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

[Sheldon]

I never said that it is impossible for God to communicate with the Messengers, but it is impossible for God to communicate with ordinary people and the reason is because ordinary people only have a human nature, they do not have a spiritual nature. Messengers of God are a different order of creation than ordinary men because they have a twofold nature that ordinary humans do not possess. That is why it is possible for them to understand communication from God through the Holy Spirit. No ordinary human could ever understand communication from God if God communicated to them directly, and that is 'one reason' God never communicates to ordinary people, only to His Messengers.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

You said: "If God cannot manifest physically he cannot communicate."

You hit the nail right on the head! That is very good logical reasoning and you are the first atheist who ever figured that out so you get the door prize!

That is exactly what God does. God manifests physically so He can communicate to humans. Messengers of God are also Manifestations of God, as both descriptors refer to the same entity.

Jesus was God who was manifested in the flesh and communicated to humans but God did not become flesh, as Christians believe.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

All the Messengers of God were God who manifested in the flesh and that is why they are also referred to as Manifestations of God.

However, being manifested in the flesh is not the same as being incarnated in the flesh. The excerpt below from a longer article explains the difference between a Manifestation of God and an incarnation of God (bold emphasis mine).

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..

The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and God. For example, 'I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father (John 1038); but on the other hand, 'the Father is greater than I (John 14:28); and 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements do not contradict, but are complementary if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God, but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Again, a lot of claims, but zero objective evidence.

 

[samtonga43]

I don't know what "it" is. I cannot remember something if I don't know what "it" is.

Just a wild guess , but it could refer to the following:--
"Sorry, I do not see anyone calling me out on logical fallacies and explaining which logical fallacies they are and explaining how I committed them".

 

[Trailblazer]

The logical fallacies are there for all to see, whatever beliefs one holds a priori, and while one can choose to ignore logic, the principles are unequivocal, as are known fallacies in informal logic. The consequences of both are your CLAIMS, are irrational...by definition.

The logical fallacies that atheists commit are there for all to see, which are based upon personal opinions which are irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“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

All of the Manifestations of God were evidence that God exists. That is not a claim, it is a belief.

Yes, it is a belief. But it is not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

what do you hope to achieve?

I am not trying to achieve anything. In case you have not noticed you are the one who is trying to achieve something. You are trying to convince people that I am making claims, as if it matters. You won't let go of it because your ego won't let you. You just have to be right, but you are wrong because you do not know me and my motives better than I know them.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[Trailblazer]

***

OK. I am going to state my opinion.

You seem to think that you know everything there is to know on the subject of logical fallacies, and what words mean according to the dictionary. Tb, you don't. You really don't.

You tie yourself in knots while attempting to be rational and what emerges from your keyboard is mostly gobbledygook.

Furthermore, you are doing yourself and your religion no favours.

One of my favourite poets said this:
"People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind". William Butler Yeats

Remember, I am just stating my opinion.

And now I am going to state my opinion. You seem to be obsessed with me, what I believe and what I do.
Nobody needs a degree in psychology to figure that out. You follow me from thread to thread criticizing me and my beliefs. You never engage me or anyone else in any conversation so I have to conclude that the only reason you are here is to criticize me and my beliefs.

In my opinion I think you should ask yourself why you are so obsessed with me. It is quite a phenomenon on display for all to see.

You are not doing your faith any favors by criticizing me constantly. Not one other Christian on this forum behaves this way.

Matthew 7:1-4 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Just remember, it is not me who is criticizing you or anyone else, I am the one who is constantly defending myself from your criticisms. Decent people do not behave this way, they just don't.

“The most hateful characteristic of man is fault-finding.” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Star of the West, Vol. IV, No.11, p. 192)

“Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy . . . Beware, beware that any one rebuke or reproach a soul, though he may be an ill-wisher and an ill-doer.” (Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of Abdu’l-Bahá v1, p. 44)


“All religions teach that we should love one another; that we should seek out our own shortcomings before we presume to condemn the faults of others, that we must not consider ourselves superior to our neighbours! We must be careful not to exalt ourselves lest we be humiliated.” (Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 147)

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

 

[Trailblazer]

MrB was wrong. Scriptures are not the only way we can ever know anything about God. God makes Himself known to many people BEFORE they have read any Scripture.

