shunyadragon

I find the debate format a little complex for me to start a debate now without help. I also will need some preparation and thought, because the level of the debate is quite good, even though I do see some significant holes in the logic because the Atheists tend to very rigid, one-sided and Newtonian in linguistics in there debate as reflected in some of your challenges concerning God, cause and effect and 'blame'.

I will give some thoughts to the debate topics you proposed and possibly some of my own. It looks like all these under one roof may be difficult

Who would be in the debate, you and I or would several people contribute?

Ted Hoffman

You would just be two people and a moderator.
A peanut gallery can be set up in another forum for the public to share their views as the debate progresses.

I have always been fascinated by the Bahai faith. I used to say, if I have to choose one religion, it would be Bahai. I found them rational and I liked the idea that they dont believe that Satan exists. They dont believe in Ghosts and evil spirits. They attempt to be logical on many levels and I like them for that.
However, the crap about miracles associated with the Bab and Bahaullah were things I couldn't stomach - someone gets shot with several bullets, doesn't die, teletransports himself to a prison cell to finnish up what he was writing?
Please.
And the stuff about burying someone with the head facing the "holy land"?
Anyone who claims that a place on the face of this planet is "holy" parts ways with me at the speed of light.
There is no way a geographical location can deserve respect by thinking, living beings.
So, one time my brother and me (we used to argue till morning - coz he is passionate about Bahai) were arguing and he told me all the questions I was asking were asked by professors and doctors who were more educated than me bla bla bla and they were answered. So he hands me Some Answered Questions (Abdul Baha?) and I start exposing the logical fallacies in the answers. And I ask him where is God? And he says God is in the sun?
What???
So I start educating him about hydrogen fission etc etc and he says God is everywhere and I ask him whether God is with my shit when I flush the toilet and he says God is not in my shit.

So I tell him God is not everywhere. He starts telling me the limits of science like science cant distinguish between a tear from one crying from pain and one crying from joy? and instead of deploying a tu quoque "so? neither can religion", I tell him that the objective of science is not to explain everything like tell whether an orange is sweeter than an apple - that it showed how much he misunderstood the purpose of the scientific enterprise. And even if science cant explain something, it doesnt make it correct to embrace religion - they are two separate issues etc etc.
He also gave me William Sears' A Thief in the Night, but I pretty much stopped reading Bahai boks when I realized they believe in miracles.

My conclusion is, with their poetic prose, high-falutin proclamations, house of Justice, universalist agenda, claims of unity of science and religion, promulgation of universal peace etc, its still one religious outfit, embracing baseless beliefs, engaging in rituals and still believing in an invisible man in the sky.

shunyadragon

They were definitely a millenial faith. I have been to Haifa and seen the writngs above the doors and there are other records available.

Ted Hoffman

Is it your argument that the evidence of their being millenial is only available on the relevant doors in Haifa? No books, no websites having people who have arrived at that conclusion and their reasons for doing so?

DamienVryce

The martyrdom of the is actually the only miracle specifically endorced authoritatively by the Baha'i Faith. I must admit that I too am now skeptical about the truth of this event. I began with this book by Dr. Momen, a Baha'i scholar, which compiles newspaper articles, letters, etc. about the early Baha'i Faith. As much as I could with a University library, I checked his sources, and they seem to be solid, and correctly quoted.

The picture they paint is consistent with the Baha'i account. There are two different letters claiming to be eye-witnesses, and one other account from a person who toured Shiraz and was told the story by the local people. One summary of the Baha'i perspective to the event is found here. A more detailed depection is found here.

While they did paint a consistent enough picture not to discount the alleged miracle, I don't know that they provide enough evidence to claim with too much certainty that it happened as recounted. For example, to my knowledge there is no account from Sam Khan, the leader of the first regiment. For someone so moved by what happened to resign transfer his regiment to another command, but not to record it seems far fetched, considering the time period.

I guess I'm saying that this may be one of the best recorded miracles in religious history, but it still doesn't pass muster to be verified.

shunyadragon

You have demonstrated the problem of a well documented miracle in history. One can always find fault in what they should have as evidence from the extreme skeptical viewpoint. The demands often exceed the unsophisticated nature of the potential for documentation at the time. You must remember the miracle was not planned so the reporters, lawyers, notary publics and camvideo recorders were not present. If they were the skeptic would say it was staged like a magic show.

To require Sam Khan to record the event is far fetched. To fail to carry out an order and refuse to obey an order has consequences both militarily and personally. Form the account we know he was moved by the circumstances, but we do not know what transpired concerning him after the event.

Aside from this this must be put in the light of the Baha'i view of miracles.

