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

[Tiberius]

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?

You do realise that they didn't actually have a word for "blue," right? Brass was referring to the shininess. The Greeks had the same problem.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Because you have just said it is not the same while not explaining WHY it is not the same.

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.

So you got something about your faith wrong, and that's after, what did you say, fifty years?

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

But it's improving this Human's life! How is it any different to correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease? I mean, if they are vulnerable to a disease, shouldn't we also claim that's God's decree as well?

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

People find celebrities attractive.

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)?

Yes you did. You used the specific names when I gave no indication that I was referring to those ages.

And it doesn't address my point.

You have people in one age saying that the things needed by people in the next age are going to be DIFFERENT, yet the people in that next age are going to say that what they need is the same as what previous people needed.

On Monday, if I say that what I will need on Tuesday is going to be different to what I needed on Monday, and then on Tuesday I say that what I need is the SAME as what I needed on Monday, I am contradicting myself.

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

You literally said, "They are false because they are false."

And the source you linked shows they are false by arbitrarily picking an interpretation that allows the writer to conclude they are false.

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.

Ah yes, the Baha'i position. "All religions are true - at least our interpretation of them, and only the parts we say are valid and no the result of the work of man who got it wrong."

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Prove it.

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.

You know, for someone who complained that I was assuming what your position was, you certainly seem to be more than happy to assume what my position is.

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

Of course I can tell that science and religion are different.

I was saying that it's special pleading because you just assume that the spiritual stuff is real and try to handwave away the total lack of any valid evidence by saying, "Oh, that's because science can't investigate it, you need to use a different tool."

It's like claiming that there is an invisible elephant in your bedroom, and when you disagree I keep coming up with things to explain why you can't detect it. It doesn't mean the elephant is real.

All you have done is invent something that is unfalsifiable and then decide that since no one can show that it's wrong (because you've covered it in a thick layer of handwavium), then it MUST be real.

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.

But beliefs can result in biases, can they not?

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.

It's easy. Take any testable claim by any religion (that is based on some spiritual aspect), and put it to the test. If it works as described, then it passes peer review.

An example? Here you go.

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

So let's get believers and get them to tell mountains to move from hence to yonder place. If the mountain moves as directed, then I'll become a Christian.

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.

Based on your interpretation of the Bible and other holy books, and is no doubt influenced by your belief that Baha'i is correct.

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

I never said you did. You want to be a Baha'i, you go right ahead. But if you come in here and start telling people that your beliefs are correct, you shouldn't be surprised when people start disagreeing with you.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

That doesn't work when the evidence is what the guy wrote.

I have a photo of Tom Cruise that has his autograph on it. I claim that the autograph is genuine, but you want confirmation. I say that the autograph proves it is genuine, since Tom wouldn't have signed it if the autograph was not genuine.

Likewise, the claims Mr B wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong.

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

I never said you were trying to get me to believe what you believe.

But, like them, you are trying to show that your reasons for believing are valid reasons.

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 you don't seem to see that your explanation as to why Bahais can interpret the Bible better than Christians is basically because you have a particular interpretation that you think is right. Newsflash: So does everyone else!

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.

Pointing out the flaws in your position that I see, purely for the sake of those who are watching the thread.

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

What in the world is this argument? You think I'm going to say, "Oh noes, I can't talk about Baha'i because then other people will be aware of it and as an atheist that's the last thing I want!"

Seriously, this is one of the most ludicrous arguments you have yet made.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

You completely missed my point.

If I go outside and look up at a sunny blue sky, I can not CHOOSE to ignore the evidence that the sky is blue.

This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you have just said it is not the same while not explaining WHY it is not the same.

The United Nations committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights is not the same as what Baha'u'llah asked for in His Epistles, for parliaments of the world to send their wisest and best men to an international world conference which should decide all questions between the peoples and establish universal peace which would be the highest court of appeal.

So you got something about your faith wrong, and that's after, what did you say, fifty years?

I explained it to you incorrectly and no, I don't know everything about my faith even after 50 years.

But it's improving this Human's life! How is it any different to correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease? I mean, if they are vulnerable to a disease, shouldn't we also claim that's God's decree as well?

Altering a person's intelligence is not the same as correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease.

Ah yes, the Baha'i position. "All religions are true - at least our interpretation of them, and only the parts we say are valid and no the result of the work of man who got it wrong."

