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

[David Weaver]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

Ok, now that I have my opening debate I would like to accept your challenge. I am a Christian, I do not hold to a particular denomination. Here goes

[Science In The Bible]
Despite what most people would appear to argue science and God are not conflicting ideas. I would argue rather that science is but a human understanding of what God allows us to know of his nature. Let’s take a look at some things that science has figured out over time that the bible knew already.

1. Science uses 5 terms to describe the universe and how it works. Time, power, space, matter, and motion
1.1. Genesis 1:1-3 (written 1445-1405 BC) states; In the beginning (time) God created (power) the heavens (space) and earth (matter) and the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters.
Let’s use this as the basis that science and the word work together not against each other.

2. In 1953 they discovered that male infants contained the clotting agent prothrombin at over 100% normal during only one day of their lives...the 8th.
2.1. Genesis 17:12 – And he that is 8 days old shall be circumcised among you...

3. In 1846 Dr. Semmelweis introduced the concept (under resistance) that washing hands would reduce fatalities in childbirth
3.1. Leviticus 15:13 - (written 1445-1405 BC) states...and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean.

4. In the 1850’s the practice of bloodletting began to die out and was deemed ineffective but persists in some places to this day. Today we know what happens if you lose too much blood...you die
4.1. Leviticus 17:11 – for the life of the flesh is in the blood

5. How about dinosaurs, let’s compare and see if the bible mentions them.
5.1. Sauropods
5.1.1. Largest land animals to ever exist it is suggested that some reached as much as 80 metric tons (over 176,000 pounds)
5.1.2. Herbivorous (plant eating)
5.1.3. Had a fused hip girdle adding strength to its hips
5.1.4. Their tails were long and narrowed to the end similar to a whip or tree
5.1.5. Lived where there were plenty trees as well as water (you can imagine how much an animal that size could drink)
5.1.6. The Sauropod bones that have been found have been huge with one of the largest I could find being an 8-foot-long thigh bone.
5.1.7. Became extinct
5.2. Job 40:15-23 (considered the oldest book of the bible, but actual date is unknown)Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

6. During the 1920’s and 1930’s Edwin Hubble made the discovery that the universe was expanding as if something was stretching it
6.1. Job 26:7 He stretches out the North over the empty space.
6.2. Isiah 40:22 (written between 700-681 BC)...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (I will cover the earlier part of that verse later)
6.3. Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded
6.4. Job 9:8...which alone spreadeth out the heavens...
6.5. Isiah 42:5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out
6.6. Jeremiah 10:12 (written between 586-570 BC) He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
6.7. Zechariah 12:1 (480-470 BC) The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
6.8. Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span

7. The first mention of the possibility (not confirmation) that the earth was a sphere and not flat is from Pythagrious sometime during 500 BC.
7.1. There are several mentions of a round earth in the bible, but seeing as we’re focusing on what was stated in the bible prior to any discovery by men; we will go back to Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, he hangs the earth on nothing (another thing worth noting: at the time Isaiah was written people generally believed that the earth either sat on the back of a large animal (elephant) or was held in place by a god (Atlas))

8. By Aristotle's time roughly 350 BC scholars noticed that even with all the rivers that emptied into the sea it never rose, they ended up developing an understanding of the water cycle and how it worked.
8.1. Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them
8.2. Amos 9:6 (written in 750 BC) It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name.

9. Heinric Hertz in the late 1800’s discovered that radio waves (electromagnetic waves) travel at the speed of light.
9.1. Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings that they may go and say to thee, here we are

10. Leon Foucault designed an experiment in 1851 that proved not only that the earth was round but also that it had a rotation to it
10.1. Job 38:12-14 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. (This last line is referring to the earth turning as clay on a potter’s wheel)

11. William “snowflake” Bently discovered that no two snowflakes were alike in 1885
11.1. Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow...

