Is atheism a religion?

[Truly Enlightened]

Nobody is asking you to believe in anything. Everything in the physical world can be observed and studied because we live in the physical world. We do not live in the spiritual world so we cannot see it, observe it, or study it. I do not expect objective proof of that which cannot be proven objectively. I know a spiritual world exists. I am aware of it even though I cannot see it. I do not need to see it. I will see it soon enough, after I die.

You can call it faith if you want to, but I have factual evidence surrounding the Revelation of Baha’u’llah that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. That is the only reason I believe in Him. I have no need to believe and I do not even want to believe much of the time. A life of service to God is not an easy life.

It is irrational is to expect to get accurate information about a religion from people who don’t even know anything about it. It is rational is to get information about a religion form its own recorded history and scriptures and from people who belong to the religion. That is why people on forums ask Baha’is questions about the Baha’i Faith. They do not ask Jews about the Baha’i Faith.

If you want to know what Christians believe you read the Bible, not the Hindu scriptures.

The only factual evidence you have is what you are given, or what you've been told. The only factual evidence you have is a Book of words, written by a man, that claims or indicates, that the Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. All evidence for certainty and verification are approved in-house. The Baha'is believe that religion and science agree with each other. That they are "the two wings that humanity needs to fly". How to Independently Investigate the Truth Even when conducting your own independent investigation of the truth, you must gather information from only approved sources, and never listen to any sources from enemies of the faith.

My words are going VIRAL!

You are correct. It would be irrational to expect any accurate information about any religion. Since all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, they all should be discounted as factual. Before I make any life long commitment, I would need more than just faith, and clever sophistry. I didn't marry my wife, based on faith alone..​

 

[gnostic]

It is not logical to make a generalization like that. The Baha'i Faith has a connection to Abrahamic religions and technically speaking it is an Abrahamic religion, but it is very different from the other Abrahamic religions because this is a new religious cycle, a new age of mankind.

Baha'is are disallowed from being involved in politics and Holy War was abrogated in Baha'u'llah's Book of Laws. As you can see in the following quote, the Baha'i Faith does not play favorites, since we believe that the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation. It is free from any form of ecclesiasticism, has neither priesthood nor rituals, and is supported exclusively by voluntary contributions made by its avowed adherents. Though loyal to their respective governments, though imbued with the love of their own country, and anxious to promote at all times, its best interests, the followers of the Bahá’í Faith, nevertheless, viewing mankind as one entity, and profoundly attached to its vital interests, will not hesitate to subordinate every particular interest, be it personal, regional or national, to the over-riding interests of the generality of mankind, knowing full well that in a world of interdependent peoples and nations the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole, and that no lasting result can be achieved by any of the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are neglected….”
The Promised Day Is Come, vi - vii​

Time can change people’s future and fates, and should Baha’i Faith really gain real powers (eg social, political, legal, military), those powers could corrupt individuals.

After Jesus, his followers were still peaceful because they had no powers to speak of, before the century (1st century CE), Christians were already splintering into different sects, and the orthodox (Pauline Christians) became the most populous and most dominant in the next few centuries, gradually gaining more powers., eventually having the backing of a Roman emperor, Constantine.

Muhammad gained both political and military very early on, shortly after arriving Medina. And that power corrupted him and his new religion, when the Banu Qurayza surrendered to him after a siege, he didn’t spared them, he did not stop his army from executing the men, and selling women and children. And in the next generation, Islam had sizeable empire, enough to challenge both Byzantines and the Persians.

Given time, Baha’i Faith might go the same route, if, and I must stressed the IF, if any Baha’i leaders were to ever gain powers.

I am not generalising. As low as probability it is for that to happen, the probability is still there.

Yes, I know the followers of Baha’i Faith have been peaceful since Baha'u'llah, but that could change in the future, and one of the top prophets that Baha’i revered is Muhammad, who may be a prophet for Islam, but politically and militarily he was ruthless warlord. He was not the peaceful man as you think he is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Time can change people’s future and fates, and should Baha’i Faith really gain real powers (eg social, political, legal, military), those powers could corrupt individuals.

