing deity...

 

[Tiberius]

Then how does it work?

The scientific method is the best tool we have for finding out how reality actually works. Steps of the Scientific Method

What I said yesterday was said in a specific context. I meant we should not just choose a religion just because we want it, like we want like a new pair of shoes because they are pretty. In other words we should not act on our emotions, we should use reason.

However, we are going to choose a religion according to our desires and preferences that come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances[/quote]

And the exact same thing can be said about choosing shoes.

We are going to choose a new pair of shoes according to our desires and preferences that come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances.

So you're still contradicting yourself.

Tests using the Bible are not tests that test the Baha’i Faith.

Okay then. Please tell us a way to objectively test the Baha'i faith.

 

[ratiocinator]

I did not mean that the existence of a person who starts a religion is proof that a God exists, or even evidence. When I said that there is no objective evidence for God I meant we cannot examine and evaluate the God being and the reason we cannot do that is because God is beyond our reach or our understanding. It helps to have an understanding of what God is:

None of which addresses the point. If there is objective evidence for Baha’u’llah and if there were an objective reason to think that Baha’u’llah proves god, then you would have objective evidence for god.

So, can there be objective evidence for god or not?

Hold on a minute. You said “If there's objective evidence for Baha’u’llah and Baha’u’llah is proof of god, then that would be objective evidence for god.” Are you now taking that back?

Why would I take it back? It was a hypothetical. The second 'if' above, does not appear to be true.

From the definition of God I posted above, can you understand why there can never be objective evidence of the God being itself? There is nothing rational about such as expectation, it is irrational.

Why am I having to repeat myself so much and remind you of what you've said? If god is omnipotent, then it could (obviously - it would be within its power) provide objective evidence. It was your argument that god does not choose to do that. By not choosing to do that, it is discriminating against rational people (or would be if it actually existed).

What IS rational is for God to send Messengers as evidence of His existence because that can be seen and heard and they can write down what is necessary for humans to obtain knowledge of God and what God wants of us.

Why is that in any way rational? It's an obviously stupid idea. Just look how it turned out. Such a god would have to be stupid (or cruel and unjust).

There is absolutely no reason to think that just because God is omnipotent God would choose our nature and our nurture, but free will, fate and predestination are big topics.

If this god was omniscient too, then it would know, in exact detail, the consequences of its creation act, right down to every detail of our nature and nurture. Free will (as many people consider it) is nonsense anyway, only the compatibilist version makes any sense at all. But I guess going into that would be way off topic.

 

[samtonga43]

I never said that* "He wrote some stuff down, very quickly. He said that God spoke to him and gave him messages" is proof that Baha'u'llah was proof that God exists.

*sigh*
I know you never said these words. I am saying those words.

However I believe that Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists just as Jesus was proof that God exists. just as Jesus was proof that God exists.

But Jesus is NOT proof that God exists. just as the B.man is NOT proof that God exists.
(And here you are once again contradicting yourself. Didn’t you say more than once that there can be no proof that God exists?)

 

[night912]

When you have to cite a logical fallacy all that shows is that you are too weak to rely upon your own words. Only arrogant people cite logical fallacies constantly because what they are doing is putting other people down to raise themselves up - I am right and you are wrong. Also, it is rude to keep doing it when I asked you to stop.

I do understand why. It is because you cannot separate one religion from another and you think that just because religions are similar in some ways religions are all the SAME.
That is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

This is why the majority, if not all, of the people you're talking about isn't throwing out insults. They're just telling the truth based on what they've observed. So playing the victim only makes it worse for you because you're just piling up more evidence to support them.

 

[Trailblazer]

But Jesus is NOT proof that God exists. just as the B.man is NOT proof that God exists.

They are both proof.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[samtonga43]

They are both proof.

"There can be no proof", said Tb.

 

[Trailblazer]

"There can be no proof", said Tb.

Can you actually quote me saying that, post number and all?
And of course the context in which I said that has to be taken into account.

 

[CG Didymus]

The reason religion leads to different conclusions about spirituality and morality is because (a) there are many different religions that have different teachings and (b) people view the teachings and interpret the scriptures differently, even within the same religions. What is the most accurate in the eyes of God is the latest religion that was revealed because it has the current/updated teachings and laws for living a moral life and the current/updated teachings about the soul and the spiritual world.

Okay, prior to the coming of Baha'u'llah and The Bab, should have or could have the men of the world taken more than one wife? And, just to make sure, does the Quran actually teach that it is acceptable in God's eyes to have multiple wives? But then, if not, then why did Baha'u'llah have more than one wife?