Nothing lasts forever in this life

[Spirit of Light]

So basically, you don't want debate. You just want an echo-chamber.
There are plenty of those around. Feel free to join one.
However, if you stay on here you will be asked to support and justify your claims, and any responses you give will also be critically analysed - as I expect mine to be.

Also note the irony of you not simply accepting my position at first response. You keep "bullying" me about the same issues, criticising me personally rather than my arguments. Physician heal thyself!

Yes, I do not see value in debate, I do see value in discussion where it is not about being right or wrong.

I honestly respect your atheism andvyour lack of belief.
Where I struggle is when you don't stop making critique when it is a personal belief in discussion.

 

[KWED]

I have seen nothing to indicate that you have any concern for truth.

To be fair, delusion and dishonesty can both appear the same.

 

[KWED]

Personally I think satire is mean spirited, especially the way you do it.

The subject of satire often takes exception to being satirised.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Animals do have consciousness though they don't have a soul, but they do have an animal spirit. The soul, you see reflects all of the attributes of God, whereas the animal does not. That is why they have no free-will..

I don't know why you differentiate between an "animal spirit" and a soul.
To me, it is the same thing.
Almighty God has given us all our natures. He has caused us to exceed other creatures in what we are capable of
eg. we can write, make sophisticated tools etc.

The most important difference is the fact that other creatures are not accountable for their actions .. we are !

Believe it or not even in the vegeatable kingdom there seems to be a rudimentary consciousness..

Yes, all living things deserve respect.

 

[KWED]

Without the soul the electro-chemical activity would not create consciousness.

But that is just an unsupported claim that adds an extra level of unnecessary complexity to the system.
We know the electro-chemical activity in the brain is "consciousness". We know that it is a natural process. We also know that we can manipulate consciousness by manipulating the physical brain. So where does the"soul" fit in?

Without the soul we would not make free-will decisions in my view. Free-will is the intersection between the soul and the material brain in my view.

Just another claim with nothing to support it, and it adds nothing to our knowledge of the process.

Animals do have consciousness though they don't have a soul, but they do have an animal spirit.

What's the difference between a spirit and a soul?

The soul, you see reflects all of the attributes of God,

What attributes, and how does it reflect them, and what does "reflect" mean in this context?

whereas the animal does not. That is why they have no free-will.

What? Of course animals have free will! (ie. the ability to choose either x or y when both are available).

 

[KWED]

It doesn't help to make fun of her.

I make fun of everyone, whether I agree with them or not. It's how god made me.

All Baha'is are free to form their own opinion on the Writings.

Surely this contradicts the claims of Bahaullah's infallibility. They should be entirely unambiguous, with only one possible interpretation. Why would the infallible messenger of god produce anything less?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So god is nothing like a person, but we can describe him with 99 personal, human attributes that we can recognise in ourselves, but those attributes are not like ours, so the descriptions are meaningless?

They are not at all meaningless.
Are you incapable of grasping such an easy concept?

A spiritual attribute is an observed non-physical phenomena.

eg. Almighty God and Humans are able to love
..yet God's love is absolute, whereas ours might turn into hate

hate and spite are human imperfections .. evil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course animals have free will! (ie. the ability to choose either x or y when both are available).

I don't think that is what they mean..

We can choose to be righteous or not, and are accountable..
..whereas other creatures have their nature and are not accountable.
eg. the concept of murder does not apply to them .. they follow their God-given nature

 

[KWED]

You are not worried at all.

No, I am. Despite what some on here might assume, I am genuinely concerned about everyone's wellbeing. The responses of some on here make me worry about them.

You just want to make us look bad.

Again, not so. One of my aims is to help people think more rationally, to be more critical of their beliefs, to not just blindly follow dogma.

But guess what, to me you look bad.

Of course I do. Religionists are usually suspicious and dismissive of non-conformists, especially the vocal.
But you don't "look bad" to me. I may find your arguments nonsensical and your position dogmatic, but you might be the nicest person in the world in everyday life.

