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

[Tiberius]

I could support it but it is not my job to support it. Do you think I care if you dismiss it?

Yes it is your job to support it. A person must support the arguments they make. It's called the burden of proof.

Crime? They do say that, that is why I said that they do. I know what 'some' atheists said because they said it to me. I am not speaking for 'all' atheists.

And likewise, I never said I was speaking for all believers, yet you still had a go at me for it.

You can ask all you want, just don't expect to get what you ask for. No evidence would suffice for you so why would I waste my time?

For someone who claims they are NOT speaking on behalf of others, you sure seem to speak on behalf of others a lot. Here, you are speaking on behalf of me, and you are getting it wrong.

There's plenty of evidence that would suffice for me. Any evidence that is testable would do. Your inability to provide such evidence is your problem, not mine.

But rest assured, if you provided such evidence and it withstood examination, then I would accept it.

I already told you there is no such evidence.

And thus you have no rational reason to conclude that your beliefs are an accurate representation of reality.

Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe it is allegorical because nobody can "literally" move mountains.

And that's my point. You just explain it away. You haven't reached that conclusion because you have some evidence that it was the original intent of the author that it be taken that way. You've reached that conclusion because it's the only way you can take it and fit it in with reality.

In short, you are taking a bunch of different positions and trying to make them all work together. Your problem is that you are not willing to dismiss any of the positions as bunk. Your agenda motivates you to find a way to hold onto as many as you can.

It is reasonable for those who don't have any religion or belief in God.

And why would a person's belief change what is reasonable?

Does the fact a person holds a religious belief make it more reasonable for them to accept evidenceless arguments just because those arguments support what they wish to believe?

I do not have to say "in my opinion" before or after everything I write. Did you say it was your opinion when you said what you thought the verses meant?

No, but then I wasn't proclaiming that someone else was wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

NO, I am not using what He said to conclude that He was telling the truth. I am using who He was and what He did, as Jesus suggested in Matthew 7:15-20.

And what if he was NOT telling the truth? Can you still use what he said in order to determine that he was telling the truth if what he says is wrong?

Spiritual reality is subjective and cannot be verified except by the person experiencing it.
Spiritual reality is valid for the person who experiences it.

Things that are subjective can not be verified.

Reality is not valid for one person and invalid for another person.

Logic cannot be applied to religious beliefs because they can never be proven true or false.
That my belief is true is what I believe.

Then there is no reason to think that such beliefs reflect the true nature of reality.

“No one casts stones at a tree without fruit. No one tries to extinguish a lamp without light! …….

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!

But always the greater the cause the more do enemies arise in larger and larger numbers to attempt its overthrow! The brighter the light the darker the shadow! Our part it is to act in accordance with the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh in humility and firm steadfastness.” Paris Talks, pp. 105-106

Special pleading fallacy.

 

[Tiberius]

God does want everyone to be a believer but only on His terms.
Think about it. If God wanted everyone to be believers on your terms, then everyone would be a believer, since an omnipotent God can do anything He wants to do.

Then why are those not his terms? It would increase his success rate.

 

[Tiberius]

That is not a bias, it's called faith. It is also logical because if Baha'u'llah was infallible, as Baha'is believe, then everything He wrote is true. If I don't understand it I try to understand it. So what if I don't agree with it? I am just a fallible human, so how could I know more than an infallible Messenger of God?

It may be faith, but it's also a bias.

Not that I am aware of although it is possible that the Universal House of Justice might legislate on such things during this age.

Given the rapid development of such technologies and that it appears that many more such technologies will be developed very soon, how could God's Messenger not have provided us with tools to deal with them?

Of course, from my perspective, it's easy to explain. Mr B could not even conceive of these technologies, so he could not have thought to say anything about them.

It's a belief, not a claim.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search

And the instant you say your belief represents reality, it becomes a claim.

 

[night912]

It's a belief, not a claim.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search

It's both. When having a discussion with someone and you are stating your beliefs, then you are making claims. It's illogical to have a belief that something is true but denies that it's true when stating it to another person. That person is contradicting himself/herself. The belief itself does not have to be true. The contradiction is where the person believes that something is true and not true at the same time.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Okay, you say that originally all revealed religions were true, the people messed them up. So I ask...