12. As late in history as Galileo (1564-1652) it was said there were 30,000 stars in the sky. Obviously as technology increased, we found more and more until we realized they couldn’t be counted.
12.1. Jeremiah 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured

13. In 1808 John Dalton proposed the theory that all matter was made up of atoms, he also proposed that atoms were unable to be destroyed or created. At the time this was the smallest thing known to exist. (We hadn’t made it to protons, electrons, and such)
13.1. Hebrews 11:3 (written 69-67 AD) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

14. In the mid 1800’s Matthew Maury, by inspiration from the bible, searched for, found, and charted the ocean currents (there is debate about whether or not he was actually the first, but the point remains that it was in the bible before man discovered it)
14.1. Psalms 8:8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

15. Harlow Shapley in 1914 – 1918 discovered that the sun was not exactly centered in the universe and actually had an orbit.
15.1. Psalms 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech; and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,(describing the sun) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

16. In the late 1940’s Harry Hess (and others) discovered mountain ranges in the ocean laying to rest the theory that the ocean floor was flat or bowl shaped.
16.1. Jonah 2:6 (written 775 BC) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. (Remember he had been swallowed by a whale at this time)

17. The second law of thermodynamics states that any spontaneously occurring process will always lead to an escalation in the entropy of the universe. The 2nd law also states that these processes are irreversible.
17.1. Hebrews 1:10-11 And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. (Meaning the universe we know is wearing out)

I would like to close with a quote from the man known as the father of modern science Sir Isaac Newton…”There are more sure marks of authenticity in the bible than in any profane history.”

 

[Tiberius]

As I said, it is a step in the same direction but it is not really the same. Look at the difference.
Didn't you see the difference?

Repeating the same unclear statement will not make it any clearer.

In post 1373, I said "That was Jesus' general goal according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, not what Jesus claimed as His goal. Jesus said that His goal was to bear witness unto the truth about God."

Then when I realized that was not the 'goal' of Jesus, I said in post 1472 "Whatever I said in The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith did not state the goal of Jesus. He was simply putting the revelations Jesus and Baha'u'llah in a historical context and speaking in terms of social evolution. I can understand why you thought that since I paraphrased what he said and it was taken out of context. Below is the full quote:"
Did you read the quote?

To answer your question, we should believe what Jesus said was His goal in the New Testament because that is the closed approximation to the words of Jesus that we have. We should always believe the person who stated their goal rather than assume we know or get that information second hand. For example, you should not assume you know my goals but rather you should believe me when I tell you what they are.

SO your thoughts about what the Baha'i faith actually says changed between those posts?

I don't know why not. Advancements in science should be used to improve human life on earth.

Okay. No what if some rich woman comes and says she is pregnant and wants her unborn child's DNA altered so that child is smarter? Is that also an example of science being used to improve Human life?

No, it is not the same.

Then why is it wrong for me to use Deepfake software for me to create pornographic images of a celebrity?

What assumption do you think I made? Did you understand what I said about the passages, how they were Baha'u'llah speaking from the present age, and how the first passage was referring to a previous age (which could be any age in the past) and how second passage was referring to a future age (which could be any age in the future)?

The assumption you made was that Age X and Age X+1 referred to the specific ages we live in, plus the adjacent one.

No, that is not the reason they are false. They are false because they are false and they were false BEFORE there was ever a Baha'i Faith, so that means they are not false because of the Baha'i Faith.

They are false because they are false.

That's some flawless logic there.

Why isn't it a good thing?

Because you are admitting that your faith is just trying to manipulate the situation so it can make itself look good.

 

[Tiberius]

The spiritual truths do not contradict each other.
Religions are different for the logical reasons I have formerly explained in those two passages I posted. Below is another passage that explains why they are different.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Sure they don't contradict. That's why there have never been any conflicts stemming from differences in religious beliefs.

You can't use science to find out the truth about religion since science fall under a completely different purview.

You can't even show that what religion talks about is even real!

I just gave my reason: You can't use science analogies and try to apply them to religion because religion and science falls under a completely different purviews.

And it's still special pleading. You are just claiming that it's different without saying WHY it is different.

