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

[samtonga43]

For 51 years I have believed that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God but now I do not just believe, I know. Now I am certain that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation or God which means that the Baha'i Faith is the newest religion that has been revealed by God.

IF Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation or (sic) God then the Baha'i Faith is the newest religion that has been revealed by God.
The fact that Tb is 'certain' does not make this true.

 

[Trailblazer]

IF Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation or (sic) God then the Baha'i Faith is the newest religion that has been revealed by God.
The fact that Tb is 'certain' does not make this true.

I never said or even implied that my certainty makes it true. That would be very illogical.

'The Baha'i Faith is the newest religion that has been revealed by God' is either true or false and what people believe about that has no bearing on whether it is true or false since what people believe does not create reality.

 

[CG Didymus]

I never said or even implied that my certainty makes it true. That would be very illogical.

'The Baha'i Faith is the newest religion that has been revealed by God' is either true or false and what people believe about that has no bearing on whether it is true or false since what people believe does not create reality.

What's not logical to me is why you keep all these threads going around in circles. Here you are "certain" but that doesn't mean it's true? Yeah, that's what people have been telling you.

 

[Trailblazer]

What's not logical to me is why you keep all these threads going around in circles. Here you are "certain" but that doesn't mean it's true? Yeah, that's what people have been telling you.

The reason they tell me that is that they commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and assume that I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I am certain it is true. It is not true because I am certain it is true and I never said that. It would be illogical and idiotic to say that.

 

[samtonga43]

The reason they tell me that is that they commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and assume that I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I am certain it is true. It is not true because I am certain it is true and I never said that. It would be illogical and idiotic to say that.

Right. You are certain that the Baha faith is true, but you could be wrong. Am I correct?

 

[samtonga43]

I am a very direct person so if I thought you had committed it I would have said so.

You would? You would tell people if you thought they had committed the fallacy crime? I don't believe you!

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a claim that "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."

It is a claim, but it is not a claim about Baha'u'llah. It is a claim about Manifestations of God. In other words, it is not a claim that Baha'u'llah is making about Himself.

I haven't read that book, and I'm not going to take your word for it that it is correct since you are not unbiased.

You should not take my word for anything, you should check it out for yourself if you want to know.

And your own definition says that a fact is something that is KNOWN.

If you say it may not be a fact, then you can't KNOW it.

Just because a fact is something that is known, that does not mean that the only way to know something is from facts or that everything that is known is factual. The definition does not say that and it is not even logical since there are other ways of knowing besides knowing something as a fact.

3 Ways to Know Something

There are 3 main ways.

1. Experiential (Empirical)

With experiential, you know something because you’ve “experienced” it – basically through your five senses (site, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.)

2. Cognitive (Rational)

With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

3. Constructed (Creational)

With constructed, you know something because you created it – and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on convention or perception.

https://sourcesofinsight.com/3-ways-to-know-something/

The fact that you accepted the claims made biased you towards believing in God, since "God exists" is one of the claims made.

You can't get around that.

Bias is the wrong word.

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

The fact that I accepted the claims made led me to believe in God, since "God exists" is one of the claims made.
Unless I was comparing non-belief to belief there could be no prejudice in favor of belief over non-belief.

So what? I've provided evidence just as valid as yours that I can turn into an eagle.

No, it is not as valid as my evidence unless you are a Messenger of God.

Making a claim doesn't require that you are trying to prove something to somebody.

If you present a viewpoint and say, "This viewpoint is correct," then you are making a claim.

That's true, but if I present a viewpoint and say, "I believe this viewpoint" then I am not making a claim.

Then you don't care about science at all. If you accept or reject science based on whether it fits into your religious beliefs, don't pretend that it's for any reason other than convenience.

You just committed the all or nothing fallacy by insinuating that just because I do not accept what science says about creation that means that I don't care about science at all. That is absolutely false as can be seen on the official Baha'i website.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/science-religion

What fallacy is all or nothing?

