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

[David Weaver]

@Trailblazer Look just slow your language. You're making things unnecessarily complicated for yourself. You don't need to explain quantum physics to utilize its information. You only need to know what the experts in that field say about it. Keep it simple and there won't be so many tangles in language

 

[David Weaver]

Here is the argument I'm going to present in a nutshell: I want to show that time, space, matter, physics, and chemistry (our known universe) all point to a single cause and that the most reasonable explanation of that cause is God.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no way to know why the writers wrote the stories as they did.

Well, one possibility would be to get them to obey the rules and practices of the religion. If God literally was going to destroy people or cause bad things to happen if they disobeyed, then the people might tend to follow and obey. If they were told, "God struck down this poor smuck for lying to the priest. But, that's only metaphorical. God really didn't do that, literally, just figuratively." Then what? As we know, good stuff happens and bad stuff happens. Was it really depended on obeying or disobeying the rules of the religion?

 

[CG Didymus]

Objective evidence of God would be the Messengers of God since they actually existed in reality.

Of which I question the validity of the Baha'i claim of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses being manifestations. And why do you keep using "Messengers" and not "Manifestations"? I think the word "angels" is used as being a "messenger" of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm tired of the semantic games.

If you say you know something, you are saying you know it to be true and you are making a knowledge claim.
Otherwise, why say you "know" a thing, if you're not claiming it to be true and part of reality?

No, I can know something and I can say I know something without making a knowledge claim....

I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else.

Claims require proof. Since I cannot prove what I know is true I cannot claim it is a fact, but I can still know that what I believe is true since all knowledge is not based on facts that can be proven true. In
short, I do not claim that what I believe is true and expect others to believe it is true because I cannot prove it is true, but I can still say I know they are true because certitude is an inner knowing, and nobody can take my certitude away from me because it isn't theirs to take.

Definition of know

transitive verb

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

 

[Trailblazer]

And why do you keep using "Messengers" and not "Manifestations"?

Because most people don't know what a Manifestation of God is but they do know what a Messenger of God is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I can know something and I can say I know something without making a knowledge claim....

I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else.

Claims require proof. Since I cannot prove what I know is true I cannot claim it is a fact, but I can still know that what I believe is true since all knowledge is not based on facts that can be proven true. In
short, I do not claim that what I believe is true and expect others to believe it is true because I cannot prove it is true, but I can still say I know they are true because certitude is an inner knowing, and nobody can take my certitude away from me because it isn't theirs to take.

Definition of know

transitive verb

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

You lost me at your first sentence, which contradicts itself:
"No, I can know something and I can say I know something without making a knowledge claim...."

 

[CG Didymus]

Because most people don't know what a Manifestation of God is but they do know what a Messenger of God is.

I think it is important for Baha'is to make it clear. A manifestation is not an ordinary human but a special creation. These manifestations are perfect reflections of God, which is why I don't think Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses qualify. They all had human flaws and were all fallible... especially Adam. Yet, he has a cycle named after him? Plus, not one of them wrote a book nor started a religion. They are all part of the story of Judaism. But, are they actual, historical people? Or just legends? So possibly they aren't even historical, real people and if they were, they were never presented in the stories as being more than ordinary humans. Even in Christianity they are made into manifestations. So, the only reason I can figure... is that they are made manifestations to support the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. Otherwise, why would they need to be anything other than ordinary people?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is important for Baha'is to make it clear. A manifestation is not an ordinary human but a special creation.

I do make that clear whenever it comes up in a conversation.

These manifestations are perfect reflections of God, which is why I don't think Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses qualify. They all had human flaws and were all fallible... especially Adam.

You do not know any of that. You are basing it upon the Bible, and we both know that is not an accurate rendition of history.

So, the only reason I can figure... is that they are made manifestations to support the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. Otherwise, why would they need to be anything other than ordinary people?

No, that is not the reason. The reason is because of what Baha'u'lalh wrote. As far as I know, Baha'u'llah did not call them Manifestations, He called them Prophets in the Kitab-i-Iqan. Other Baha'is might have read other Writings I am unfamiliar with. I suggest you ask @Truthseeker9 about this since he knows the Baha'i Writings better than I do.

 

[Trailblazer]

You lost me at your first sentence, which contradicts itself:
"No, I can know something and I can say I know something without making a knowledge claim...."

There is no contradiction in that sentence because a person can know something and say they know something without claiming that it is true.
Moreover, I explained why I am not making a knowledge claim:

I said: "I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else."

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no contradiction in that sentence because a person can know something and say they know something without claiming that it is true.
Moreover, I explained why I am not making a knowledge claim:

I said: "I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else."

Why bother with these silly semantic games?
You're making claims. And not only that, you're making knowledge claims and then claiming you're not making knowledge claims.
If you are saying you know something is true, then you are making a truth claim. There is no way around it.
The very fact that you have to tie yourself up in knots and perform all kinds of semantical gymnastics in some attempt to make your position make sense speaks volumes about that position.
Why do you think pretty much everyone else on this thread seems to think you're making claims?
Because you are! So many of them.

