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

[Trailblazer]

How convenient. A way for you to discard any such claim without even having to bother knowing a thing about it.

If it was before 1852, then it doesn't count because Mr B came and thus the previous guy is now out of the picture. If it is after, then it can be discounted because Mr B said it doesn't count. And there no need to worry about after 2852, because we'll all be long dead by then.

If he came before 1852 and he met the criteria he would have been a Messenger even though his revelation has now been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. If he came after 2852 it certainly would count because the people living at that time would need to recognize him if they wanted to get the new message from God.

And would you accept a person who claimed to be a messenger if they never claimed there were any prophecies about themselves?

I wouldn't accept that person because I already accepted Baha'u'llah, so I know that there cannot be any more true Messengers until at least 2852 AD.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it is just how you are interpreting what I said. I said I would definitely know if I was wrong after being a Baha'i for 50 years, and since I have not determined I am wrong after 50 years, I know I am not wrong. But hypothetically speaking a person 'could be wrong' about a belief they have held for over 50 years since nobody can ever prove that a religion is true as a fact, any or all religions could be wrong and there could be no God at all.

Then by your own admission you don't KNOW, you just BELIEVE you are not wrong.

Because I believe they are true. Why would I tell people I believe they are false? In that case I'd be lying.
I am speaking for what "I believe" but that does not mean I am trying to justify my beliefs to other people or get other people to accept my beliefs as true. I go strictly by what Baha'u'llah wrote, that the decision to accept a belief as true must come from oneself, not from someone else who convinced us that the belief was true.

“If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

You miss my point. Why are you telling people what your beliefs are if you don't care if they believe the same as you or not?

 

[Tiberius]

If he came before 1852 and he met the criteria he would have been a Messenger even though his revelation has now been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. If he came after 2852 it certainly would count because the people living at that time would need to recognize him if they wanted to get the new message from God.

I wouldn't accept that person because I already accepted Baha'u'llah, so I know that there cannot be any more true Messengers until at least 2852 AD.

Like I said, how convenient that your religion has a way to compeltely discard anything that would change it.

 

[samtonga43]

I said I would definitely know if I was wrong after being a Baha'i for 50 years, and since I have not determined I am wrong after 50 years, I know I am not wrong.

This is irrational, Tb. What's more, as you continue to attempt to defend your illogical statements, you are digging a hole for yourself. I would stop digging if I were you.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is irrational, Tb. What's more, as you continue to attempt to defend your illogical statements, you are digging a hole for yourself. I would stop digging if I were you.

I said I would definitely know if I was wrong after being a Baha'i for 50 years, and since I have not determined I am wrong after 50 years, I know I am not wrong.

Do you even know why I said that and what I meant by it? I meant that I have not uncovered any evidence that proves me wrong in over 50 years, all I have uncovered is evidence that proves me right, and that is how I now I am right and not wrong. There is nothing illogical about that, since evidence is the way we know we are right or wrong.

Do you really think I care if a few people on a forum think I am illogical? I know I am logical, so why would I care how others label me? Moreover, I do not have to defend anything to anybody.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then by your own admission you don't KNOW, you just BELIEVE you are not wrong.

I am not going to play word games with you. I have told you before that I know. Just became you cannot understand how I know that does not mean I don't know. There is more than one way we can know that something is true.

Definition of know

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

You miss my point. Why are you telling people what your beliefs are if you don't care if they believe the same as you or not?

Because people are talking to me about my beliefs. If I just bought a new car and I was telling people about my new car would that mean I care if they get a new car just like my new car?

 

[Trailblazer]

Like I said, how convenient that your religion has a way to completely discard anything that would change it.

It is not only convenient, it is absolutely necessary, because a revealed religion is not supposed to change after it has been revealed by God. The goal is for that religion to remain unaltered, much unlike happened to all the religions of the past, such as Christianity and many others which were altered by the followers.

The Baha'i Faith will stand as the religion God is working through during the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, until God sends another Messenger who will be designated to reveal a new religion which will then be the religion God will work through.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

By God's appointment and arrangement the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is only according to one religion at a time, the religion that was revealed during the age to which it pertains. Once Baha'u'llah completed His Mission on earth and wrote scriptures, what He wrote is pertinent until the next Messenger of God appears. We do not want it to change from what was originally revealed by Baha'u'llah because then it would no longer be the religion of God, it would be a religion that was altered by man.

 

[paarsurrey]

Critical thinking and skepticism led me to Atheism. For a little background. I have an associates in religion, a bachelor's in theology, an associates in philosophy, and am a law student. I've always been fascinated by world religions and have continued my education on the subject in spite of my other studies. In answer to your question, " What am I willing to be convinced of"? I'm willing to be convinced of the truth. I want my model of reality to match actual reality as closely as possible. I find discourse to be one of the many tools we can use to root out fallacious beliefs that would misalign our model of reality with actual reality. I'm very open to changing my mind if the evidence warrants it. I like science am not static.