Perhaps you are calling me biased simply because I do not share your biases.

Your biases are on show for all to see.

I know what peer review is and I already explained why it is not useful for deciding whether a religion is the truth.
Peer review of a religious belief and accepting something as more likely to be accurate because other people have examined your review of that religion is the fallacy of ad populum -- if many other people believe it it must be true. A personal opinion is what we want. We never want to believe based upon someone else's opinion because we are all accountable to God for what we believed at the end of this life, so if we say I did not believe in Baha'u'llah because not very many people believed in Him, that won't fly with God.

“Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? 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

Yeah, I know why you say peer review doesn't work when it comes to religion. Because you don't like that it indicates that religion is bunk.

So now you are shifting gears? No, religion is not an accurate representation of material reality but it is an accurate representation of spiritual reality, just as science is an accurate representation of material reality but it is not an accurate representation of spiritual reality..

You are assuming that there is a spiritual reality in order to justify having religious faith, but there is no justifiable reason to believe in any spiritual reality.

 

[Tiberius]

Supported by what?

You tell me, you were the one who said the claims need to be supported.

You just deflected by ignoring what I said which is the red herring fallacy.
What lots of people do is not related to what I am doing. I am not trying to get you to believe anything. My point was that with such a bias as you have you cannot think logically.

Given that the people who try to get me to believe their claims do the same exact things you have been doing, I fail to see why I should believe you when you say, "Oh, but I'm different!"

EVERYBODY says they aren't like the others. EVERYONE says, "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"

Interpretation is not the same as information. The information about Christianity is in the Bible. I already explained why the Baha'is can better understand and interpret the Bible (Daniel 12).

And here we go! You are saying, "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"

See? I told you that you were no different.

I am not saying it would be accurate information but It would still be the most accurate information regarding what that cult believes.

And it's utterly worthless if you are trying to figure out if what the cult believes is true.

And let me be clear: I completely believe that what you have told me about the beliefs of Baha'i faith is true. I believe that Baha'i people believe that stuff.

I just think they are completely wrong for believing that their faith represents reality in any way.

 

[Tiberius]

There is a big difference but the way you go about investigating them is similar.

You do not elect Messengers of God but you if you choose to believe they are Messengers that decision should be based upon what kind of person they were and how well they did the job that God gave them to do.

You CHOOSE to believe? SO the need for evidence is just abandoned now?

After all, if there is evidence, you can't CHOOSE whether to believe it or not. You don't go outside on a sunny day, look at the sky and say, "Will I choose to accept this evidence that the sky is blue? Let me think about it."

 

[samtonga43]

I see that your commission of the fallacy of hasty generalization flew right over your head. Let's try again.

Commission? Are you sure you have the right word?

That is true that the world is full of men who claim to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there are no Messengers who did speak for God.

I did not suggest that it does. You are committing the strawman fallacy.

The only reason you should believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God is because of the evidence that indicates that.

If there is evidence that the B.Man is a true messenger of God, I have yet to find it. I have been trudging through the haths, eths , thous, whences, comests and hasts etc, and the rest of the
over-decorated and flowery language and have found no evidence that the B.man was a true messenger of God.

There have been many false messengers, (a) ones who thought they got a message from God (psychotics) or (b) ones who were lying (con-men), but logically speaking that does not mean that there was no true Messenger of God because it is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all messengers were false.

Correct, but as I said, I did not assume this. You assumed that I assumed this. You are mistaken, as you so often are when it comes to logic.

I can guarantee that none of those false messengers wrote 15,000 tablets or had a 40 year mission that was successfully brought to completion, or established a thriving world religion.

Another logical fallacy. Guess which one?

And just like many atheists, you are really good at telling me I am wrong but have nothing to say about WHY I am wrong.

Of course we tell you why you are wrong. If you don’t see this you are not reading carefully.

I understand that fallacy better than the back of my hand because I have been discussing it with atheists for nine years and I have 14 Word documents I have saved in which I explained how they commit it in various ways.

I4!!! Oh well, that’s that then. You must be correct!