After Jesus, his followers were still peaceful because they had no powers to speak of, before the century (1st century CE), Christians were already splintering into different sects, and the orthodox (Pauline Christians) became the most populous and most dominant in the next few centuries, gradually gaining more powers., eventually having the backing of a Roman emperor, Constantine.

Muhammad gained both political and military very early on, shortly after arriving Medina. And that power corrupted him and his new religion, when the Banu Qurayza surrendered to him after a siege, he didn’t spared them, he did not stop his army from executing the men, and selling women and children. And in the next generation, Islam had sizeable empire, enough to challenge both Byzantines and the Persians.

Given time, Baha’i Faith might go the same route, if, and I must stressed the IF, if any Baha’i leaders were to ever gain powers.

I am not generalising. As low as probability it is for that to happen, the probability is still there.

Yes, I know the followers of Baha’i Faith have been peaceful since Baha'u'llah, but that could change in the future, and one of the top prophets that Baha’i revered is Muhammad, who may be a prophet for Islam, but politically and militarily he was ruthless warlord. He was not the peaceful man as you think he is.

That can never change because no Baha'i is allowed to hold a political office or a position of power. It is against the teachings of Baha'u'llah, so if a Bahai tried to do that the UHJ would stop him.

 

[Trailblazer]

At least we agree that Pigs can't fly. Not because of biology, but because of physics. Claiming that Christ and Moses were prophets is illogical, unless you can somehow prove their existence first. Otherwise, just more empty unproven assertions, simply because the Bible says so. So can you demonstrate a none-make-believe true prophet, that we can examine? I didn't think so. So no true prophets exists, unless you can demonstrate that any does.

I already demonstrated how we know a true prophet.

“If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

The nations of people that were educated and trained are called Jews and Christians.

What would you expect to see, a God antenna sticking up out of His head?

I'm using that same science that demonstrates that pigs can't fly. So at least, I'm not begging the question. But on the common sense level, what would you do, if you had the true gift of prophecy? If you could do any paranormal activity? Keep it a secret?

Good question. Baha’u’llah did miracles but He told His followers to keep that a secret because He did not want people to believe in him because of His miracles. He wanted people to believe in Him because of His person and His teachings.

Totally irrelevant. Elvis, Martin Luther King, Mandela, The Beatles, Harry Potter, and Star Trek, all had a great influence on people. This doesn't make them a prophet.

Sorry but that won’t fly, first because the kind of influence they had was not spiritual and second because it did not last thousands of years or extend to as many people as Jesus’ influence.

What you are claiming as a prophet is a true Messenger for a God. What is the mechanism by which he (only a he in the Baha'i faith) communicates with a God? Where does He get this information from? How can you test the truth/validity of what the Messenger says?

The mechanism by which He got communication from God was the Holy Spirit. That is not something that can be tested. This part of the belief is based upon faith since it cannot be proven.

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57​

The argument was over the minute you started sermonizing and quote mining from a man-written text. Especially, when you assume that the text represents some factual and objective authority. It doesn't. It is only as real, as you want to be. I think you are confused. I also stated that faith and evidence were opposites. In fact faith is the total absence of evidence. I don't mind you repeating what I say. But implying that I thought they were both the same, is not very honest. Is it?

I never said that the text represents some factual and objective authority. I said we have facts that surround the Revelation of Bahaullah, historical facts

I never said that faith and evidence are opposites. Faith is what we have to have in the absence of proof.

I never implied anything about what you said. I just speak for myself.

Really? He might be just bat-s**t insane. If someone in the subway was chanting that he was a Messenger from a God, and claims that he knows the true nature of a God, I can think of more that just two options.

No there are still only two possibilities, true or false. A man either heard from God or not, there is nothing in between. The man in the subway is false because he never heard from God.