" Critical thinking and skepticism led me to Atheism. "

Did one ever apply:

1. the same tools of " critical thinking "
2. and the same tools of " skepticism "

against Atheism, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Critical thinking and skepticism led me to Atheism. For a little background. I have an associates in religion, a bachelor's in theology, an associates in philosophy, and am a law student. I've always been fascinated by world religions and have continued my education on the subject in spite of my other studies. In answer to your question, " What am I willing to be convinced of"? I'm willing to be convinced of the truth. I want my model of reality to match actual reality as closely as possible. I find discourse to be one of the many tools we can use to root out fallacious beliefs that would misalign our model of reality with actual reality. I'm very open to changing my mind if the evidence warrants it. I like science am not static.

" I like science am not static. "

But, did "science" ever approve of Atheism, please?
If yes, then please quote from the textbook of relative discipline of science that did it, please. Right?

Regards

 

[samtonga43]

I said I would definitely know if I was wrong after being a Baha'i for 50 years, and since I have not determined I am wrong after 50 years, I know I am not wrong.

No possibility whatsoever?

Do you really think I care if a few people on a forum think I am illogical? I know I am logical, so why would I care how others label me?

You know, Tb, you are one of the most illogical posters I have ever come across. But I do realise that you cannot believe this; it would cost you too much.

Moreover, I do not have to defend anything to anybody.

Of course you don't. So why do you keep trying to do so?

 

[samtonga43]

By God's appointment and arrangement the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is only according to one religion at a time

How do you know this?

 

[CG Didymus]

The answer is because we believe that whatever Baha'u'llah wrote is true. It does not matter what people believed about Abraham and Moses from what is written in older scriptures because Baha'u'llah brought the most current revelation from God.

Nothing sounds weird to me at all, it all makes sense. There is no reason to believe that the Buddhists of today have it right since (a) they do not even agree amongst themselves and (b) they have no original scripture from the Buddha, but there is a reason to believe that Abdu'l-Baha had it right since he was the son of Baha'u'llah who we believe is infallible. That is how I reason it out.

Hard for you, but not hard for me or the other Baha'is.

And we all get the same thing from born again Christians. It's not hard for them to believe the Bible literally. And they can "prove" it... kind of... at least to themselves. But the Baha'i Faith makes most all of their Bible based beliefs false. They believe Adam sinned and that's why Jesus had to die on the cross to pay the penalty. It makes sense if all a person believes is the born again Christian version of the truth. And part of that "truth" had nothing to do with Moses and Abraham, and I think Baha'is also made Adam and Noah, manifestations also. Christianity has nothing to do with anything like the Baha'i concept of "progressive" revelation. They want nothing to do with any of the other religions that existed at the time. Why would that be if "progressive" revelation were true?

The Baha'i Faith is way too similar to Islam. It is nothing but another religion filled with laws and rules that in every other religion... they didn't get followed. And what happens when believers of a religion don't follow the rules and laws of their own religion? They become hypocrites. And, since nobody is perfect, nobody is ever going to perfectly follow the laws. But, what worries me, is that with the administrative order and people appointed to make sure the laws are followed, that the Baha'i Faith will become overly legalistic. Oh, and the other thing, Baha'is are told to go out and "teach" the Faith. I know Baha'is don't think they are, but that's not much different than proselytizing. And, essentially, what Baha'is are telling everybody else, in all the other religions, is that what they believe is wrong... Even, if there ever was such a thing, the "original" teachings, even if they were right, are no longer relevant. So all that's really left that is true and for today... is the Baha'i truth. Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

[Trailblazer]

No possibility whatsoever?

No, none. Do you think there is a possibility that you are wrong about God, Jesus, or the Trinity?

You know, Tb, you are one of the most illogical posters I have ever come across. But I do realise that you cannot believe this; it would cost you too much.

Do you know how many times I have been called illogical? It is like water off a duck's back.
Illogical is just a label people use to disparage other people and people who have a need to disparage other people have a problem of their own.

Everyone who calls me illogical has ONE thing in common, they cannot explain WHY they think I am illogical. Can you tell me why you think I am illogical? WHAT is illogical about what I said?

What I consider illogical is the Christian belief that Jesus is God but I can list the REASONS why I think it is illogical. Moreover, I am not calling YOU illogical, I am calling the belief illogical. Do you see the difference?

Of course you don't. So why do you keep trying to do so?

Where did you see me defending myself? I am just responding to posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know this?