The Baha'i position is that all revealed religions were true as originally revealed, before men messed them up and corrupted them.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[Tiberius]

The United Nations committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights is not the same as what Baha'u'llah asked for in His Epistles, for parliaments of the world to send their wisest and best men to an international world conference which should decide all questions between the peoples and establish universal peace which would be the highest court of appeal.

That wasn't too hard, was it?

I explained it to you incorrectly and no, I don't know everything about my faith even after 50 years.

But you have told me that you were confident that if your faith was mistaken, you'd have become aware of it by now, haven't you?

Altering a person's intelligence is not the same as correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease.

No it's not, but it's still improving the life of the person, isn't it? And didn't you say that scientific advancements should be used to improve Human life on Earth?

The Baha'i position is that all revealed religions were true as originally revealed, before men messed them up and corrupted them.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Unfortunately, without the original versions of those religions, there's no way to verify that claim.

How interesting, once again a religion makes a claim that is completely unfalsifiable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Prove it.

I can explain it but I cannot prove it. That's not my job.

You know, for someone who complained that I was assuming what your position was, you certainly seem to be more than happy to assume what my position is.

I never said that was YOUR position. I was talking about atheists in general.
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.

Of course I can tell that science and religion are different.

I was saying that it's special pleading because you just assume that the spiritual stuff is real and try to handwave away the total lack of any valid evidence by saying, "Oh, that's because science can't investigate it, you need to use a different tool."

I never said that. I believe spiritual stuff is real but for obvious reasons science cannot prove that because that is the domain of religion, not science. There is no scientific evidence of God or an afterlife and science can never prove that a Messenger got messages from God. Those are religious beliefs and people either believe them or they don't.

But beliefs can result in biases, can they not?

Everyone has biases and believers have no more biases than atheists so your non-beliefs can also result in biases. In fact, you are clearly biased against my beliefs.

It's easy. Take any testable claim by any religion (that is based on some spiritual aspect), and put it to the test. If it works as described, then it passes peer review.

An example? Here you go.

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

So let's get believers and get them to tell mountains to move from hence to yonder place. If the mountain moves as directed, then I'll become a Christian.

Those verses are obviously allegorical, and were never intended to be interpreted literally. Jesus used lots of metaphors to make His points.

Based on your interpretation of the Bible and other holy books, and is no doubt influenced by your belief that Baha'i is correct.

I said my belief in a spiritual reality 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. The spiritual reality has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Bible or whether the Baha'i Faith is correct. The spiritual reality existed long before Baha'u'llah ever walked the earth.

I never said you did. You want to be a Baha'i, you go right ahead. But if you come in here and start telling people that your beliefs are correct, you shouldn't be surprised when people start disagreeing with you.

I do not come here telling people that my beliefs are correct, I say I believe them. Why would I believe them if I thought they were incorrect? Do I look surprised that people disagree with me? No, I would be surprised if they agreed with me. I don't care if they agree with me because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't work when the evidence is what the guy wrote.

I have a photo of Tom Cruise that has his autograph on it. I claim that the autograph is genuine, but you want confirmation. I say that the autograph proves it is genuine, since Tom wouldn't have signed it if the autograph was not genuine.

Likewise, the claims Mr B wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong.

Obviously the claims Baha'u'llah wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong but the claims are not part of the evidence.

I am really getting tired of this. I told you numerous times that the evidence is not what Baha'u'llah claimed.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

I never said you were trying to get me to believe what you believe.

But, like them, you are trying to show that your reasons for believing are valid reasons.

If I try to show you that is because you keep telling me they are invalid reasons. What am I supposed to say?

And you don't seem to see that your explanation as to why Bahais can interpret the Bible better than Christians is basically because you have a particular interpretation that you think is right. Newsflash: So does everyone else!

Newsflash. There is a logical reason WHY we think we are correct. Here is the reason:

“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 the Baha'is.

Pointing out the flaws in your position that I see, purely for the sake of those who are watching the thread.

I guess I was right in what I suspected then. You really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by pointing out flaws in the Baha'i Faith. That is what I meant in the paragraph I asked you to reread below.

What in the world is this argument? You think I'm going to say, "Oh noes, I can't talk about Baha'i because then other people will be aware of it and as an atheist that's the last thing I want!"

