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

[Tiberius]

Wordplay is a simple way of putting it.
It is word structure.

Following the words shows word association. Words are in groups.
The words are woven into their specific positions. Words from the same group.

The four directions of the twelve specific positions of words combine to form a new Zodiac wheel.
An Israel Zodiac.

The sentences are speaking a Zodiac language.

The signs, miracles, prophecies are just word weaving. Wordplay.
The bible is like what is said about the Quran. The Bible itself is the miracle.


Like how the mighty wind has made the fig trees into stars:

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Revelation 6:13

That prophecy happened the moment it was written.

Whatever. You're looking for meaning and inventing ways to find it when it's not there in the first place.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't know what you mean by that.

Are you familiar with the concept of "cause and effect"?

Give what to us? Do you mean why can't God force people to believe whether people want to believe or not?

You tell me. You're the one spouting passages about "God's gifts" and all that.

The reason God would never make us believe is because God wants us to use our free will to choose to believe or not believe.

That's a lousy reason. What would you think of a parent who let their children eat nothing but lollies, saying, "Oh, but I want them to use their free will to choose to eat healthy or not."

 

[Truthseeker]

Ex

@Truthseeker9 . I have just been able to have time to respond to responses to my post. Can you please tell me why you gave a funny frubal to my post? It may help me understand what I can do to better to understand the circumstances. It may help me to explain to myself and others, the resistance to leaving suffering, preconceptions, and guilt behind in this short and confusing life we all endure.

I just thought it was a funny comment of the futileness of these people's efforts, to confound Trailblazer. It wasn't a criticism of your post at all.

 

[night912]

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

Why would you just look up the definition of, "special pleading" instead of looking up the "special pleading fallacy," when Tiberius clearly meant the logical fallacy? Why use a dictionary definition that has nothing to do with logic and logical fallacies when you are being accused of committing a logical fallacy, but use the definition of actual logical fallacies when you accuse others of committing fallacies? That in itself, is an example of special pleading fallacy. Just saying.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Whatever. You're looking for meaning and inventing ways to find it when it's not there in the first place.

Do you really know, or do you just assume?

How do you know that I was looking for meaning and inventing ways?
I was neither believer or unbeliever when I looked into the bible.
I didn't have an opinion either way.

I'm trying to show what I have seen. After the bible I had a look at the Quran and saw the same thing.

Something you may have missed. But I could be wrong.

I need help. Thats why I am here.

So tell me.
Do you know that it's not there, or do you just assume that it's not there?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you do not claim that your beliefs represent reality?

I believe they represent reality, I do not claim they represent reality.

Yes, you've trotted out this before. I dealt with it in THIS post.

Trailblazer said: Facts are not the only kind of evidence.

Then you said "They're the only kind that actually matters.

Correction: Facts are the only kind of evidence that matter to you,.

Because EVERYONE'S agenda is to maintain their belief. The reluctance of people to change their mind - particularly when it comes to long held or firmly held beliefs - is well documented.

You cannot speak for everyone. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization Just because the tendency is for most people to hold onto their beliefs that does not mean all people hold onto their beliefs. Many people on this forum prove you are wrong because just since I have been here many people have changed their long held religious beliefs.

But even for the ones who hold onto their beliefs that is not an agenda, it is a tendency.

agenda
a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=agenda+means

The rules of logic are not subjective.

I think it is unreasonable to rely on untestable claims because doing so can result in people believing all sorts of nonsense to be true.

You can think whatever you want to but that won't change the fact that religious beliefs aren't testable.

People can and do believe in all sorts of nonsense but there is no way to prevent that because (a) all people all think differently and come from different backgrounds and (b) all people have free will to choose.

You can ONLY be responsible for what YOU believe. It does not matter one iota what other people believe.

See if the belief makes any claims that can be tested. I gave an example with the way the Bible says believers can pray to a mountain to move. Yes, I know you rejected that, and I've explained why your rejection was arbitrary.

That is a poor example since it is obvious Jesus did not mean that faith can literally move mountains.
There might be something that the Bab or Baha'u'llah did or wrote that can be tested and that would be more useful than the Bible because it is modern history that can be verified by non-Baha'i sources..

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If you can't tell me what the relevant parts are, I'm not going to go searching for them myself.

It's all relevant but you would not have to read all those texts. I have not even read all of them yet.
My friend Duane @Truthseeker9 on here has read them all so maybe he could point you to what is most relevant.

Their perceptions can be wrong.

I prefer to have my perception of reality be as close as possible to what it actually is.

