Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[Subduction Zone]

For starters, you would have to be able to prove that the Prophet /Messenger of God that established the religion was just some guy... can you provide any evidence of that?

You have that backwards. You need to prove that he was not "just some guy". Religious prophets are a dime a dozen. None of them can make a reliable prophesy.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are many things I could discuss/debate. When I was losing my faith Baha'i sounded interesting to me. However, it seemed to be trying to mash incompatible religions together. How do you reconcile this? Especially when Islam straight out calls the other Abrahamic religions as corrupted/false. Hinduism has tons of gods, while Christianity claims there is only one, capital g, God.

For starters, the Baha’i Faith does not try to mash the older religions together with the Baha’i Faith. Every major religion has a time period for which it is valid, called a Dispensation, but when a new religion is revealed by God then the new religion is the valid religion, meaning it is the religion God wants everyone to adhere to, because it is suitable for the time period for which it was revealed. But people get attached to their older religions so they do not let go of them, even though their messages and their social teachings and laws are outdated. This short passage explains a lot... God is the All-Knowing Physician:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Baha’is believe that the Revelation identified with Baha’u’llah abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, although it uncompromisingly upholds their eternal spiritual verities and firmly and absolutely recognizes the Divine origin of their Prophets, which we call Messengers of God or Manifestations of God.

A second very important point is that what the followers of the religions such as Islam and Christianity believe is not what was revealed in the original scriptures because over time, the religious followers misinterpreted the scriptures and created man-made doctrines. That is why all the religions “appear” to conflict with each other when in reality they are just different, each one part of the continually unfolding religion of God to mankind that comes in successive stages as mankind matures spiritually and needs a new religion. The world we live in also changes over time, so that is why we need a new message. The new message for this time period in history is the oneness of mankind and world unity; we were not ready for that before, which is why it was never revealed in the past. As Jesus said, I have many things to say but you cannot bear them now... Well, we were ready for the “many things” in the 19th century when Baha’u’llah came.

There is a lot more I could say, but I do not want to overwhelm you with too much information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the evidence against God?
I can support my arguments for God with evidence but I predict you will not “like” my evidence.

That is because it is not evidence.

 

[JustWondering]

Logic and reason are the way that seems right to a man, in a fallen world.

Humans are hardwired to see patterns in things, a survival trait that has served us well. Problem is though, sometimes we see patterns that aren't really there.

Where’s the logic in nothing creating everything?

Yet you're fine with a creator god not needing a creator? Which is more plausible to spontaneously exist without a creator, a completely automated watch factory or a watch? Why?

We are asked to rely on faith rather than our senses because if we relied on our senses, our perspective would depend on our mood - not on the truth.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that would love me to suspend my sense of disbelief enough so that I'll buy whatever it is they're selling. If you suspend your sense of disbelief enough you can believe anything. Invisible magic rabbits created the universe! What, you don't believe that? Don't rely on your senses or evidence or reason, just believe!

Where’s the logic in subjective morality? Logic would discover that if it’s subjective, it doesn’t exist. Why even name it then? Where’s the logic in that?

I understand wanting there to be some cosmic moral code that fits all people all the time but people change. The OT gives instructions on when its ok to stone your kids to death and when and how its ok to beat your slaves. I remember reading somewhere that Hindu scriptures state that women need to be subservient to men. The Aztecs thought they needed to appease the gods with human sacrifices to keep them from destroying the world. That's just three examples of awesome "morality" from religion. You think stuff like that would fly in today's society? You think people today would find that moral?

No-one can be debated into believing; we only find God when we choose to seek Him or when we see the work of God.

Which god? The one your parents raised you to believe in before you developed the ability for critical thinking?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have that backwards. You need to prove that he was not "just some guy". Religious prophets are a dime a dozen. None of them can make a reliable prophesy.

No, I do not have it backwards because Hubert Farnsworth said: “A good litmus test is to ask them if any amount of evidence would make them change their mind about their religion.”

So we were talking about disproving the Prophet that the believer believes in, not proving the Prophet that the nonbeliever disbelieves in.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is because it is not evidence.

My evidence is as good as evidence ever gets.
Ever seen that movie "As Good as it Gets?"

 

[JustWondering]

A second very important point is that what the followers of the religions such as Islam and Christianity believe is not what was revealed in the original scriptures because over time, the religious followers misinterpreted the scriptures and created man-made doctrines.

Since man is incapable of keeping things straight if they even get it right to begin with, why does god keep relying on men to pass messages through? I never got that about revealed religions. Why doesn't god just send angels down to clue us in on stuff? That would be a lot more reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I do not have it backwards because Hubert Farnsworth said: “A good litmus test is to ask them if any amount of evidence would make them change their mind about their religion.”

So we were talking about disproving the Prophet that the believer believes in, not proving the Prophet that the nonbeliever disbelieves in.

It depends on which direction one is trying to go. Religious people have all sorts of unfounded beliefs where no amount of evidence will change their minds. By the way, since the topic is logical debates that would mean in such a debate the burden of proof would be back on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My evidence is as good as evidence ever gets.
Ever seen that movie "As Good as it Gets?"

No, it is confirmation bias at best. The evidence should exist regardless of religions beliefs and it fails in that aspect.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...if the book it's based off of (**the Bible**) has stuff in it that doesn't add up, how can you maintain faith in that religion?

Many religious beliefs don’t add up...but the Bible’s ‘stuff’, does. It did to Newton, Milton, etc.


Give me one example where you think it doesn’t, please.

 

[JustWondering]

Is it that hard for people not to paint an entire group in the same color?

Anyway, refusing to be reasoned with is nothing unique to theism.

