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

[Trailblazer]

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 only speak for yourself, you cannot speak for me or anyone else. You need testable evidence but I do not need it and I would never expect to have it because it is impossible to procure. So you can go on being an atheist and I will go on being a believer, since my requirements for belief are different from your requirements.

I do not need to justify my belief that the Baha'i Faith is true to anyone except myself.

We have covered this ground before.

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

I can know what I believe is true. How I know is not something you can understand.

And you still did not answer me: Does it bother you that I am convinced? If so why does it bother you?
I am a separate person from you and I am not expecting you to be convinced just because I am convinced.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is very reasonable if you are a Baha'i who believes in Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant.
Otherwise I would not expect anyone to consider it reasonable.

Baha'is are supposed to personally investigate the truth. How thorough do most of them do that? Since they can never know everything, then as time goes by they learn new information. Since many people do dropout of the Baha'i Faith, what happened? Did they find out that it wasn't to their liking? Maybe some teaching or maybe the actual practicing of the Baha'i Faith wasn't working for them?

Again, I compare it to born again Christianity. How far will a person keep believing what they are being taught? Jesus loves them and died for them? Without Jesus they will go to hell. Satan is real and trying to put doubts in their mind. Jesus rose from the dead. People came out of their graves in Jerusalem. Then add the rest of the Bible. Jonah survived three days in the belly of a big fish. Daniel's friends survived being cast into a furnace. Moses' staff turned into a snake. The seas parted for the Hebrews. God created the world in six days and so on.

There is great spiritual power in believing and knowing the truth. But every religion and every sect of every religion has a slightly different version of the truth, or even a very different version of the truth. They feel that power. Like I've said before, the only constant is that the person believes their religion is the truth. They all can't be right, but they all think they're right. Lots of us throw out questions to the Baha'is, and the Baha'is always come back sounding just like those "true believing" Christians, they "know" what they believe is the truth. No matter what Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha' says, it is the truth because they are infallible.

All Baha'is have done is add one more unprovable religion to the mix. If it works for you great. But in "knowing" your religion is true, Baha'is have to tell everybody else in every other religion how wrong they are. For me, there is no "progression" of religious truth where the spiritual laws stay the same and only the social laws change. Even spiritual truth has changed. Ideas about the Gods and God and no God have changed. Where people go after they die has changed. To me, it's almost like people are making it up as the go along. Which kind of makes it seem like a progression. But not like the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation.

Do Baha'is have God's laws that are necessary for this age? Then how are they going to implement them if all or at least the majority of people don't join and believe Baha'u'llah is the Christ returned? So let's suppose that Baha'is do become the majority. Are you going to tell me that in the future the LSA, or at that time, the Local House of Justice, a body of elected Baha'is from the community are going to know how to run a city government? How is that supposed to work?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Was the Egyptian religious beliefs true? Or the Greeks? How about the Chinese? Or what about Shintoism in Japan? How about the pre-Krishna beliefs of the people of India? How about the beliefs of the Arabia people before Muhammad? Were any of those religions true?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Okay, you may not dismiss them, per say, but you certainly claim they have the wrong interpretation about their own holy texts.

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.

Why do you think that it's not believable that only one religion could be right?

I mean, we don't go around trying to make all the different ideas about black holes all work. We are perfectly happy to accept that there is a correct idea and the other ideas are incorrect.

 

[Tiberius]

You can only speak for yourself, you cannot speak for me or anyone else. You need testable evidence but I do not need it and I would never expect to have it because it is impossible to procure. So you can go on being an atheist and I will go on being a believer, since my requirements for belief are different from your requirements.

I do not need to justify my belief that the Baha'i Faith is true to anyone except myself.

I can know what I believe is true. How I know is not something you can understand.

And you still did not answer me: Does it bother you that I am convinced? If so why does it bother you?
I am a separate person from you and I am not expecting you to be convinced just because I am convinced.

Okay.

You can claim it is true as much as you want. It's still just a belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Just slight problems... It says Jesus showed himself alive with many convincing proofs, yet you don't believe he came back to life. It says that this same Jesus will come back, but you don't believe that either. So, since you are right, that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, but not literally or physically but spiritually. And that the Baha'i Faith teaches that Jesus did not come back to life, then... what it says in the NT is wrong or at least misinterpreted? Even though it sounds pretty clear what they meant? So I agree with Christian. It says Jesus came back to life and Jesus is coming back. No way would I say they misinterpreted what it says.

But... if it wasn't true, then what? I'd have to say it is totally and completely wrong. Something Baha'i can't say. The best Baha'is can say is... "It's allegorical." Which I don't believe. Total BS or totally true, but I don't see how this could be interpreted as being allegorical. So if that's what Baha'is say and believe, then... I believe they are wrong and just trying to say something that gives them the appearance of believing the NT while not believing it literally for what it says.

Acts 1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God...
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”​

 

[Trailblazer]

Was the Egyptian religious beliefs true? Or the Greeks? How about the Chinese? Or what about Shintoism in Japan? How about the pre-Krishna beliefs of the people of India? How about the beliefs of the Arabia people before Muhammad? Were any of those religions true?