But this is just more distraction and misdirection. You are simply hiding behind the fact that this claim is unfalsifiable. It is just another gap-filling argument from ignorance. Now that is really plain and simple logic.

I don’t have to hide because I do not care if it is unfalsifiable. That does not prove anything. It is still either true or false – you pick.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the empirical evidence that you base your assumptions on? How about, "I don't know" as an option? How do you conclude that if God is unjust, that it is the same that no God exist at all? How do you know this? Considering the number of pagan and devil worshippers out there, I'm sure some would worship an unjust God. There is also more evidence to support an unjust God, than a just and caring God.

The empirical evidence is what we have seen. We have seen those who claim to be Messengers of God so that is one possibility. However, if you do not believe that those Messengers spoke for God then the second possibility is that God does not communicate at all, and if you do no believe that God exists at all that is the third possibility.

Don’t know is a good position and that would be agnosticism, but this is not about what you believe, it is about the different possibilities for the existence of God.

The evidence that God is just is in scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.

It would take awhile to explain. But suffice to say, all of our physical laws are interdependent on each other. All of these properties are generally fixed or consistent. Nothing outside of our reality can enter our reality, without effecting these generally fixed limitations.

Since God does not enter our reality I do not see how God’s existence would affect our reality. Another forum I post on the atheist forum owner is a physicist so maybe I will run that by him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you also see the word "fact" as part of the definition of evidence? What do you think facts mean? Fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true. So, exactly, what part of your claim is known to be true, or what part has been proven to be true? What is this body of facts that indicates any of your statements are true, or that a Messenger exists is true? Absolutely nothing. Just more manipulating the meaning of terms, to justify a very weak narrative. What's next, putting "indicating" and "establishes" under your equivocation microscope?

Did you see the word indicates in that definition? It does not say proves. Circumstantial evidence in a court of law indicates a crime was committed but forensic evidence proves it was committed. Both are kinds of evidence but one is stronger than the other.

The body of facts that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God are His early life, His mission, His Writings and the religion that has been set up by His followers. These are all verifiable facts of history.

It is not an established fact that Baha’u’llah got messages from God so in that sense there is no proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

The only factual evidence you have is what you are given, or what you've been told. The only factual evidence you have is a Book of words, written by a man, that claims or indicates, that the Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. All evidence for certainty and verification are approved in-house. The Baha'is believe that religion and science agree with each other. That they are "the two wings that humanity needs to fly". How to Independently Investigate the Truth Even when conducting your own independent investigation of the truth, you must gather information from only approved sources, and never listen to any sources from enemies of the faith.

That is not true at all. Nobody GIVES us anything. We go out and GET what we want in order to do an independent investigation of truth. There are no approved sources for seekers. Seekers can read sources written by enemies of the Faith if they want to, but if they have any logical abilities they will realize it cannot be accurate information if it is written by enemies of the Faith. Facts are facts. The Baha’i Faith teaches what it teaches and those teachings are in the authoritative Writings of the Baha’i Faith, just as Christian teachings are in the New Testament. You can argue over the interpretation of the Bible, but you cannot say there is another BETTER source of information about Christianity’s teachings.

There are authoritative writings of the Baha’i Faith are called authoritative because they are the Writings of Baha’u’llah and those to whom He gave authority to interpret His Writings, which He did in His will and testament.​

You are correct. It would be irrational to expect any accurate information about any religion. Since all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, they all should be discounted as factual. Before I make any life long commitment, I would need more than just faith, and clever sophistry. I didn't marry my wife, based on faith alone.

It is not reasonable to expect that just because religious beliefs are not verifiable facts that means they *cannot be true.* They could be true and you will never know that because you require that they are falsifiable.

No, you did not marry your wide based upon faith alone but you had to have some faith because it was not a proven fact that it would work out as it did. You had to have some evidence which was something about her life and her character. But still you took a chance because all marriages do not turn out as we hope they will. However, as time went on I imagine you had more confidence that you were right about her and you made the right decision.

