Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Trailblazer]

How do you know his fantastic claims are factual?

I never claimed His claims are factual. No religious beliefs are factual. That's why they are called beliefs.

And if he is not a fraud then what has he written that is something that indicates he had divine insight? remember you need to prove these claims re true. We skeptics approach Baha'i claims like any other religious claims, and that is we need extraordinary evidence, not weak evidence that require assumptions.

I cannot 'prove to you' or to anyone else that he had divine insight. Everyone has to do their own investigation and come to their own conclusions.

Facts. Show us extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits. Thus far I have reado nothing that impresses me of divine influence.

I can show you what 'I believe' are extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits, but you will not believe these are extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits because you have a different brain that processes those statements differently from me.

Yes, psychology was my focus in college. I know you have some education but you post a lot of mistakes. You also claim to be a critical thinker but make mistakes there too. You make no efforts that i can see to check your knowledge before you post, or correct your errors after you post. You often cite logoical fallacies against others that they didn't do.

For the record, I have an MA in Geography, an MA in Psychology, and a degree in Homeopathy, in addition to my undergraduate degrees.
I post what 'you believe' are my mistakes. I can also post where I believe you made mistakes, but I have no need to do that.
The question is why you need to point out what 'you believe' are my mistakes. What purpose does it serve to point out other people's mistakes?

 

[Truthseeker]

Since you admit you have an opinion about baha'i being the truth, could you be mistaken?

Yes.

Look at the poll, the majority doubt he was genuine.

Why should I care? What difference does that make whether people think He was genuine or not?

 

[F1fan]

I never claimed His claims are factual. No religious beliefs are factual. That's why they are called beliefs.

Beliefs are not evidence. Evidence has to be factual, and you concede you have no factual evidence. That's why we reject your comments when you say "They are true because Baha'u'llah wrote them and Baha'u'llah was not a fraud." No factual evidence means your statemenst can't be defended as true.

I cannot 'prove to you' or to anyone else that he had divine insight. Everyone has to do their own investigation and come to their own conclusions.

That's why we reject him as a messenger.

I can show you what 'I believe' are extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits, but you will not believe these are extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits because you have a different brain that processes those statements differently from me.

You believe for some personal reasons that are not reasoned conclusions. I don't think you understand why you want to believe.

For the record, I have an MA in Geography, an MA in Psychology, and a degree in Homeopathy, in addition to my undergraduate degrees.
I post what 'you believe' are my mistakes. I can also post where I believe you made mistakes, but I have no need to do that.

You make factual errors. You make simple mistakes in these debates, and you refuse to learn. What does your knowledge of psychology tell you about that?

The question is why you need to point out what 'you believe' are my mistakes. What purpose does it serve to point out other people's mistakes?

This is debate, and there are rules of debate. When you make mistakes in debate they are free to be criticized. You don't like many of the rules and rebel, but they are still mistakes. I don;t understand why you want to engage with others but have little interest in the discourse. You seem to want your beliefs taken seriously and agreed with, and get upset when they aren't. You have self-reflection to do. I don't think you want to change given your resistance to correcting your errors in debate.

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?

Another person who doesn't care for discourse but wants to participate. We discuss ideas to distill the truth. Believers are too dead set in their beliefs to have honest discourse. The only discourse is among the critical thinkers and skeptics.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?

Is that what you intended to say?
Of course it makes a difference if Baha'u'llah was genuine or not, although it doesn't make any difference if people 'believe' He was genuine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Beliefs are not evidence. Evidence has to be factual, and you concede you have no factual evidence.

I never said that beliefs are evidence. That is patently absurd.
There is factual evidence, which consists of facts about Baha'u'llah. I have presented that on numerous occasions only to be told "that's not evidence" so I see no reason to present it again.

That's why we reject your comments when you say "They are true because Baha'u'llah wrote them and Baha'u'llah was not a fraud." No factual evidence means your statemenst can't be defended as true.

Correction: "I believe they are true because Baha'u'llah wrote them and I believe Baha'u'llah was not a fraud."
There is factual evidence that shows me that Baha'u'llah was not a fraud, but how you interpret that evidence will be different from how I interpret it. In other words, to me it means he was not a fraud but that doesn't mean it will mean the same thing to you.

That's why we reject him as a messenger.

