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

[Trailblazer]

So you are telling me that your faith is entirely consistent with Christianity, Judaism and Islam?
REALLY?

I never said that. I said I certainly do not believe that everything that Christianity teaches is consistent with what my religion teaches. The same applies to Judaism and Islam. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have all been changed by men since they were originally revealed by God revealed and in many cases they have been corrupted by man.

Same difference. If you don't want something in Christianity to be true because it would contradict your own faith, then you just claim it isn't literally and thus you can ignore it.

I can ignore anything I want to ignore, especially after I have determined it is a false belief. I am not worried that there is anything in Christianity that could refute my beliefs.

Jesus never claimed to be God? John 10:30 I and my Father are one. The Jewish people stoning him certainly took this to be Jesus saying he was God, as evidenced by John 10:33.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one does not mean Jesus is God. It means they are one in purpose. No, Jesus never claimed to be God. For a list of some of the many verses that show that Jesus is not God:

Jesus is not God Bible verses

And you think that the general agreement among Christians is that Jesus' resurrection is "just a story"? HA! The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus literally did come back from the dead. Are you going to dismiss anything you don't want to agree with as "just a story"? And then, no doubt, you'll say that all the bits that aren't "just a story" support your beliefs. Of course they do, because you've conveniently found a way to say, "Oh, but those don't count" when faced with any passages that wouldn't fit your beliefs well.

I do not care if the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus came back from the dead, that does not mean it is true. To say that it is true because many or most people believe it is 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."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You have an obsession with me not believing some things in the Bible because you think they don't fit in with my beliefs, but that is not what is happening at all. There is nothing in the Bible that could refute my beliefs because the Word of God does not contradict itself, it just gets renewed in every age.

The City of God is the Revelation from God, the Word of God.

“…….. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned…

That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

 

[Truthseeker]

So you are telling me that your faith is entirely consistent with Christianity, Judaism and Islam?

REALLY?

Not Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but the Messengers Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. You would have to study a long time to realize they are consistent, plus manifest the spiritual eyes to see that. That won't happen here.

 

[Truthseeker]

And you think that the general agreement among Christians is that Jesus' resurrection is "just a story"? HA! The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus literally did come back from the dead.

Demonstrating again that you're not serious.

 

[Truthseeker]

In summary then, Buddhists are wrong about Buddhism, but Bahai's have got it right.

I'll tell you the reason why what the Buddha actually said and meant has to be consistent with what Baha'u'llah said and meant, in our view. We believe in both, so if they contradict with no room for error we would be abandoning our faith. I hope this doesn't ruffle your feathers. On the one hand we know what Baha'u'llah wrote, on the other hand we don't know what the Buddha said according to scholarship which has it's limitations, but it's all we have.

 

[Truthseeker]

t is a completely moot point whether God is capable of communicating directly to everyone or not because no ordinary human could understand God if God communicated directly to them. God created humans a certain way so humans are incapable of understanding communication from God directly.

Please do not bother to say that God could MAKE humans understand Him because God is omnipotent, since that is not logical. Human brains were created with a certain capacity so God would have to recreate humans with a different capacity (the capacity the Messengers have) in order for humans to understand direct communication from God.

Give it up.

 

[Truthseeker]

Metaphysics is of course not everything, but it underlies the whole basis of Buddhism.

I disagree. I don't think the four noble truths and the eightfold path are based on those metaphysics, for instance. Do you have to know there is no God or no soul to apply the teachings? Did you read the article about the Buddha that Trailblazer provided to you? I don't think you did. It says this at on place:

On one occasion, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha a number of questions: whether or not the world is eternal; whether the world is finite or infinite; whether or not the soul and the body are identical; and about the existence of the saint after death. He received no direct reply. Instead the Buddha related a parable: "It is as if a man is hit by a poison arrow. His friends hasten to the doctor. The latter is about to draw the arrow out of the wound. The wounded man however cries: `Stop, I will not have the arrow drawn out until I know who shot it. Whether a warrior or a Brahmin, or belonging to the agricultural or menial castes . . . his name and to which family he belonged . . . of what species and description the arrow is.'" In seeking to attain absolute knowledge of all of the circumstances of the shooting, the man neglected the practical matter of removing the arrow and would certainly die. Similarly, the Buddha asserts that were he to try to elucidate the answer to the questions that Malunkyaputta had put to him, "that person would die before the Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him"

In the same way knowing metaphysical question like whether the soul exists ot God exists is unprofitable in the Buddhist path, I would think. Those truths, if they exist, don't underlie the four noble truths and the eightfold path, in my opinion.

Perhaps what you are really saying is those truths are what all Buddhists have in common, which is something different.

