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

[Truthseeker]

Or, in summary, (from the viewpoint of samsara) nirvana is non-dual.

I admit you lost me there.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Princeton's WordNet definition:

1. fact (noun)
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
"first you must collect all the facts of the case"

2. fact (noun)
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
"he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

3. fact (noun)
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed
"your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

4. fact (noun)
a concept whose truth can be proved
"scientific hypotheses are not facts"

What does fact mean?

A person could be mistaken about the facts, but facts by definition have been verified to be right But just because we have facts about a religion that does not mean the religion is true because these facts could indicate that a religion is true or false. For example, I might have facts about Joseph Smith but that does not mean that the Mormon religion is a true religion.

 

[Truthseeker]

The B.man is infallible.
And there we have it, folks.
Tb has spoken.
Illogicality has the last word.

How do you know Jesus is infallible? Did you investigate? I hope you did like Trailblazer did.

 

[Truthseeker]

Nah, you definitely said it.

"...everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God..."

You don't want to be logical, you just want to confuse things.

 

[Truthseeker]

Are you going to claim everyone who disagrees with your point of view is not serious?

I already explained why I think you are not serious. Swallow it!

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Let's keep what the Messengers revealed in their scriptures separate from what the religions teach since they are NOT the same. Everything that Christianity, Judaism, teaches is NOT consistent with what my religion teaches because those have been corrupted by man over time.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when 172 the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

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

I cannot demonstrate that to you, you have to demonstrate it to yourself.

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?

The scriptures do not contradict each other but rather they are complementary. All the scriptures show that Jesus is not God. The only work of men was what was decided at the Council of Nicaea that Jesus is God. Men decided upon that doctrine and then most Christians followed what those men decided upon.

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.

Of course I get to choose what I believe, that is one reason I have free will. This has nothing to do with convenience. It has to do with following the new religion that God revealed for this new age. What about that do you NOT understand? Why would I want to follow a Bronze Age religion that has been corrupted by man and does not have the message that mankind needs in this new age when I have a new religion that has not been corrupted by man and has the message mankind needs for this new age?

 

[Trailblazer]

Except you've already admitted that you only consider it evidence if it supports what you want to believe.

No, I never said that. I said I would look at all the evidence, whether it supports my beliefs or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Myself, I wouldn't find this entertaining. It's just frustrating, I would think. I remember Dotsman well. It was endless.

True, it is only entertaining for so long and the timer is about to go off.

 

[Trailblazer]

So let me get this straight, because it will be important in a moment. The motivation can not be given by anyone, it must come from within the individual in question. Just making sure this is very clear.

Nah, you definitely said it.

"...everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God..."

I never said that the capacity is all they need. I said they ALSO need the motivation in order to USE their capacity.
God does not provide the motivation, God ONLY provides the capacity.

And here's why that motivation bit is important.

You said earlier that motivation can ONLY come from within the person. It can not come from outside them. ANd yet now you are completely changing your tune and saying that God provides the motivation!

It's almost like you are making it up as you go.

When your story changes so often, are you really surprised that I find your claims to be weak and flawed?

I never said that God provides the motivation to believe. God only provides the capacity. Why are you misrepresenting me?

And let's not forget that you presented those five criteria and then said that there were other criteria that needed to be met once the person in question has met those first five criteria. Now, I have demonstrated that this person has met the first five criteria, and I am asking you to say what these additional criteria are that need to be met.

Or are those first five criteria all that there is?

You have not demonstrated anything because you need a real person to demonstrate something applies to him.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God."

 

[Tiberius]

I wasn't referring to that. It's your flippant attitude. Wh cares if most Christians believe that? I don't. As if that's a criterion for truth.

So what? Since you aren't a Christian, I didn't figure you'd believe in the same stuff that Christians believe.

However, Trailblazer specifically stated, "As for Jesus rising from the dead, those are just stories and not all Christians interpret them literally."

So it's rather rude of you to jump into a conversation I am having with someone else, then say that it's irrelevant what Christians believe in a conversation that is literally about what Christians believe.

 

[Tiberius]

What about what you want to believe?

We're not talking about that, are we?

 

[Tiberius]

Princeton's WordNet definition:

1. fact (noun)
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
"first you must collect all the facts of the case"

2. fact (noun)
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
"he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

3. fact (noun)
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed
"your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

4. fact (noun)
a concept whose truth can be proved
"scientific hypotheses are not facts"

What does fact mean?

A person could be mistaken about the facts, but facts by definition have been verified to be right But just because we have facts about a religion that does not mean the religion is true because these facts could indicate that a religion is true or false. For example, I might have facts about Joseph Smith but that does not mean that the Mormon religion is a true religion.

You seem incapable of understanding a very simple point.

Joe says it is a fact that the Earth is flat.

The Earth is not flat.

Joe, however, is utterly convinced that the Earth is flat. From Joe's point of view, he is justified in claiming that "the earth is flat" is a fact.

