Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, like dragons, humans made from clay, axis mundi, witches, spells, giants, magic, ghosts, and many more very common myths that span through all cultures..

Again, you assume that the majority of people are either fools or liars.
I do not. I see that writings that are claimed to be fiction, are fiction,
whereas other writings that are NOT claimed to be fiction, I have more of an open mind.
Your mind is closed.

Again, I don't see evidence for souls or afterlifes..

I reckon you are looking in the wrong direction.

In neuroscience there is no evidence for any soul whatsoever as well.

You mean that you cannot detect the non-physical, by examining the physical?
Quelle surprise!

 

[joelr]

I also hold a rational and skeptical methodology to all of my beliefs, but I don't hold a empirical methodology to all of my beliefs because I God can never be observed or experienced and a Messenger of God can never be proven empirically.

Than you use faith which is not reliable.

Empirically means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I believe in Baha'u'llah on logic, not empirically.

There is no logic you can explain that gives justification to believeing Bahai is a messenger of God. YOu would need to use logic to explain God, you haven't. Then explain logically why you would believe he is a messenger, you haven't done that either.

What is not good evidence to you is good evidence to other people. That is why I said it is your way or the highway.
That is why I said: "Only in YOUR mind, according to how you think, and that is what you do not understand. Everyone does not think like YOU."

AGAIN, evidence isn't subjective. If you cannot demonstrate something is true than you are using emotional reasons.

If you were to claim a bus is in your driveway you could take a picture and post it, have witnesses, live stream it, all forms of evidence that would back your claim. Or I could go see it, my senses provide good evidence. I could touch it, drive it and conclude it's a bus.

No one would disagree.
You do not have good evidence to believe these claims.

You do not have to SAY "my way or the highway", your attitude says it all.
What is not good evidence to you is good evidence to other people. That is why I said it is your way or the highway.

It isn't my "attitude", you must be upset because I hold evidence standards proportional to the claim. But so do you (except with Bahai).
You don't believe Mormonism, despite the evidence, or Jesus in AU, despite he's making the claim and doing sermons and convinced people. Those people ALSO probably make the same claim as you about the evidence.
That is subjective evidence based on emotion and faith. Not good reasons to form a method on.

You presented terrible evidence and you would not accept it from any other religion. And you don't. This is nothing new, you are saying the same things over and over. YOur evidence isn't getting better.
You just won't face the fact that you hold beliefs on faith and emotion.

What is reasonable evidence and a reasonable foundation? I have what I consider to be reasonable evidence and a reasonable foundation to base my beliefs on. You just don't consider it reasonable, but what you think about it does not make it so. It is not unreasonable because YOU think it is unreasonable, not any more than it is reasonable because I think it is reasonable. The evidence is what it is, and people have different opinions about it.

I explained many times what would be a good start. Average writing, bad science, no philosophy, run on praise language, fake prophecies, vague prophecies, using older religions, nothing there looks real.
That is not good evidence by any standards.

No, it is not my responsibility. It was Baha'u'llah's responsibility because He is the one who made the claims. I make no claims, I only have beliefs

Yes and he failed to provide evidence. If he did then possible millions would flock to his movement. The aggressive campain of apologetics is also a huge red flag. Mt Carmel, garden on a hill, prophecy fulfilled??? That is so cringe.

.

I did not say it is ridiculous., I said it "sounds ridiculous." Whether of not it sounds ridiculous is a matter of personal opinion.
I believe that the only claims from a God that are real are the claims reveled by a Messenger of God. That eliminates the OT and NT claims straightaway since neither the OT or the NT were written by a Messenger of God. I believe that some truth came through since the writers were inspired by God, but I would not bank on everything they wrote.

Semantic nonsense. I'm going to start erasing some of these semantic quibbles where you say something than walk it back ("oh not ridiculoous.....it SOUNDS ridiculous....)Yeah no kidding????????

The question was can you provide a methodology as to how to tell a messenger from a non-messenger in text?

It is not the infinite power that puts a limit on speech, it is not having a mouth that precludes speech.

a
bsurd. Infinite power, makes universes, can't make a mouth? Absurd? Why are you quibbling lame points?

Infinite means limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
That does not cover what God could or would do.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinite. You are actually going to try and argue that a God cannot have a mouth and be in human form. This is absurd.

No, that is not true. There is no logical connection between being infinite and taking on a mortal form.

There are stories God took on a human form. You cannot show he can't, so why would you waste time on such a pointless quibble?
Aslo - “with God nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37), let me guess, Luke is
'corrupt" LOL

I do not have confirmation bias, but I do have bias against the OT. I don't know what God would do, I only believe I know what God has actually done and what God has not done. I don't believe that God did anything that is written in the OT since I have no reason to believe it. I believe it is anthropomorphism of humans.

I don't care about personal beliefs unless you have evidence. Does Bahai say this somewhere? If it does then it's another example of you believe it because the book says so

The Baha'i Faith doesn't need the OT stories about Israel's first contact with God the to be a metaphor in order to be true. It would not make any difference to the Baha'i Faith if God had made contact with the Israelites. Baha'u'llah did not weigh in on the OT and whether God made contact with the Israelites, so Baha'is we are free to believe whatever they want to about that. But what difference would it make anyway? Even if God did make contact with the Israelites that does not mean God is ever going to do that again.

I do not represent the Baha'i position on the Bible, I just have my own personal opinion. Some Baha'is might believe that the Israelites had contact with God.

Baha'i views of the Bible vary widely. My views lie in the middle area.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

I don't care what Bahai thinks of the Bible unless it can provide evidence. I don't believe things just because someone wrote them down.


https://bahai-library.com/dibdin_bahai_view_bible

 

[joelr]

I did not take the word of any apologists, I investigated the Baha'i Faith for myself. I read what other people wrote about the Baha'i Faith and I read some Writings of Abdu'l-Baha. Later I read what Baha'u'llah wrote and it just confirmed by belief that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God.