 

[Truthseeker]

There's a higher rate of disbelief among scientists than among the general population. It would seem that an understanding of the inner workings of the universe and life points towards a creator not being required.

That's because of a split between science and religion, which was religionists fault concerning the first sentence, because they rejected science, at least in Christianity.

 

[Tiberius]

some scientists do and some scientists dont.

Of course. I was never trying to suggest that ALL scientists were atheists. I was pointing out that the percentage of scientists who had no religious belief was higher than in the general population.

I dont think statistics is what we should individually base our own decisions on, do you? People can be wrong and so can a scientist. They are not infallible. I think its best for every person to examine the facts on their own merit and come to their own determination of what they find reasonable to believe.

Again, I wasn't trying to say that. I was simply pointing out that your claim that studying science could lead to seeing the hand of a designer is not born out by the fact that scientists who study science to a much more involved degree than the average person do not seem to think that it points to a designer. I'm just pointing out that the people who have done what you suggested have not reached the conclusion you suggested would be reached by a study of science.

 

[Tiberius]

What other people believe is not my problem.

But what you believe IS your problem, and you need to have some way of determining if your beliefs are true. And simply saying, "I believe them to be true, so that settles it," just isn't a good enough way of determining the truth, is it?

 

[Tiberius]

True, I do not have the motivation or the time, which I would need to run a marathon..

So we are agreed. The capacity to do a thing is not, by itself, enough for that thing to be done.

You are right, and I already told you that atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time.

I said: You are right, atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time. Everyone has time but we each have only have so much time and depending upon our life situation we might have more or less free time. However, if people are motivated enough they can make some time, but if they have no interest for example in a alleged Messenger or if they feel it would be a waste of time because it would be hopeless to find God that way, then they won't even bother to make the time.
#851 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 10:12 PM

Then we are agreed, and your claim that, "everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God," is incorrect?

I said: Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.

And thus your claim that everyone has been given what they need is wrong.

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God, because if God had not given everyone the capacity to believe how could God expect people to believe?
I said: Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.
#772 Trailblazer, Sunday at 10:44 PM

I think you have the capacity to believe, but you do not have the motivation that you need to do the necessary investigation it would require to believe. You may or may not have the time. I hope we are done with this now.

But the capacity, which you said was what people need, is not enough.

And don't try to get out of it by saying that you never said it was ALL people need. By that logic, I can say, "I've given you what you need to build a house," and what I've given you is a single brick.

I am not going to answer that because I am not going to talk about hypothetical people who have no name since I consider it a waste of time. If you have a person in mind who met my criteria I will answer your question.

I assure you that this person is a real person, and one whose name you will recognise. That is why I have not provided their name. I would not want you to be influenced by any preconceived ideas about them that you may have. I would like for you to judge them solely on whether they have met your criteria.

 

[Tiberius]

Facts are never wrong because they have been proven to be right.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

Facts are exactly how you find out the truth about anything.

Superman is a real character in movies and comic books, but he is not a real person who exists.

There are no FACTS that show that Superman actually exists as a real person, but I know that Baha'u'llah was a person because that is a known FACT, and you will find it in any encyclopedia.

I never said that Baha'u'llah can be proven to be a Messenger of God just because I have FACTS about His life FACTS about what He did on His mission and FACTS about His Writings. This is evidence, not proof. Looking at the FACTS is just the first step in our investigation. The facts about the religion are only evidence for the truth of the religion ONLY if those facts indicate that the religion is true. There could be FACTS about a religion that indicate that the religion is false.

The evidence does not SAY anything. We look at the evidence we have and interpret it to mean what we think it means. Not everyone is going to think the same evidence means the same thing. For example, two detectives could disagree about some evidence that was gathered at a murder scene.

I never ignored any evidence. A long time ago I told you that I would be perfectly willing to look at any evidence I have not already seen that would potentially prove that Baha'u'llah is not who He claimed to be. I have already looked at a lot of that evidence because it was presented to me by people on this forum and other forums. It was that very evidence that made me look more into the facts and further solidified my beliefs after I determined that their so-called evidence against Baha'u'llah was nothing but calumny.

You missed my point completely.

Just because a person believes something to be a fact, it does not mean that it IS a fact.

People can be mistaken about it.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said that. I said I certainly do not believe that everything that Christianity teaches is consistent with what my religion teaches. The same applies to Judaism and Islam. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have all been changed by men since they were originally revealed by God revealed and in many cases they have been corrupted by man.

However, you said that any true messenger of God can't contradict another religion.

I suppose you should have said that any true messenger of God can't contradict the bits and pieces of other religions you've decided are compatible with your religion, but he can contradict the bits of other religions you've decided don't count.