If they were religions revealed by God then they were true. If not, then they were religions of man.
I cannot say who all the Prophets were, only the major ones and the ones Baha'u'llah mentioned.

Abdu'l-Baha said there are three kinds of Prophets.

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.

Twelve table talks given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in ‘Akká
The Three Kinds of Prophets

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, you may not dismiss them, per say, but you certainly claim they have the wrong interpretation about their own holy texts.

Yes, I do claim that, and that is based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote about interpretations of the Bible.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Since I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, it any of them interpreted the Bible, their interpretation is the bottom line for me.

Why do you think that it's not believable that only one religion could be right?

I mean, we don't go around trying to make all the different ideas about black holes all work. We are perfectly happy to accept that there is a correct idea and the other ideas are incorrect.

Black holes are not like people....
Like I said, it makes no sense to me that only one religion is right and all the others are wrong, since no religion is better than any other religion, they are just different. It also makes no sense to me that God would only reveal one religion to one Messenger who spoke to one group of people, and that this one religion would be applicable for all time. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay.

You can claim it is true as much as you want. It's still just a belief.

I don't mind if you call it that. After all, it is a religious belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just slight problems... It says Jesus showed himself alive with many convincing proofs, yet you don't believe he came back to life. It says that this same Jesus will come back, but you don't believe that either. So, since you are right, that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, but not literally or physically but spiritually. And that the Baha'i Faith teaches that Jesus did not come back to life, then... what it says in the NT is wrong or at least misinterpreted? Even though it sounds pretty clear what they meant? So I agree with Christian. It says Jesus came back to life and Jesus is coming back. No way would I say they misinterpreted what it says.

Regarding the resurrection, that is what it says in the story, that Jesus came back to life, but that does not mean it is a true story. However, if you believe it is true you should become a Christian and call it a day. Why even give the Baha'i Faith one more thought?

But I am sorry you cannot see the big picture and what the Baha'i Faith was revealed for and how it is going to change the world eventually. All you can do is look at Christianity and other older religions that have seen their day and no longer serve any purpose for humanity. All they do is hold humanity back and keep humanity from evolving and moving into the new age. Of course you can't see the end in the beginning, just as nobody could have seen how Jesus or Muhammad would change the world in the first centuries. You have to have some imagination to imagine what is not yet a reality.

There is no way Jesus ever said he was coming back to earth, that is not in the New Testament at all. What about these verses do you not understand? And no, they are not out of context, they perfectly FIT in with the other verses in those chapters.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'is are supposed to personally investigate the truth. How thorough do most of them do that? Since they can never know everything, then as time goes by they learn new information. Since many people do dropout of the Baha'i Faith, what happened? Did they find out that it wasn't to their liking? Maybe some teaching or maybe the actual practicing of the Baha'i Faith wasn't working for them?

All Baha'is are different in how they entered the Faith and what they investigated. The fact that some Baha'is dropped out proves nothing because what people believe is not what makes anything true.

Again, I compare it to born again Christianity. How far will a person keep believing what they are being taught? Jesus loves them and died for them? Without Jesus they will go to hell. Satan is real and trying to put doubts in their mind. Jesus rose from the dead. People came out of their graves in Jerusalem. Then add the rest of the Bible. Jonah survived three days in the belly of a big fish. Daniel's friends survived being cast into a furnace. Moses' staff turned into a snake. The seas parted for the Hebrews. God created the world in six days and so on.

What Christians do is not my problem, but it is holding humanity back from progressing, as I just said in my previous post. Most Christians will never stop believing, at least not for a very long time, perhaps not until the world situation gets worse or till the Baha'i Faith becomes more well-known. Christians want to be saved and they need to be loved by Jesus, and since they believe that they will continue to believe that unless they have a reason not to. Why believe in a new age religion when you believe you have all the truth you need in Jesus?

There is great spiritual power in believing and knowing the truth. But every religion and every sect of every religion has a slightly different version of the truth, or even a very different version of the truth. They feel that power. Like I've said before, the only constant is that the person believes their religion is the truth. They all can't be right, but they all think they're right. Lots of us throw out questions to the Baha'is, and the Baha'is always come back sounding just like those "true believing" Christians, they "know" what they believe is the truth. No matter what Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha' says, it is the truth because they are infallible.

The only way we sound like Christians is that we both believe that what we believe is the truth. NOTHING else about us is the same. Instead of seeing all that is different you just see the one thing that is the same. The religions were all right when they were revealed, before man messed them all up.

All Baha'is have done is add one more unprovable religion to the mix. If it works for you great. But in "knowing" your religion is true, Baha'is have to tell everybody else in every other religion how wrong they are. For me, there is no "progression" of religious truth where the spiritual laws stay the same and only the social laws change. Even spiritual truth has changed. Ideas about the Gods and God and no God have changed. Where people go after they die has changed. To me, it's almost like people are making it up as the go along. Which kind of makes it seem like a progression. But not like the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation.

No, Baha'is do not tell everybody else in every other religion how wrong they are; we tell them that their spiritual teachings are right and will always be right. But their doctrines are not right because they were created by men, not by God.

