Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

[Trailblazer]

Is this nasty analogy how your faith teaches you to treat others?

Yes, we are taught to prefer our brothers to ourselves.

 

[Truthseeker]

No one is restricted in their ability or right to respond to argument or criticism with their own.
It is interesting that we only see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticised.
We don't see sceptics putting religionists on "ignore" because they can't respond to their arguments.
We don't see atheist claiming the right to not be offended.

You have no religious beliefs, so how can they be criticized? You have the default situation where you don't believe in God, which is hard to criticize. Generally when believers put atheists on ignore it is because they are tired of the bad treatment they get from that atheist, and no, I am not saying that all atheists treat believers badly, if you in response say that. I don't find you to be particularly brilliant in refuting believers, either. You are no threat to our faith.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, that's not what he meant. What he meant is that people can always find faults if they are looking for them and if all you look for are faults that is what you will find.

Yes, it applies to people in all fields... Some people only look at the negatives, and if they see positives they chase that with something negative in effect squashing the positives.

That is exactly what I meant.

 

[ppp]

Criticism.

 

[KWED]

No, that's not what he meant. What he meant is that people can always find faults if they are looking for them and if all you look for are faults that is what you will find.

But you both admit that there are faults in Bahaullah's writings.

Yes, it applies to people in all fields... Some people only look at the negatives, and if they see positives they chase that with something negative in effect squashing the positives.

What do you consider to be the faults in god's message?

 

[KWED]

The reason that we see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticized is because they are the ones being criticized by atheists. If believers criticized atheists the way atheists criticized believers then atheists would be putting believers on ignore.

But religionists often attack atheists, quite vehemently. Just look at some of the exchanges I have had here. I have been accused of having no morals, of being ignorant, capable of rational thought, the legitimacy of my birth called into question, etc.
Yet none one these people has been put on ignore. Because I prefer to challenge and correct and educate them. I want then to repeat their ridiculous claims so I can highlight their flaws. I don't even report people.
And yet, several religious apologists here have blocked be simply for presenting reasonable arguments in response to their claims.
You do the maths.

 

[KWED]

You have no religious beliefs, so how can they be criticized?

My morals, my intelligence, the legitimacy of my birth have all been attacked by religious apologists here. None of them are on ignore. I prefer to rationally refute their claims with reason and evidence.

You have the default situation where you don't believe in God, which is hard to criticize.

I agree with you there.
If you have two positions on an issue, one that is easily criticised and one that is hard to criticise, which seems the better option?

Generally when believers put atheists on ignore it is because they are tired of the bad treatment they get from that atheist,

By "bad treatment" do you mean "difficult arguments"?

I don't find you to be particularly brilliant in refuting believers, either. You are no threat to our faith.

Well, that's just confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. It is well known how hard it is to break deep-rooted ideological indoctrination.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is exactly what I meant.

I think it is easy to understand what other people mean when we are on the same page but often it is impossible to understand what other people mean when they are on a completely different page.

That often leads to conflict if the other person does not even make an effort to understand is but rather keeps pushing back with their own position.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you both admit that there are faults in Bahaullah's writings.

No, I do not admit that

What do you consider to be the faults in god's message?

There can be no faults in God's message from Baha'u'llah since we have His original Writings and He was infallible.

 

[Trailblazer]

But religionists often attack atheists, quite vehemently. Just look at some of the exchanges I have had here. I have been accused of having no morals, of being ignorant, capable of rational thought, the legitimacy of my birth called into question, etc.

I fully agree that some religionists attack atheists quite vehemently, but I am not in that group. I see nothing any different between atheists' morals and religionists' morals. As for rational thought, I think that atheists are often more rational than believers, and I am not afraid to say so to believers, even though I know they will never understand since they are so indoctrinated and it is too threatening for them to admit God might not be all He is cracked up to be.

Yet none one these people has been put on ignore. Because I prefer to challenge and correct and educate them. I want then to repeat their ridiculous claims so I can highlight their flaws. I don't even report people.