It is really no different with religion. You are making a commitment so you need some evidence but you also need faith for what cannot be proven. New Baha’is do not usually have as much faith as long time Baha’is because their belief has not yet withstood the test of time, just like a new marriage. They sign the card saying that they believe that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, but they might not come to understand all the implications of that until much later.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I already demonstrated how we know a true prophet.

“If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

The nations of people that were educated and trained are called Jews and Christians.

What would you expect to see, a God antenna sticking up out of His head?

Good question. Baha’u’llah did miracles but He told His followers to keep that a secret because He did not want people to believe in him because of His miracles. He wanted people to believe in Him because of His person and His teachings.

Sorry but that won’t fly, first because the kind of influence they had was not spiritual and second because it did not last thousands of years or extend to as many people as Jesus’ influence.

The mechanism by which He got communication from God was the Holy Spirit. That is not something that can be tested. This part of the belief is based upon faith since it cannot be proven.

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57​

I never said that the text represents some factual and objective authority. I said we have facts that surround the Revelation of Bahaullah, historical facts

I never said that faith and evidence are opposites. Faith is what we have to have in the absence of proof.

I never implied anything about what you said. I just speak for myself.

No there are still only two possibilities, true or false. A man either heard from God or not, there is nothing in between. The man in the subway is false because he never heard from God.

I don’t have to hide because I do not care if it is unfalsifiable. That does not prove anything. It is still either true or false – you pick.

This is just getting sillier. If you say "I never said that the text represents some factual and objective authority. I said we have facts that surround the Revelation of Bahaullah, historical facts", then why do you keep presenting quotes from sources that you have admitted as being a non-factual, and non-objective? Please present these objective facts that you claim surrounds these revelations. Or, are you just going to tell me to find out for myself, or that it is not your job, again? Can't you quote from sources(objective and factual) that is not simply promoting your own religious self- interests? This would avoid the circular reasoning problem. For example; It is true because it is written by Baha'u'llah, and since it is written by Baha'u'llah then it must be true. Or, because all approved information by the faith is true, then only true information is approved by the faith. Pure circular nonsense. It is amazing just how subtle the art of persuasion can be. You can convince anybody about anything, as long as you make them believe that they have convinced themselves. How do you convince yourself that you are wrong?

Would you like a list of the countries that the Baha'i faith have been kick out of, or have been persecuted? Not much educating and training of people or nations going on there(spiritually or socially). I believe Michael Jackson and Barrack Obama, had infinitely more influence on governments and people, than any fictional Messenger for a God has ever had. Calling it spiritual, is just another term you can hide behind, since it also can mean anything you want, and is unfalsifiable.

Good question. Baha’u’llah did miracles but He told His followers to keep that a secret because He did not want people to believe in him because of His miracles. He wanted people to believe in Him because of His person and His teachings.

Wow. So the Baha'u'llah did miracles, but kept it a secret. Was he so insecure about his writings and teachings, that he didn't what people to be influenced by the use of his powers? Are you being serious? Is this a Messenger of God, or man? The obvious question is, how do you know what was in the mind of the Messenger? You don't.

The mechanism by which He got communication from God was the Holy Spirit. That is not something that can be tested. This part of the belief is based upon faith since it cannot be proven.

In other words, "not a clue". You have no idea what the mechanism the Messenger uses to communicate with a God. You have not presented any evidence to support a God or a Messenger, now you want to introduce a "Holy Spirit"? Are, "the breeze of God", "the voice of the Holy Ghost", or the "breeze of the All Glorious" the mechanisms the Messenger uses to communicate with God? Please, it's just getting worse.

You must first understand that there are many that do not believe that a fictitious prophet/Messenger of a God exists period. So stop framing your questions and answers as though one does exist. If I ask you when did you stop beating your husband, or how can pixies fly? Can't you see the latent assumptions here? It might be best that you stick with the unification of all religions. Although not very realistic, it is at least rational.
​

No there are still only two possibilities, true or false. A man either heard from God or not, there is nothing in between. The man in the subway is false because he never heard from God.