Okay, when were they true? How long before men "messed" them up?

But then you answer with don't know and don't care?

I don't know and I don't care. As a Baha'i it is not my job to explain what happened to the older religions.

Okay, you don't know when they were originally true and you don't care when people messed them up. So you are taking for granted that the Baha'i teachings are correct and true? Now that's just swell. But that's why I really think that Baha'is don't really believe in the other religions. Of course they say they do, but then find ways to make all of them as having wrong doctrines and beliefs.

And I agree. I don't believe in a six day creation, or a world wide flood, or that Elijah flew off in a fiery chariot, or that Jesus walked on water or was born of a virgin etc... But, that's not what Baha'is say. They say they do believe in all the other religions. And they do believe in the scriptures of all the other religions. Then they wiggle out of it by saying that those stories were not literally true, but were symbolically true. And to that I ask... did the writers know that what they were writing was not actual events but only symbolic stories? And Baha'is don't know. But they do know the stories are symbolic. Why? Because the Baha'i writings say so.

I know it doesn't matter to you. That you could care less. But it is the Baha'i Faith that is saying all these things and can't back up the things they are saying. Except for those that have accepted the Baha'i Faith, because then, automatically, everything the Baha'i Faith says is true. So that's proof enough. Yeah, yeah, but I know you'll disagree and say something like, "Oh there's proof, but you won't accept it." Anyway, I'm enjoying the back and forth you're have with Tiberius.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it is your job to support it. A person must support the arguments they make. It's called the burden of proof.

I was not making an argument or claiming anything is true, I was just stating a belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

I do not have the burden to prove anything unless I making a claim and asserting something as true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search

And likewise, I never said I was speaking for all believers, yet you still had a go at me for it.

So we are now even Steven.

For someone who claims they are NOT speaking on behalf of others, you sure seem to speak on behalf of others a lot. Here, you are speaking on behalf of me, and you are getting it wrong.

There's plenty of evidence that would suffice for me. Any evidence that is testable would do. Your inability to provide such evidence is your problem, not mine.

But rest assured, if you provided such evidence and it withstood examination, then I would accept it.

It is not my problem because I already have the evidence that suffices for me.

I said "You can ask all you want, just don't expect to get what you ask for" because you have asked for such evidence before.

What I meant is that no evidence that I have would suffice for you. You want testable evidence and as I have already told you I don't have any such evidence.

And thus you have no rational reason to conclude that your beliefs are an accurate representation of reality.

No reason that YOU consider rational. Testable evidence for a religion, I never heard anything that ridiculous.
It is as if you and I are from completely different planets.

And that's my point. You just explain it away. You haven't reached that conclusion because you have some evidence that it was the original intent of the author that it be taken that way. You've reached that conclusion because it's the only way you can take it and fit it in with reality.

In short, you are taking a bunch of different positions and trying to make them all work together. Your problem is that you are not willing to dismiss any of the positions as bunk. Your agenda motivates you to find a way to hold onto as many as you can.

I have no agenda whatsoever because I already have a belief and I don't care what others believe or disbelieve.

And why would a person's belief change what is reasonable?

I did not say that a person's belief would change what is reasonable. I said it is reasonable for those who don't have any religion or belief in God. IOWs people who have no religion or belief consider it reasonable.

Does the fact a person holds a religious belief make it more reasonable for them to accept evidenceless arguments just because those arguments support what they wish to believe?

No, that is not reasonable. I have evidence, it is just not the KIND of evidence you WANT. And I am not a Baha'i because that is what I wish to believe, I am a Baha'i because of the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what if he was NOT telling the truth? Can you still use what he said in order to determine that he was telling the truth if what he says is wrong?

It does not matter what He said, it only matters who He was and what He did. That was my point of the verses in Matthew:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

Things that are subjective can not be verified.

Reality is not valid for one person and invalid for another person.

Spiritual reality varies by person. What I experience will not be the same experience of another Baha'i.

Then there is no reason to think that such beliefs reflect the true nature of reality.

No reason for YOU to think that.

Special pleading fallacy.

