Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You are interpreting my general comments as intended for you personally, and I never claimed this is the case. If my general concepts apply to your case, then you can engage on how that's the case.
I never claimed any such thing.
It is my opinion, and it would only be YOUR opinion that the Bible is not adequate evidence for the existence of God.
A person can believe that the Bible is evidence without believing all of what Christians believe, such as Jesus being resurrected, and tat Adam and Eve were the first humans.
Apparently, you don't understand that what people believe does not prove that what they believe is actually true.....
That's true, it is only my belief, and it is either true or false. Whether or not it is relevant to non-Baha'is has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether it is true or false.
There certainly is no evidence that many thousands of gods in human lore exist, but there is evidence that one God exists.
No, not except for me. It is totally irrelevant what ANYONE believes about their evidence since what people believe is not what makes the evidence evidence.
No, not except for me. For starters, the evidence for other religions is not as good as the evidence for the Baha'i Faith since the history of those religions is ANCIENT and it is not verifiable. Secondly, there are no ORIGINAL WRITINGS of any other Messenger of God except the Bab and Baha'u'llah. It is critical thinking that leads straight to the conclusion that the evidence for the Baha'i Faith is better.
I guess you did not even bother to read what was in the post from Wanderer-1919 (points 1-5).
The Bible, if believed to be true, is adequate for people to believe in a young Earth, a world-wide flood, that a guy got swallowed by a big fish and survived for three days and all the rest. How much of that do Baha'is believe? And even this Baha'i says that the Bible anthropomorphizes God and says things that aren't real about God. So, what "evidence is the Bible presenting that is adequate?
The Baha'i claim... There is only one God. For some Hindus, the claim is... There are many Gods. And I'm sure they have the same kind of "evidence" for their beliefs and claims as Baha'is.
Lots of us have read the writings and know some of the things taught in the Baha'i Faith. And some of the things raise red flags and, for some of us, are "evidence" that the Baha'i prophet might not be true. Of course, he might be. But let's see what else the Baha'is have that can prove their case,
One thing that bothers me is the ones in the past that they include, and then there are some they exclude.
But some religions have Scriptures and interpretations of those Scriptures that Baha'is don't believe are true. The main ones being the belief of some Hindus and Buddhists about rebirth and reincarnation, and plus with Krishna being an incarnation of a God. Then with Judaism, in Genesis it says that Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed. Baha'is say "no". That it was Ishmael. Then the big one. The NT says Jesus rose from the dead. Baha'is say "no". It is what their prophet and his son say is true, that, for Baha'is, is what is true.
That all depends upon what you consider a prophet. Baha'u'llah wrote that anyone who claims a direct Revelation from God ere the expiration of 1000 years is surely a lying imposter.
I said that the Representative of God and His appointed interpreters are the the final authorities on the meaning and whatever meaning they assign should not be questioned, but Baha'u'llah and His appointed interpreters did not interpret very much of the Bible so we are free to interpret and assign our own meanings to anything they did not interpret.
Opinions that are not rational mean nothing. So this is why opinions have to be based on facts and reasoning shown. Theists will find justification for whateber they want to believe. That's why there are so many different religious beliefs.
Sure, then can believe whatever they want.
They have beliefs you don't think are true, and you have beliefs they don't think are true. No theists have adequate evidence for their beliefs to critical thinkers. Or each other, which is funny. You think you have adequate evidence, but you can't even convince other believ ers.
Why believe at all? Believers have their reasons that are not rational. If they did, they could convince critical thinkers. They can't.
Irrelevant and wasn't my point.
You have your belief, other theists have thier beliefs. None are conclusive. Atheists aren't convinced.
There's no conclusive evidence for any gods.
Right, your belief about your evidence is irrelevcant since it isn't objective.
Irrelevant. Even Baha'i religious claims are not based on facts. Mormons and Urantia believers have originals, so they must be correct, yes? And who says messengers are real, you? We aren't taking your word as fact. You offer no facts that any messengers are real, so we throw it out.
Who cares what some guy's story is as a believer? It's not factual, it's just his story. Irrelevant. You cite it because you have no actual evidence. That's why it's not good enough.
No, it's a testimony, and it has elelments that are not credible. This sort of thing only helps believers like you feel more validated, but as evidence it is worthless.
My opinions are based upon facts and reasoning.
I am not trying to convince atheists or believers of anything since that is not the job that Baha'u'llah gave me to do.
Because I have evidence.
Why do you think someone else is responsible to convince you of what they believe?
Why would you think that would matter to believers if atheists are convinced?
Baha'i religious claims are not based on facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
Facts do not prove that Messengers got messages from God, as that can never be proven. If it was provable it would not be a belief.
What I posted on the link is not about a man's story as a believer. He cited actual evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
And lots of assumptions that rational people don't make. That's how you come you your flawed conclusions.
Do you have a letter from Baha'u'llah that assigns you a job? Or are you making this up as a falsehood?
No you don't. You have assumptions that you believe makes stories into evidence. It's the same with those who make different assumvtions about the Bible so they can make their conclusions that you disagree with.
Because that is what discourse is. Why else would you post your beliefs, just to repeat yourself?