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'all or nothing (AON)'. AON presents a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options – either all or nothing – when in fact there are many more options in the middle ground between those two extremes.May 9, 2018

All or Nothing - Bad Arguments - Wiley Online Library

You apparently don't understand what theory means in science.

THIS website is about evolution, not the big bang, but it neatly explains what a theory actually is. Please read it, and then understand why you are mistaken in saying the Big Bang is a theory, not a fact.

It says: In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2

However, a theory is not a proven fact, and the Big Bang is not a proven fact.

You do make claims, but that's not what I meant.

What you present as "evidence" is just the record of someone else making the claim. It's like if I was to present the post where I said I could turn into an eagle as evidence that I can turn into an eagle.

That just shows that you either have not been listening to what I have been saying or you did not understand it.
What I have presented as "evidence" is NOT the record of someone else making the claim, not at all, at all.

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that support the claims of Baha'u'llah..

1. His character (His qualities).

That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah, which is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is more icing on the cake. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

How is anything on my list a record of someone else making the claim?

Given that you referred to the Friend by the wrong pronoun, I don't think you even read the link. I don't see how you can think you are in any way knowledgeable enough about the topic to say anything about it.

Ah, but of course, this is just another example of you deciding that it must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the worldview that you've already decided is true.

That is a classic case of psychological projection because that is what you do, you decide that everything that I believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the atheistic worldview that you've already decided is true.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Yes it is condescending. It shows that you think I do not know what it means.

It does not show what I think. You don't know what I think or why I post what I post. I didn't post that just for YOU. This is a public forum.

Yeah, you've posted that link before and I've already shown how it is rubbish.

No, you did not show me how it is rubbish. You just gave a personal opinion, which amounts to nothing except a hill of beans. Just like many atheists everything you do not agree with and anything they could prove you are wrong is rubbish.... only it is not rubbish just because you BELIEVE it is rubbish.

I never said it was a Biblical prophecy, did I? You have committed the strawman fallacy.

Well, if you are referring to the prophecies that Baha'u'llah made, His prophecies are being fulfilled as I type this.

If you choose to respond, then you are making it your problem, since you have no right to expect anyone else to do your homework for you.

My homework? How is it MY homework? I don't take homework assignmenst from you.

It is your burden of proof. If you present something as being true, then you must back it up. Otherwise, people will say you have nothing but fairytales.

I have no burden or proof because I am not making any claims or trying to prove anything but even when I do present evidence people say it's not evidence so why should I bother?

I will believe your position when you present valid testable evidence to back it up.

Simply stating your position is nowhere near enough to make it convincing. And it's very arrogant of you to think otherwise.

I was not talking about believing in the evidence for my religion, I was talking about believing what I say about my thoughts and intentions.

When did I ever say or even imply that stating my position is enough to make it convincing? Never.
What is arrogant is for you to think you know that is what I was thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

You would? You would tell people if you thought they had committed the fallacy crime? I don't believe you!

Seeing is believing. I am always pointing out fallacies, left and right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. You are certain that the Baha faith is true, but you could be wrong. Am I correct?

Why do you ask me that again? I already answered you once.
Why would it matter to you if I think I could be wrong since you already think I am wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

Do you know what @Tiberius and I were discussing? It had nothing to do with how many people have pointed out that I make mistakes. I was talking about my beliefs.

Trailblazer said: I said in post #3971: That's correct reasoning, and conversely, having people who believe that the Baha'i Faith is true is something we could have if the Baha'i Faith was true. However, how many people believe it is true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false since beliefs do not determine reality.

Where do you see me suggesting that you committed the fallacy? I am a very direct person so if I thought you had committed it I would have said so.

#3980 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 5:00 PM

I think the issue here is that you post definitions of logical fallacies when that particular fallacy has not been committed. For example, here's a segment of the discussion between us from a while back...

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

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.

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.