FWIW, I never put atheists on Ignore. In fact, I do not put anyone on Ignore unless the staff tells me to. That has happened only twice with two atheists I was conversing with. In the first case we got into a heated argument and we could not resolve our conflicts, and the second case the atheist kept calling me a liar and disparaging my character. I wanted to continue conversing with the first atheist but the staff would not allow it. I was never angry at him, I really like and respect as a person. I asked the staff to reconsider their request but I never heard back

And yet, several religious apologists here have blocked be simply for presenting reasonable arguments in response to their claims.
You do the maths.

Some believers just cannot tolerate conflict. Also, some believers do not have the patience to deal with atheists who disagree with their treasured beliefs. I have suffered so much in my life that I have the patience of Job, and besides, I do not mind having my beliefs challenged. In fact I have learned a lot from atheists who have challenged my beliefs, about my beliefs and the atheist beliefs. The way I see it, if my beliefs cannot hold up to the challenge then maybe I need to rethink them

Also, most believers are not willing to bend and try to see the atheist side of things. I see it only too well and I lean towards many atheist positions. The only thing we disagree about is the existence of God.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, we are taught to prefer our brothers to ourselves.

So you were not comparing your fellow posters to animals. In that case, perhaps the following type of comment (read in context, of course) should be avoided?

"...when I feed the animals they keep coming back for more food".

 

[samtonga43]

No, I do not admit that
There can be no faults in God's message from Baha'u'llah since we have His original Writings and He was infallible.

Did MrB say he was infallible?
Secondly, I think you believe that God dictated messages to him, but you may be wrong. After all, many people believe they have heard the voice of God, especially when they are in a confined space.

 

[samtonga43]

The reason that we see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticized is because they are the ones being criticized by atheists. If believers criticized atheists the way atheists criticized believers then atheists would be putting believers on ignore.

Why should 'religionists' be above criticism? If they cannot cope with criticism of their beliefs, and disagreement with their opinions, maybe they should not be posting here.

I actually don't think that the atheists here mind their beliefs / non-beliefs being criticized, especially by fundamentalist types (the type who say "I know I'm right, and that's that").

 

[samtonga43]

By "bad treatment" do you mean "difficult arguments"?

Based on what I read here, they mean difficult arguments.

 

[samtonga43]

Also, most believers are not willing to bend and try to see the atheist side of things.

Why not just do what you said you wanted to do and burn their Holy book?

 

[samtonga43]

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of.
Note the word or. God's existence can be true without being factual.
Before 1930 it was not a fact that the planet Pluto existed but it was still true that Pluto existed.

Of course it was a fact that Pluto existed before 1930.
You have serious problems with your understanding of epistemology, Tb.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bible interpretation is not given any Authority CG.

Yes Baha'u'llah is the Authority. Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi and Universal House of Justice have been given their Authorisations under the Covenant.

For the Bible, we do not have any Covenant passing on the Authorisation of interpretation after Jesus. There are many passages to explore on this topic CG.

It's been a long day 700k drive, 4 hrs shopping in the big smoke Bunnings Hardware to get all the Bathroom Renovation items!

Regards Tony

Then is Christianity a religion that has been "revealed" by a manifestation, or a religion based on hearsay of what people tell us about a manifestation said? Jesus could have written things down and appointed an authorized interpreter, but he didn't. So, God and Jesus weren't concerned that the gospel writers and the others, especially Paul might get things wrong in the way they interpreted the things about Jesus, what he did and what he taught?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should 'religionists' be above criticism?

I never said they should be.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not just do what you said you wanted to do and burn their Holy book?

Atheists do not have a Holy Book.

 

[CG Didymus]

So you admit that there are faults, but you would rather not know about them.

Ironically, it is you who is taking the irrational approach, by not looking for faults in case you find them. That is a position based on fear of the outcome.
It's like the person who won't go to the doctor in case they find out they are seriously ill.

As if Baha'i don't find faults in the other religions. In fact, some Baha'is say that God had to send another messenger to straighten out the older religions, because they had gotten things wrong.

And again, as if we all know without questioning them, that the Baha'i Faith is the absolute truth. Everything that their prophets have said is the infallible truth from God. And it is not a false religion or cult or just a man-made religion like they believe some of the other religions are. And gee, I wonder how they determined that those other religions weren't true? Could it be by finding faults?