Nothing you have shared confirms any speaking for God?

That the evidence sucks is ONLY your opinion. In my opinion the evidence is excellent and that is why I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

I've been over this too may times. There really isn't evidence at all. His writing isn't great, bad science, fake prophecies, he made a claim, that is the evidence.


That isn't good evidence. If it was you would also be a Mormon, Christian, and other.

It isn't hard for you to explain why YOU THINK the evidence is terrible and not compelling TO YOU.
The evidence is terrible and not compelling TO YOU. What you have is only a personal opinion, yet you state it as a fact. That is really sad.

It isn't sad to recognize a scam artist. You cannot demonstrate any evidence, all you do is make the same claim over and over.


Now you are playing on my emotions which sounds desperate, calling it "sad". No, no one should believe things without good evidence.

This has the worst evidence ever. At least Joe Smith claimed golden plates and got 12 people to say they were witnesses, he write a Bible as well. And claimed messages. You don't buy those? Yet his evidence is the same. He has prophecy as well. Same vague prophecy.

The reasons I believe are logical, not emotional. I don't even like God or the Baha'i Faith!

You keep saying things but not giving the logic or evidence.

I said "I became convinced because of the evidence." Now you are saying it is false just because YOU don't think anyone could believe on the evidence, so that is as much as calling me a liar.

Playing on the emotions again. I said no one should believe the claim without excellent evidence.


He thinks evolution is wrong and the ether is real. He wasn't talking to a God.


There is NO evidence he was talking to a God.

That is true. There is just evidence. In your opinion it is bad and in my opinion it is good.
Why not just admit that all you have is a personal opinion?

A claim is not evidence. Jesus in AU has the same.


Everything else isn't evidence. You keep saying over and over, "the evidence", what you posted was not evidence


All this is about his claim, not evidence.

Everyone can agree on empirical things that they have observed, or things that they know because they are facts, common knowledge.
They don't need evidence for those because they have proof, so those are facts.

They are facts becuase we have evidence. A con-man telling people he is speaking to God is a con-man until he provides really compelling writings from God.


Not bad praise speeches, incorrect science, ramblings with no content and zero knowledge about the universe. Not one thing. And he tried to sound knowledgeable when he talked science, he talked about the ether and humans were not evolved animals as if God told him.






Sounds like he made it up. The evidence for that is pretty good.

Religion does not fit into that category, for obvious logical reasons.

If it were real it would. It's all mythology so people have to make excuses like you are doing.

Only in your opinion. You have such a bias that you will never admit that all you have is a personal opinion.
You act as if a personal opinion is a fact, but it isn't.

No I have a rational, skeptical methodology that looks to empirical evidence and goes from there to weigh the truth of a proposition.

I didn't see one single thing he said to be evidence of a person speaking to a God of reality.


Like Paul, Joseph SMith, Muhammad, I believe the evidence shows he had made it up.

You have no facts. All you have is an opinion about the facts.

Of course I have facts. HE made a claim, that is a fact. HE gave bad science, fact, he can not demonstrate anything, fact.

Again, no different than the Mormon claims, which you don't buy.

Carry on. It won't make any difference. All you have is a personal opinion and that will never change.
People are free to believe everything you say instead of investigating for themselves and they will get what they deserve.

My opinion is based in reality. I have studies the facts, I explain them in these posts often. While you do not. YOu just say you have evidence and you claim it's my personal opinion that the evidence sucks. Except I explain why it sucks.


You also think the Mormon evidence isn't good. So you agree with me because they are similar. There is another factor at play. Emotional, or you committed and emotionalized the belief and now cannot see that it's based on poor evidence.


A claim is not good evidence.

Neither are things like "his life, his work, his deeds...." the fact that they have to make that up shows they have nothing else and the evidence truly stinks.

 

[joelr]

No, that is not it. I do not believe He had revelations from God "because he said so." I believe because of the evidence.

OMG, same answer over and over, yet you are not presenting any evidence? Would you just keep posting the same sentence over and over?
You have lost. You had ample time to present evidence.
You presented a claim. You say you have evidence, over and over and I see nothing but the same sentence.

I have a good method and I used it.

There it is again, a claim. no content, no method, no explanation, no logic, empiricism, rationalism, nothing. Your response this entire round is "No, you are". Pointless.

Some things that are true can never be universally demonstrated to be true. God and Messengers of God fall into that category.
You miss all of this since you cannot think logically owing to your bias.

1)Explain logically how something can be true yet never able to be demonstrated to be true.

2)explain what methodology you used to come to the conclusion that God messengers fit into that category and how you compared it to non-God messengers.

3)explain how rejecting a supernatural claim without proper evidence in not logical and what bias do I use?


4)you just admitted messengers cannot be demonstrated. So your claims of having logic and evidence are void. You also are admitting it isn't logic and demonstrable evidence that compels you but something else. Probably emotional connection to the beliefs.

Which would explain why you are not a Mormon or other religious person because all ofthem can be taken in the same way and none have good evidence.

There is no way to demonstrate that for obvious logical reasons.
Such is the nature of religion. If you don't like it then you don't have to believe it.

Yes, such is the nature of religion, it's pretty clearly a mytholgy and cannot shown to be real. So people emotionalize it and grow attachments and use confirmation bias to continue belief. exactly.

You cannot demonstrate that anything is true or false about God or Messengers, and that is the subject of this discussion.

I can show it's most likely a claim, I can show the evidence is really bad, and I have been doing that in every Bahai thread.

No, religious truths cannot be demonstrated like material world truths. It is really sad that you cannot understand why.
But just because something cannot be proven true that doesn't mean it is not true. What you have is an argument from ignorance.

LOL, you just have been doing the argument from ignorance over and over. In fact right above...there it is!


"You cannot demonstrate that anything is true or false about God or Messengers, and that is the subject of this discussion."