Anyone could say that same thing about you, that your perceptions are wrong and they are closer to reality than you are.

And from my point of view, you only change your standards because you want a way to be able to accept evidence that wouldn't work in any other context.

It would not work in all contexts, but it would work in a religious context, since that is what it is evidence FOR.
You want the kind of evidence that does NOT work in a religious context to be applied to religion. Religion is not science.

Yes I have.

You claimed that any and all publicity for a religion is good. I've shown you cases where publicity has been bad. You are essentially saying, "Yeah, but when it comes to religion, it's different." That's the special pleading, and it's quite clear.

Now you finally explained what you meant by special pleading, but I never said "Yeah, but when it comes to religion, it's different." I only ever said that bad publicity is a good way to spread the religion and the quote below explains precisely why.

“Our methods are different, we do not attack, neither calumniate; we do not wish to dispute with them; we bring forth proofs and arguments; we invite them to confute our statements. They cannot answer us, but instead, they write all they can think of against the Divine Messenger, Bahá’u’lláh.

Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! Obey the words of Bahá’u’lláh and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led into a knowledge of the Faith.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks

Obviously bad publicity is not good in other situations such as for a politician or a movie star.

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. It is the application of a double standard. Wikipedia

I just justified the exception by explaining why it is an exception, so it is not special pleading..

 

[Trailblazer]

In what way?

I just explained that, but If you want to say I have a bias towards my religion that would be more correct.

Yes it is. You are prejudiced towards accepting evidence that supports your beliefs more easily than accepting evidence which denies your beliefs.

Prejudice is the wrong word.

What does prejudice mean in simple words?

Prejudice is an assumption or an opinion about someone simply based on that person's membership to a particular group. For example, people can be prejudiced against someone else of a different ethnicity, gender, or religion.Jan 3, 2021

What Is Prejudice? - Verywell Mind

Yes they are.

People are not prejudiced in favor of their own beliefs, they are prejudiced against other people's beliefs.
Yes, Christians are prejudiced against all other religious beliefs because they believe that Jesus is the only way.
Baha'is are not prejudiced against other religious beliefs just because we believe that the Baha'i Faith is more current.

And how does "opinion that is not based on reason" not apply to religious belief?

How does it apply to a religious belief?

I thought you said, "the Baha'i Writings can be used to decide what uses of these discoveries are moral." Now you are saying that may not be true?

It may or may not be true depending upon what you are trying \to decide. They certainly would be useful..

There was nothing in those two points to indicate that you were stating only your opinion and not presenting it as a fact.

There was nothing in those two points to indicate that I was presenting it as a fact rather than stating it as my belief.

Which you certainly did when you said, "It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries."

If it was your opinion, then you would have said, "I think that it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries," or "In my opinion, it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries."

I don't have to preface everything I write with "I think" or "in my opinion." You can assume it is just my opinion or my belief unless I say it is a fact. I never asserted it as a fact by saying "The fact is that it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries." That was only my opinion based upon what I believe Messengers of God actually do.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, that's not going to happen. If you can't tell me what the relevant parts are, I'm not going to go searching for them myself.

Can't be summarized in a few words. Sorry, I don't have time for all those words. Sorry Susan @Trailblazer. Wouldn't be believed, anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you familiar with the concept of "cause and effect"?

Yes.

You tell me. You're the one spouting passages about "God's gifts" and all that.

I already told you before that God could force people to believe if He wanted to but He does not want to.

That's a lousy reason. What would you think of a parent who let their children eat nothing but lollies, saying, "Oh, but I want them to use their free will to choose to eat healthy or not."

That analogy does not fly first because human to human analogies do not apply to God to human situations. That is the fallacy of false equivalency. Secondly, it does not apply because adults are not children.

Religious belief has to be a choice or it is not worth anything. God gave all of us innate intelligence and free will so we could choose to believe, but that means we can also choose NOT to believe. Free will is a double-edged sword.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can't be summarized in a few words. Sorry, I don't have time for all those words. Sorry Susan @Trailblazer. Wouldn't be believed, anyway.

That's okay Duane, I just thought I would throw it out there. You are right, it would not be believed anyway.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you really know, or do you just assume?

How do you know that I was looking for meaning and inventing ways?
I was neither believer or unbeliever when I looked into the bible.
I didn't have an opinion either way.

I'm trying to show what I have seen. After the bible I had a look at the Quran and saw the same thing.

Something you may have missed. But I could be wrong.

I need help. Thats why I am here.