Are you asserting that as true? Can you prove it is true? If not, it is a bald assertion, not a fact.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[night912]

Sorry, I do not see anyone calling me out on logical fallacies and explaining which logical fallacies they are and explaining how I committed them. I consider it unjust to accuse me of a crime if I don't know what the crime was or how it as committed because I cannot defend myself from a crime if I don't even know what it was or how it was committed.

People of the court, a crime has been committed against RF and all its member by the defendant identified as , Trailblazer.
This is not merely just a case of accusing her of being dishonest. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not here to convince any of you that she is guilty. Don't judge her based on what I say, my words alone does not mean that she is guilty of being dishonest. I'm here only to present the facts. And only the facts will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether she is guilty or not guilty. There's high chance that she will try to manipulate you by appealing to your emotions. She may attempt to put on an act, pretending to be innocent. She may even use your emotions that you have towards your deepest beliefs and attempt to deceive, so that it appears as if she is an innocent victim of persecution by atheists. But her dishonesty is not about atheists vs theists. It is about how she perceives RF and every single member of being incompetent. She believes that we do not have the capacity to understand logic or competent enough to go back to read and present her past posts. Even after older posts have been presented, she insults everyone's intelligence by brushing it off and denying to have said that. Don't take mine or her words. Instead, you must do your own investigation and look at the facts. It will only show that she is GUILTY.

I present the evidence.
Trailblazer said:

As usual you are not direct in what you say so I cannot respond. You just say I am not logical.

My reasoning is logical unless you can prove otherwise. Just saying it does not prove it.

And I responded with this:

This is good example of a logical fallacy called, Argument from ignorance. This is fallacious because you being unaware that your reasoning is illogical, does not make it logical. A proposition cannot be both true and false, so if later on someone demonstrate that it's illogical, it means that it was illogical the whole time.

So even before I posted this, your reasoning was illogical. You not knowing and/or understanding that your reasoning is illogical, is irrelevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are speaking for yourself, Tb. Here's what you said...
"I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence".

But I did not say:

samtonga43 said: ↑
Tb's real position.
The B.man says the Baha'i Faith is true.
∴ Tb thinks the Baha'i Faith is true.
∴ Tb believes the Baha'i Faith is true...

So that is a big fat straw man.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it is a belief. But it is not evidence.

It is my belief that all of the Manifestations of God were evidence that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, a lot of claims, but zero objective evidence.

The ONLY objective evidence of God that there will ever be are the Messengers of God. That is my belief, not a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

When born again Christians tell you that Jesus rose physically from the dead and that Satan is real, what do you tell them?

I tell them I am a Baha'i and Baha'is do not hold those beliefs. If they want to know why I explain it to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is my belief that all of the Manifestations of God were evidence that God exists.

And that is circular reasoning. In other words, there may be a God but your argument does not support that claim. Therefore it is not evidence.

In the sciences one cannot even claim to have evidence without a way to test one's beliefs. That is why science keeps advancing and religion . . . not so much.

 

[night912]

As an atheist, you only see the atheist perspective. From my perspective as a believer I have called out many logical fallacies that atheists have committed and I always explain what the fallacies were called and how they were committed. If you think I am wrong you are free to try to refute me but so far nobody has. To say you have refuted me is not the same thing as actually doing it. That would be like saying you won the football game when you never even went out on the playing field.

GUILTY of the charge of being ignorant of logic and what it means to explain how someone has committed a fallacy and why it is a fallacy. Copy and paste a fallacy from Wikipedia, is not giving an explanation. Restating what was posted and simply adding "you did this," is not giving an explanation. Someone who actually got an "A" in college for "logic" should be and will point out exactly where the fallacy was committed and why those particular statements make it fallacious within the context of what was said. And when it's being objected and explained why it was not fallacious, an A student would be fully capable of defending her accusations. An honest person with integrity who understands "logic" wouldn't dodge the counterargument, or worse, give their counterargument only to show that it was in fact, they themselves who were wrong.

This conclusion was made only after repeated observations

 

[night912]

I am not denying that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. As I said, only if the premise is true can the conclusion be true and since I cannot prove any of my premises are true I cannot claim that my conclusions are true and that is why I am not foolish enough to try to make any 'formal' logical arguments for God or Baha'u'llah.

Sooner or later, the dishonest person will slip up and show that her dishonesty. Looks like Trailblazer had motive thus whole time about making a claim.

Your God, Thor has spoken.

 

[night912]

And that is circular reasoning. In other words, there may be a God but your argument does not support that claim. Therefore it is not evidence.

In the sciences one cannot even claim to have evidence without a way to test one's beliefs. That is why science keeps advancing and religion . . . not so much.