 

[Sheldon]

I said: "I do not make a knowledge claim because I cannot prove what I know is true to anyone else."

Ok, but you do realising you're claiming that you believe it to be true? When one asserts a belief, it a claim one believes something to be true. Since a belief is defined as an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Of course knowledge of the truth or validity of a claim is not a binary condition, rather it is a scale of certainty. Now whist I can envisage that we can have no good reason to believe something, I do not believe that absolute truth or 100% certainty is epistemologically possible, and I also think such claims to certainty represent obvious bias and being closed minded.

It's bizarre but some theists here are asserting their belief is not a claim, while others are trying to insist my lack of belief is a belief and therefore claim.

 

[Muffled]

I see an awful lot of claims here.

What is a "spirit being" and how do we know they exist?

I believe first of all the Bible says so and second by experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why bother with these silly semantic games?
You're making claims. And not only that, you're making knowledge claims and then claiming you're not making knowledge claims.
If you are saying you know something is true, then you are making a truth claim. There is no way around it.

No, I am not making a claim and I already explained why in great detail so there is no need for me to repeat myself.
I am making a belief statement and that is not a claim by any stretch of the imagination.

The question I think you need to ask yourself is why it is so important for you to think I am making a claim.
Do I tell YOU what I think YOU are doing? I consider it disrespectful to insist what another person is doing after they already explained what they are doing and why.

The very fact that you have to tie yourself up in knots and perform all kinds of semantical gymnastics in some attempt to make your position make sense speaks volumes about that position.
Why do you think pretty much everyone else on this thread seems to think you're making claims?
Because you are! So many of them.

I am not tied in any knots. There are rational atheists on this forum who understand why I am not making any claims, they are just not on this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, but you do realising you're claiming that you believe it to be true?

I am not claiming that I believe it to be true, I am saying I believe it is true.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it is important for Baha'is to make it clear. A manifestation is not an ordinary human but a special creation. These manifestations are perfect reflections of God, which is why I don't think Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses qualify. They all had human flaws and were all fallible... especially Adam. Yet, he has a cycle named after him? Plus, not one of them wrote a book nor started a religion. They are all part of the story of Judaism. But, are they actual, historical people? Or just legends? So possibly they aren't even historical, real people and if they were, they were never presented in the stories as being more than ordinary humans. Even in Christianity they are made into manifestations. So, the only reason I can figure... is that they are made manifestations to support the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. Otherwise, why would they need to be anything other than ordinary people?

You do not know any of that. You are basing it upon the Bible, and we both know that is not an accurate rendition of history.

Isn't that what I said? Are they even real people or just myths and legends? So, why make them manifestations? Or why make them even prophets? That still doesn't work for Adam and I don't know anyone who called Noah a prophet. And both Abraham and Moses are on every list I've seen of people Baha'is call manifestations. I still think it's stuff made up by Baha'u'llah to support progressive revelation. What other purpose would it serve? Here's what I found. But I'm not going to check the references, and I doubt you will either.

Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.

Throughout the ages, humanity’s spiritual, intellectual and moral capacities have been cultivated by the Founders of the great religions, among them Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and—in more recent times—the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.
These Figures are not simply ordinary people with a greater knowledge than others. Rather they are Manifestations of God...

The Manifestations of God include: Adam, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, The Báb. Bahá'u'lláh
While these are among the Manifestations mentioned in the Bahá'í writings, there are others mentioned by name in Bahá'u'lláh's writings and he indicates that there are many more prophets than are named.

"The Adamic Cycle inaugurated 6000 years ago by the Manifestation of God called Adam is only one of the many bygone cycles. Bahá’u’lláh, as you say, is the culmination of the Adamic Cycle. He is also the Inaugurator of the Bahá’í Cycle...
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, March 13, 1986, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1683)
​

 

[Trailblazer]

So, why make them manifestations? Or why make them even prophets?

Nobody made them prophets or Manifestations. Baha'u'llah revealed that is what they were and I believe Him.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe first of all the Bible says so and second by experience.

I'm not sure that answers my question ...

What is a "spirit being" and how do we know they exist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I am not making a claim and I already explained why in great detail so there is no need for me to repeat myself.
I am making a belief statement and that is not a claim by any stretch of the imagination.

The question I think you need to ask yourself is why it is so important for you to think I am making a claim.
Do I tell YOU what I think YOU are doing? I consider it disrespectful to insist what another person is doing after they already explained what they are doing and why.

I am not tied in any knots. There are rational atheists on this forum who understand why I am not making any claims, they are just not on this thread.

You can say that you're not (as you've done countless times) but it doesn't change the fact that you are.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can say that you're not (as you've done countless times) but it doesn't change the fact that you are.

You can say that I am (as you've done countless times) but it doesn't change the fact that I am not.
The 100 dollar question is why you waste so much time on such nonsense.
I can only guess it means that you have to be right, but you are not and never will be right about me.