Now, if there was a cop runs someone's plates and finds that their car is unregistered, and then pulls them over, and the first thing the cop said to the driver was, "Sir, are you aware there was a stop sign back there," then the drivers natural response would be to wonder what the cop was going on about, because they would have stopped at the stop sign. After all, the driver was pulled over for being unregistered, not because they ran the stop sign. Can you imagine that conversation?

Cop: Sir, are you aware there was a stop sign back there?

Driver: Yes, officer, I saw it, and I made sure to come to a complete stop.

Cop: Yes, you did. I pulled you over because your car is unregistered.

Driver: What does that have to do with the stop sign?

Cop: Nothing.

Driver: Then why did you mention the stop sign?

Cop: It's important to stop at stop signs.

Driver: I know, that's why I did.

Cop: And that was very good of you, sir.

Driver: But the stop sign is totally irrelevant to this situation, isn't it?

Cop: Yes it is.

Driver: So then there was no actual need for you to bring it up, was there? You were just telling me something that has no bearing on our situation and that we both know. And we both know that we both know. So it's just a waste of time, isn't it, and it accomplishes nothing.

That's essentially what you were doing. By pointing out the logical fallacy, you create the impression that it is relevant to the situation at hand. It can be taken as poor debate form, since it could have been seen by someone as you accusing me of committing that fallacy when I didn't.

So, in the future, don't mention it unless it is relevant.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a claim, but it is not a claim about Baha'u'llah. It is a claim about Manifestations of God. In other words, it is not a claim that Baha'u'llah is making about Himself.

So what? It's still a claim.

And earlier you said it was NOT a claim. You literally said, "There is no claim in that quote." Now you are admitting that there is a claim. Once again, your position is all over the place. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even keep your own story straight?

You should not take my word for anything, you should check it out for yourself if you want to know.

I've got more important things to do with my time.

Just because a fact is something that is known, that does not mean that the only way to know something is from facts or that everything that is known is factual. The definition does not say that and it is not even logical since there are other ways of knowing besides knowing something as a fact.

3 Ways to Know Something

There are 3 main ways.

1. Experiential (Empirical)

With experiential, you know something because you’ve “experienced” it – basically through your five senses (site, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.)

2. Cognitive (Rational)

With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

3. Constructed (Creational)

With constructed, you know something because you created it – and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on convention or perception.

https://sourcesofinsight.com/3-ways-to-know-something/

Would you care to demonstrate that you actually understand what this is saying by providing a specific example of each?

Bias is the wrong word.

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

The fact that I accepted the claims made led me to believe in God, since "God exists" is one of the claims made.
Unless I was comparing non-belief to belief there could be no prejudice in favor of belief over non-belief.

No, it is the right word. Your definition shows that it is a favour of one thing over another thing. That would include favouring one belief over a different belief.

No, it is not as valid as my evidence unless you are a Messenger of God.

You don't get to use your religious belief as the standard against which other beliefs are to be judged.

That's true, but if I present a viewpoint and say, "I believe this viewpoint" then I am not making a claim.

True.

But you haven't been doing that.

You just committed the all or nothing fallacy by insinuating that just because I do not accept what science says about creation that means that I don't care about science at all. That is absolutely false as can be seen on the official Baha'i website.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/science-religion

What fallacy is all or nothing?

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'all or nothing (AON)'. AON presents a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options – either all or nothing – when in fact there are many more options in the middle ground between those two extremes.May 9, 2018

All or Nothing - Bad Arguments - Wiley Online Library

You're like the rich playboy who takes beautiful young women to all the most important social occasions. He doesn't care about them, he only cares that they make him look good. And once they start getting old, he'll discard them and find a new woman to take. He cares only what benefit they can provide him. Once they stop providing a benefit, he goes and finds a better option.

That's what you are doing with science. As long as science can be used to support your position, then you are happy to accept it. But the instant science disagrees with your position, you discard it, because pretending it isn't there is a lot easier than re-evaluating your beliefs.