Because you cannot demonstrate it's false, that is an argument from ignorance. I'm so used to fallacies I just let them go by now, but this was too easy.

Religious truths cannot be demonstrated just like fantasy-magic realm truths. They exist in your mind only and cannot be demonstrated to be real.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

All you have is an opinion about the evidence.

All you have is a personal opinion about the evidence. Repeating yourself over and over again will not change that.

Another personal opinion. We all have those, but at least some of us are willing to admit that is all we have.

You state that as if it is a fact, but it is only a personal opinion.
In my opinion, the Messengers of God are the evidence for a theistic deity.

Yes, you used argument from ignorance above.
Now you are using a circular argument.

"Bahai is true - the evidence is the messenger of God, since Bahai has a messenger of God, it's true!" Around and around you go.

Do you have to prove that he is a messenger of God? Why NO! You just claim it's true because he says so!


And that, is the worst evidence I have ever heard.

I know Bahai apologists know this and try to rescue him with vague prophecies, incorrect interpretations of prophecy (a garden on a hill?????), ridiculous lists like "his life, his work, he teaches about Jesus,,,,"
They try to write around the weird thing about how we are not animals, but he's just wrong. His science was all wrong, ether, cells, biology, evolution, he knows NOTHING beyond the year 1844 as far as any knowledge of medicine, science, anything. He is just a man, with man limitations.

All writings point to that. That is not an opinion. That is not evidence for a messenger of God. You are just allowing it.

I am saying the same things over and over because you are just making the same lousy defenses, not giving evidence and explaining why it might be real evidence, nothing.
This new point about "messengers are proof" is a perfect example of convoluted apologetics that are circular and say nothing but seem to fool people.

And I promise you if someone said "I know Mormonism is the only true new religion, because Joe Smith had revelations from Moroni and people who get revelations from Moroni are definitely speaking the truth and are chosen by God", you would say that was not evidence.

NOT EVIDENCE.

You don't have to care about truth. You only have to care about your personal opinions that you believe are the truth.

Again, flipping my words without adding any content, evidence, defense, evidence with explanations, just flipping them, amounts to a person bickering at me out of anger because they have nothing of value to add to the discussion and are angry.
I'm not interested in someone bickering at me, at all.

Unless there is a new point or information, I'm not playing games with you, which you seem to enjoy. I would rather have a discussion with someone.

At that, I will elaborate, truth can be demonstrated. When a man makes a claim of revelations he has to provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Without that belief isn't warranted. This is how you believe true things. You have left truth behind a long time ago and it's obvious by the way you haven't posted anything new in several threads and just keep making claims about evidence yet I've never seen it?

And your evidence is the same evidence you reject in other religions. So that is a fail. The conclusion remains, Bahai does not have evidence, at all. Just a claim.

 

[joelr]

The great evidence is because his writings, his character, and his mission and whatever else Baha'is throw in there, make the man who took the grand title of "The Glory of God"... someone that is dependable to be truthful. Therefore, when he "says so", it is the truth. But it's not truth because he said so. It is the truth because whatever he is says is the truth. Or something like that?

I think Baha'is should just stick with that they can prove it, but they believe it. No, that doesn't help, because as soon as someone asks what evidence do they have that their prophet is the true one from The One and Only God, they will say that it's his writings, his character, his mission, therefore what he says is true. And because they believe he speaks the truth... they believe everything he said is the truth.

But not because he said so? Wait, somethings screwy here.

Exactly!!! This is exactly what I see and what anyone sees who investigates without a bias towards the material.

They pull these apologetics and enter them as the "proof" and it's absurd. None of those things prove his claim.

But they will go around and around, use tactics like saying it's "your opinion" that the evidence stinks, while at the same time they don't accept evidence from other religions that is equally as bad because they probably think it stinks?

The main evidence seems to be because he said so. And his writings (I dislike) seem to convince people. I think they should take a pause and read some Kant, Schopenhaur, George Berkely, Hume and so on. Maybe some Greek philosophy, just to see what real philosophers sound like.

I find the Bahai writing to be painfully long winded with the praise God language and he gets away with not saying much at all.
But whatever, if someone likes it then great. It's just not backed by evidence.

 

[joelr]

Yes, that is absurd, but @muhammad_isa is not a Christian or a Jew, he is a Muslim, so the OT is not his scripture.

Islam believes in the OT, Moses, Abraham, Genesis, the 7 heaven model was used in Islam as well:


"There are exactly seven verses in the Quran that specify that there are seven heavens, "He it is who created for you all that is in the earth; then he turned towards the heavens, and he perfected them as seven heavens; and he has perfect knowledge of all things." One verse says that each heaven or sky has its own order, possibly meaning laws of nature. Another verse says after mentioning the seven heavens "and similar earths".[22][2]"

Cosmology in the Muslim world - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Trailblazer]

Than you use faith which is not reliable.

I use faith coupled with the only evidence that is available, so my faith is evidence-based faith, which is reliable.

There is no logic you can explain that gives justification to believeing Bahai is a messenger of God. YOu would need to use logic to explain God, you haven't. Then explain logically why you would believe he is a messenger, you haven't done that either.

I can explain why I believe the Baha'i Faith is a true religion, because all the teachings make logical sense to me.
Because the Baha'i Faith makes logical sense, it makes sense that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. That is how I think. I do not need proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because such a claim is not subject to proof.

There is no logic that can explain God because God is not subject to logic.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49​

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

The only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

AGAIN, evidence isn't subjective.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.

The evidence for Baha'u'llah is not subjective, but how people interpret the evidence is subjective.

If you cannot demonstrate something is true than you are using emotional reasons.

I have demonstrated to myself that the Baha'i Faith is true. Nobody can demonstrate something is true to other people if those people are blocked to seeing the truth. They could be blocked for any number of reasons, including a bias they cannot get past.