Once again, just because someone is convinced that a statement is factual does not mean that the statement really is a fact.

 

[Tiberius]

You don't want to be logical, you just want to confuse things.

Are you suggesting that what I quoted was not said?

 

[Tiberius]

I already explained why I think you are not serious. Swallow it!

So why do you keep replying to me if you have no intention of having a discussion with me?

 

[Tiberius]

Let's keep what the Messengers revealed in their scriptures separate from what the religions teach since they are NOT the same. Everything that Christianity, Judaism, teaches is NOT consistent with what my religion teaches because those have been corrupted by man over time.

A convenient excuse.

I cannot demonstrate that to you, you have to demonstrate it to yourself.

I consider it a false belief that only I can demonstrate it to myself. Thus I reject your answer and ask you again to demonstrate that your belief is correct.

The scriptures do not contradict each other but rather they are complementary. All the scriptures show that Jesus is not God. The only work of men was what was decided at the Council of Nicaea that Jesus is God. Men decided upon that doctrine and then most Christians followed what those men decided upon.

lol, you decide that you are better qualified as to what counts as an accurate source for Christian beliefs than the Christian churches.

Of course I get to choose what I believe, that is one reason I have free will. This has nothing to do with convenience. It has to do with following the new religion that God revealed for this new age. What about that do you NOT understand? Why would I want to follow a Bronze Age religion that has been corrupted by man and does not have the message that mankind needs in this new age when I have a new religion that has not been corrupted by man and has the message mankind needs for this new age?

Then your beliefs are nothing but opinion. When it comes to objective fact, you do not get to believe whatever you want. You do not get to believe that it is sunny if there is rain pouring from thick clouds.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I never said that. I said I would look at all the evidence, whether it supports my beliefs or not.

And the only things that count as evidence for the truth of a religion are the things that say the religion is true. You said it yourself. So if there's something that suggests your religious belief is false, then you reject it, because (according to your logic) it isn't actually evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

I showed you the statistics as to how many people believe in God because of one of the Messengers of God. It is completely illogical to expect those people of the older religions to recognize and believe in the latest Messenger of God.

But you said "You are correct in saying that most of them have not found the correct message and are not doing what God wants..." (#717) Hence the messenger system fails again.

Religious believers do not have everything wrong just because they did not recognize Baha'u'llah.

But they've got lots wrong, so the messenger system demonstrably isn't working. And even if everybody believed even vaguely similar things (I think you're also ignoring polytheists) this would still be an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

The suffering caused by religions' often violent disagreements has been a failure on the part of religious believers, not a failure on the part of God or His Messengers.

Do you deny that a lot of suffering could have been avoided if everybody knew the truth, i.e. if this god of yours had come up with a better way to communicate with them?

So God is supposed to communicate everything He communicated to Baha'u'llah, all of the 15,000 Tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote over the course of 40 years, and all of 7.7 billion people in the world are going to be able to understand what God communicated and write it down? Do you even realize how unrealistic that is? It is also unnecessary because that is in the Baha’i Reference Library for all to read.

Nope - the simple message that Baha'i Library is the latest message from god would do perfectly well if it was made clear to everybody.

What is UNFAIR about God expecting you to do the research necessary in order to uncover the facts about the Messenger and the religion He established? If you want a college degree do you tell the professors that it is "unreasonable" to expect you to do research? I have two Masters degrees and I had to do a lot of research. You won't have any clear evidence that the religion has a message from a real God unless you do the research.

We've done this before (almost word for word). It's obviously unfair because there is no reason to think there is a god at all, and even less that one (or more) of the religions is a true message. I'm not going to work to pass an exam or get a degree that I don't even think exists.

What you're 'arguing' here is entirely circular, you'll never have a proper reason to study the religion until you study the religion. It's not only unfair, it utterly absurd.

A rational person would look at the LATEST Messenger of God and His messages rather than a Bronze Age religion and those messages.

What's the reason a rational person would look at any of the religions? The second part is begging the question because it only makes sense if you think there has been a series of messengers, rather than just one revelation, which is a part of your faith. You can't use the truth of your faith to argue that somebody should look specifically at your faith to find out if it's true.

The message is not hidden, it is all over the internet. All you have to do is look for it.

Yet again: I didn't mean hidden in that sense (how many times do I need to repeat this?) It is hidden because there is no reason to think it is any more true than any other faith. To a sceptic, it looks exactly like just another human religion (or other superstition).

 

[samtonga43]

How do you know Jesus is infallible?

I don't know; I believe.
Unlike Tb, who knows.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

It is hidden because there is no reason to think it is any more true than any other faith. To a sceptic, it looks exactly like just another human religion (or other superstition).

Yeah. I think the message is hidden in the details of the bible and the Quran.
And there are other religions around the world with exactly the same message.


But I could not find the same message in the words of Baha'u'llah.

 

[samtonga43]

What message is that?

That only Christ brings hope, peace, deliverance and salvation. Only Christ can make us right with God.