Seriously, this is one of the most ludicrous arguments you have yet made.

Obviously that completely flew over your head. I suggest you read it again and this time try to understand what I meant.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

You completely missed my point.

If I go outside and look up at a sunny blue sky, I can not CHOOSE to ignore the evidence that the sky is blue.

This is not a difficult concept.

I did not miss your point at all. I knew exactly what you meant. You expect the evidence to be as clear as a sunny blue sky. But it isn't and it never will be because that is not how God wants it to be. If it was that easy everyone would be a believer, even people who are unworthy of being a believer.

The passage below explains what the Messengers of God (the Manifestations of Divine justice) appear on earth as ordinary men. The reason is because if they revealed their power and glory nobody would question them as we are supposed to do.

“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

 

[Trailblazer]

That wasn't too hard, was it?

Does that mean you now understand the difference?

But you have told me that you were confident that if your faith was mistaken, you'd have become aware of it by now, haven't you?

That does not mean I have read all the Baha'i Writings that have ever been written and I understand them perfectly.

No it's not, but it's still improving the life of the person, isn't it? And didn't you say that scientific advancements should be used to improve Human life on Earth?

I am opting out if this discussion because that was just my opinion and does not represent the Baha'i position. The Baha'i Faith takes no position on matters of science.

Unfortunately, without the original versions of those religions, there's no way to verify that claim.

How interesting, once again a religion makes a claim that is completely unfalsifiable.

All religions have scriptures. The original versions are the scriptures of those religions that were written by men who claimed to know what the Messenger said or taught. They were not written by the Messenger so they are not authentic like the Writings of Baha'u'llah but that is the best we have for the older religions.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

You do realise that they didn't actually have a word for "blue," right? Brass was referring to the shininess. The Greeks had the same problem.

Are you listening Tiberius?


Look at the next verse after the one I'm talking about:

The Day that the sky will be like molten brass, Quran 70:9

And the mountains will be like wool. Quran 70:10


The verses are referring to the three levels.

Level 1 - Level 2 - Level 3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Brass - Silver - Gold
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream.
Straw - Dust - Stubble
Corn - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow
Pomegranate - Fig - apple
Moon - Star - Sun

The mountain is as wool. Because the mountain is sheep.


Perhaps the mountains should be moved into the sea.
Because of what the mountains have done.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21


But maybe putting the mountains into the sea is a bit harsh.
Maybe it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust.



Do you understand what I am saying?
If not, then look carefully at the word block of levels that I have showed.

Should I explain some more about why it says the mountains could be moved into the sea?
And explain why I think it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust?

When you understand clearly then I would like to hear your honest opinion about if and where the mountains should be moved.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I think the person who posted this has bailed on the conversation maybe even RF, which is understandable. Of course a request such as his would end up a back and forth.

 

[Tiberius]

I can explain it but I cannot prove it. That's not my job.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I never said that was YOUR position. I was talking about atheists in general.
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.

Citation required for the claim that's what atheists think.

Also, it didn't seem to stop you when I was talking about religious people in general and you seemed to take it personally.

I never said that. I believe spiritual stuff is real but for obvious reasons science cannot prove that because that is the domain of religion, not science. There is no scientific evidence of God or an afterlife and science can never prove that a Messenger got messages from God. Those are religious beliefs and people either believe them or they don't.

Given that there is absolutely zero evidence that can be verified, I don't see why I should accept that there is anything spiritual in nature.

Everyone has biases and believers have no more biases than atheists so your non-beliefs can also result in biases. In fact, you are clearly biased against my beliefs.

No, I am not biased against your beliefs. I am biased against any claim that is made yet has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Those verses are obviously allegorical, and were never intended to be interpreted literally. Jesus used lots of metaphors to make His points.

And of course, we come up with the excuses to explain it away.

I said my belief in a spiritual reality 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. The spiritual reality has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Bible or whether the Baha'i Faith is correct. The spiritual reality existed long before Baha'u'llah ever walked the earth.

There is no spiritual reality.

I do not come here telling people that my beliefs are correct, I say I believe them. Why would I believe them if I thought they were incorrect? Do I look surprised that people disagree with me? No, I would be surprised if they agreed with me. I don't care if they agree with me because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

But you have come straight out and told people that their interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Obviously the claims Baha'u'llah wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong but the claims are not part of the evidence.