If you were to claim a bus is in your driveway you could take a picture and post it, have witnesses, live stream it, all forms of evidence that would back your claim. Or I could go see it, my senses provide good evidence. I could touch it, drive it and conclude it's a bus.

No one would disagree.

God is not a thing you can see in the driveway that you can take a picture of. Nothing could be more absurd.
To any logical person, that means the evidence for God, and thus a Messenger of God, has to be different than the evidence for material things.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinite. You are actually going to try and argue that a God cannot have a mouth and be in human form. This is absurd.

What is absurd is to believe that God would ever have a mouth and be in human form.

There are stories God took on a human form. You cannot show he can't, so why would you waste time on such a pointless quibble?

Indeed, why waste time discussing stories? That is all they are, stories.

Aslo - “with God nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37), let me guess, Luke is 'corrupt" LOL

The context is this:
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

It shall not be impossible if God chooses to make it happen. I also believe in the Virgin birth.

 

[joelr]

Again, you assume that the majority of people are either fools or liars.
I do not. I see that writings that are claimed to be fiction, are fiction,
whereas other writings that are NOT claimed to be fiction, I have more of an open mind.
Your mind is closed.

You just made that up.
Please tell me which books you read and have that explain the beliefs of people who believed in these things?

I can tell you one, Francesaca Stavrakopoulou's new book on Yahweh also compares beliefs of the Mesopotamian, Ugarit and many other cultures in the region.
These people did believe these things just as Israelites believed in Yahweh, angels, giants, demons and more.

So again, people believed in all the things I mentioned, in fact humans from clay in also in the OT.
Sea monsters is also in the OT. All the Mesopotamian Gods fight a sea monster, including Yahweh.
Axis-Mundi was a major belief in many cultures.

You have an open mind because you make up what concepts are fiction in order to justify the human belief in an afterlife, labeling that belief as "real" and all the others as "obvious fiction" so your afterlife belief has something to stand on? Yet you don't study ancient religions and these myths were all taken serious, many by the Israelites.

So let's talk about a closed mind? Making things up in history to justify a myth AND to criticize me. All you can seem to muster is ad-hom about my beliefs. Which demonstrates you are likely the one who is wrong.

I reckon you are looking in the wrong direction.

It's not in neuroscience. Not in meditation, not in personal reflection, where do you suggest one looks. I think you are looking to fiction.

You mean that you cannot detect the non-physical, by examining the physical?
Quelle surprise!

No actually sometimes you can. Dark matter isn't interactive with any matter, neutrinos are ghost like. They were detected.

Again, if it's undetectable how to you determine it's real? Because it's written in mythology? Which you also cannot demonstrate?

The non-physical sounds like a made-up concept, as far as a place an aspect of a person goes to. That doesn't exist? How would you show that?

 

[joelr]

I use faith coupled with the only evidence that is available, so my faith is evidence-based faith, which is reliable.

Faith is not reliable. Bad evidence plus faith doesn't equal reliable. Mormons use faith and evidence. Are they correct? No. All religions do the same. Are they correct, nope.

I can explain why I believe the Baha'i Faith is a true religion, because all the teachings make logical sense to me.
Because the Baha'i Faith makes logical sense, it makes sense that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. That is how I think. I do not need proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because such a claim is not subject to proof.

Logic does not equate to revelations.
Socrates was logical, he was not getting revelations. There are many logical works, not messages.

A Mormon can claim Mormonism makes logical sense, therefore it's true and the true word of God. Not evidence. You don't get to use bad logic either.


If a claim of messenger is not subject to proof than it should not be believed. However a messenger can get information that would demonstrate something is going on by knowing information about medicine, science, technology which we could confirm. He could have explained how to make penecillin, given some math, many things.

There is no logic that can explain God because God is not subject to logic.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49​

Ah so you are saying the messenger is the proof and the messenger needs no proof and he is proof because the book says so? Again, "the book says it's true so it's true".

Yeah, it isn't. HE's running a scam, that is why he said that probably. Because you do need evidence.


http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-20.html

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

Doesn't mean God can not be demonstrated, or he can show evidence or his messenger can recieve new information.

You are just believing everything they tell you. Not impressed.

The only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

Which is what Bahai says, not every religion. So again, "it's true because the book says so".

Lame.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.

No, I'm not brainwashed by terrible apologetics that try to make up for a lack of evidence.

Many people live good lives, not proof of revelations.

The evidence for Baha'u'llah is not subjective, but how people interpret the evidence is subjective.

No, good evidence is good evidence. It's why we have the scientific method and make progress.

I have demonstrated to myself that the Baha'i Faith is true. Nobody can demonstrate something is true to other people if those people are blocked to seeing the truth. They could be blocked for any number of reasons, including a bias they cannot get past.

No, you convinced yourself. As Mormons also have and Muslims. Does not mean it's true.

God is not a thing you can see in the driveway that you can take a picture of. Nothing could be more absurd.

Show me evidence that God cannot manifest if he choose to.

To any logical person, that means the evidence for God, and thus a Messenger of God, has to be different than the evidence for material things.

No, A God can tell a messenger about every single discovery we had since 1844 on physics, medical science, digits in constants like pi, nmew philosophy, cures, tech, many things.

What is absurd is to believe that God would ever have a mouth and be in human form.

ignore, we are done with this

Indeed, why waste time discussing stories? That is all they are, stories.

The context is this:
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

It shall not be impossible if God chooses to make it happen. I also believe in the Virgin birth.

Why waste time believing con-men who claim to be a messenger yet have no information that any other man couldn't have. "Be good to everyone", we already know this stuff. Logical people will believe when the evidence is sufficient. If not it's a con.

 

[Trailblazer]

OMG, same answer over and over, yet you are not presenting any evidence? Would you just keep posting the same sentence over and over?
You have lost. You had ample time to present evidence.
You presented a claim. You say you have evidence, over and over and I see nothing but the same sentence.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

1)Explain logically how something can be true yet never able to be demonstrated to be true.