 

[CG Didymus]

I think on some level you know the Christians are wrong and the Baha'is are right.

There are some things in both that I disagree with. But... I think that they are both in the running to be right... considering how the world seems to be falling apart just like Christians and Baha'is say. One has Jesus coming back. The other has the "Christ Spirit" having come back more than 150 plus years ago and saying that things will get worse before there is peace.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

After all, if there is evidence, you can't CHOOSE whether to believe it or not. You don't go outside on a sunny day, look at the sky and say, "Will I choose to accept this evidence that the sky is blue? Let me think about it."

I stepped out of this thread when the OP member left this forum.
He was one person who listened carefully to what I say and show.

I can’t tell if you’re as genius, crazy, or a crazy genius.

I have also tried talking to you.
You tell me what I say and show is just wordplay and the bible code was debunked years ago.
I say the wordplay is my whole point and the bible code you associate me with is irrelevant.


I have told you the wordplay of the messengers fulfills it's own prophecies. It is not a matter of when, it is a matter of how. And that is how true messengers can be sorted from false messengers.
I have demonstrated this multiple times.

But you do not listen.


Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:32

But those endued with knowledge and faith will say: "Indeed ye did tarry, within Allah's Decree, to the Day of Resurrection, and this is the Day of Resurrection: but ye - ye were not aware!" Quran 30:56


So look at the sky:

The Day that the sky will be like molten brass, Quran 70:8

It is He who sends down rain from the sky: from it ye drink, and out of it (grows) the vegetation on which ye feed your cattle. Quran 16:10

And Allah sends down rain from the skies, and gives therewith life to the earth after its death: verily in this is a Sign for those who listen. Quran 16:65


I have told you the difference between brass, silver, and gold.

Can you not see the sky is as brass?


And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? Matthew 16:3

 

[Trailblazer]

Commission? Are you sure you have the right word?

Yes.

I did not suggest that it does. You are committing the strawman fallacy.

If you were 'direct' in your speech then I would not have to guess.
Unfortunately I cannot go back and see what I said before because all your posts are still going back to the other thread.

If there is evidence that the B.Man is a true messenger of God, I have yet to find it. I have been trudging through the haths, eths , thous, whences, comests and hasts etc, and the rest of the
over-decorated and flowery language and have found no evidence that the B.man was a true messenger of God.

I have no idea what YOU would consider evidence. We are all different in how we think owing to childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences,so what was evidence will vary between individuals.

Correct, but as I said, I did not assume this. You assumed that I assumed this. You are mistaken, as you so often are when it comes to logic.

If you were 'direct' in your speech then I would not have to assume anything.
Unfortunately I cannot go back and see what I said before because all your posts are still going back to the other thread.

Why do you keep bringing up logic and not actually tying it to anything I said? You imply I am illogical but you never say why. That is unjust..

Another logical fallacy. Guess which one?

I am not playing any more guessing games with you. This is childish. Why can't you be direct like me and other people on this thread?

If you know what logical fallacy it is and how I committed it then you would be able to explain it. Is it just too much trouble to type it out? Put your money where your mouth is.

Of course we tell you why you are wrong. If you don’t see this you are not reading carefully.

Other people here tell me but you don't. You just play games and expect me to guess.
I can deal with straight talk as you can see by my ongoing conversations with Tiberius and CG Didymus, and there is an exchange going on. By contrast all you do is talk at me and criticize, and you cannot even back up your criticism by explaining what I did wrong. This is unjust but apparently you don't know or care.

I4!!! Oh well, that’s that then. You must be correct!

Now you are assuming you know what I am thinking. You don't know. All I said is that I know the fallacy very well and I do.

If you cannot stop accusing me of things with no evidence and start being direct don't expect me to answer any more posts. I don't have the time or interest in playing games. I post to other Christians and they never speak this way to me, they are all respectful and they even care about how I feel.

 

[Tiberius]

I stepped out of this thread when the OP member left this forum.
He was one person who listened carefully to what I say and show.

