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

[SkepticThinker]

Aron Ra is one of the worst atheists to use as a basis for quotation. He is notorious for circular reasoning, baseless claims, and has a bad habit of taking an indefensible position. If you want to quote an atheist you should use someone with a better reputation such as Bart Erhman (not saying I buy into his philosophies) just saying he is more reputable than Aron Ra

This doesn't speak at all to the quote I provided. It's just a character assassination.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know it but I cannot show it to people who don't have eyes to see or ears to hear, as Jesus said.

We all have eyes and ears.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it's God's fault for setting up such a faulty system to begin with.

God is infallible so God cannot make mistakes so God cannot set up a faulty system.
Humans are fallible so humans make mistakes so humans are to blame for everything that happens in this system.
That is logic 101.

 

[Trailblazer]

We all have eyes and ears.

But some people only have physical eyes and ears so they cannot see or hear spiritual things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you not see the disclaimer the CDC has posted about VAERS data?

"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine."
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Request

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

• Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
• Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
• The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
• VAERS data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
• VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.

Do you have a point to make? General Religious Debates is not a place to discuss Covid.

There is a place on this forum to discuss Covid-related issues: COVID-19

 

[CG Didymus]

I know it but I cannot show it to people who don't have eyes to see or ears to hear, as Jesus said.

Hmmm? Quoting Jesus? Okay.

We all have eyes and ears.

And this is true, but that's not what TB means. She means...

But some people only have physical eyes and ears so they cannot see or hear spiritual things.

Oh, so you need special "spiritual" eyes and ears. Problem is Christians use this too. But they mean something very different than Baha'is. So all you are really saying is that a person agrees that the Bible and Jesus are true and real, then they will "see" the light. And for Baha'is, if a person believes that Baha'u'llah is from God, then things that he says will become clear. But, since both religions contradict each other, what is really being made clear? It is still just a belief that what a religion says is true, so of course, for that believer, things they claimed by the religion will be made clearer. But is it because you have spiritual eyes or are just wearing special spectacles to make you think that what you're seeing about your religion is true? Mormons, JW's and others are good at leading people in a very "logical" path to see exactly what they want you to see.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even you say they weren't necessarily accurate. So the message failed to get delivered accurately? Yes or no? I can't see how you can answer this with anything but a "no". The message did not get delivered accurately. And no matter what you think, all we have is the account written by people... which you say is inaccurate.

You already know the Baha'i take on this. The messages of the older religions did come through even though they were not written by a Messenger of God. They were not perfectly accurate but that does not matter anymore since we now have a perfectly accurate message from Baha'u'llah. It does not matter what happened in the past. The past is gone. God had His reasons for why the older scriptures were written by men instead of by a Messenger of God. People were different back in those days so they were not ready for a direct revelation from God as they were not sufficiently spiritually evolved to handle it.

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words

(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, so you need special "spiritual" eyes and ears. Problem is Christians use this too. But they mean something very different than Baha'is.

No, regarding spiritual eyes and ears Christians mean essentially the same thing as Baha'is.

 

[Tiberius]

A belief that is backed up with evidence is not the same as an unsupported assumption.

Not quite.

That's like saying that the belief that I can turn into an eagle has evidence to support it because eagles exist. That evidence does not support the claim, and your evidence does not support your belief.

Your belief is not backed up with evidence.

I believe it is an accurate description of reality but I do not claim that because I cannot prove it.

Then you have opinion, nothing more.

Beliefs are not the same as personal opinions. It is my belief and nothing else, not my opinion and nothing else.

Sounds like an opinion to me.

What do you mean by objectively true?

It's a simple concept. If you don't know what it means you really have no place being involved in this discussion, just as someone who doesn't know how to drive has no place driving in a race.

 

[Tiberius]

Let do some basic logical analysis:

P1: your entire position is unfalsifiable
C: thus is of no actual use at all
That is not a valid deduction, so would you be so kind and add more Ps.

Yes, it is unfalsifiable. Just like TrailBlazer's claim. And just like my claim, her claim is similarly of no use at all. That was the point I was trying to make. She holds her logic to be valid and show that her position is correct, but when I apply the exact same logic, then it's invalid and incorrect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not quite.