Explain how that quote has anything to do with special pleading. What was I ignoring that was unfavorable to my point of view?

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

 

[Tiberius]

I was not making an argument or claiming anything is true, I was just stating a belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

I do not have the burden to prove anything unless I making a claim and asserting something as true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search

And the instant you present your belief as reflecting reality, you are making a claim.

So we are now even Steven.

Are you five?

It is not my problem because I already have the evidence that suffices for me.

I said "You can ask all you want, just don't expect to get what you ask for" because you have asked for such evidence before.

What I meant is that no evidence that I have would suffice for you. You want testable evidence and as I have already told you I don't have any such evidence.

If it can't be tested, how can you say it is evidence?

No reason that YOU consider rational. Testable evidence for a religion, I never heard anything that ridiculous.
It is as if you and I are from completely different planets.

Again, if it can't be tested, how can you say it is evidence?

I have no agenda whatsoever because I already have a belief and I don't care what others believe or disbelieve.

And your agenda is to maintain your belief.

I did not say that a person's belief would change what is reasonable. I said it is reasonable for those who don't have any religion or belief in God. IOWs people who have no religion or belief consider it reasonable.

Let me rephrase my question.

How could it be unreasonable for one person and yet reasonable for another person when the only difference is what they believe?

A person's belief system does not change the definition of "reasonable".

No, that is not reasonable. I have evidence, it is just not the KIND of evidence you WANT. And I am not a Baha'i because that is what I wish to believe, I am a Baha'i because of the evidence.

Again, how can you say it is evidence if it can't be tested?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why are those not his terms? It would increase his success rate.

God has no interest in a success rate because God does not need any believers, it is the believers who need God.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

Given those excerpts from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, we can deduce that God wants humans to believe in Him and get His messages. However, it is abundantly clear that God needs nothing for Himself because God is self-sufficient, above having needs as humans have. Clearly, God sends Messengers only for the benefit of humans. God cares about humans so God wants them to believe in Him and His Messenger, but God does not need anyone to believe in Him and His Messenger because God does not have needs. Only humans have needs. God has the power to dispense with all of His creatures in one split second but He doesn’t only because He loves them. Why would God create humans if He did not love them? And if He did not love them anymore, why would He not just wipe them out? But God doesn’t do that. Instead God keeps sending Messengers in every age, no doubt hoping that people will recognize them for their own benefit, but not needing people to.recognize them.

 

[Tiberius]

It does not matter what He said, it only matters who He was and what He did. That was my point of the verses in Matthew:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

Okay then. Using only what he did, and not referring to what he said (or anything that is based off what he said), show that Mr B was a messenger from God.

Spiritual reality varies by person. What I experience will not be the same experience of another Baha'i.

There is no kind of reality that is different for different people.

No reason for YOU to think that.

No reason for anyone who values actual evidence over belief to think that.

Explain how that quote has anything to do with special pleading. What was I ignoring that was unfavorable to my point of view?

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.

Special pleading - Wikipedia

Your claim that publicity for religion is always beneficial to that religion is such an example of the special pleading fallacy.

 

[night912]

I was not making an argument or claiming anything is true, I was just stating a belief.

So your beliefs are not true? And I am using "belief" in the same context as how the majority of people in here are using, the noun version. So it's referring to the the actual beliefs itself, the things in which we believe to be true, and not the verb sense, which is to actively believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

It may be faith, but it's also a bias.

How is it biased? How is it prejudiced or unfair? Against who?

bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

Given the rapid development of such technologies and that it appears that many more such technologies will be developed very soon, how could God's Messenger not have provided us with tools to deal with them?

Of course, from my perspective, it's easy to explain. Mr B could not even conceive of these technologies, so he could not have thought to say anything about them.

It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries. You are mixing science and religion again. However, the Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral.

Baha'u'llah knew much more than He ever wrote about and He explained why He did not write about everything He knew. Pay close attention, this is an important passage:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Scientific and religious Truth are both relative to the times in which they are discovered/revealed by God. In science, as new discoveries are made they will often replace what was previously considered factual. In religion, Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more. That is why Jesus said “John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” God is All-Knowing meaning God knows everything, so if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded. Truth needs to be suited to the capacity of the recipients living at the time.