I don't understand what this has to do with what you are replying to...

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I don't understand what this has to do with what you are replying to...

Evidence Tiberius.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.

Think about it.

Look at the sky. Is it as brass?

He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah by parables show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like forth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables. Quran 13:17. The Thunder.


Then, when they saw the (Penalty in the shape of) a cloud traversing the sky, coming to meet their valleys, they said, "This cloud will give us rain!" "Nay, it is the (Calamity) ye were asking to be hastened!- A wind wherein is a Grievous Penalty! Quran 46:24



"Now cause a piece of the sky to fall on us, if thou art truthful!" Quran 26:187

Remember how they said: "O Allah if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky, or send us a grievous penalty." Quran 8:32



Is my strength the strength of stones? or is my flesh of brass? Job 6:12



The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. Psalm 18:13



His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. Job 41:21

In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. Job 41:22


Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: Amos 8:11

For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee. Proverbs 25:22

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Romans 12:20






Tiberius. Please try to understand this. Try to see the truth in the vanity of the words.


Think about the Quran verse at the top of this post as you read this:

Then set it empty upon the coals thereof, that the brass of it may be hot, and may burn, and that the filthiness of it may be molten in it, that the scum of it may be consumed. Ezekiel 24:11

She hath wearied herself with lies, and her great scum went not forth out of her: her scum shall be in the fire. Ezekiel 24:12


Remove the lies, and hear the truth.
I have been trying to show the truth in the lies. The words of bible are not false, They are correct in it's own way.

Can you see the sky is as brass?

 

[samtonga43]

Yes.

commission - Dictionary Definition

If you were 'direct' in your speech then I would not have to guess. Unfortunately I cannot go back and see what I said before because all your posts are still going back to the other thread.

You won’t have to go back far. See your post before this one. #1526 Here it is again:
That is true that the world is full of men who claim to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there are no Messengers who did speak for God.

I have no idea what YOU would consider evidence. We are all different in how we think owing to childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences,so what was evidence will vary between individuals.

Exactly. You see evidence for your claim that the B.man is a messenger of God. I see no evidence for this whatsoever.

Why do you keep bringing up logic and not actually tying it to anything I said? You imply I am illogical but you never say why.

But I do tie it to what you have said. If you accuse me of the heinous crime of ‘committing a fallacy’ I will respond in kind. If you ‘give it’ you ought to be able to ‘take it’.

Other people here tell me but you don't. You just play games and expect me to guess.

No, I do not expect you to guess. I expect you to think. I ask questions because I expect you to think for yourself. We all retain information more effectively when we look for it, rather than relying on someone else to provide it. It’s called the Socratic method.
The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the Classroom | Tomorrow's Professor Postings

I can deal with straight talk as you can see by my ongoing conversations with Tiberius and CG Didymus, and there is an exchange going on. By contrast all you do is talk at me and criticize, and you cannot even back up your criticism by explaining what I did wrong. This is unjust but apparently you don't know or care.

(See my emphasis) No, it is not apparent. You are assuming again.

"I4!!! Oh well, that’s that then. You must be correct!"

Now you are assuming you know what I am thinking. You don't know. All I said is that I know the fallacy very well and I do.

You may ‘know it’, Tb, but you don’t (in my opinion) always apply it correctly.

 

[samtonga43]

#1502 Continued

Sorry, but if you CLAIM that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, it is up to you to prove it.

Did I claim that the B.man was not a Messenger of God?
Or is this another strawman?

I do not claim that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, I just believe His claim.

I can’t believe I am reading this! Close your eyes, breathe slowly, and then read what you just said again.

Nor will you EVER be able to prove that Jesus was anyone at all,

Exactly. You got it!

By stark contrast we know exactly what Baha'u'llah wrote.

But we do not know if what he wrote is true.

“Do you know which logical fallacy you have just committed?”Why don't you tell me what 'you think' fallacy that is?

Tu Quoque

I asked a question, one you apparently cannot answer,

Another assumption.