Easy-peasy. One can demonstrate that something is true but when the recipient of the demonstration rejects the demonstration they don't see the demonstration. This is simple logic.

2)explain what methodology you used to come to the conclusion that God messengers fit into that category and how you compared it to non-God messengers.

I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

3)explain how rejecting a supernatural claim without proper evidence in not logical and what bias do I use?

Your bias is the requirement for a kind of evidence that can never exist for God or a Messenger of God.

4)you just admitted messengers cannot be demonstrated. So your claims of having logic and evidence are void. You also are admitting it isn't logic and demonstrable evidence that compels you but something else. Probably emotional connection to the beliefs.

I have demonstrated that it is true to myself using my own logical analysis. No emotion was involved.
Some things that are true can never be universally demonstrated to be true. God and Messengers of God fall into that category.

Try to think about why a non-material being such as God can never be demonstrated to exist. Since God cannot be demonstrated to exist, how could it be demonstrated that Messengers got messages from God?

Yes, you used argument from ignorance above.

I never committed the fallacy argument from ignorance because I never said that the Baha'i Faith is true because it has not yet been proven false.
You are the one committing the fallacy since you are saying the Baha'i Faith is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

I am saying the same things over and over because you are just making the same lousy defenses, not giving evidence and explaining why it might be real evidence, nothing.
This new point about "messengers are proof" is a perfect example of convoluted apologetics that are circular and say nothing but seem to fool people.

You are saying the same things over and over but in case you haven't noticed I am not responding to them unless they are new.
Whenever I see you ranting about me having evidence I just delete that part of the post and move on.

It is not a 'new point' that Messengers are evidence for God. I have been saying that for years.
If God sent Messengers as evidence then they are evidence. That is absolutely logical since the only evidence we could ever have of God is the evidence that God provides.

Circularity has nothing to do with whether it is evidence or not.

God did not check a manual to see if it looked circular to humans. If people cannot get past their biases then they don't deserve to know that God exists.

Unless there is a new point or information, I'm not playing games with you, which you seem to enjoy. I would rather have a discussion with someone.

I do not enjoy this. Unless you have a new point or new information, I see no point of continuing.

At that, I will elaborate, truth can be demonstrated. When a man makes a claim of revelations he has to provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief.

Baha'u'llah did provide such evidence.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

Without that belief isn't warranted.

The passage above explains why belief is warranted.

And your evidence is the same evidence you reject in other religions.

No, the evidence is clearly NOT the same. Sorry you cannot see that but I cannot make you see what you do not see.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is not reliable. Bad evidence plus faith doesn't equal reliable.

But good evidence and faith warrants belief.

If a claim of messenger is not subject to proof than it should not be believed.

It is subject to proof but not everyone will accept that proof. That is what you do not understand.

However a messenger can get information that would demonstrate something is going on by knowing information about medicine, science, technology which we could confirm. He could have explained how to make penecillin, given some math, many things.

That would demonstrate the claim to you but it would not demonstrate the claim to everyone, not anymore than the evidence I presented demonstrates the claim to everyone.

Ah so you are saying the messenger is the proof and the messenger needs no proof and he is proof because the book says so? Again, "the book says it's true so it's true".

I never said that. I said that the Messenger is the evidence for God, but NOT because a book says so. He is evidence because God sent Him as evidence. Sure the book says that, how else could we know!?

Again, it is true because it is true, not because the book says it is true.

Doesn't mean God can not be demonstrated, or he can show evidence or his messenger can recieve new information.

God could demonstrate that He exists to everyone, Baha'u'llah wrote that. He also explained why God chooses not to do that.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people it means that God could have made all people believe in Him, but If God has pleased means that God did not want to make all people into believers, since we know that God could have if He had wanted to.

The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers. According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (the wayward and perverse).

You are just believing everything they tell you. Not impressed.

I don't believe anything anyone tells me. I investigate for myself.

ignore, we are done with this

I hope so. Please don't make any promises you cannot keep.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have an open mind because you make up what concepts are fiction in order to justify the human belief in an afterlife..

I do not !
It is you who label all myths as fiction, which is no more than a guess based on ancient history.
You have a feeling of superiority over your ancestors, who you accuse of being superstitious and ignorant.
..and you put all of today's believers in the same category.

Yet you don't study ancient religions and these myths were all taken serious, many by the Israelites.

Perhaps it suits you to point at all these varying creeds of ancient history, in order to put out the light
of truth?
You will never succeed.

The non-physical sounds like a made-up concept, as far as a place an aspect of a person goes to..

..not to a vast number of us, it doesn't.
The concept is real, but you prefer materialist philosophy .. that is all.

 

[freelight]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

@PureX said that one CAN change their mind, but they won't because they don't want to deny their current understanding of 'what is'. #523

I disagree. One CAN change their mind, and they sometimes do, if they get new information that causes them to change their mind. However, if they don't change their mind, it is because they truly believe that what they believe is true according to their current understanding. It is not that they won’t change their mind, as if they are stubbornly refusing to change their mind, it is that they have no reason to change their mind.

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Conversely, why should anyone accept any belief as true if they don’t believe it is true?

Why should atheists accept that God exists when they see no evidence for God’s existence?

I do not think that atheists are stubbornly refusing to believe in God. I take them at their word when they say that they see no evidence for God. It is not that they won’t believe in God, it is that they can’t believe in God because they see no evidence for God. The same holds true for me. It is not that I won’t disbelieve in God, it is that I can’t disbelieve in God because I see evidence for God.

All souls see from whatever point of view or perspective they are viewing thru at any point in space/time..... with whatever evidence or lack thereof for anything considered thru various 'criteria' used to determine anything, so different factors may colour ones perception. The wonderful thing is, there is a universal reality or 'medium' in which all things arise, no matter what one believes about anything or not.