So you've got a double standard. Just like the rich playboy, you work with the attitude, "If it helps me, that means it's right. If it disagrees with me, that means it's wrong."

It says: In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2

However, a theory is not a proven fact, and the Big Bang is not a proven fact.

Do you also say that gravity is not a proven fact? What about electrical theory? Germ theory? You are demonstrating that you really do not understand science at all.

That just shows that you either have not been listening to what I have been saying or you did not understand it.
What I have presented as "evidence" is NOT the record of someone else making the claim, not at all, at all.

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that support the claims of Baha'u'llah..

1. His character (His qualities).

That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah, which is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is more icing on the cake. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

How is anything on my list a record of someone else making the claim?

They are claims made by someone about what he was like, what he did, what he wrote, what he fulfilled and what he predicted.

I'm not saying that the fact that these are claims means they are wrong. I'm saying that none of them prove that he was sent by God in any way at all. And no, the prophecies aren't evidence at all. You know my position on prophecies.

That is a classic case of psychological projection because that is what you do, you decide that everything that I believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the atheistic worldview that you've already decided is true.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I think you're projecting your own habit of projecting.

No, you did not show me how it is rubbish. You just gave a personal opinion, which amounts to nothing except a hill of beans. Just like many atheists everything you do not agree with and anything they could prove you are wrong is rubbish.... only it is not rubbish just because you BELIEVE it is rubbish.

I have verified it was rubbish to me. Unfortunately I can not share with you the verification. You have to examine it and verify it for yourself. But if you get a result that is different from mine, you're wrong and you'll have to keep verifying it until you agree with me.

Well, if you are referring to the prophecies that Baha'u'llah made, His prophecies are being fulfilled as I type this.

I doubt it. However, I think getting into a discussion on that would be very large for this thread. If you want to start a thread about Mr B's prophecies and how he is fulfilling them, I will be more than happy to join that discussion.

My homework? How is it MY homework? I don't take homework assignmenst from you.

It's your homework because if you choose to participate it's up to you to make sure you are prepared to participate. If you aren't prepared to participate, then you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I have no burden or proof because I am not making any claims or trying to prove anything but even when I do present evidence people say it's not evidence so why should I bother?

You are making claims. You claim you are not in an effort to avoid the burden of proof.

People say what you provide isn't evidence because it is not.

This entire situation comes about because you are making claims that you have no supporting evidence for.

I was not talking about believing in the evidence for my religion, I was talking about believing what I say about my thoughts and intentions.

When did I ever say or even imply that stating my position is enough to make it convincing? Never.
What is arrogant is for you to think you know that is what I was thinking.

Once again you make claims and then withdraw into the "I'm not making claims, I'm only saying what I believe, and I don't need to justify my belief to you" argument when you are asked to provide evidence for your claims.

 

[CG Didymus]

The reason they tell me that is that they commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and assume that I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I am certain it is true. It is not true because I am certain it is true and I never said that. It would be illogical and idiotic to say that.

So you're certain that it's true, but if someone assumes that you believe it is true because you're certain it is true they'd be wrong? Yeah, sounds idiotic. I'm so glad I never took a course in logic.

But let's get real. Baha'is have investigated the Baha'i Faith and believe it is true. And once they believe, because Baha'u'llah is infallible, they believe all of it is true... And they are certain of that?

 

[CG Didymus]

Seeing is believing. I am always pointing out fallacies, left and right.

Do you ever commit any?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the issue here is that you post definitions of logical fallacies when that particular fallacy has not been committed. For example, here's a segment of the discussion between us from a while back...

Now, if there was a cop runs someone's plates and finds that their car is unregistered, and then pulls them over, and the first thing the cop said to the driver was, "Sir, are you aware there was a stop sign back there," then the drivers natural response would be to wonder what the cop was going on about, because they would have stopped at the stop sign. After all, the driver was pulled over for being unregistered, not because they ran the stop sign. Can you imagine that conversation?