What logical fallacy is deflection? Avoiding engagement with an argument by creating a new one.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

What MORE evidence do you have that God spoke to Jesus than I have that God spoke to Baha'u'llah? I am still waiting for that evidence.

Tu Quoque

 

[stevevw]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

So my arguement would be that first there are not really any atheists. All humans have some sort of belief in them that is a natural part of being human. Natural belief isnt necessarily about a specific god but that there is something beyond the material world that is non-material. It can take the form of a belief in God or any other gods that people profess to believe in. Or it can take the form of belief in counciousness, dualism, pantheism, witchcraft, spirits, the soul, aliens, angels etc. Even some science based ideas like other worlds, time travel, quantum weirdness, alien powers etc. have divine ideas behind them such as being all knowing and having supernatural powers like telepathy, teleportation and levitation ect.

These ideas are primarily an appeal to something counter intuitive and are something we have within us but is express in different ways.
Surveys show that belief in these ideas is deeply ingrained in humans and its hard to get them out. Even what is called atheism is still a form of belief because fundamentally its about filling the void left by theism and usually has some theistic qualities idolizing people and the power of science (materialism) instead of gods. When atheists are probed most still harbour a belief in ideas like the soul or that there is something beyond the material world.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

 

[CG Didymus]

If there is evidence that the B.Man is a true messenger of God, I have yet to find it. I have been trudging through the haths, eths , thous, whences, comests and hasts etc, and the rest of the
over-decorated and flowery language and have found no evidence that the B.man was a true messenger of God.

As TB has asked before, I'll ask... What would you accept as evidence? What would you expect a messenger of God to give as evidence?

 

[samtonga43]

As TB has asked before, I'll ask... What would you accept as evidence? What would you expect a messenger of God to give as evidence?

The presence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Trailblazer]

Repeating the same unclear statement will not make it any clearer.

What is unclear? Read it again and tell me WHY you do not see the difference.

SO your thoughts about what the Baha'i faith actually says changed between those posts?

No, I just realized that I misrepresented what the Baha'i Faith actually says so I confused you.
The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith did not state the goal of Jesus. He was simply putting the revelations Jesus and Baha'u'llah in a historical context and speaking in terms of social evolution. The goals of Jesus are stated in the New Testament.

Okay. No what if some rich woman comes and says she is pregnant and wants her unborn child's DNA altered so that child is smarter? Is that also an example of science being used to improve Human life?

No, I don't think that would be ethical because that is messing with inherited characteristics that the child would have been given by God.

“And now, concerning thy question regarding the creation of man. Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting. Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God’s mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 149

Then why is it wrong for me to use Deepfake software for me to create pornographic images of a celebrity?

I did not say it is wrong, but why would you want to do it?

The assumption you made was that Age X and Age X+1 referred to the specific ages we live in, plus the adjacent one.

I did not make that assumption.
Did you understand what I said about the passages, how they were Baha'u'llah speaking from the present age, and how the first passage was referring to a previous age (which could be any age in the past) and how second passage was referring to a future age (which could be any age in the future)?

They are false because they are false.

That's some flawless logic there.

It is logic, because the doctrines of Christianity are either true or false. They are not false because they contradict what Baha'is believe.

Because you are admitting that your faith is just trying to manipulate the situation so it can make itself look good.

You are assuming my motives again. I admitted no such thing. Baha'is can have their cake and eat it to because we believe that all the Messengers of God came from God and all the religions they revealed are true. I am not trying to manipulate anything. That is a teaching of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure they don't contradict. That's why there have never been any conflicts stemming from differences in religious beliefs.

The original messages from the Messengers are different but differences are not contradictions. The reason the religions contradict each other is because the original messages from the Messenger have been misinterpreted and thus misunderstood by the religious believers.

You can't even show that what religion talks about is even real!

That all depends upon what you consider to be real.

Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

Spiritual : relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

The issue at hand here is that atheists believe that only material or physical things are real and that spiritual things are imaginary, but that is just their personal opinion, because there is no reason to think that things affecting the human spirit or soul are not real, and if they have an effect they have to be real, even if we cannot see them and prove they exist.