Absolute reality at the heart of existence itself remains what IT IS - only the perceptions that arise in this field of existence vary and are relative to individual points of view, variously conditioned, of which points of view can extend to infinity. The infinity of space (or the Void) or that from which all things arise remains the substratum of it all, anyways,....slice and dice it as you please

If we cant 'repent' (change our minds) about anything, there really is no point to life or living, since there would be no nuance, evolution, change, transformation, learning, progress, co-creative engagement. Life is ever changing. - all you can do is go with its flow and adapt (by renewing the mind), coordinate your life accordingly as new information is received, evolving thereby. Is there any other way to be or be-come?

I AM ever be-ing and be-coming


~*~*~

 

[joelr]

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Both are fallacies.

"First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:"


You are begging the question. You assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. Obviously it isn't. hundreds make these claims of a similar sort, even thousands, you haven't presented evidence as to why the claim is true OR a methodology to determine which versions of this claim are true or false.


"Second, He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth."


This is exactly the same thing, slightly different claim. Same fallacy.
Can you imagine how ridiculous you would find someone if they said Mormonism is obviously true because Joseph Smith declared he was God's messenger, and the OT was predicting that some Israelites would travel to the Americas and await the Messiah, and it happened. Jesus visited them in the Americas. Because he said so.

Absolutely ridiculous. Yet for some unfathomable reason you have placed yourself and your religion ABOVE the normal standards of evidence and logic.
This is also the most clear example of "it's true because the book says so". This is that apologetic, exactly.


Please do not claim "it's different because the book doesn't say it but he said it.....", please use your mind. That is the same thing. And where did you find out about these 2 claims? Did he tell you? No, you read. it in a book.


At least other religions argue that their miracles and deity superpowers were actually done at a time. This is just the worst.



https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...wers-of-bahaullah.238253/page-20#post-6877342

Easy-peasy. One can demonstrate that something is true but when the recipient of the demonstration rejects the demonstration they don't see the demonstration. This is simple logic.

You don't know what logic is. This is no different than someone saying "I am going to use logic to prove Mormonism"....."J Smith said he was visited by an angel with revelations and secret knowledge"....."therefore Mormonism is true".

All of your arguments are uncogent, weak, inductive arguments. The conclusion never follows and it's complete nonsense.

Let's look at more of this gibberish:

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

Yup, I read that some time ago, when this first came up. Not one thing in "who he was" demonstrates any God, God messages or verifies any supernatural claims.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

I read much of his writing. Besides the incorrect science, NEVER answering questions with actual information and specifics about reality, the universe, or EVER knowing anything that a human would not know in that time. Nothing here demonstrates anything about a God in any way. It demonstrates he read the Quran, Bible, some Hinduism and enjoys making a modified version. His long winded praise seems more like it's purpose it to bedazzle the reader into feeling like they are in the company of something special. It feels like a con.


The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh
Nothing impressive, incorrect science, uninteresting writer, skipped philosophy and Eastern mysticism class for sure.

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

I read this. Huge scam. They insert him into prophecies, anything that doesn't fit is shaved off, ignored, or called a metaphor. They try to make him the 2nd coming in Revelation. Obviously this is the end of the world, monsters, plagues, horsemen, fire, locusts, 7 headed monsters, all non-Christians swallowed up. Yes this is the same. Anything that doesn't match up was just a metaphor, wow imagine that.

Again, the fact that I even have to say out loud this isn't evidence is a slap to logic.



The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Yeah, he saw war in an obvious political climate of war. Anyone who predicts wars will be correct 100% of the time.
He did not predict, computers, any medical advancement, modern physics, any political event, nothing.

His predictions of history are ENTIRELY events that people were warning against or saw coming.

Others are so vague ,

"Prophecy 9: A massive (albeit temporary) decline in the fortunes of monarchy throughout the world."

Anyone who knows finance in history knows this will always happen.

"Prophecy 10: A worldwide erosion of ecclesiastical authority."

This was known, this isn't a "prophecy"

"Prophecy 11: The collapse of the Muslim Caliphate."

When this prediction was made it was another known thing by anyone paying attention

"Prophecy 15: The persecution of Jews on the European continent (the Nazi Holocaust)."

The Jewish people have a history of prosecution going back to 700 BCE

"Prophecy 16: America's violent racial struggles."

He predicted this at the peak of American slavery? These are observations based on available information



"'Abdu'1-Baha points out that Muhammad disputed the official science of His day by implying that the sun is at rest relative to the earth, and that it rotates around an axis. 'When the Qur'£n appeared,' He says, 'all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islam, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.'129 This situation persisted for almost nine hundred years, until Copernicus demonstrated the movement of the earth around the sun, and 'It became evident that the ve"


Because the Quran was written by Arabs who were reading Greek scientific books preserved by the Church. And the Greeks knew the Earth moved around the sun.
Here it's presented as an Islamic apologetic. Which is incorrect.

 

[joelr]

I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

Your bias is the requirement for a kind of evidence that can never exist for God or a Messenger of God.

Right, like one simple set of numbers, jsut to prove clearly, rather than predictions everyone also were predicting at the time.

10 digits at the trillionth decimal place of pi. Penicillin. A lack of vitamins causes scurvy and rickets. Different human blood types. Vitamins for disease cures. Light speed is finite and relative. "Computers"

I have demonstrated that it is true to myself using my own logical analysis. No emotion was involved.
Some things that are true can never be universally demonstrated to be true. God and Messengers of God fall into that category.

It's called confirmation bias. True things can be demonstrated. False beliefs can only be claimed and propped up with bad arguments,.

Try to think about why a non-material being such as God can never be demonstrated to exist. Since God cannot be demonstrated to exist, how could it be demonstrated that Messengers got messages from God?

God can be demonstrated. He could tell someone in 1844 that light speed is the same to all observers and gravity is bent spacetime.