I see that Trailblazer is using her usual tactics here, backpedaling and saying, "it's only my belief."

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is circular reasoning. In other words, there may be a God but your argument does not support that claim. Therefore it is not evidence.

It is circular reasoning but that does not mean that Messengers of God are not evidence for God.
If God sent Messengers as evidence it is evidence but if God did not send Messengers as evidence then it is not evidence...
It's that simple.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists based upon that premise.

Since I can never prove that Messengers are evidence I am not claiming that they are. I am only stating a belief.

In the sciences one cannot even claim to have evidence without a way to test one's beliefs. That is why science keeps advancing and religion . . . not so much.

Science and religion are not the same and as such the evidence can never be the same.

Religion also keeps advancing, every time God sends a new Messenger. In the past religion advanced very gradually but since Baha'u'llah came it has been advancing very rapidly and will continue to do so. It is my belief that the reason that science has advanced much more rapidly in the last 170 years than ever before is because of the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah who released the Holy Spirit into the world. stimulating all kinds of human progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is circular reasoning but that does not mean that Messengers of God are not evidence for God.
If God sent Messengers as evidence it is evidence but if God did not send Messengers as evidence then it is not evidence...
It's that simple.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists based upon that premise.

Since I can never prove that Messengers are evidence I am not claiming that they are. I am only stating a belief.

Science and religion are not the same and as such the evidence can never be the same.

Religion also keeps advancing, every time God sends a new Messenger. In the past religion advanced very gradually but since Baha'u'llah came it has been advancing very rapidly and will continue to do so. It is my belief that the reason that science has advanced much more rapidly in the last 170 years than ever before is because of the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah who released the Holy Spirit into the world. stimulating all kinds of human progress.

I already pointed that out to you. You could be right. The odds are that you are terribly wrong, but you could be right.

The problem is that it is not evidence. It does not support your beliefs. It might make you feel better with you think that you have supported your beliefs, but you would be wrong about that.

 

[Tiberius]

Once again, Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is the one who had the burden of proof!
I have no burden of proof because I made no claims. I just believe the claims.

Once again, you are presenting the claims as fact, so you have taken the burden of proof onto your own shoulders.

It is perfectly reliable because God gave us all a rational mind for cognitive reasoning. With cognitive reasoning, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it.

Circular reasoning. You can't take "God exists" as a premise when it is also your conclusion.

You can say any silly thing you want to say.

Let's be clear about one thing here: The "silly thing" you accuse me of saying is literally the exact same thing you are saying to defend your position.

It is still unrealistic and illogical to expect religious beliefs to be testable and verifiable the same way scientific things are since religion is DIFFERENT from science.

It is still unrealistic and illogical to expect magical beliefs to be testable and verifiable the same way scientific or religious things are since magic is DIFFERENT from science and religion.

Messengers of God provide evidence to back up their claims that they received communication from God.

Please provide this testable evidence which actually backs up their claims.

I do not have to specify that my belief is not a claim but if people want to believe that it is their own business.

When you present your belief as the truth about how the universe works, you are making it a claim. Your constant hiding behind the "I wasn't making a claim" defense is tired and fooling no one.

Why, because I believe there are other theories about what causes disease that do not attribute diseases to germs?

"Towards the end of Louis Pasteur’s life, he confessed that germs may not be the cause of disease after all, but may simply be another symptom of disease. He had come to realize that germs seem to lead to illness primarily when the person’s immune and defense system (what biologists call “host resistance”) is not strong enough to combat them. The “cause” of disease is not simply a bacteria but also the factors that compromise host resistance, including the person’s hereditary endowment, his nutritional state, the stresses in his life, and his psychological state. In describing one of his experiments with silkworms, Pasteur asserted that the microorganisms present in such large numbers in the intestinal tract of the sick worms were “more an effect than a cause of disease.” (1)

With these far-reaching insights Pasteur conceived an ecological understanding of infectious disease. Infectious disease does not simply have a single cause but is the result of a complex web of interactions within and outside the individual.

https://homeopathic.com/a-homeopath...isease-effective-alternatives-to-antibiotics/

Which actual scientists have rejected. Pasteur was working without the huge amount of medical information we have today. And are you really using a website about homeopathy to back up your claims? What's next? Iridology? Psychic surgery?

Please don't bother.

I don't see how you expect anyone to have a rational discussion with you if you insist on holding onto flawed ideas.