And it's still special pleading. You are just claiming that it's different without saying WHY it is different.

You cannot understand why religion and science are different? Religions address morality and the human virtues humans are supposed to acquire. Religion teaches that there is a God and a soul that continues to exist on an afterlife. Science does not address any of this. Science only addresses the physical body and how to improve life in this physical world.

The Baha'i Faith position on religion and science is as follows:

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”
Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Your biases are on show for all to see.

Get a dictionary. Beliefs are not biases and that means that what I believe is not a bias, it is a belief.
Your biases against my beliefs are on show for all to see.

Yeah, I know why you say peer review doesn't work when it comes to religion. Because you don't like that it indicates that religion is bunk.

More of you biases against my beliefs., I explained clearly why peer review does not work for determining what religious beliefs are true and it would not work for ANY religion for the reasons I stated. Moreover, I asked you to give me an example of how peer review would help determine that a religion is true and you never gave me an example.

You are assuming that there is a spiritual reality in order to justify having religious faith, but there is no justifiable reason to believe in any spiritual reality.

I do not assume it, I believe it, and my belief is not only based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote, it is based upon what is in the Bible and ALL the other holy books.

I do not need to justify having a religious faith anymore than you need to justify being an atheist.

 

[Trailblazer]

You tell me, you were the one who said the claims need to be supported.

No, you are the one who said that the claims need to be supported:
"Until Mr B is supported, then we can't take ANYTHING of his as evidence that he really was who he claimed to be."

Before that I told you how the claims are supported by the evidence.

Given that the people who try to get me to believe their claims do the same exact things you have been doing, I fail to see why I should believe you when you say, "Oh, but I'm different!"

EVERYBODY says they aren't like the others. EVERYONE says, "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"

I am not trying to GET you to believe what I believe. So what if they all say they are different? That does not mean that what I am saying is NOT different.

When did I ever say: "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"??
No, all I have ever told you is that if you want to know the truth, you have to investigate it for yourself.

The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own:

Independent Investigation of Truth

And here we go! You are saying, "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"

See? I told you that you were no different.

I did not say: "They have it wrong, but I've got it right, so you can trust me!"

I said: Interpretation is not the same as information. The information about Christianity is in the Bible. I already explained why the Baha'is can better understand and interpret the Bible (Daniel 12).

Baha'is are different because we have an explanation as to why we can better understand the Bible.
You can take our explanation or leave it, I don't care.

And it's utterly worthless if you are trying to figure out if what the cult believes is true.

And let me be clear: I completely believe that what you have told me about the beliefs of Baha'i faith is true. I believe that Baha'i people believe that stuff.

I just think they are completely wrong for believing that their faith represents reality in any way.

Fine then. I don't care what you believe. The hundred-dollar question is why you bother talking to me about my beliefs that you have decided are false.

If you really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by exposing the Baha'i Faith think again. It is people like you who have engendered interest in the Baha'i Faith and caused it to grow. All you succeed in doing is to provide free advertising. Go right ahead but bear in mind that adding fuel to the fire only makes it burn brighter. The disbeliever's work has always been the cause of guiding men to a discovery of the truth.

"And I say unto you that no calumny is able to prevail against the Light of God; it can only result in causing it to be more universally recognized. If a cause were of no significance, who would take the trouble to work against it!" Abdul-Baha, Paris Talks

 

[Trailblazer]

You CHOOSE to believe? SO the need for evidence is just abandoned now?

After all, if there is evidence, you can't CHOOSE whether to believe it or not. You don't go outside on a sunny day, look at the sky and say, "Will I choose to accept this evidence that the sky is blue? Let me think about it."

You either misunderstand or misconstrue everything I say. I never said that the need for evidence should be abandoned. I told you you need to look at the evidence and I told you what the evidence is.

There is evidence and you can CHOOSE whether to believe it or not. I choose to believe it and you choose not to believe it.