They reject him as a messenger because they can't do own investigation and come to their own conclusions?

Please give me one good reason why I should prove that to you, or else you reject it.
Why is it MY responsibility to prove it to you? Why can't you look at the Baha'i Faith and come to your own conclusions?
(Don't say it is because I am making a claim because I am not making a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claim and I believe His claim because He provided evidence to back up His claim. )

You believe for some personal reasons that are not reasoned conclusions. I don't think you understand why you want to believe.

I do not 'want' to believe. I believe because of the evidence.
I fully understand why I believe, it is because of the evidence. You are clueless about why I believe because you are not me.

You make factual errors. You make simple mistakes in these debates, and you refuse to learn. What does your knowledge of psychology tell you about that?

Yet you cannot point out what these factual errors or mistakes are. All you can do is talk.
My knowledge of psychology tells me there is one reason why people put others down, it is because they feel insecure so they need to put others down in order to believe thay are right and others are wrong. Psych 101.

This is debate, and there are rules of debate. When you make mistakes in debate they are free to be criticized.

Yet I don't see anyone but you here criticizing me. Why is that?

You don't like many of the rules and rebel, but they are still mistakes. I don;t understand why you want to engage with others but have little interest in the discourse. You seem to want your beliefs taken seriously and agreed with, and get upset when they aren't. You have self-reflection to do. I don't think you want to change given your resistance to correcting your errors in debate.

You are claiming that I made mistakes. Unless you can prove it that is only your personal opinion.
I don't understand why you want to engage with others but have little interest in the discourse. All you do is criticize, that is all you do.
Other atheists on this forum do not criticize me so logically speaking that means the problem is your problem, not mine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OMG. Losing your keys is a mistake. Slavery is a willful act of evil.

Exactly! I meant it was on purpose.

What’s the OMG for? Did you think I was saying it wasn’t?
I thought my post was clear.

 

[Truthseeker]

Is that what you intended to say?
Of course it makes a difference if Baha'u'llah was genuine or not, although it doesn't make any difference if people 'believe' He was genuine.

No, that was a blooper. Too late now.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, that was a blooper. Too late now.

Can't you go back and edit it?

 

[CG Didymus]

That's why we reject him as a messenger.

I don't understand her response. It's if we haven't investigated and read some of the Baha'i writings. That is the reason some of us question and reject their beliefs. I reject them for several reasons, but the way they explain the resurrection of Jesus is one of the main ones. It's like they believe it was a hoax... almost. But they can't say that, so they say it was symbolic. That to me, is meaningless. What's a "symbolic" resurrection?

 

[Truthseeker]

Can't you go back and edit it?

I suppose I could, but it was meant for F1fan and he already replied to it. Other's could see it too, on second thought, so I will edit it.

 

[F1fan]

No, that was a blooper. Too late now.

Blooper? It wasn't a misspelled word, it was two coherent sentences that were actually truthful.

Can't you go back and edit it?

He told the truth, and trying to cover it up only makes you look like you support dishonesty. You know we can all see your posts, yes?

I suppose I could, but it was meant for F1fan and he already replied to it. Other's could see it too, on second thought, so I will edit it.

Yeah, you told the truth, you don't care whether your beliefs are actually reasoned and true. Why edit and let everyone see the deception? I suggest you ackowledge the truth, and explain why you don't care.
whether Baha'u'llah was genuine or not. Your handle is Truthseeker, doesn't it mean something, or just a fake label?

 

[F1fan]

Exactly! I meant it was on purpose.

What’s the OMG for? Did you think I was saying it wasn’t?
I thought my post was clear.

It was clear. You tried to defend slavery and the Holocaust as just mistakes made by Christians.

If both olicies were enacted by atheists I have no doubt Christians would be using it as criticism against atheism. But it wasn't atheists, it was Christians who did these crimes against humanity. Not mistakes, crimes against humanity. I'm curious why you frame these as a mistake and not a horrible failure of Christianity and Christians.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

It's if we haven't investigated and read some of the Baha'i writings. That is the reason some of us question and reject their beliefs. I reject them for several reasons, but the way they explain the resurrection of Jesus is one of the main ones. It's like they believe it was a hoax... almost. But they can't say that, so they say it was symbolic. That to me, is meaningless. What's a "symbolic" resurrection?