He could do whatever he wants because God can do anything.

I never committed the fallacy argument from ignorance because I never said that the Baha'i Faith is true because it has not yet been proven false.
You are the one committing the fallacy since you are saying the Baha'i Faith is false because it has not yet been proven true.

never said that. I'm saying the claim has not met any standard of evidence. Any of his claims. And ridiculous supernatural claims should not be believed until sufficient evidence is demonstrated.


Kind of like how you are not a Mormon.

It is not a 'new point' that Messengers are evidence for God. I have been saying that for years.
If God sent Messengers as evidence then they are evidence. That is absolutely logical since the only evidence we could ever have of God is the evidence that God provides.

It's funny that you are re-stating the circular argument and saying it's not circular.






Premise: Bahai is true


support: God sent messengers


evidence: messengers are evidence


conclusion:Bahai is true






Whoops, you skipped a step? You can replace "Bahai" with any revelatory religion. The logic here is "the book says they are real, so it's true"






You have not demonstrated a man who claims to be a "messenger" is actually a messenger.


I looked at all of those links many times. I found not one single instance of any possibility of any supernatural intervention, whatsoever.






You have not given reasonable evidence for any ofhis claims. At this point you might as well just say "It's true because it says so".

Circularity has nothing to do with whether it is evidence or not.

God did not check a manual to see if it looked circular to humans. If people cannot get past their biases then they don't deserve to know that God exists.

If God actually started a religion with evidence that crummy, he doesn't deserve to have followers.


And once again, God did not check a manual to see if the evidence wass good enough. He sent the angel Moroni to Jow Smith, showed him golden plates and wrote a new Bible. If you cannot get past your bias you don't deserve to know the true updates of God.


When your logic can be turned on you and used for any religion, you don't have any evidence, logic or footing. It's pure belief for some other reason.

I do not enjoy this. Unless you have a new point or new information, I see no point of continuing.

Baha'u'llah did provide such evidence.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

The passage above explains why belief is warranted.

No, the evidence is clearly NOT the same. Sorry you cannot see that but I cannot make you see what you do not see.

Yup, Joseph Smith also did that. Not evidence. It's a cult. It's similar to Scientology. No, you cannot make me brainwashed into thinking claims are evidence. I am interested in truth and things that are true can be shown to be true. No one is arguing gravity isn't real. IF they do they have a mathematical framework to explain the forces.


Not random claims



"“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed "



Common cult tactic. Give multiple bad proofs but keep information flowing at them and one might stick.


" For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth."


Make it about them, if they don't believe they are "failing". Make them think the words he wrote have special powers.

 

[joelr]

But good evidence and faith warrants belief.

You have no evidence. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.

It is subject to proof but not everyone will accept that proof. That is what you do not understand.

And not everyone accepts the Mormon proof, Islamic proof, New Testament proof. All are better than BAhai.
You reject all.
Why does every religion have similar proofs yet different members? Because the proof is just claims.

Do people argue about the conservation of energy? Periodic table? No. Evidence. Claims and folk tales are simply not real events.

That would demonstrate the claim to you but it would not demonstrate the claim to everyone, not anymore than the evidence I presented demonstrates the claim to everyone.

IF information was given with no possible explanation for him to know it, it would at least open the possibility.
The evidence presented is absurd.

I never said that. I said that the Messenger is the evidence for God, but NOT because a book says so. He is evidence because God sent Him as evidence. Sure the book says that, how else could we know!?

So there you go, you read it in a book. Its true because the book says so. God didn't tell you, a book told you.
If God is real he is infinite. Speaking personally in everyones mind would be easy. At any time. An infinite deity needs messengers, and at that he tells him lame stuff everyone knows?

Again, it is true because it is true, not because the book says it is true.

You are asserting it's true. That is called a claim. Mormonism also claims it's true because it's true. You are using special pleading. You want the ability to just announce your beliefs are true but reject when others do it
It's because it's a crappy way to demonstrate truth. Anyone can anounce anything is true. Any story. Spider Man is true because it's true.


THAT is truly circular logic.

God could demonstrate that He exists to everyone, Baha'u'llah wrote that. He also explained why God chooses not to do that.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

No chance. He ALSO could be saying that to cover for the fact no God did that.
This is ANOTHER examp[le of you saying the reason God didn't do something is becuase............the book says so. You claim it's true because the book says so.

It's 200 years later and Bahai is one thousandth percent of all religious people. Which he would know. Also one can be pure in spirit and witness miracles from a God. That is a non-argument, makes no sense and is likely a cover and just another layer of the scam.



http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-29.html.utf8?query=pleased&action=highlight#gr2

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people it means that God could have made all people believe in Him, but If God has pleased means that God did not want to make all people into believers, since we know that God could have if He had wanted to.

NO we don't? YOu do, because you believe what a book tells you. Because you have zero standards of evidence.

The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers. According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (the wayward and perverse).

More scam. I read all those sources originally. I was appalled at how terrible the evidence was. Like Mormonism, there is no God here.


You think he's the only scammer who used stuff like this>

Moroni 10.4-5
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

I don't believe anything anyone tells me. I investigate for myself.

Yeah, you do. How many passages in the book did you just post asserting it was true, because it says so?
Yeah, a lot.

I hope so. Please don't make any promises you cannot keep.

Then stop writing if it's a problem? Why would you need permission? All you've done is a massive dissertation on how Bahai has no evidence whatsoever and that you believe anything they say in their books.

 

[joelr]

I do not !
It is you who label all myths as fiction, which is no more than a guess based on ancient history.

Sure, and it's no more than a guess, based on ancient history, that Inanna, Osirus, dragons, Thor, Hercules, The Egyptian underworld, Elysium, Odin, fairies, Big Foot and the world serpent are fiction. It's a pretty safe guess. More like a credible theory based on evidence.