That's what I avoid doing. If I want to believe something I am setting myself up for self-deception. That doesn;t interest me. I want to follow facts and make conclusions based on that only.
Here you go with your blaming atheists for not making your religious assumptions. Why should we? You don't even acknowledge that you make assumptions.
Well if you have no credible sources to refer to as "fact" then how can you make any conclusions at all? Because you want to believe? That's not reasoning.
Yeah, there's no factual basis for a rational thinker to believe in Baha'i. We don't see any rational argumentation from any Baha'i. You've lost the debate. And if you don't post to convince others, mission accomplished. So why DO you post at all? Just to read your own words?
He's a believer who wants to believe. His evidence is only considered valid due to him making assumptions. Reasoning avoids making assumptions that are not in evidence. This is the ongoing dilemma for believers, they make their own assumvtions so they can justify their own thinking and conclusions. These justifications don't work as an argument. That's why this guy's story is irrelevant.
No body can convince anyone about anything, if they do not want to accept it, even the most obvious things.
I have the Writings of Baha'u'llah that offer guidance on what Baha'is are supposed to do and not do. Please note the sentence in bold.
No, that is not what discourse is for. People have discussions for all kinds of reasons.
I was not suggesting you go in with the attitude that you 'want to believe.' You should go in with an open and unbiased mind looking for the truth. You should look at the facts and draw conclusions from the facts.
I do not make assumptions. I have beliefs based upon facts and evidence.
Sorry, I made a typo.
Sorry, but you are wrong. There is a factual basis for a rational thinker to believe in Baha'i because there are facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
No, this man was not a believer who 'wanted to believe.' He was formerly a Christian and he did not become a Baha'i until he did an independent investigation by looking at the evidence.
Or they decided to tell people that the Random Dude they talked to was Jesus.
Hmmm.... interesting thought. Of course, that is assuming the book of Acts was the work of an actual historian, rather than Luke writing a gospel. I don't think he was writing history. He was writing stories that told a certain vision of Jesus.
“I believe that you are confusing peace with quiet.” — Ultron
How often does this happen to people you are talking to? What's wrong with these people you know, as they have some serious mental health issues?
The sun actually exists. We don't have to believe it exists like believers do with any number of religious frameworks, the sun is there to see.
This isn't true for critical thinkers. Critical thinkers are naturally skeptical and have learned reasoning skills, so they understand fallacies and the need to present evidence in proportion to the claims. Jim claims he ate a ham sandwich for lunch but you don't believe him, so you follow him home and he shows you half a loaf of bread, some ham in the refer, and his wife confirms he made a ham sandwich that morning before work. That is very compelling evidence and it is reasonable to believe Jim's claim. Now maybe Jim and his wife lied, but why? It's not controversial.
The thirsty are desperate and will drink anything you give them. This is why critical thinkers stay hydrated.
The observations of Baha'i behavior in this forum suggests otherwise. There is more proselytizing among the Baha'i than gets reported. The Baha'i really have no way to discuss any of their ideas because the belief relies on beleiving what Baha'u'llah wrote, and there are many problems wit what he wrote, both in content and in style.
So why are you so insistant in your posting? Looks as if you are ignoring his advice.
Well you aren't convincing anyone, so you accomplished that goal.
This is entertaining theater for critical thinkers.
We critical thinkers do, this is why we aren't religious. Religions don't offer any framework that has adequate evidence or reasoning. Notice Christians don't come to the defense of Baha'i or Muslims. Each tribe has it's beliefs and they each think they have adequate evidence that isn't good enough for other types of believers.
Yes you do mke assumptions, as all theists do. There is no way believers could believe in their religious ideas unless they make generous assumptions.
There is no reason to believe he made any revelation that he didn't think up himself. He's more likely delusional or a conman.
No there isn't. Critical thinkers explaian why, and you don't like it. That is where your assumptions come into play.
You said this already. I guess you have no idea why you keep trying to make arguments since you aren't trying to convince anyone.
There's no evidence to convince a critical thinker. It's not unusual for some disillusioned believers to convert to some new religion, and they will find a reason to convince themselves.
More of the "I know you are but what am I?" nonsense.
What a shock, a believer believed some other religious text was from God. Notice he wasn't a critical thinker, but already a believer.
Who cares what be believed? It's irrelevant.
Then they aren't very good salesmen. Lots of people here have said, "Show me the evidence and proof and then I'll decide." But there is no proof and only "evidence" that has to be taken on "faith" and believed to be true. It's been months and months of this and the Baha'is have put out their best evidence and it Baha'is have been told over and over again that it is not objective, tangible or real evidence. It is pretty much taking your prophets words as true. The same thing so many other religious people do with their leaders and prophets. Leaders and prophets that even Baha'is say are false. So, why is your, the Baha'i evidence, any better or different than theirs?
Sure sounds like people are trying to be convincing. And discuss? Sure sounds like some people believe their stuff is The Truth. Oh... and what have Baha'is learned from others, especially from Atheists? Like maybe get your evidence and story down before you go trying to convince, oops, I mean going out and "discussing" your beliefs, with others that you know don't believe in your prophet or your God.
I'd put in even stronger... That believe they have The Truth for today... a message from the one and only God that replaces and fulfills all the past messages. This message can and will bring peace and unity to the world.