A symbolic resurrection could be to show both a sign and wisdom which could also be seen as a stumbling block and foolishness.

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness"; 1 Corinthians 1:22-23


It is said no sign was actually given.

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation". Mark 8:24


But it says the sign of Jonah.

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:" Matthew 12:39



The Quran says Jesus was not actually crucified. It just appears that way.

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." Quran 4:157


Just as Jonah was in the fish three days.

"He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection". Quran 37:144


So perhaps both the Bible and Quran could support the theory of a symbolic crucifixion and resurrection.

A symbolic resurrection that we are not aware of.

"But those endued with knowledge and faith will say: "Indeed ye did tarry, within Allah's Decree, to the Day of Resurrection, and this is the Day of Resurrection: but ye - ye were not aware!" Quran 30:56

 

[Windwalker]

I’m pretty Vulcan lol

That smile on your photo says otherwise.

 

[Truthseeker]

Blooper? It wasn't a misspelled word, it was two coherent sentences that were actually truthful.

This is what I originally said: Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?

This is the revised version:

Why should I care? What difference does that make whether people think He was genuine or not?

Didn't you notice the first one made no sense from my point of view? If I actually said that it wouldn't be truthful.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Give us an example of an enemy of yours that you love, and how do you show them love?

I could give you my example.


My respect is not earned. Because my respect is freely given to all.

It is my disrespect that is earned, and earning my disrespect requires payback.

But my forgiveness is also earned in exactly the same way as my disrespect.
Without the disrespect there can be no forgiveness.

 

[F1fan]

This is what I originally said: Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?

This is the revised version:

Didn't you notice the first one made no sense from my point of view? If I actually said that it wouldn't be truthful.

It looked deeply honest, and bypassed your veil of faith. Religious faith is often a certain masquerade, and you were honest for that moment. Now, looks like the masquerade has resumed.

 

[F1fan]

I could give you my example.


My respect is not earned. Because my respect is freely given to all.

It is my disrespect that is earned, and earning my disrespect requires payback.

But my forgiveness is also earned in exactly the same way as my disrespect.
Without the disrespect there can be no forgiveness.

That's very abstract and vague. It's not an actual example.

 

[Trailblazer]

Blooper? It wasn't a misspelled word, it was two coherent sentences that were actually truthful.

No, it was not what he intended to say. It was a mistake he made and later corrected.

He told the truth, and trying to cover it up only makes you look like you support dishonesty. You know we can all see your posts, yes?

No, it was not what he intended to say. It was a mistake he made and later corrected.

Yeah, you told the truth, you don't care whether your beliefs are actually reasoned and true.

If you knew anything about psychology you would have realized that when you said "you don't care whether your beliefs are actually reasoned and true" that was psychological projection. That was you projecting what you think he thinks onto him, thus speaking for him as if you know what he cares about. You don't know what anybody cares about, you only know what you care about.

Why edit and let everyone see the deception? I suggest you ackowledge the truth, and explain why you don't care. whether Baha'u'llah was genuine or not. Your handle is Truthseeker, doesn't it mean something, or just a fake label?

And I suggest you not speak for other people and what they care about because it only makes you look like an arrogant fool.
You know we can all see your posts, yes?

If you actually had critical thinking skills or logical abilities you would have realized immediately that he made a mistake and he never intended to say what he said originally. Instead, you grabbed onto what he said and tried to use it for your nefarious purposes.

This is what he originally said: Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?
That makes no logical sense at all given He is a Baha'i who believes that Baha'u'llah is genuine. That is why I immediately caught his mistake and pointed it out to him after which time he realized that he never intended to say that. He went back and corrected it because he realized that he had made a mistake, not in an attempt to cover anything up.

We all make mistakes because we are fallible humans. Only God is infallible.

It looked deeply honest, and bypassed your veil of faith. Religious faith is often a certain masquerade, and you were honest for that moment. Now, looks like the masquerade has resumed.

It looked honest to you because you projected your own lack of belief onto @Truthseeker. This is psych 101 stuff.
The way you speak for other people as if you know what they were thinking and their intentions is a disgrace. It is sure good that I do not judge all atheists by your sordid behavior.

Now would be a good time to admit it was you who made a mistake and apologize to @Truthseeker for speaking for him.