Cop: Sir, are you aware there was a stop sign back there?

Driver: Yes, officer, I saw it, and I made sure to come to a complete stop.

Cop: Yes, you did. I pulled you over because your car is unregistered.

Driver: What does that have to do with the stop sign?

Cop: Nothing.

Driver: Then why did you mention the stop sign?

Cop: It's important to stop at stop signs.

Driver: I know, that's why I did.

Cop: And that was very good of you, sir.

Driver: But the stop sign is totally irrelevant to this situation, isn't it?

Cop: Yes it is.

Driver: So then there was no actual need for you to bring it up, was there? You were just telling me something that has no bearing on our situation and that we both know. And we both know that we both know. So it's just a waste of time, isn't it, and it accomplishes nothing.

That's essentially what you were doing. By pointing out the logical fallacy, you create the impression that it is relevant to the situation at hand. It can be taken as poor debate form, since it could have been seen by someone as you accusing me of committing that fallacy when I didn't.

So, in the future, don't mention it unless it is relevant.

You made your point. I will try to remember that.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? It's still a claim.

And earlier you said it was NOT a claim. You literally said, "There is no claim in that quote." Now you are admitting that there is a claim. Once again, your position is all over the place. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even keep your own story straight?

I meant it was not a claim that Baha'u'llah was making for Himself, but maybe at the time I did not see a claim at all, but later when you pointed it out I conceded that it was a claim.

I've got more important things to do with my time.

So do I but instead I am here on this forum.

Would you care to demonstrate that you actually understand what this is saying by providing a specific example of each?

I do not have time for that right now but I will tell you how I know, and it is:

2. Cognitive (Rational)
With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

I know that the Baha'i Faith is true because I have thought my way through it, argued it, and used my rational mind to determine it made sense.

No, it is the right word. Your definition shows that it is a favour of one thing over another thing. That would include favouring one belief over a different belief.

So what if I do? You are the pot calling the kettle black became you do exactly the same thing; you favor non-belief over belief and you favor science over religion.

You don't get to use your religious belief as the standard against which other beliefs are to be judged.

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

You said: So what? I've provided evidence just as valid as yours that I can turn into an eagle.
I said: No, it is not as valid as my evidence unless you are a Messenger of God.

I meant no evidence you have is as valid as evidence from ANY religion, not just my religion.

True.

But you haven't been doing that.

Nor have I said I am making a claim. I do not need to preface everything I say with "I believe" as it is a given it is what I believe.

You're like the rich playboy who takes beautiful young women to all the most important social occasions. He doesn't care about them, he only cares that they make him look good. And once they start getting old, he'll discard them and find a new woman to take. He cares only what benefit they can provide him. Once they stop providing a benefit, he goes and finds a better option.

That's what you are doing with science. As long as science can be used to support your position, then you are happy to accept it. But the instant science disagrees with your position, you discard it, because pretending it isn't there is a lot easier than re-evaluating your beliefs.

So you've got a double standard. Just like the rich playboy, you work with the attitude, "If it helps me, that means it's right. If it disagrees with me, that means it's wrong."

You are making all kinds of assumptions as to what I am thinking and what my motives are when you have no idea what they are. I am not using science to make myself look good because I am not even trying to look good. All this gibberish is coming from you, not from me. All I ever do is honestly present what Baha'is believe, I have no ulterior motives, no agenda.

Do you also say that gravity is not a proven fact? What about electrical theory? Germ theory? You are demonstrating that you really do not understand science at all.

What you listed are not theories, they are substantiated facts that have been proven through observation or experimentation. Big Bang can never be proven so it is only a theory. A theory can never be proven, because in order to be proven it must be "testable" through observation or experimentation, and since we cannot go back and observe and test what happened when the universe came into existence that means it is only a theory, not a proven fact. It is a widely accepted theory but it is still a theory.

They are claims made by someone about what he was like, what he did, what he wrote, what he fulfilled and what he predicted.