I can ignore anything I want to ignore, especially after I have determined it is a false belief. I am not worried that there is anything in Christianity that could refute my beliefs.

Very well, I shall take the same philosophy.

Please demonstrate that your faith is correct without referring to anything I have deemed to be a false belief.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one does not mean Jesus is God. It means they are one in purpose. No, Jesus never claimed to be God. For a list of some of the many verses that show that Jesus is not God:

Jesus is not God Bible verses

Oh look, a religion that contradicts itself. Perhaps that suggests that the whole thing is just the work of men and is not correct at all?

I do not care if the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus came back from the dead, that does not mean it is true. To say that it is true because many or most people believe it is 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."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You have an obsession with me not believing some things in the Bible because you think they don't fit in with my beliefs, but that is not what is happening at all. There is nothing in the Bible that could refute my beliefs because the Word of God does not contradict itself, it just gets renewed in every age.

The City of God is the Revelation from God, the Word of God.

“…….. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned…

That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

And it has nothing to do with the fact that you don't want to believe something that would contradict your own faith, would it now?

Like I said, you pick and choose based on what's convenient for you to believe.

 

[Tiberius]

Not Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but the Messengers Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. You would have to study a long time to realize they are consistent, plus manifest the spiritual eyes to see that. That won't happen here.

Sounds to me like this is just saying, "You have to find an interpretation that lets you fit everything together and then decide that it's true based solely on your desire to make these different religions play nice together.

I'm sure I could find a way to get the Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who and Stargate universes to work together as well, but that doesn't mean that Rory and Amy are going to take the Stargate to the Enterprise to go and fight the Sith Lords.

 

[Tiberius]

Demonstrating again that you're not serious.

If you have a source that shows that my claim that most Christians think the resurrection was literal is wrong, please provide it.

 

[Tiberius]

That's because of a split between science and religion, which was religionists fault concerning the first sentence, because they rejected science, at least in Christianity.

And also that science not only shows no need for religion to explain things, but also that many religious teachings outright contradict the Bible and other religious texts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sounds to me like this is just saying, "You have to find an interpretation that lets you fit everything together and then decide that it's true based solely on your desire to make these different religions play nice together.

I'm sure I could find a way to get the Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who and Stargate universes to work together as well, but that doesn't mean that Rory and Amy are going to take the Stargate to the Enterprise to go and fight the Sith Lords.

Have you not heard about the new series Star Wars Trekking through the Stargate with Doctor Who

 

[Trailblazer]

Give it up.

I gave it up a long, long time ago, back in the Dotsman Days. I am just here for a little entertainment.

 

[samtonga43]

No, I am not admitting that.

Then you are being irrational.
The words “as far as I know” do indeed indicate that there is a possibility that these 'facts' you have about your faith are not true.

I know that God knows because God is all-knowing, which means that God knows everything; so God has to know that His Messengers have been successful, since they have been successful.

Hmmm... let's have a look at this 'logical' process.

1. Tb believes that...the messengers have been successful in getting their messages across.
2. God is all knowing
Therefore
3. God knows that the messengers have been successful in getting their messages across.

Really?

 

[samtonga43]

I gave it up a long, long time ago, back in the Dotsman Days. I am just here for a little entertainment.

You are fooling no one, Tb. Didn't you say this is your 'job'?

 

[ratiocinator]

It has worked just fine, except for atheists, who are only about 7% of the world population.

Of course it hasn't worked, it's an obvious abject failure, otherwise everybody would accept the latest messenger and be Baha'is. It's also an obvious failure because of all the suffering caused by religions' often violent disagreements. You can't claim the 83% when you think most of them have got it wrong.

There would be NOTHING rational about God communicating directly to everyone in the world, all 7.7 billion people.

This is just an assertion. Where is the actual reasoning? If god has a message for everybody, and the means to communicate directly to everybody (without the confusion and untold suffering caused by going through 'messengers' that contradict each other and don't even communicate with everyone anyway) then what on earth would be the point of not communicating with everybody directly?

God knows that Messengers have been successful in getting their messages across.

Except they haven't - see above.

It can never be proven that any of them actually had real messages from a real God. All one can do is prove it to themselves by doing the research necessary in order to uncover the facts about the Messenger and the religion he established.

And you've again directly said something that makes your god unfair. Without any clear evidence that any of the religion have a message from a real god, there is no rational reason to go looking through them just in case.

The 'clear message' regarding the 'work' God wants us to do in this age is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, not anywhere else.

Another assertion. There is no rational reason why a sceptic would believe you rather than any other religious claim. No matter how many times you repeat it, if the message is contained in one of the religious scriptures in the world, it is, effectively, hidden.