You have a feeling of superiority over your ancestors, who you accuse of being superstitious and ignorant.

More mind reading, which makes you wrong immediately and you seem to have nothing to say except speculation. I also didn't say ignorant, they just believed things that were false. This isn't even contested? They laughed at the idea of germs, the Earth moving around the sun, weather not being from Gods, illness not being from Gods. They were wrong, that is a fact.

..and you put all of today's believers in the same category.

Your premise was incorrect so the conclusion is incorrect. But yes, people do believe in myth today as well. The evidence demonstrates these are stories people came up with.

Perhaps it suits you to point at all these varying creeds of ancient history, in order to put out the light
of truth?

First, you have to demonstrate something is true. Present evidence and so on. Just making a claim is pointless. You are in the same boat as all religions and cults just making claims. Just because you hear a story and then believe you know the "light of truth" means nothing except you don't really care about what is true but rather what you want to be true.

You will never succeed.

My goal is not to get any individual from mythologies, I don't care what you do with your thoughts. I am speaking up for rational thought. I have already succeeded.
Why are you so mad? That is suspicious? You are at a debate site, if you want to talk with only like-minded individuals there are forums for that.
In debates you present arguments, not mind read and rant with ad-homs?

..not to a vast number of us, it doesn't.

Ok, but that is an appeal to popularity and a known fallacy. There are more Christians than Muslims, does that make Jesus the only way to heaven because more people think it? Or are you dropping the fallacy when it doesn't suit you? Special pleading.

The concept is real, but you prefer materialist philosophy .. that is all.

I still don't see evidence, just you claiming your ancient stories are real. Generally those are not.

Now materialist philosophy. First, materialism has nothing to do with a heaven or a soul.
It just means the material world isn't what it seems. But modern physics has shown that is true. It may suggest observation plays some role in creating the world, that doesn't mean that consciousness needs a soul. The brain could also operate on quantum processes. There is a quantum field, consciousness interacts with it. Our universe is probabilistic and our consciousness may have a role in shaping what version of reality we see but there is still a quantum field and consciousness emerged and is able to operate within the quantum rules. A soul is not needed.
All observations about reality have to go through the mind. But this does not demonstrate we have a soul or mind is fundamental at all.
In fact this belief is dated, if you read about idealism on the Stanford encyclopedia for starters you will see it was big for a while but is debated now much more.
Neuroscience has found no evidence and philosophy is far more ambiguous on the subject than some people would let on. Many non-materialists still source old works like George Berklees 3 Dialogues which "proves materialism false". It doesn't.

With philosophy people find a narrative they want and stick with stuff that takes their side and leave out any modern works that counter it.

In history there are no scholars saying anything but these stories are ancient folk tales. Heaven is a Greek myth, it's not even in Judaism in the OT. As Greeks invaded nations their religions were Hellenized and adopted the myth of souls that go to a heaven. Christianity is the Hellenized Judaism.
Islam seems to take some of those afterlife stories as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..yes, people do believe in myth today as well. The evidence demonstrates these are stories people came up with..

No, it doesn't. That is only the conclusion of a few ancient historians.
A conclusion based on scraps of evidence from 1000's of years ago.
..and the evidence from ~2000 & 1500 years ago, you accuse of conspiracy etc.

A soul is not needed..

..but when a court decides somebody is guilty of a crime, it is not their "meat" that they
are judging .. it's their intentions and actions.
i.e. it is a matter of the soul

Whether you think that a soul is a temporary phenomena or not, is irrelevant
to that fact.

In history there are no scholars saying anything but these stories are ancient folk tales. Heaven is a Greek myth, it's not even in Judaism in the OT. As Greeks invaded nations their religions were Hellenized and adopted the myth of souls that go to a heaven. Christianity is the Hellenized Judaism.
Islam seems to take some of those afterlife stories as well.

You are blinded by "history" .. your mind is closed, and will only accept your
own version / interpretation .. and that is one in which G-d does not exist.

 

[Muffled]

How do you know that it was not just a dream?

I believe you are starting from a position of bias by saying just a dream. There are three types of dreams that I know of: cognizant dreams ie daydreams, deep sleep dreams some remembered and some not which I believe come from one's spirit and prophetic dreams from God. I believe it was a prophetic dream from God.

 

[Muffled]

Honestly, the possibility of reincarnation intrigues me, as do the stories I've read about it. I've researched reincarnation stories online and found several of these stories to be quite compelling, such as the case of Ryan Hammons. In addition to his story, there are many other cases of children remembering specific details about individuals they'd never met or a dead language they could speak, and the child's parents having no idea where their child learned it. I've also read professional studies that were conducted on young children who recalled memories from a past life, such as "Life Before Life: Children's Memories of Previous Lives" by Jim B. Tucker, M.D., and I found this book and his others "Before: Children's Memories of Previous Lives" and "Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives to be compelling evidence. Of course, I can't say with absolute certainty that reincarnation occurs because I don't have any memories of a previous life, but I've read many personal accounts, read several books, and watched documentaries that, in my opinion, provided compelling evidence that reincarnation is possible. I like to think that it is. Lastly, for reference, I'm including some articles I've read.

Dr. Ian Stevenson’s Reincarnation Research

9 Amazing Reincarnation Stories From Children

Tales Told by Children Remembering Their Past Lives

Psychology Today: When Children Remember Past Lives

Reincarnation Stories: Children Who Remember Their Past Lives

Chilling Reincarnation Stories: Meet 6 People Who Lived Before

'Return To Life': How some children have memories of reincarnation

University of Virginia: Children Who Report Memories of Previous Lives

5 Mysterious Cases of Children Who Claimed to Remember Their Past Lives

Little boy’s eerie reincarnation story freaks out mom in viral TikTok: ‘This is scary’

I believe God decides how much a person needs to remember. Too many memories would be confusing and Jesus reminds us our business is what happens now.