Baha'i and Messengers

[Aupmanyav]

The core virtues are never outdated.
.. God gave us those core values.

What Bahaollah said about women and LGBTQ is not according to core values and is outdated now. Society gives us the core values and not any God or his messenger.

 

[Sheldon]

So again your rationale can only infer your concept of a deity was created, by what one wonders? One also wonders what created that, and so on and so forth. Again I await the special pleading fallacy that apologists always offer, when confronted with this rational conclusion of their own rationale.

God was not created. He always existed. He is unborn and uncreated. He has no beginning and no end.

As I said, theists always resort to a special pleading fallacy, when this particular unevidenced claim is challenged, and you leaped right in, and did just that, bizarrely you didn't even try a rational response?? Now what can we infer from that I wonder.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They can communicate truths about the ways in which life works, offer insights into human nature, and give us guidance for living. .. This is not the fault of God at all.

These stories were created by people some 3000 years ago according to their beliefs. They hardly have any value today and some are definitely misleading. I do not even believe in existence of any God or soul.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you don't reciprocate their beliefs, or they yours, but ....no wait? You quite demonstrably don't accept the same deity, and please don't go to Afghanistan and tell the Taliban, or to what is left of Syria, and tell what is left of ISIS, just to prove my point.

Dear oh dear...

We accept for example Muhammad and the Quran and Christ and the Gospels and even go to their churches and mosques sometimes to pray and meditate. So we see them as family.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s just an individual opinion vs billions of people who believe otherwise.

All you have done is repeat your argumentum ad populum fallacy, and doubling down in this way is idiotic, since you had time to Google the fallacy, and learn what it means, and no, it is not "just an individual's opinion", this is another asinine claim.

The number of people who believe something, tells us nothing about the validity of that belief, that is a basic principle of logic, and one that you have now violated twice, and again this makes the claim irrational by definition.

You might also want to consider that your belief is held by a tiny minority, so not just an irrational conclusion, but a false premise to begin with.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
That one is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I can disbelieve any unevidenced claim, and logically need not offer any alternative unevidenced claim.

Anyone can deny anything they wish even truth.

You mean the way you are denying a basic principle of logic here, and ignoring that your use of a known logical fallacy, is by definition irrational?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wrath. You never hear that God has wrath?

God and Bahaollah certainly have wrath. He cursed the those who did not believe his words. As you know I do not believe in existence of God. So, whatever Bahaollah said has no meaning for me. If I do not believe in God, then it is natural that I would consider those who claim a mission from God as not being truthful and selling snake-oil.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anyone can deny anything they wish even truth.

IMHO, all theists do that, deny the truth - that there is no God - "la-ilaha" as Al-Ḥallāj (Ana'l-Ḥaqq) and Sarmad said.

 

[Sheldon]

We accept for example Muhammad and the Quran and Christ and the Gospels and even go to their churches and mosques sometimes to pray and meditate. So we see them as family.

Who cares, this is one religion among thousands, one deity among thousands. Christianity alone has over 45000 separate denominations globally. The idea there is one deity is just that, an idea, an unevidenced idea, and one that even in the 21st century could easily get you killed in any number of places globally if you are unwise enough to suggest it to other theists, that you keeping trying to laughably include in your claim.

There is no universal we, when it comes to theistic belief, that is axiomatic.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think the tablet of the Words of Wisdom is applicable to this OP.

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

To me it is the wisdom of faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

If I do not believe in God,

Lucky you.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As I said, theists always resort to a special pleading fallacy, when this particular unevidenced claim is challenged, and you leaped right in, and did just that, bizarrely you didn't even try a rational response?? Now what can we infer from that I wonder.

I can’t make it more clear. We believe in God and so accept that whatever He says is truth. It’s a matter of verification and proof of the Manifestation then complete trust.

I had to prove through evidence Who Baha’u’llah was before I was willing to fully trust His Words as truth so there was a lengthy investigation impartial and independent into Who Baha’u’llah was.

Since you haven’t done that you are accusing us of believing blindly which is false because we each verified Who He was before believing in Him.

What do you know about Baha’u’llah? You are misjudging us on false pretexts, on logic and reason alone not taking into account that our belief in Baha’u’llah was verified with evidence. So we are not believing blindly as you may think.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow, after all the times it has been explained, you use a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum, and in the same sentence make a rhetorical claim that your are being logical.

I said: "I know, and my approach is different from most believers."

That is not ad populum, it is not even in the ball park.
You really need to bone up on logical fallacies.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

incarnation
noun

1. a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.

manifestation
noun

1. an event, action, or object that clearly shows or embodies something abstract or theoretical.

I'm not seeing how those concepts are mutually exclusive to be honest? Perhaps you can explain why you think they are?

This article explains the difference between an incarnation and a Manifestation.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

 

[loverofhumanity]

All you have done is repeat your argumentum ad populum fallacy, and doubling down in this way is idiotic, since you had time to Google the fallacy, and learn what it means, and no, it is not "just an individual's opinion", this is another asinine claim.

The number of people who believe something, tells us nothing about the validity of that belief, that is a basic principle of logic, and one that you have now violated twice, and again this makes the claim irrational by definition.

You might also want to consider that your belief is held by a tiny minority, so not just an irrational conclusion, but a false premise to begin with.

Not if our knowledge is obtained from an infallible Source.

Man’s fallibility vs God’s infallibility = God always comes up trumps. The greatest minds are no match for God’s knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the sake of argument, if you had only two choices, and I am not saying you do, but if you did, would you choose adherence to logic, or your faith in your religious beliefs?

I do not have to choose between those since my religious beliefs are completely logical.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You mean the way you are denying a basic principle of logic here, and ignoring that your use of a known logical fallacy, is by definition irrational?

Anyone can deny God. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. But each to his own. I don’t care if people believe or not. But if it disturbs you to know I fully trust in God then I’ll try and explain it.

 

[Trailblazer]

loverofhumanity said: Your argument is saying that many billions of people are experiencing illusions created by their own mind and is nothing but a fantasy and mental state instead of realising that man is a spiritual being innately because he was created to know and worship God which these people claim.

Sheldon said: That one is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I can disbelieve any unevidenced claim, and logically need not offer any alternative unevidenced claim.

You really need to bone up on your logical fallacies. What @loverofhumanity said has absolutely NOTHING to do with the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy because he did not say that his beliefs are true because they have not yet been proven false, nor did he say that your beliefs are false because they have not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

IMHO, all theists do that, deny the truth - that there is no God

There is no proof that there is a God and there is no proof that there is no God...
As such neither one of us can claim to have the truth....
All we have are beliefs and opinions.

 

[Audie]

In the evolution of animals to humans, did a male and female evolve into humans at the same time and same place? And then made more humans? Or were there all of a sudden, several animals whose kids were humans and no longer the animal? And is evolution still going on? Will some animals change into some new species of animal?

It is said to be the height of foolishness for a person to dismiss something they knows nothing about