"The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality."

"Though if I wish to mention the supernatural acts of Baha'u'llah, they are numerous; they are acknowledged in the Orient, and even by some non-Baha'is. But these narratives are not decisive proofs and evidences to all."

"Yes miracles are proofs for the eyewitness only, and even he may regard them not as a miracle, but as an enchantment."

DamienVryce

Since you're new to the forum, you may not have heard the phrase "extroadinary claims require extroardinary evidence." That is that if I claim that my family has a pet cat (a pretty ordinary claim) you'd probably believe me just on my word. However, if I told you that my cat was a brilliant Wall Street analyst, you'd probably be pretty skeptical, and demand some more evidence.

As previously meantioned, the only extant accounts of the story are from the Baha'i perspective, from the wife of the British ambassador to Persia, and from a western reporter, and we lack any governmental record of the event, and lack testimony of one of the key figures in the drama (Sam Khan). As a result, I hardly find this extroardinary evidence and I can't say that I view this as extreme skepticism.

I've mulled over this verse several times. Initially, taken at face value, it is as you say, that miracles are not considered proof. However, As I've looked at it more, a deeper consideration reveals that 'Abdu'l-Baha is indeed saying that miracles are proof, because he does meantion them and does say that they are acknowledged by non-Baha'is. So it seems to me that miracles are both proof and not proof depending on what the situation merits.

shunyadragon

I understand this "extroadinary claims require extroardinary evidence." claim. because I also hear it from 'Creation Science' advocates concerning evolution. This one reason I am caucious before I enter into a debate here, because the atmosphere is similar to the CS debate criteria. Regardless of what you say or present, you are wrong.

I will have to strongly disagree with you. I gave only a few quotes, but it is repeated often in Baha'i writings that miracles are most defintely not proof of anything. He is indeed saying they are not proof and in other instances he repeats this assertion. The quote I gave concerning one who witnesses miracles I included diliberately, because both Abdul'baha and the Baha'i Faith acknowledge the fallibility of human perseptions concerning the nature of miracles. Mentioning them as a matter of fact and the nature of religion does not in any way catagorize them as proofs.

Abdul'baha puts more faith in the findings of science, because he states clearly that religion must accept these. He makes no such claim for miracles.

Ted Hoffman

So, you are saying, that if someone asks you to provide extra ordinary evidence for the extra ordinary claims you make, that, in itself, makes you wrong irrespective of the evidence you present?

What would you prefere? Someone who says he takes breakfast with the Bab daily is asked to provide the same amount and type of evidence as another who claims he takes breakfast with his wife whom he lives with?

This is fallacious - the manifestations before Bahaullah like Jesus used miracles as a sign of their power. Religion is about power - power to create, power to give life, power to destroy, power to abandon, power to bring joy and power to bring pain. Power demands obedience power plus deep egoism demands worship.

People pray to God to bless them - blessing is power to bring to those praying, whatever they ask for. If the deity had no power to provide what is asked for, there would be no need to worship them. Otherwise, we would all be worshipping stones. The very phrase "the living God" means that he can influence things. So, power is Gods bastion; it is his very definition. Benevolence is an artifact of power. So is mercy, omniscience, omni this and omni that and all other attributes assigned to God by mankind.

Yahweh makes the point many times that he is not subject to the laws we are subject to. That is power. To purport that miracles are not proof of anything is like a magician claiming that his magic don't have anything to do with his being a great magician.

God is only God because he is believed to be powerful.
Wrap this tightly around your brain.
O son of man, O son of man, do not for any second delude yourself that the effulgent splendour and magnificience of the peerless God are of no importance. Immerse yourself in his endless grace, for your highest virtues are his very abasement

To change the course of mankind's life, God must be able to perform miracles. Otherwise, he would be no different from you and me.
In any event, Bahaullah was his manifestation. His manifestation. Ponder over the meaning of that.
If Bahaullah turned out to be a filthy rapist and a thieving murderer, now what would that tell us about God?

I will be studying Bahai for the next two weeks. I have Borrowed Nabil's Narrative - Dawn Breakers (translated by Shogi Effendi) and David S Ruhe's Robe of Light. I would love to read Release the Sun.

Vorkosigan

Clearly incorrect. I suggest recourse to the first book of Volume 5 of Needham's Science and Civilization in China. There you will find that the Chinese were early and enthusiastic supporters of printing for the mass market, with printing carried out by both the government and thousands of private firms in the major printing centers.

If you are going to claim that the number of X rose after 1844, you will need the statistics to show that there was some kind of dramatic new trend or break with the past.

Vorkosigan