That's like saying that the belief that I can turn into an eagle has evidence to support it because eagles exist. That evidence does not support the claim, and your evidence does not support your belief.

Not quite, because the evidence for Baha'u'llah support the His claims.

Your belief is not backed up with evidence.

My evidence supports my belief as otherwise I would not hold my belief.

Then you have opinion, nothing more.
Sounds like an opinion to me.

It is a belief.

It's a simple concept. If you don't know what it means you really have no place being involved in this discussion, just as someone who doesn't know how to drive has no place driving in a race.

That is not true at all. Objective means different things to different people and it means different things depending upon the context.

I said: I can never provide proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidence.
You said: When something is actually objectively true, this doesn't happen.
I said: What do you mean by objectively true?

There is no such thing as objectively true. Something is either true or false.
So if a religion was true how would everyone know it was true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course a fallacious argument doesn't mean that the conclusion is false, it just means that we haven't been given a reason to take it seriously. The burden of proof has not been met.

I believe that the burden of proof was met by Baha'u'llah. I have no burden of proof because I made no claims.

You still don't seem to have got the point. It's not about what's apparent or what we know of reasons, it's about whether we live in a deterministic reality or not. We don't know the answer to that question but it can only be yes or no. If you're saying no, then randomness is inevitable. Neither determinism nor randomness can create free will with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

The answer does not have to be yes or no because some things might be chosen whereas some things might be fated (predetermined), so they are going to happen not by our choice I do not believe anything is random chance; it is either chosen by us or it is fated by God. In other words, I think that everything happens for a reason.

You keep saying that free will cannot exist with an omnipotent, omniscient creator but you have never explained why it cannot exist.

 

[Tiberius]

Not quite, because the evidence for Baha'u'llah support the His claims.

No it doesn't. There is no actual evidence to support the "God exists" part of the Baha'i faith.

My evidence supports my belief as otherwise I would not hold my belief.

Irrelevant. There are people who believe they have evidence that supports their belief that Trump actually won the election.

It is a belief.

I'm not saying it isn't a belief. But it can be a belief AND an opinion at the same time.

That is not true at all. Objective means different things to different people and it means different things depending upon the context.

I said: I can never provide proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidence.
You said: When something is actually objectively true, this doesn't happen.
I said: What do you mean by objectively true?

There is no such thing as objectively true. Something is either true or false.
So if a religion was true how would everyone know it was true?

Objective has a very clear definition.

Essential Meaning of objective

1: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions: We need someone outside the company to give us an objective analysis.: not influenced by feelings: Scientists must be objective: It's hard to be objective [=fair, unbiased] about my own family.
2 (philosophy): existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world: objective reality

And truth also has a very clear definition.

Essential Meaning of truth

1: the real facts about something : the things that are true: Are you telling (me) the truth?: At some point you have to face the simple/hard/honest/plain/naked truth that we failed.

So it is clear that when I speak of "Objective truth" I am talking about things that can shown to be real by presenting facts and evidence from the real world, instead of having to rely on emotional appeals, faith, or opinion.

If something is objectively true, I can present it to you and you can see it for yourself. Your claim in post 3868 fails this because by your own admission it can not be shown to anyone else. Thus, it is not objectively true, it is just your opinion and there is no good reason for anyone to share your view.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe that the burden of proof was met by Baha'u'llah. I have no burden of proof because I made no claims.

By presenting those claims as true, you have taken the burden of proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, regarding spiritual eyes and ears Christians mean essentially the same thing as Baha'is.

Like spiritual eyes and hears to see that Satan is real and that Jesus rose from the dead and is coming back? You have very little in common with Fundamental/Evangelical Christianity. And you keep saying that the old religions are in the past but keep quoting them. But there's nothing wrong in not believing the Bible or Christianity, but then Baha'is say they do. So do you or don't you? It seems like it is both. You believe the Baha'i interpretation of things in the Bible. Lots of things you don't mention and pretty much ignore. And other things you say Christians and Jews misinterpreted their own Scriptures. I believe some things in the Baha'i Faith and ignore some of it and think Baha'is have misinterpreted some things, so would you say I believe in the Baha'i Faith? I don't think so.