What if the man, like you, simply believes that he has heard from a God, or that his beliefs are true? Even if a thousand are wrong, that doesn't mean that they all are wrong. Right? Maybe you can explain how an infinite power can interact with a limited power, without destroying the limited power? If the earth could transport itself 100,000 miles from the sun, it would evaporate. So, what do you think would happen if a human came in contact with an infinite power?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The empirical evidence is what we have seen. We have seen those who claim to be Messengers of God so that is one possibility. However, if you do not believe that those Messengers spoke for God then the second possibility is that God does not communicate at all, and if you do no believe that God exists at all that is the third possibility.

Don’t know is a good position and that would be agnosticism, but this is not about what you believe, it is about the different possibilities for the existence of God.

The evidence that God is just is in scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.

Since God does not enter our reality I do not see how God’s existence would affect our reality. Another forum I post on the atheist forum owner is a physicist so maybe I will run that by him.

Since God does not enter our reality I do not see how God’s existence would affect our reality. Another forum I post on the atheist forum owner is a physicist so maybe I will run that by him.

Do you understand the implications of your statements. You are saying that no God(s) exist. Since God does not enter our reality(universe), He would have no effect on our reality. If a God did exist, it would be an infinite God, with the infinite power to be everywhere and everything at once. He would also need to be a God of all dimensions, universes, times, and space itself. In order to be all these things, our Universe would also be inclusive of His power. If He did enter, He could be detected as some cause or some effect. So, either a God of everything exists, or everything exists except God. You also seem to agree with me.

How are the claims made by humans, relevant as being empirical evidence? How is any belief or disbelief, about a God or a Messenger relevant as being empirical evidence? Since when does, "the bible tells me so", become empirical evidence? And, "I don't know", is the only honest assertion anyone should make, regarding any unfalsifiable claim. Maybe you're holding back the real objective evidence, because you want people to believe everything you say entirely on faith?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Did you see the word indicates in that definition? It does not say proves. Circumstantial evidence in a court of law indicates a crime was committed but forensic evidence proves it was committed. Both are kinds of evidence but one is stronger than the other.

The body of facts that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God are His early life, His mission, His Writings and the religion that has been set up by His followers. These are all verifiable facts of history.

It is not an established fact that Baha’u’llah got messages from God so in that sense there is no proof.

Not only did I see those words, but I mentioned them in my posts(#540). In case you missed it, I'll highlight them this time.

Did you also see the word "fact" as part of the definition of evidence? What do you think facts mean? Fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true. So, exactly, what part of your claim is known to be true, or what part has been proven to be true? What is this body of facts that indicates any of your statements are true, or that a Messenger exists is true? Absolutely nothing. Just more manipulating the meaning of terms, to justify a very weak narrative. What's next, putting "indicating" and "establishes" under your equivocation microscope?

I even stated beforehand that you would put these words under the microscope, and you just couldn't help yourself. We are not talking about the evidence indicating guilt or innocence in a court of law. We are talking about the use of empirical(factual) evidence to support any of your claims, regarding the existence of God(s) or Messengers of God(s). Even if we were to use your dishonest inferences, exactly what specific facts can we establish as a fact?

So, what would be a fact that would support your claim? How about a detailed prophecy? Maybe a resurrection, an unexplained phenomena, or some verifiable miracle would do. Without any facts, or any reasonable evidence to justify blind devotion, I'm afraid this is just another cultist conjob on the vulnerable(IMHO).

 

[ecco]

but we put reverence into the writings of Baha’u’llah because we believe that He speaks for God. To be more specific, we believe that the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God. As such, anything Baha’u’llah wrote is just as if God wrote it Himself.

You believe the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God.

Why do you believe the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God?

Because Baha’u’llah told you that the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God.

No, that’s not true. Baha’is worship only God,

If the Will of Baha’u’llah is identical with the Will of God how is there any difference between worshipping God and worshipping Baha’u’llah?