You also forget that we do not represent all Baha'is. You may have also noticed that I expressed different opinions from @Trailblazer. We are not a monolithic belief system. We believe in unity in diversity. There are Writings we believe in but we each have own interpretation of them.

So when Bahaullah said that you must accept everything he said, even if it is nonsensical, you disagree and reject that requirement?

 

[KWED]

Why should any believervin religion meet half way with a non-believer when that would mean walking away from their personal belief just to "make atheists happy" ?
You are allowed to be sceptical or a non-believer, of course you are. Nobody tries to take it awsy from you.

So you take back your comment supporting the idea that sceptics should meet Bahais half way?

As a Baha'i i have no issue with your lack of belief in whatvi believe in. Where I see a huge different is in your aggressiv approach to questioning believers, and not listening to what they say.

Oh, I do listen to what they say. That is how I am able to construct arguments or present evidence that refute their claims. It's how debate works, remember?
And what do you mean by "hugely aggressive"?

I have no problem admitting that I looking for mutually respect from believers and non-believers in a discussion or debate. It goes both ways.

Respect is earned, not demanded.

The problem i find in discussion with certain atheists is their way of not even trying to listen to what believers actually saying.

More irony.

 

[KWED]

Yes, I do not see value in debate, I do see value in discussion where it is not about being right or wrong.

I honestly respect your atheism andvyour lack of belief.
Where I struggle is when you don't stop making critique when it is a personal belief in discussion.

Oh dear god! Are we still struggling with the meaning of "debate"?

Here's an analogy.
If you go into a boxing gym, put on gloves and get into the ring with another person similarly equipped, you can't then complain when you get punched in the face after the bell rings.
Got it yet?

 

[KWED]

Almighty God has given us all our natures. He has caused us to exceed other creatures in what we are capable of
eg. we can write, make sophisticated tools etc.

No we can't. That is not our "nature". We have to be taught by others who have previously leaned those skills. Those skills slowly developed over millennia. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans could not write or make sophisticated tools.

The most important difference is the fact that other creatures are not accountable for their actions .. we are !

Of course they are. We can observe species where members of a group are driven out because of their behaviour.

Yes, all living things deserve respect.

Even the munafiq?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you take back your comment supporting the idea that sceptics should meet Bahais half way?

Oh, I do listen to what they say. That is how I am able to construct arguments or present evidence that refute their claims. It's how debate works, remember?
And what do you mean by "hugely aggressive"?

Respect is earned, not demanded.

More irony.

I didn't go back at anything that is your own claim. You don't have to meet halfway, because faith and disbelief does not go hand in hand, there will always be disagreement on the topic of religion and faith.

Why do you seek to disclaim what believers believe in? If a person have faith and belief it is their personal issue, not yours to use your own non religious beliefs to disclaim others.

You are aggressiv in debate in the way that nobody else can have right, except for yourself, you have never wrong, even in religion that you personally don't believe in. Even then you think you are right.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Oh dear god! Are we still struggling with the meaning of "debate"?

Here's an analogy.
If you go into a boxing gym, put on gloves and get into the ring with another person similarly equipped, you can't then complain when you get punched in the face after the bell rings.
Got it yet?

I have no need for fighting, not in a boxing ring, nor with you or any other non-believer

 

[KWED]

They are not at all meaningless.
Are you incapable of grasping such an easy concept?

A spiritual attribute is an observed non-physical phenomena.

eg. Almighty God and Humans are able to love
..yet God's love is absolute,

So god's attributes are the same as human except for scale/degree.

whereas ours might turn into hate

Love and hate are two separate emotions. One does not "turn into" the other. You stop one and start the other.

hate and spite are human imperfections .. evil.

But Allah encourages Muslims to hate those who reject Islam (60:4)
Allah also says that evil can be acceptable (4:148)

Good old Quran - something for everyone!

 

[KWED]

I don't think that is what they mean..