So tell me.
Do you know that it's not there, or do you just assume that it's not there?

I've looked at what you've said, I find it has no more substance to it than those people who claim that they've found Bible codes. You haven't done anything to indicate your arguments have anything more than that.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe they represent reality, I do not claim they represent reality.

It becomes a claim as soon as you say your beliefs represent reality.

Trailblazer said: Facts are not the only kind of evidence.

Then you said "They're the only kind that actually matters.

Correction: Facts are the only kind of evidence that matter to you,.

If the "evidence" can not be tested, it is worthless because there is no way to check that it's actually true.

This is not a difficult concept, yet you seem to be going out of your way to claim that non-testable claims should be given just as much credence.

You cannot speak for everyone. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization Just because the tendency is for most people to hold onto their beliefs that does not mean all people hold onto their beliefs. Many people on this forum prove you are wrong because just since I have been here many people have changed their long held religious beliefs.

I never said that nobody ever changes, did I? I said people want to maintain their belief, and find it difficult to change. I never said change was impossible.

But even for the ones who hold onto their beliefs that is not an agenda, it is a tendency.

agenda
a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=agenda+means

Yeah, if all you have is quibbling over wordplay like this, you've got no argument of any merit.

You can think whatever you want to but that won't change the fact that religious beliefs aren't testable.

People can and do believe in all sorts of nonsense but there is no way to prevent that because (a) all people all think differently and come from different backgrounds and (b) all people have free will to choose.

You can ONLY be responsible for what YOU believe. It does not matter one iota what other people believe.

I know they aren't testable. That's the point. If you can't test them, then you have no way of telling them apart from absolute bulldust.

That is a poor example since it is obvious Jesus did not mean that faith can literally move mountains.

Ah yes, the completely unsupported CLAIM that it is "obvious," yet the only reason you say it isn't meant literally is because to do otherwise is to have your position destroyed.

There might be something that the Bab or Baha'u'llah did or wrote that can be tested and that would be more useful than the Bible because it is modern history that can be verified by non-Baha'i sources..

If there is a testable claim that can only be explained by some spiritual reality being real, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Tiberius]

It's all relevant but you would not have to read all those texts. I have not even read all of them yet.
My friend Duane @Truthseeker9 on here has read them all so maybe he could point you to what is most relevant.

Perhaps, and if so, I'd appreciate it.

Anyone could say that same thing about you, that your perceptions are wrong and they are closer to reality than you are.

To which I would say, "That's fine, and I'm perfectly willing to change my position, provided I get some testable evidence and that evidence withstands the testing."

It would not work in all contexts, but it would work in a religious context, since that is what it is evidence FOR.
You want the kind of evidence that does NOT work in a religious context to be applied to religion. Religion is not science.

But the religious "evidence" presupposes that there is a spiritual reality there at all, when such may not be the case. It assumes that there is a spiritual reality and then attempts to explain it. I could, with just as much justification, assume there is an invisible and intangible elephant in my living room and come up with an untestable method of verifying it. But the elephant still wouldn't exist.

Now you finally explained what you meant by special pleading, but I never said "Yeah, but when it comes to religion, it's different." I only ever said that bad publicity is a good way to spread the religion and the quote below explains precisely why.

“Our methods are different, we do not attack, neither calumniate; we do not wish to dispute with them; we bring forth proofs and arguments; we invite them to confute our statements. They cannot answer us, but instead, they write all they can think of against the Divine Messenger, Bahá’u’lláh.

Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! Obey the words of Bahá’u’lláh and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led into a knowledge of the Faith.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks

Obviously bad publicity is not good in other situations such as for a politician or a movie star.

That is incorrect.

You said, "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."

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

You said, "Yes, because that has proven to be true."

I then gave a few examples of where the publicity has NOT been the case.

Since you were talking about religion, I must conclude that you were saying that "any publicity is good publicity" in the context of religion, since I had given examples of a non-religious nature where publicity was NOT good.

So either you are claiming that publicity can sometimes be bad when it comes to non-religious things, but it is always good when it comes to religion (in which case you are committing the Special Pleading fallacy), or you are claiming that publicity is always good no matter what it's about, in which case you are just plain wrong.

Take your pick.

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. It is the application of a double standard. Wikipedia

I just justified the exception by explaining why it is an exception, so it is not special pleading..

Your explanation of why it is an exception was to quote a passage from a book that says, "Yeah, but religion's methods are different." That's not an explanation.

 

[Tiberius]

I just explained that, but If you want to say I have a bias towards my religion that would be more correct.