You have written very little about your reverence for God compared to what you have written about your reverence for Baha’u’llah.

 

[ecco]

Let me reword that so it more accurately reflects what I meant...

Evidence is the foundation for my Baha’i beliefs.

Other belief systems may or may not have evidence to support them.

The only evidence you have is the self-serving pronunciations and writings of someone who wanted to create another offshoot of Islam.

You have never shown any evidence to the contrary.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:
Clear, concise, unambiguous predictions.

I vaguely recall that we did this exercise before, but maybe I am remembering another atheist.

Prediction #1: The fall of Napoleon from power.

Here are some excerpts from a long Tablet to Napoleon III. The specific prediction is in bold.

“Give ear, O King, unto the Voice that calleth from the Fire which burneth in this verdant Tree, on this Sinai which hath been raised above the hallowed and snow-white Spot, beyond the Everlasting City: ‘Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Merciful!’ We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth. Arise thou to serve God and help His Cause. He, verily, will assist thee with the hosts of the seen and unseen, and will set thee king over all that whereon the sun riseth. Thy Lord, in truth, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty......

O King! The stars of the heaven of knowledge have fallen, they who seek to establish the truth of My Cause through the things they possess, and who make mention of God in My Name. And yet, when I came unto them in My glory, they turned aside. They, indeed, are of the fallen. This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow…....

For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We see abasement hastening after thee, whilst thou art of the heedless. It behoveth thee when thou hearest His Voice calling from the seat of glory to cast away all that thou possessest, and cry out: ‘Here am I, O Lord of all that is in heaven and all that is on earth!’ Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, pp. 18-20​

That Tablet was written in 1869 when Napoleon was at the height of His glory. . In 1870, Napoleon III fell in battle:

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.

Napoleon III - Wikipedia

EVERYTHING that Baha’u’llah prophesied came to pass. All those who rejected His Tablets fell from power just as He had warned them would happen. Those who persecuted Him and exiled and banished Him met with an ever sorrier fate. This is all history so it cannot be refuted.

"a long Tablet to Napoleon III"

What does this mean? Was this something Bahá’u’lláh sent to Napolean? When was it written? How do you know?


Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days,

If this was written by Bahá’u’lláh, why does he refer to himself as Bahá’u’lláh?

If this was written by Bahá’u’lláh, why does he capitalize the "H" in the word "Him"? Caps, in this usage, are normally reserved for deities.


Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause,

Who is the "thou" that Bahá’u’lláh want to "arisest"?


and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ)

By all accounts, Napolean was a true believer in Jesus. So, specifically, what do you see Bahá’u’ lláh as trying to say here?

None of your quoted writings meets the criteria of "Clear, concise, unambiguous predictions".

Prediction #2: WWI and WWII.

Baha’u’llah also prophesied WWI and WWII in His Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I. Below is an that Tablet.

“O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39​

Specifically, where does the above clearly, concisely, and unambiguously make predictions about WWI or WWII?

When was this "tablet" written?

Do you believe Nostradamus was a prophet? After all, he did predict the falling of the Twin Towers (two brothers torn apart).

Nostradamus: Predictions of Things Past

Depending on which source you consult, Nostradamus has been credited with accurately predicting the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945; the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986; the French Revolution in 1789; the Apollo moon landing in 1969; the death of Princess Diana in 1997; both World Wars, and so on. In fact you'd be hard pressed to name some significant global event that Nostradamus was not said, by someone, to have foreseen.

"In the city of God there will be a great thunder
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos while the fortress endures
The great leader will succumb
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning
— Nostradamus 1654"​

 

[ecco]

I guess you mean that no prophet has ever been *unequivocally proven* to be a true prophet of God.

However, many Prophets have *evidence* that indicates that they were true Prophets.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

All of the above is self-serving:

How can you tell a real prophet from a phony? I am a real prophet and the rest are phonies. How do you know? Because I said so.

​

Babbulah trained no nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge any more than David Koresh did, and way less than Joseph Smith did.