I'm not saying that the fact that these are claims means they are wrong. I'm saying that none of them prove that he was sent by God in any way at all. And no, the prophecies aren't evidence at all. You know my position on prophecies.

No, they are not claims, they are historical facts, but you are right in saying that none of them prove that He was sent by God.

I think you're projecting your own habit of projecting.

No, that is what you do. You decide that everything that I believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the atheistic worldview that you've already decided is true so you are projecting your own bias onto me when you tell me I am biased.

When have I ever told you that everything that you believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the theistic worldview that I have already decided is true? I do not do that because I never even make statements about the atheist position, I only speak for myself and what I believe.

I have verified it was rubbish to me. Unfortunately I can not share with you the verification. You have to examine it and verify it for yourself. But if you get a result that is different from mine, you're wrong and you'll have to keep verifying it until you agree with me.

ALL you have is a personal opinion that it is rubbish. If you had more than a personal opinion, if you had any valid reasons to call it rubbish, then you come present them. This is a typical atheist ploy, to call things rubbish and then obfuscate and deflect when they have nothing to back up their opinions.

I doubt it. However, I think getting into a discussion on that would be very large for this thread. If you want to start a thread about Mr B's prophecies and how he is fulfilling them, I will be more than happy to join that discussion.

Oh Lord Jesus, all I need is another thread right now! But I will keep in in mind. I am masochistic enough to do something foolish like that.

It's your homework because if you choose to participate it's up to you to make sure you are prepared to participate. If you aren't prepared to participate, then you just end up wasting everyone's time.

It is not my homework to go back and look at previous posts just so I can answer a post. If you do not want to participate then don't.

You are making claims. You claim you are not in an effort to avoid the burden of proof.

People say what you provide isn't evidence because it is not.

This entire situation comes about because you are making claims that you have no supporting evidence for.

I am not making any claims. I have beliefs and I have evidence that supports my beliefs. Just because it is not the KIND of evidence you want that does not make it non-evidence.

Once again you make claims and then withdraw into the "I'm not making claims, I'm only saying what I believe, and I don't need to justify my belief to you" argument when you are asked to provide evidence for your claims.

Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said: I was not talking about believing in the evidence for my religion, I was talking about believing what I say about my thoughts and intentions.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're certain that it's true, but if someone assumes that you believe it is true because you're certain it is true they'd be wrong? Yeah, sounds idiotic. I'm so glad I never took a course in logic.

They have it backwards. I am certain it is true because I believe it is true.

But let's get real. Baha'is have investigated the Baha'i Faith and believe it is true. And once they believe, because Baha'u'llah is infallible, they believe all of it is true... And they are certain of that?

That about describes it. I cannot say how many Baha'is are certain like me but the rest is correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you ever commit any?

I can't say I never do but I try not to commit the ones I know about.

 

[Tiberius]

I meant it was not a claim that Baha'u'llah was making for Himself, but maybe at the time I did not see a claim at all, but later when you pointed it out I conceded that it was a claim.

And thus the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, or the one who presents the claim as fact.

So do I but instead I am here on this forum.

Good for you. That doesn't mean I have to prioritize this forum over the other things I have to do just because you do.

I do not have time for that right now but I will tell you how I know, and it is:

2. Cognitive (Rational)
With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

I know that the Baha'i Faith is true because I have thought my way through it, argued it, and used my rational mind to determine it made sense.

Irrelevant. Lots of people have thought their way through, argued and rationalised something and still been wrong.

So what if I do? You are the pot calling the kettle black became you do exactly the same thing; you favor non-belief over belief and you favor science over religion.

I favour that which produces results that are testable by others over that which can never be externally verified.

Do you claim that this is a wrong position to take?

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

You said: So what? I've provided evidence just as valid as yours that I can turn into an eagle.
I said: No, it is not as valid as my evidence unless you are a Messenger of God.