I am really getting tired of this. I told you numerous times that the evidence is not what Baha'u'llah claimed.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

And yet you immediately turn to words written by Mr B.

I honestly don't understand how you don't see the conflict there.

If I try to show you that is because you keep telling me they are invalid reasons. What am I supposed to say?

A nice VALID reason why your claims are correct would be nice.

Newsflash. There is a logical reason WHY we think we are correct. Here is the reason:

“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 the Baha'is.

I fail to see the logic in basing your conclusion on a premise that can not be verified.

I guess I was right in what I suspected then. You really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by pointing out flaws in the Baha'i Faith. That is what I meant in the paragraph I asked you to reread below.

Obviously that completely flew over your head. I suggest you read it again and this time try to understand what I meant.

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.

So you subscribe to the point of view that any publicity is good publicity, I take it?

 

[Tiberius]

I did not miss your point at all. I knew exactly what you meant. You expect the evidence to be as clear as a sunny blue sky. But it isn't and it never will be because that is not how God wants it to be. If it was that easy everyone would be a believer, even people who are unworthy of being a believer.

The passage below explains what the Messengers of God (the Manifestations of Divine justice) appear on earth as ordinary men. The reason is because if they revealed their power and glory nobody would question them as we are supposed to do.

“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

And why would God not want it to be that clear, since he obviously puts so much importance on it?

It seems far more likely to me that the reason it is unclear is because it's all untrue, and it's confusing because of the huge amount of double-talk required to explain away all the inconsistancies.

 

[Tiberius]

Does that mean you now understand the difference?

It means I now believe I understand what you mean when you said they were similar but not the same.

I think a lot of our conflict stems from a lack of clear communication.

That does not mean I have read all the Baha'i Writings that have ever been written and I understand them perfectly.

Do you think there's a chance that you could read some writing you have not yet read, and that you could conclude from that writing that your beliefs are wrong? (Say, if something that it says contradicts something you currently believe.)

I am opting out if this discussion because that was just my opinion and does not represent the Baha'i position. The Baha'i Faith takes no position on matters of science.

So the official Baha'i position is that such modification would be okay?

All religions have scriptures. The original versions are the scriptures of those religions that were written by men who claimed to know what the Messenger said or taught. They were not written by the Messenger so they are not authentic like the Writings of Baha'u'llah but that is the best we have for the older religions.

So you are claiming that we have lost the opriginal versions of those religions, and moreso, that there never were original versions?

And why didn't God think to get his earlier messengers to write anything down?

 

[Tiberius]

Are you listening Tiberius?


Look at the next verse after the one I'm talking about:

The Day that the sky will be like molten brass, Quran 70:9

And the mountains will be like wool. Quran 70:10


The verses are referring to the three levels.

Level 1 - Level 2 - Level 3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Brass - Silver - Gold
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream.
Straw - Dust - Stubble
Corn - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow
Pomegranate - Fig - apple
Moon - Star - Sun

The mountain is as wool. Because the mountain is sheep.


Perhaps the mountains should be moved into the sea.
Because of what the mountains have done.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21


But maybe putting the mountains into the sea is a bit harsh.
Maybe it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust.



Do you understand what I am saying?
If not, then look carefully at the word block of levels that I have showed.

Should I explain some more about why it says the mountains could be moved into the sea?
And explain why I think it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust?

When you understand clearly then I would like to hear your honest opinion about if and where the mountains should be moved.

Yeah, your arguments based on wordplay are entirely unconvincing. I'm not going to respond to an argument when you haven't even shown it's a valid argument.

 

[David Weaver]

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

Why do so many people have this concept wrong. Atheists (concerning the group as a whole, there are obvious exceptions) do not claim to believe in nothing. They just don't believe in a God. Look up the origination of the word atheist...it translates without God

 

[firedragon]

So you are claiming that we have lost the opriginal versions of those religions, and moreso, that there never were original versions?

And why didn't God think to get his earlier messengers to write anything down?

You know Tiberius, a question like "why did god not do this instead of that" is something you need to ask God right? I mean logically.

Let me ask you a question.

Why did God not opt to make sure the Christians get the exact correct version of the epistles of John to all Christians from day one? Can you think of an answer, and prove the answer with some external textual evidence where God told you "this is the reason I did that"?