 

[CG Didymus]

the evidence for Baha'u'llah support the His claims.

And some Christians say there is evidence that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus rose physically from the grave, and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But you rip their beliefs/claims apart. Yet, yours are true? It the same kind of claim... You believe your religion is true and they believe theirs is. Does it work for you? Probably just as well as their beliefs work for them. Yet, you and I both believe their beliefs are wrong. So what's wrong with the "evidence" and the "proof" that they provide?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it is unfalsifiable. Just like TrailBlazer's claim. And just like my claim, her claim is similarly of no use at all. That was the point I was trying to make. She holds her logic to be valid and show that her position is correct, but when I apply the exact same logic, then it's invalid and incorrect.

No, her logic is also invalid and incorrect. But all epistemological rationalism fails in the end. The world is neither logical nor illogical. Logic is a process in brains and computers and no a fundamental feature of the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it doesn't. There is no actual evidence to support the "God exists" part of the Baha'i faith.

Baha'u'llah and His Mission is the evidence 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

Irrelevant. There are people who believe they have evidence that supports their belief that Trump actually won the election.

Just because Trumpsters believe he won with no evidence that does not mean I believe in Baha'u'llah with no evidence. To say that would be to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I'm not saying it isn't a belief. But it can be a belief AND an opinion at the same time.

Yes, it can be both, just like what you believe about Baha'u'llah NOT being a Messenger of God is also your opinion.

Objective has a very clear definition

Essential Meaning of objective

1: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions: We need someone outside the company to give us an objective analysis.: not influenced by feelings: Scientists must be objective: It's hard to be objective [=fair, unbiased] about my own family.
2 (philosophy): existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world: objective reality.

Even if people have facts people believe the facts and have opinions about the facts. The point is not to be swayed by emotions.

And truth also has a very clear definition.

Essential Meaning of truth

1: the real facts about something : the things that are true: Are you telling (me) the truth?: At some point you have to face the simple/hard/honest/plain/naked truth that we failed.

So it is clear that when I speak of "Objective truth" I am talking about things that can shown to be real by presenting facts and evidence from the real world, instead of having to rely on emotional appeals, faith, or opinion.

If something is objectively true, I can present it to you and you can see it for yourself. Your claim in post 3868 fails this because by your own admission it can not be shown to anyone else. Thus, it is not objectively true, it is just your opinion and there is no good reason for anyone to share your view.

What I believe about the Baha'i Faith can shown to be real by presenting facts and evidence from the real world, instead of having to rely on emotional appeals. People will have different opinions about those facts because no two people think and process information the same way. It would be completely illogical to say that if the Baha'i Faith was true, everyone would view that evidence the same way and come to that conclusion. However, that does not mean that the Baha'i Faith is not true.

 

[Trailblazer]

By presenting those claims as true, you have taken the burden of proof.

By believing that those claims as true, I have taken on no burden of proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe that the burden of proof was met by Baha'u'llah.

Yet your are unable to tell us how.

I have no burden of proof because I made no claims.

Actually, you've made endless claims, not least about what is 'logical' and what isn't.

The answer does not have to be yes or no because some things might be chosen whereas some things might be fated (predetermined), so they are going to happen not by our choice I do not believe anything is random chance; it is either chosen by us or it is fated by God. In other words, I think that everything happens for a reason.

You keep saying that free will cannot exist with an omnipotent, omniscient creator but you have never explained why it cannot exist.

I keep trying but you don't seem to get it. There is no third category called 'chosen' that exists in addition to determinism and randomness. Choice happens at a much higher level than I'm talking about. The same logic about determinism applies to the human mind as it does to anything else that varies over time; it must either be a deterministic system or not be a deterministic system (and hence involve randomness).

If everything (including minds) is deterministic, then a creator god would have chosen everything (including human choices) at creation (unless it later intervened), otherwise, any variation from determinism is random, which doesn't help with free will or human responsibility.

We effectively have free will, from a human point of view, in the compatibilist sense because our choices do reflect who we are, but who we are is the result (as you said) of nature, nurture, and a life of experience, and from a god's point of view, that is all its doing.