Do Baha'is have God's laws that are necessary for this age? Then how are they going to implement them if all or at least the majority of people don't join and believe Baha'u'llah is the Christ returned? So let's suppose that Baha'is do become the majority. Are you going to tell me that in the future the LSA, or at that time, the Local House of Justice, a body of elected Baha'is from the community are going to know how to run a city government? How is that supposed to work?

I have no idea what is going to happen in the future, nobody knows. This is just the very beginning of the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah. The new world order is yet to be built and the institutions of the Baha'i Faith are still in their infancy.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I do claim that, and that is based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote about interpretations of the Bible.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Since I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, it any of them interpreted the Bible, their interpretation is the bottom line for me.

So you dismiss the claims based solely on whether they agree with your preconceived beliefs, and you do not judge them based on their own merit.

Black holes are not like people....
Like I said, it makes no sense to me that only one religion is right and all the others are wrong, since no religion is better than any other religion, they are just different. It also makes no sense to me that God would only reveal one religion to one Messenger who spoke to one group of people, and that this one religion would be applicable for all time. Does that make sense to you?

I'm talking about the nature of reality. There is only one true nature of reality, and any position that disagrees with it is wrong. This same concept is perfectly able to be applied to religions despite your dislike of the idea.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't mind if you call it that. After all, it is a religious belief.

And thus not knowledge.

 

[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.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

I can say exactly the same, but I would never say it is 'proof' or that I 'know' that I am right. This is because I reason logically.

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.

Of course it is illogical, Tb. Take some time to work out why it is illogical. If you still don't know, I'll tell you.

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.

Why do you think so many others 'know' that you are illogical?

 

[samtonga43]

Regarding the resurrection, that is what it says in the story, that Jesus came back to life, but that does not mean it is a true story.

Just as everything the B.Man wrote may not be a true story.
Yes?
No?

 

[paarsurrey]

Just to clarify you reject the premise that critical thinking and all that are the best tools we have for determining the truth of a claim? I can demonstrate with evidence that the methodologies I've listed are in fact the best methods we have. Very easily. Do you know of better ones. I'd love to know if you've some secret tools laying around I haven't heard of. That would be awesome. Secret knowledge or something? You have in fact made a claim. All I'm asking for is some proof or at least an explanation about this transcendent thing you claimed existed. You are on a religious debates forum. It probably goes that you would be asked to demonstrate in some way the truth of your beliefs. Of course the expectation is that if you cannot you reevaluate your beliefs and apply the same scrutiny I will if you're able to demonstrate to me that you are in fact, right and what you say proves to be true. I look forward to your response. Hopefully, I learn something new.

" Just to clarify you reject the premise that critical thinking and all that are the best tools we have for determining the truth of a claim? "

Is it the science that says that "critical thinking" is the best tool to ascertain truth even in the ethical, moral and spiritual matters, please?
If yes, then name the relative discipline of science and quote from its text book, please. Right?

Regards

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You never have to prove a negative. Just as you doesn't have to prove that unicorns doesn't exist either. You have also looked at the lack of evidence for such being and concluded that they don't exist.

So it sounds like you more interested in the "words" he used rather than what he is saying. But even if he deliberately reached the conclusion that God(s) doesn't exists based on looking at the evidence. He still doesn't have to prove a negative.

If he claim that there is "no God" then you would be fair in asking for evidence for why he make such claim.

" If he claim that there is "no God" then you would be fair in asking for evidence for why he make such claim."

Our friend @infrabenji claims to be an "Atheist", so doesn't he need to give evidence for the truth of "Atheism" ?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Great so you do want to debate. What is one thing you can tell me that is based on evidence that more than one person can evaluate that is true.

Does our friend @infrabenji exist, please? What evidence/s will one provide for one's existence, please?
I respect one's stance, there is no intention to disrespect one's ism/ or no-ism, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Nimos]

" If he claim that there is "no God" then you would be fair in asking for evidence for why he make such claim."

Our friend @infrabenji claims to be an "Atheist", so doesn't he need to give evidence for the truth of "Atheism" ?

Regards

Depends on how he uses it about himself.

If he go around and say "Im an atheist and there is no God of any kind, fact!!" Then you would be reasonable to ask how he know that and if he can prove it.

Because most atheists, if they are "weak/soft atheists" at least, would simply take the position that they are not convinced that enough evidence for a God or gods have been provided to convince them, but that doesn't mean that its impossible.

So its the lack of believe in something, due to lack of evidence. Like you might not believe in ghosts, but could people that claim to have seen them be right? Maybe, but at least with the current evidence you are convinced that they are real.
That obviously doesn't mean that you now need to provide evidence to all people that believe they are real. Because again its a "negative" position.

 

[paarsurrey]

Great so you do want to debate. What is one thing you can tell me that is based on evidence that more than one person can evaluate that is true.

Will our friend @infrabenji kindly tell us as to what one understands from the natural word "evidence", please? Kindly don't quote from a lexicon, give us one's own concept of the natural word "evidence", please. Right?

Regards