And the instant you say your belief represents reality, it becomes a claim.

No, not unless I state or assert that is the case. Explaining my belief is not asserting it.

 

[Tiberius]

God has no interest in a success rate because God does not need any believers, it is the believers who need God.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

Given those excerpts from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, we can deduce that God wants humans to believe in Him and get His messages. However, it is abundantly clear that God needs nothing for Himself because God is self-sufficient, above having needs as humans have. Clearly, God sends Messengers only for the benefit of humans. God cares about humans so God wants them to believe in Him and His Messenger, but God does not need anyone to believe in Him and His Messenger because God does not have needs. Only humans have needs. God has the power to dispense with all of His creatures in one split second but He doesn’t only because He loves them. Why would God create humans if He did not love them? And if He did not love them anymore, why would He not just wipe them out? But God doesn’t do that. Instead God keeps sending Messengers in every age, no doubt hoping that people will recognize them for their own benefit, but not needing people to.recognize them.

Then why create Humans at all?

And why be so hung up on belief in him?

 

[Tiberius]

How is it biased? How is it prejudiced or unfair? Against who?

bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

Prejudice in favor of one thing.

Specifically, you are prejudiced in favor of your beliefs.

It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries. You are mixing science and religion again. However, the Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral.

Baha'u'llah knew much more than He ever wrote about and He explained why He did not write about everything He knew. Pay close attention, this is an important passage:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Scientific and religious Truth are both relative to the times in which they are discovered/revealed by God. In science, as new discoveries are made they will often replace what was previously considered factual. In religion, Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more. That is why Jesus said “John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” God is All-Knowing meaning God knows everything, so if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded. Truth needs to be suited to the capacity of the recipients living at the time.

Then you should have no problem using the Baha'i writings to determine if it is moral.

No, not unless I state or assert that is the case. Explaining my belief is not asserting it.

Well, in just the post I am responding to here, you have asserted the following.

• It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries.
• Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral.
• Baha'u'llah knew much more than He ever wrote about.
• Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more.
• if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, you don't know when they were originally true and you don't care when people messed them up. So you are taking for granted that the Baha'i teachings are correct and true?

No, I do not take it for granted, I believe it after having done my due diligence and coming to believe that the Baha'i Faith is the truth.

And I agree. I don't believe in a six day creation, or a world wide flood, or that Elijah flew off in a fiery chariot, or that Jesus walked on water or was born of a virgin etc... But, that's not what Baha'is say. They say they do believe in all the other religions. And they do believe in the scriptures of all the other religions. Then they wiggle out of it by saying that those stories were not literally true, but were symbolically true. And to that I ask... did the writers know that what they were writing was not actual events but only symbolic stories? And Baha'is don't know. But they do know the stories are symbolic. Why? Because the Baha'i writings say so.

Baha'is know what we know because the Baha'i Writings say so. How else could we know?

I know it doesn't matter to you. That you could care less. But it is the Baha'i Faith that is saying all these things and can't back up the things they are saying.

Except for those that have accepted the Baha'i Faith, because then, automatically, everything the Baha'i Faith says is true. So that's proof enough.

That's right.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the back and forth you're have with Tiberius.

Well, I am glad someone is deriving some entertainment from it.

 

[Trailblazer]

So your beliefs are not true?

I believe they are true but I don't claim they are true because I cannot prove they are true to anyone except myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why create Humans at all?

God created humans out of His love for humans.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

And why be so hung up on belief in him?

God is not hung up on humans believing in Him. As I said before, God only wants humans to believe in Him for our own benefit.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

 

[Tiberius]

God created humans out of His love for humans.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

Effect precedes cause?

God is not hung up on humans believing in Him. As I said before, God only wants humans to believe in Him for our own benefit.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

I was asking why God wants us to believe in him.

And the idea that the benefit we get is something from God seems arbitrary. Why can't God just give it to us whether we believe or not?

 

[danieldemol]

Just for the sake of curiosity, you are wrong according to Einstein.

Well Einstein isn't here to tell me I'm wrong, so why don't you quote what he said then explain how it contradicts me.

In my opinion.