God cannot be measured because God is not a physical entity. Because God is not physical God can NEVER be shown or known directly. God can only be shown and known through His Messengers.

And his messengers experience him directly.

I never said anything about accepting a belief as factual. Beliefs can never be factual since that would make them facts, not beliefs. The rest of what you said accurately represents my position.

So you are saying that your belief in God does mean mean that God is factual?

I'll agree with that. God is not factual.

No, you did not tell me why the 3 ways of knowing is rubbish.

I was referring to your 15 types of evidence post, which I dealt with here: Why do people leave Christianity?

This is just entertainment for me unless I have somebody who wants to know what I believe and we can debate about if it is true or not. Obviously that is not the case with you since you already have your mind made up so it has devolved into entertainment for me. It is not as if I am going to become an atheist from debating with you.

If you are going to say that it's not worth having a discussion with someone who has already made up their mind, why should any of us bother having a discussion with you, when you've made it abundantly clear that you have already made up your mind?

By the way, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind. I'm just not going to do it based on arguments built of a lack of evidence and logical fallacies. Since that's all you've got, I can understand why you think I've already made up my mind.

If I was going to become an atheist it would not be for the reasons you are an atheist, it would be because I have issues with God. There is no question in my mind as to whether God exists or not, I am sure of that, I just don't like God that much. My husband always tells me that I should become an atheist but he gets the same answer every time. I cannot become an atheist because I know that God exists and I know that God exists because of Baha'u'llah.

So you would lack a belief in God because you are made at him?

So you would be mad at a being you had no belief in?

What kind of logic is that? It's like me being mad at Grand Moff Tarkin for blowing up Alderaan.

How can any rational person have legitimate anger towards a character they believe is ficticious?

That is illogical but that is what I have come to expect with atheists. Evidence does not become evidence because I can use it to prove that God exists to other people. Evidence is just evidence. Evidence is evidence regardless of whether not prove anything to anyone A detective gathers evidence for the prosecutor who presents the evidence to the jury. It was evidence as soon as it was gathered, it did not suddenly BECOME evidence after the jury looked at it and it proved that the defendant was innocent or guilty.

Everyone has to look at the evidence and demonstrate that God exists to themself. Nobody can prove to other people that God exists. If you ever bothered to think it through you would know why, but since you think there is some kind of testable evidence that does not exist that is why you expect someone to be able to prove to you that God exists.

The point you seem incapable of grasping is that if you can't share it with anyone, then as far as anyone else knows, you don't have any evidence at all, you just SAY you do.

Any idiot can SAY they have evidence for anything they want if they never actually have to show it to anyone else.

An opinion is not a bias unless it is a biased opinion.

Really? Is this statement of the obvious supposed to communicate something? In related news, a steering wheel is a wheel used for steering.

Recognizing the evidence that proves the Baha'i Faith is true and then becoming a Baha'i is not a biased opinion..

Except that's not what you did.

What you did was more akin to me recognizing that since Star Trek has many accurate claims (Wolf 359 is a real star, the first manned moon landing mission was launched on a Wednesday, Utopia Planetia is a real place on Mars, etc), then it must also be correct about Klingons being real.

I could just as easily say you have a biased opinion towards atheism because you don't see any evidence for God but I would never say that because it makes no sense at all ans it is based upon distorted thinking.

No you couldn't. Because I don't decide what counts as evidence or not based on whether it agrees with what I've decided to be true. Nor do I base my position on logical fallacies.

As long as your thinking remains the same this is just going to keep going in circles. That is not a debate, it is just you continuing to hold your ground and nothing ever changes. We just keep going around in circles.

My thinking is that I will accept whatever is based on testable evidence. If there is no testable evidence for a thing, I see no reason to accept that thing. That does NOT mean I conclude that thing is false, please note.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already pointed that out to you. You could be right. The odds are that you are terribly wrong, but you could be right.

The problem is that it is not evidence. It does not support your beliefs. It might make you feel better with you think that you have supported your beliefs, but you would be wrong about that.

Like I said:
If God sent Messengers as evidence it is evidence but if God did not send Messengers as evidence then it is not evidence...
Do you disagree with that and if so why?

I am not trying to support my beliefs, I am just trying to be logical. Let's say that God exists. Where would humans get the evidence if not from God? And if the evidence came from God what would it be? In other words, how do you think that God could prove that He exists and also communicate information to humans, because what is the point of knowing that God exists if we know nothing about God or God's will for us?