Are you suggesting that David Koresh and Joseph Smith were true prophets of God?

 

[ecco]

Your problem is that you just lump everyone together... All mediums are frauds, all prophets are false. Fine, if that is what you believe, but keep in mind you have no proof of either *assertion.* Moreover, there is no reason why I am obligated to prove what I believe any more than you are obligated to prove what you believe. NOBODY is obligated to prove anything to anyone else except themselves. God gave us all a brain so we can make our own determinations.

Why do you continue to use the "PROOF" strawman? I have never asked you for proof. What I have done, repeatedly, is offer evidence. Evidence that you refuse to accept. This is no different than Creos refusing to accept evidence for evolution. Refusal to accept evidence is based on deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

No, this has nothing to do with *yours and mine.* Some psychics are phony and some are genuine. Some prophets are false and some are true Prophets sent by God. One reason God gave all of us all a brain is so we could distinguish between truth and falsehood, but that requires looking at the *evidence* rather than just making assumptions, facts not in evidence.

I'm all for that.

Now please show evidence of "real" psychics (didn't you state that you don't know much about psychics?)

Now please show evidence of "real" prophets. So far all you have done is post some "predictions" supporting Bahulla which really aren't predictions at all.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103​

And yes, we've been down this road. Remember my asking how many times the wise man goes into rooms only to find no lamps? Three? Fifty? Two hundred?

A really wise man said:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
​

Your Paris Talker is telling you to keep on walking into dark rooms hoping beyond hope that one may really contain a lamp. And you accept it.

Another really wise man said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.​

You make extraordinary claims and offer no evidence. And you expect me to accept it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is not true at all. Nobody GIVES us anything. We go out and GET what we want in order to do an independent investigation of truth. There are no approved sources for seekers. Seekers can read sources written by enemies of the Faith if they want to, but if they have any logical abilities they will realize it cannot be accurate information if it is written by enemies of the Faith. Facts are facts. The Baha’i Faith teaches what it teaches and those teachings are in the authoritative Writings of the Baha’i Faith, just as Christian teachings are in the New Testament. You can argue over the interpretation of the Bible, but you cannot say there is another BETTER source of information about Christianity’s teachings.

There are authoritative writings of the Baha’i Faith are called authoritative because they are the Writings of Baha’u’llah and those to whom He gave authority to interpret His Writings, which He did in His will and testament.​

It is not reasonable to expect that just because religious beliefs are not verifiable facts that means they *cannot be true.* They could be true and you will never know that because you require that they are falsifiable.

No, you did not marry your wide based upon faith alone but you had to have some faith because it was not a proven fact that it would work out as it did. You had to have some evidence which was something about her life and her character. But still you took a chance because all marriages do not turn out as we hope they will. However, as time went on I imagine you had more confidence that you were right about her and you made the right decision.

It is really no different with religion. You are making a commitment so you need some evidence but you also need faith for what cannot be proven. New Baha’is do not usually have as much faith as long time Baha’is because their belief has not yet withstood the test of time, just like a new marriage. They sign the card saying that they believe that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, but they might not come to understand all the implications of that until much later.

If you think that any information coming outside of your faith, or criticizes your faith, then confront them. Address the wrongful claims. Defend your position. Why would simply avoid, ignore, or not respond to them? The problem is that the claims are indefensible. That is, they are an accurate depiction of the faith. Ninety percent of all your quotes(at least to me) are all in-house. This is not an independent search for the truth, this would only appear to be an independent search for the truth. These criticism are very specific, and involve many of your own rules, practices, and procedures. Surely these can be answered with a yes or no? Surely, claims relating to the historicity of the faith, can be addressed as well? This give the impression that your faith is so exclusive, that independent and critical thinking is the first that must go. You can learn more about your true self from your enemies, than you from your friends.

It is not reasonable to expect that just because religious beliefs are not verifiable facts that means they *cannot be true.* They could be true and you will never know that because you require that they are falsifiable.