I meant no evidence you have is as valid as evidence from ANY religion, not just my religion.

And why shouldn't my claims be just as valid as the claims of any religion?

Nor have I said I am making a claim. I do not need to preface everything I say with "I believe" as it is a given it is what I believe.

True. But when there is ambiguity, people will take your words as you claiming something to be a fact, not just a personal belief. I'm fairly sure we've been over this already.

You are making all kinds of assumptions as to what I am thinking and what my motives are when you have no idea what they are. I am not using science to make myself look good because I am not even trying to look good. All this gibberish is coming from you, not from me. All I ever do is honestly present what Baha'is believe, I have no ulterior motives, no agenda.

Then you need to ask yourself why it looks like you are doing that if you aren't.

What you listed are not theories, they are substantiated facts that have been proven through observation or experimentation. Big Bang can never be proven so it is only a theory. A theory can never be proven, because in order to be proven it must be "testable" through observation or experimentation, and since we cannot go back and observe and test what happened when the universe came into existence that means it is only a theory, not a proven fact. It is a widely accepted theory but it is still a theory.

Yes, they most certainly are theories.

Here are some scientific resources that talk about the germ theory of disease.

germ theory | Definition, Development, & Facts
The Physician Who Presaged the Germ Theory of Disease Nearly 500 Years Ago
Pasteur's Papers on the Germ Theory
What if germ theory had caught on sooner?
Dr. Robert Koch and His Germ Theory of Cholera.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
https://www.frontiersin.org/subjects/germ-theory-of-disease
Germ Theory
Germ Theory of Disease - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

And this page about gravitational theory will (I hope) educate you on what a scientific theory actually is. Because right now, you are way off. Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

No, that is what you do. You decide that everything that I believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the atheistic worldview that you've already decided is true so you are projecting your own bias onto me when you tell me I am biased.

No, I decide that what you believe has no justification for being believed because there is no testable evidence to support it.

There is plenty of testable evidence for science.

When have I ever told you that everything that you believe must be wrong simply because it doesn't fit into the theistic worldview that I have already decided is true? I do not do that because I never even make statements about the atheist position, I only speak for myself and what I believe.

Well, let's see. You claimed I was wrong about the studies showing the efficacy of prayer. I told you there had been about 170 years worth of study that showed prayer is ineffectual, and you just said it was wrong because you just thought it was wrong.

You also told me I was wrong about what I think happens after you die, with the old, "You'll find out you're wrong one day" line that is so common from believers, and also very arrogant.

I could probably come up with a few more examples if I put my mind to it.

ALL have is a personal opinion that it is rubbish. If you had more than a personal opinion, if you had any valid reasons to call it rubbish, then you come present them. This is a typical atheist ploy, to call things rubbish and then obfuscate and deflect when they have nothing to back up their opinions.

How can you say it's an atheist ploy when I'm using the exact same reasoning YOU have used?

It is not my homework to go back and look at previous posts just so I can answer a post. If you do not want to participate then don't.

it is indeed your responsibility to be prepared to engage in the discussion. And if being prepared means that you have to refer to previous posts, then that's what you have to do.

I am not making any claims.

Yes you are.

I have beliefs and I have evidence that supports my beliefs.

Yes, you have beliefs, but you do not have evidence to support them. You have opinions.

Just because it is not the KIND of evidence you want that does not make it non-evidence.

If it's indistinguishable from opinion, there's no reason I should accept it as evidence. You have no evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

They have it backwards. I am certain it is true because I believe it is true.

I am certain I can turn into an eagle because I believe I can turn into an eagle.

It's still circular logic, no matter which way around the circle you go.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am certain I can turn into an eagle because I believe I can turn into an eagle.

It's still circular logic, no matter which way around the circle you go.

I was just correcting what people get backwards...

I do not believe it is true because I am certain it is true. I am certain it is true because I believe it is true.

But I believe it is true because of the evidence. I don't just believe it is true for no reason, so it is not circular at all.