Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Denial is rude after a while.You have not refuted me one single time. You just believe you have.
I do not need your help, I have God's help.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Denial is rude after a while.You have not refuted me one single time. You just believe you have.
I do not need your help, I have God's help.
Oh God, spare me. Sorry that is all I can say right now, but I think you know why I said it.But this doesn't count, because we know it never happened? In other words... religions make things up?
Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
This is not testimony of any kind because as you know nobody even knows who wrote the gospels.Here's the "testimony" of a couple of NT writers and they claim there were witnesses. Do you believe them?
Matthew 27:52-53 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them (the apostles) and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
I do not need to know the details in order to know that they are religions of God. Maybe you need to know the details but I don't.And there you go again. You bring up the "religions" of God. What "empirical" evidence did Hinduism leave? And who was the messenger of God that established Hinduism?
I think Baha'is would be better off in just saying that they have studied the writings of Baha'u'llah and have come to believe the things he says... And he says God is real.
What is rude is accusing a person of denial, it is SO RUDE.Denial is rude after a while.
This statement is insufficient. Its just a claim. You are treating it as a fact, but it isn't.The Messengers are evidence that God exists
No. How are messengers of god evidence that a god exists IF the claims, or whatever the messenger says, not evidence itself? The only think that would make a messenger authentic is through what it says, and then these statements can be verified as being beyond what an ordinary mortal could know.but the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.
Do you understand what I mean?
What I said I believe will happen eventually is not related to evidence.Well, that is the OP, isn’t it? You asked what atheists would consider as evidence, and I told you. You said it will happen, eventually. But again, everybody can say that, for basically everything.
ciao
- viole
I never made such an assumption. It is arrogant to keep denying the obvious.What is rude is accusing a person of denial, it is SO RUDE.
But sadly, rude people rarely know how rude they are.
It is also arrogant to think you know someone better than they know themselves.
66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45
And so.....Where did I say it matters? I said people believing in a God different from yours would not be convinced either.
ciao
- viole
You absolutely did tell me I am in denial. You cannot deny what is posted in the posts.I never made such an assumption. It is arrogant to keep denying the obvious.
Okay, that's something we can test and see if the Baha'i Faith is accurate in what it says. Baha'is say that Krishna is a messenger of God. What is the evidence that supports that?The way we can identify someone as a Messenger of God is by looking at all the evidence that supports their claim.
Probable failures... One failure... Krishna did not establish Hinduism. Failure number two... Krishna claims to be an incarnation of a Hindu God. Failure number three... Krishna taught reincarnation.And who was the messenger of God that established Hinduism?
Yes, who needs that "baloney"? All we have is another religion that thinks it has all the answers.We don't have that baloney.
It is not a claim or a fact, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.This statement is insufficient. Its just a claim. You are treating it as a fact, but it isn't.
The claim itself is not the evidence because anyone can make a claim to be a Messenger of God.No. How are messengers of god evidence that a god exists IF the claims, or whatever the messenger says, not evidence itself? The only think that would make a messenger authentic is through what it says, and then these statements can be verified as being beyond what an ordinary mortal could know.
See, just as I noted in an earlier post, you ignore those who point out your errors. If your beliefs were actually well founded on evidence you would have no problem acknowledging your flaws and correct them. But you don't. You ignore them and continue on with your errors.Sorry, I cannot remember that because I have been on this computer for 10 hours.
That all of your attempts to argue rationally have been refuted.You absolutely did tell me I am in denial. You cannot deny what is posted in the posts.
What is the obvious that I am denying?
Once again, when you state your beliefs in a debate forum as a truth you are making a claim. That means you have to prove it.It is not a claim or a fact, it is a belief.
That means nothing to anyone else.Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
That means nothing to us.One of Baha'u'llah's claims is that God can never be known except through His Messenger (who is a Manifestation of God).
That means you need a way to verify that any messenger you think is authentic, and that is conclusive evidence. That is a very high standard of evidence, meaning facts. You have none.The claim itself is not the evidence because anyone can make a claim to be a Messenger of God.
And highly skilled thinkers will do this work. We can't trust biased believers like yourself, agreed?The evidence is everything that can be used to backs up the claim.
If it can't be verified then it is no good. All you have is your biased belief. We don't care about your beliefs.What is contained in the Writings of Baha'u'lah, including the claims, is beyond what any ordinary mortal could know, but that is a matter or personal opinion, I don't know how it could ever be verified.
That is not how you test the Baha'i Faith, by looking at what Baha'is said about Krishna. Baha'u'llah never said anything about Krishna so what Bahais say is moot, unless Abdu'l-Baha said something.Okay, that's something we can test and see if the Baha'i Faith is accurate in what it says. Baha'is say that Krishna is a messenger of God. What is the evidence that supports that?
Failure number 4 -- Nobody knows anything about what Krishna taught because we have no original scriptures written by Krishna. Moreover what was written was written thousand of years after Krishna walked the earth. Compare this to the gospels that were written only a few decades after Jesus walked the earth.Probable failures... One failure... Krishna did not establish Hinduism. Failure number two... Krishna claims to be an incarnation of a Hindu God. Failure number three... Krishna taught reincarnation.
You are right about that, Nobody needs to know about Krishna when we have a new Manifestation of God for THIS age.Yes, who needs that "baloney"? All we have is another religion that thinks it has all the answers.
I did ignore anything, I said I did not remember and that was the truth.See, just as I noted in an earlier post, you ignore those who point out your errors. If your beliefs were actually well founded on evidence you would have no problem acknowledging your flaws and correct them. But you don't. You ignore them and continue on with your errors.
Only in your imagination.That all of your attempts to argue rationally have been refuted.
No, ratiocinator....... I did not assume my conclusion, but you did assume the question by stuffing factors within it that you can't guess at.Evidence for god cannot rely on the assumption that god exists. The existence of things can only be considered evidence of god if you first assume that they couldn't exist unless god created them, which assumes god exists.
So you see, I didn't beg anything, I've just told you my answer.You've assumed your conclusion, which is called "begging the question" and it's a logical fallacy.
Again, who do you think you are to label beliefs irrational? And you cannot even explain WHY they are irrational.I can understand that your religious beliefs are important to you, but it is a mistake to try to defend them by claiming that they are rational. They simply are not. And that is what people have tried to show you. The fact that they are not rational does not automatically make them wrong. That no one has claimed. Only your attempts to claim that it is a rational belief has been corrected.
Sorry but no. I don’t have to prove it just because I believe something is true.Once again, when you state your beliefs in a debate forum as a truth you are making a claim. That means you have to prove it.
Why should I care?That means nothing to anyone else.
Why should I care?That means nothing to us.
I have facts.That means you need a way to verify that any messenger you think is authentic, and that is conclusive evidence. That is a very high standard of evidence, meaning facts. You have none.
You do not know if I am biased. Highly skilled thinkers like you?And highly skilled thinkers will do this work. We can't trust biased believers like yourself, agreed?
If you do not care about my beliefs why do you keep asking me about them? Please leave me alone.If it can't be verified then it is no good. All you have is your biased belief. We don't care about your beliefs.