We can choose to be righteous or not, and are accountable..
..whereas other creatures have their nature and are not accountable.
eg. the concept of murder does not apply to them .. they follow their God-given nature

Ah, you are talking about "morality" rather than "free will".
By observation suggests that some species do have moral frameworks. (I linked to a load of studies earlier).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course they are. We can observe species where members of a group are driven out because of their behaviour.

You are just arguing for the sake of it..

We all have to account for our actions on the day of judgement, after we die, but other creatures do not.

 

[KWED]

I didn't go back at anything that is your own claim. You don't have to meet halfway, because faith and disbelief does not go hand in hand, there will always be disagreement on the topic of religion and faith.

When Trailblazer said that when people refuse to meet halfway it is a sign of ego, you replied "very true".
But you since stated that that it is fine if Bahais refuse to meed half way.
So, what is your position now?

Why do you seek to disclaim what believers believe in?

Because this is a "religious debate forum", where people debate religion, and debate is an adversarial process where people attempt to refute the others' arguments.
Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier.

If a person have faith and belief it is their personal issue, not yours to use your own non religious beliefs to disclaim others.

I genuinely wonder how some people manage to hold down jobs.

You are aggressiv in debate

You mean that I won't simply accept people's arguments.

in the way that nobody else can have right, except for yourself, you have never wrong, even in religion that you personally don't believe in. Even then you think you are right.

Yet more irony.

I'll explain, as I have a feeling that you aren't understanding this point. As with the earlier post, your accusation applies equally to the Bahais who simply claim they know they are right, despite not being able to produce any evidence or rational argument, and refuse to even entertain any other explanation.
For example, Bahaullah's claim to be a messenger of god is covered by three basic explanations
1. He was dishonest
2. He was delusional
3. He really was a messenger of a real god.

I accept all three as possibilities, with varying degrees of likelihood. 1 and 2 are obviously far more likely than 3 because we know people can be dishonest or delusional over religious issues. That is a demonstrable fact supported by hard evidence.

Bahais simply dismiss 1 and 2 as not even possible, and claim absolute certainty on 3, despite not being able to produce any evidence for it, nor any against 1 and 2.

So you tell me, which one is being more reasonable and rational? Which one best fits your description "nobody else can have right, except for yourself, you have never wrong"

 

[Spirit of Light]

When Trailblazer said that when people refuse to meet halfway it is a sign of ego, you replied "very true".
But you since stated that that it is fine if Bahais refuse to meed half way.
So, what is your position now?

Because this is a "religious debate forum", where people debate religion, and debate is an adversarial process where people attempt to refute the others' arguments.
Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier.

I genuinely wonder how some people manage to hold down jobs.

You mean that I won't simply accept people's arguments.

Yet more irony.

I'll explain, as I have a feeling that you aren't understanding this point. As with the earlier post, your accusation applies equally to the Bahais who simply claim they know they are right, despite not being able to produce any evidence or rational argument, and refuse to even entertain any other explanation.
For example, Bahaullah's claim to be a messenger of god is covered by three basic explanations
1. He was dishonest
2. He was delusional
3. He really was a messenger of a real god.

I accept all three as possibilities, with varying degrees of likelihood. 1 and 2 are obviously far more likely than 3 because we know people can be dishonest or delusional over religious issues. That is a demonstrable fact supported by hard evidence.

Bahais simply dismiss 1 and 2 as not even possible, and claim absolute certainty on 3, despite not being able to produce any evidence for it, not any against 1 and 2.

So you tell me, which one is being more reasonable and rational? Which one best fits your description "nobody else can have right, except for yourself, you have never wrong"

No need for further answers from my part. All you do is twist and turn anything tjay is said.

 

[KWED]

I have no need for fighting, not in a boxing ring, nor with you or any other non-believer

*whooosh!!*

And yet here you are, constantly arguing with me. But not even debating the points, but just personally attacking me. And then complaining when I respond.
(Yet another perfect illustration of not seeming to grasp the most simple concepts, even when explained with even simpler analogies. It's like you are determined to prove my points for me!)