Biased towards your religion (thanks for admitting that, by the way) or prejudiced towards your religion, all the same thing.

Prejudice is the wrong word.

What does prejudice mean in simple words?

Prejudice is an assumption or an opinion about someone simply based on that person's membership to a particular group. For example, people can be prejudiced against someone else of a different ethnicity, gender, or religion.Jan 3, 2021

What Is Prejudice? - Verywell Mind

From Dictionary.com:

• any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
• unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

People are not prejudiced in favor of their own beliefs, they are prejudiced against other people's beliefs.
Yes, Christians are prejudiced against all other religious beliefs because they believe that Jesus is the only way.
Baha'is are not prejudiced against other religious beliefs just because we believe that the Baha'i Faith is more current.

Again, special pleading. Christians believe that their faith is just as relevant to today as you believe yours is. And there's no indication that a religion loses relevance as time passes.

How does it apply to a religious belief?

Because religious beliefs are not based on reason.

It may or may not be true depending upon what you are trying \to decide. They certainly would be useful..

Ah yes, the old standby of "Keep the religious faith vague and undefined so we don't have to take a position that can be shown wrong."

There was nothing in those two points to indicate that I was presenting it as a fact rather than stating it as my belief.

Okay then, tell me, if you were to state those as facts, how would you phrase them? (And I promise I won't use that as an example of you stating your belief as fact.)

I don't have to preface everything I write with "I think" or "in my opinion." You can assume it is just my opinion or my belief unless I say it is a fact. I never asserted it as a fact by saying "The fact is that it is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries." That was only my opinion based upon what I believe Messengers of God actually do.

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Without clarification, people will take it in the broadest sense. If you say, "It is not the job of a Messenger of God to tell us what to do with scientific discoveries," people aren't going to assume you meant to limit it to your opinion.

 

[Tiberius]

Wouldn't be believed, anyway.

I've made it clear many times that I'll believe anything provided it has valid evidence. Since I've already stated that I'd accept it as testable evidence if it wasn't written by Mr B or based on his writing, your claim that I would just dismiss it is unreasonable and unfair.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.

Then I don't understand your issue with what I said.

I already told you before that God could force people to believe if He wanted to but He does not want to.

Which is completely indistinguishable to "no God whatsoever."

That analogy does not fly first because human to human analogies do not apply to God to human situations.

Again, special pleading. "It doesn't apply when God is involved, because.. reasons."

Secondly, it does not apply because adults are not children.

The Bible says we are children as compared to God, does it not? Or is that yet another passage you claim doesn't mean what it says?

Religious belief has to be a choice or it is not worth anything.

Why?

God gave all of us innate intelligence and free will so we could choose to believe, but that means we can also choose NOT to believe. Free will is a double-edged sword.

Unsupported claim.

 

[Tiberius]

You are right, it would not be believed anyway.

It's very rude to call me closed-minded in the third person when I'm right here, particular when I've already made it clear that I will accept any evidence that can be verified.

Please learn some manners.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I've looked at what you've said, I find it has no more substance to it than those people who claim that they've found Bible codes. You haven't done anything to indicate your arguments have anything more than that.

I have showed you many things.
Do you remember me telling you in your determining the validity of prophecy thread to look at an online bible and use the search function to look for words with me?

Did you do it?

Let's now take a closer look at this prophecy:

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Revelation 6:13


Follow the mighty word.

Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. Jeremiah 5:15



The mighty bow:

Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men. Jeremiah 5:16

Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper. Psalm 120:4

As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Psalm 127:4



The mighty wine:

Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. Psalm 78:65

And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord. Zechariah 10:7





The mighty right hand:

And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders: Deuteronomy 26:8


God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? Psalm 89:6

Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand. Psalm 89:13




They are the mountains.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. Amos 9:3





I had a question for you. Do you think the mountains should go into the sea?
I said I could explain the reason why they perhaps should go into the sea.



The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid. Hosea 13:12

Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment. Hosea 5:11

He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! Isaiah 28:1

Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria. Hosea 7:11



A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof. Proverbs 21:22

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. Daniel 8:24

Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men. Hosea 10:3


And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the Lord. Jeremiah 9:3





Here is a link to a bible search for the mighty word. There are 277 different sentences with the word mighty in them.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: mighty

Tell me what you think.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I just thought it was a funny comment of the futileness of these people's efforts, to confound Trailblazer. It wasn't a criticism of your post at all.

Oh ok. Yes, it is futile endeavor. Fairly entertaining though...Thanks for letting me know.