From what is in the Baha'i Writings.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi infrabenji and welcome to RF,

as I've seen you already found an interlocutor and I'm having a guest for the next few days anyway. But when your debate with KAT-KAT has come to a conclusion, I'm challenging you to a debate you might not be prepared for: Why Agnosticism is superior to atheism (and you should upgrade your non-belief). Interested?

Who won the debate, please?
Regards

 

[Tiberius]

I am not going to play word games with you. I have told you before that I know. Just became you cannot understand how I know that does not mean I don't know. There is more than one way we can know that something is true.

Definition of know

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

Sounds to me like when you say you KNOW that Baha'i is true, you are using "know" in the sense of "be convinced or certain of."

At this point I will remind you that lots of people have been convinced and certain of things that still turned out to be wrong. So the fact you are convinced and certain that Baha'i is correct doesn't mean anything when it comes to the actual truth of the matter.

So, once again, what you have is nothing more than a belief that you are really REALLY certain of. It's still just a belief, no matter how much you are convinced that it is true.

 

[Tiberius]

It is not only convenient, it is absolutely necessary, because a revealed religion is not supposed to change after it has been revealed by God. The goal is for that religion to remain unaltered, much unlike happened to all the religions of the past, such as Christianity and many others which were altered by the followers.

The Baha'i Faith will stand as the religion God is working through during the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, until God sends another Messenger who will be designated to reveal a new religion which will then be the religion God will work through.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

By God's appointment and arrangement the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is only according to one religion at a time, the religion that was revealed during the age to which it pertains. Once Baha'u'llah completed His Mission on earth and wrote scriptures, what He wrote is pertinent until the next Messenger of God appears. We do not want it to change from what was originally revealed by Baha'u'llah because then it would no longer be the religion of God, it would be a religion that was altered by man.

Well, points here for honesty. You admit that it is necessary for your religion to have some way of dismissing any competing claims.

The trouble is that it means all you can do is say, "I dismiss that claim because my religion tells me to." It means you don't actually evaluate the claim on it's own merit. You're little different than a flat-earther who says that since they believe the earth is flat, they will dismiss any evidence that says it is a globe. Just like such a flat earther, you don't judge the evidence based on it's own merits.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds to me like when you say you KNOW that Baha'i is true, you are using "know" in the sense of "be convinced or certain of."

At this point I will remind you that lots of people have been convinced and certain of things that still turned out to be wrong. So the fact you are convinced and certain that Baha'i is correct doesn't mean anything when it comes to the actual truth of the matter.

We have covered this ground before. I am not saying that the fact that I am convinced makes the Baha'i Faith true, but you are not going to get me to say that maybe it is not true because I am convinced it is true. Some of that certitude comes from God, not from looking at evidence. I do not know why God considers me worthy but I won't throw back in God's face what He has given me even tough I don't even like being a Baha'i.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

Does it bother you that I am convinced? If so why does it bother you?

So, once again, what you have is nothing more than a belief that you are really REALLY certain of. It's still just a belief, no matter how much you are convinced that it is true.

You can call it a belief if you want to, and it is a belief, but it is a belief I know is true.

I have no interest in convincing you what I believe is true because no man's faith can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

 

[Tiberius]

We have covered this ground before. I am not saying that the fact that I am convinced makes the Baha'i Faith true, but you are not going to get me to say that maybe it is not true because I am convinced it is true. Some of that certitude comes from God, not from looking at evidence. I do not know why God considers me worthy but I won't throw back in God's face what He has given me even tough I don't even like being a Baha'i.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

Does it bother you that I am convinced? If so why does it bother you?

My point is and has only ever been that unless we have testable evidence for something, then we can never be justified in claiming that it is true.

Since you have no testable evidence for the claim that Mr B actually spoke to God, then you are not justified in claiming that the Baha'i faith is true.

You can call it a belief if you want to, and it is a belief, but it is a belief I know is true.

We have covered this ground before.

Believing something really hard is not the same thing as "knowing" it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, points here for honesty. You admit that it is necessary for your religion to have some way of dismissing any competing claims.

The trouble is that it means all you can do is say, "I dismiss that claim because my religion tells me to." It means you don't actually evaluate the claim on it's own merit. You're little different than a flat-earther who says that since they believe the earth is flat, they will dismiss any evidence that says it is a globe. Just like such a flat earther, you don't judge the evidence based on it's own merits.

I don't dismiss other religions because my religion tells me so. In fact, my religion does not tell me to dismiss other religions, it only tells me that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age.

I have evaluated other religious claims on their own merit and I have decided that no other religion would be believable as a standalone because it makes absolutely no logical sense to me that only one religion is true and all the other religions are false. Moreover, I could never believe in a God that preferred one religious group over another.