I'm really not trying to insult anyone here. Just making an observation based on my experiences. When I try to get theists to explain or defend their position with a logical response, **** goes off the rails, usually. A lot of them keep repeating things that are only convincing to members of their own choir, like they keep forgetting that I am an atheist. When I remind them I am an atheist and that their argument isn't logical or convincing they throw stuff like "you need the spirit to understand what it really means" or mostly, blame me for not understanding and then giving up on the discussion/debate. I ask them to explain their reasoning and instead get bible verses quoted at me. I get circular reasoning that doesn't make any sense and when I point it out to them, they refuse to admit its circular reasoning. Stuff like this happens, constantly. I'm not making it up. Its frustrating.

Since you seem to be a logical theist, perhaps you can demonstrate how it's done to others? Can you give a logical response to a few questions that an atheist that reasons with logic and favors evidence can understand? Do you think some religions are more logical to follow than others? You must since you label yourself a Christian. Why is it more logical to be a Christian than a Hindu or Scientologist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Since man is incapable of keeping things straight if they even get it right to begin with, why does god keep relying on men to pass messages through? I never got that about revealed religions. Why doesn't god just send angels down to clue us in on stuff? That would be a lot more reliable.

Good question. The Answer is that the Messengers are not the problem because they are not the ones who messed up... Think of God as the post office and the Messengers as the mailmen... They just deliver the mail to mankind and then mankind opens up the mail and misconstrues and changes the message...

But that won’t happen with the “new” message Baha’u’llah revealed. First, we have the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah so we know exactly what He wrote in His own Pen. The Writings of Baha’u’llah can never be tampered with and changed as the Bible was changed since the originals reside in a vault in Haifa, Israel. What has been translated into English thus far was translated by an interpreter that was appointed by Baha’u’llah by virtue of a written Covenant. After that interpreter passed away the Covenant made provisions for the Universal House of Justice which is responsible to appoint a committee of translators to carefully translate the remaining Writings.

That takes care of the translation of the Writings, which is how we refer to our scriptures.

Secondly, Baha’u’llah’s written Covenant passed down the succession of authority and in it He appointed interpreters to interpret His Writings so there can never be any question about what He meant:

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Another point about the Messengers of God is that they are not just ordinary men. A Messenger of God is a subtle, mysterious and ethereal Being that has been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather pre-existent. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

Angels coming down could not write the 15,000 Tablets that Baha’u’llah wrote. That is why we needed a man to write those, but not just any man, one that God chose because He had special qualifications for the job.

I told you this was complicated...

 

[JustWondering]

Many religious beliefs don’t add up...but the Bible’s ‘stuff’, does. It did to Newton, Milton, etc.


Give me one example where you think it doesn’t, please.

*sigh* Well, all the early OT creation story stuff for instance. Which includes Noah, the tower of Babel, people living for hundreds of years, etc...

 

[james blunt]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

Beliefs don't offer any sort of logic normally, logic is more factual, if it is not logical it is not factual. People with beliefs , like to ignore logic . especially if it hurts their beliefs.

P.s I have just recently started to believe in God, I will not walk away from a debate, try me, ask me anything .

 

[Trailblazer]

It depends on which direction one is trying to go. Religious people have all sorts of unfounded beliefs where no amount of evidence will change their minds.

Like I said, if you can prove that Baha’u’llah was not a Messenger of God, I will gladly change my mind...
Then I could be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere instead of talking about God and my religion.

By the way, since the topic is logical debates that would mean in such a debate the burden of proof would be back on you.

No, not unless someone sets up the debate. I have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. I just used them on an atheist on my forum yesterday but he ran away after that. And just the day before that he said he was not afraid of my beliefs. Guess he was wrong...

 

[JustWondering]

But that won’t happen with the “new” message Baha’u’llah revealed. First, we have the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah so we know exactly what He wrote in His own Pen. The Writings of Baha’u’llah can never be tampered with and changed as the Bible was changed since the originals reside in a vault in Haifa, Israel. What has been translated into English thus far was translated by an interpreter that was appointed by Baha’u’llah by virtue of a written Covenant. After that interpreter passed away the Covenant made provisions for the Universal House of Justice which is responsible to appoint a committee of translators to carefully translate the remaining Writings

.

I'm pretty sure the Quran is still the same now as it was when it was first written down (I'll have to look into that). In fact, it's supposed to be the direct word of god, it also says that Muhammed is the last prophet. So does Baha'i except Islam as an earlier revelation even though it directly and clearly contradicts what Baha'u'llah revealed?

Angels coming down could not write the 15,000 Tablets that Baha’u’llah wrote. That is why we needed a man to write those, but not just any man, one that God chose because He had special qualifications for the job.

I'm sure god could create and send down an angel that could write circles around any human, so, agree to disagree I guess.

 

[JustWondering]

Beliefs don't offer any sort of logic normally, logic is more factual, if it is not logical it is not factual. People with beliefs , like to ignore logic . especially if it hurts their beliefs.

P.s I have just recently started to believe in God, I will not walk away from a debate, try me, ask me anything .

Have you ever honestly considered that your "divine thoughts" could be signs of a mental disorder, or have you ignored that possibility?

 

[james blunt]

Have you ever honestly considered that your "divine thoughts" could be signs of a mental disorder, or have you ignored that possibility?

Of course my ''divine'' thoughts could be a mental disorder, they could also be the work of a genius.
However, if you want a logical debate, I have found God and will answer your questions without ignoring any logic you provide.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it is confirmation bias at best. The evidence should exist regardless of religions beliefs and it fails in that aspect.

The evidence is the Messenger who established the religion so it cannot exist in spite of religious beliefs.
That is not a circular argument because the Messenger is not God.
What other kind of evidence for God’s existence did you have in mind?

 

[james blunt]

The evidence is the Messenger who established the religion

That is not evidence sir.