I think that this about sums it all up. Of course any rational person, before they commit their entire life to pious servitude, would want to make sure that there is at least one verifiable fact to justify their decision. This is why rational people rely on the facts. Because facts work, and are consistent, dependable, verifiable, and logical. What is the relevance of "cannot be true"? How do you support the claim that at least one religious belief can be falsified? I certainly can support my claim that all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

There are many reasons why marriages fail. Making decisions based on only the heart, is a one way ticket to disaster. When you're young, the heart will always mask any obvious character flaws. It will see only what it wants to see. I tend to rely on the brain, it is much more practical and reliable. My marriage was not based on faith or chance. It was based on confidence, trust, maturity, and compatibility. In short, if either persons feels uncomfortable, insecure, or must change their behavior to accommodate the other, then it is doomed. Any relationships based on fear or dominance, will fail. Happiness only occurs, when both people continue to compliment each others weaknesses and strengths. Women are naturally attracted to the males' masculinity, and males to the females' femininity. If either are lacking, it will also not work. Everything is not based on faith. Most things we do in our lives are based on certainty. But faith is the absence of certainty. Therefore, faith was never involved in my decision to marry my wife.It was based on a very, very, high degree of certainty.

I'm afraid the sign now and understand later, only produces red flags for me. At least in a marriage the other person is real. But a belief that the Messenger is the manifestation of God is only a concept, and is not real. This is the very definition of confirmation bias. First you sign an agreement that you know that something is true. Then go look through the sources that are given, to confirm that belief. Incredible.

 

[ecco]

But only the psychics who were *tested* were proven to be frauds. Not all psychics have been tested, in fact probably very few have been tested compared to how many psychics there are. As for Messengers, show me ANY scientific tests that have been done on Messengers that prove they are frauds.

From post #555 above...

Another really wise man said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.​

You make extraordinary claims and offer no evidence. And you expect me to accept it.

Neither I nor anyone needs to prove all psychic and prophets are frauds.

You are making the claims that some psychics are not frauds, but you present no evidence to support that claim.

You are making the claims that some prophets are not frauds, but you present no evidence to support that claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you present no evidence.

 

[`mud]

A lot theists demand `evidence` of something that doesn't exist !
I find this baffeling at the least, and confusing at the best.
Evidence to me is the presense of something solid, not something invinsible.
If a rock hits me on the head, and I lifted the rock up, and my blood was on it,
that would be evidence of the rock hitting my head, woudn't it ?
But `God` is not believable in any way, there is no evidence of `His` existing !
Now Jesus is debatable, but no witnesses write about really seeing `Him` ever.
Ahhh...evidence, that's not visable or provable, faith is like that, isn't it ?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

A lot theists demand `evidence` of something that doesn't exist !
I find this baffeling at the least, and confusing at the best.
Evidence to me is the presense of something solid, not something invinsible.
If a rock hits me on the head, and I lifted the rock up, and my blood was on it,
that would be evidence of the rock hitting my head, woudn't it ?
But `God` is not believable in any way, there is no evidence of `His` existing !
Now Jesus is debatable, but no witnesses write about really seeing `Him` ever.
Ahhh...evidence, that's not visable or provable, faith is like that, isn't it ?

What is baffling and confusing is that believers keep claiming that they not only have evidence, but can present it as well. But in the next breath they say that objective evidence is not only impossible, but that it is illogical for anyone to expect any. They then add arrogance to the mix, by stating that it is our fault that we don't accept the evidence(because of our mindset). We must then suffer through oceans of self-serving hand-picked quotes, from people that have already embraced the arrogance of assumed truth. Rather than admit that they simply need to believe that something exists that is greater than themselves to lead them, they must create flawed logic to justify and satisfy that need to believe. It is cognitively impossible for them to accept that a belief is just a belief. It is not real just because you want it to be.

 

[`mud]

That sounds like mirrored projection of some sort, doesn't it ?
It couldn't be, can it ?