• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
So, listen closely. On this forum you are a real Baha'i doing things in the real world. You are interacting with real people who live in a real society (again) in the real world. You may find it comforting to think that non-Baha'i are the tarnishers, but that is not the case. The actions and deeds of you and your fellow Baha'i have primary place.
I was around Baha'is for three years in the early 70's. There was lots of talk about peace and unity back then. In those 50+ years, what have the Baha'is accomplished? I went with my Baha'i friends to Indian Reservations from Arizona to Idaho, Washington, Montana and others. How are those Native communities doing? Has learning about the Baha'i Faith made a difference?

In the late 80's, the Baha'is put out a Peace Statement and had a big conference in San Francisco. What's happened since then? I really question whether the Baha'i teaching can work in the "real" world. The number one question... They expect all nations to disarm. They expect that a world tribunal can get the nations and people of the world to stop fighting.

Yet, they say, that within a nation, they can keep enough weapons that are necessary to maintain order. But ultimately, it is going to be the Baha'i laws and their "administrative order" that run the world? I don't know how well they're able to run their own communities.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I was around Baha'is for three years in the early 70's. There was lots of talk about peace and unity back then. In those 50+ years, what have the Baha'is accomplished?
Since the early 1970s a lot has happened in the American Baha'i community.
I don't know about all of it but sometimes I read about it in The American Baha'i magazine, or I hear about it at Feast, now that I have resumed attending.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Yeah, what else could you do? You do not have a Bahai militia at the moment controlling the world as Shoghi wanted.
That is not the plan. It is a lot more nuanced than that. The international army is something recommended for the peoples of the world when they realize that a world government is necessary. The Baha'is will not control that. They will not form that government.
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I was around Baha'is for three years in the early 70's. There was lots of talk about peace and unity back then. In those 50+ years, what have the Baha'is accomplished?
Like @Trailblazer says it is not the same now in America. it is very different also in other parts of the world. The growth of activities involving Baha'is, and others in contact with them has increased exponentially recently worldwide I just found out recently.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is the concept of number physical? No.
Yes. I just explained that everything that exists is physical including mind. It's physical, but not material. It resides in matter and appears to be dependent on it and to be an epiphenomenon of brain. If ideas weren't physical, they couldn't affect the things you agree are physical. They couldn't be stored in memory or actuate the body, which you likely agree are physical. Things that exist do so in a time and place, and affect and are affected by other things that exist, including ideas and including false ideas and other ideas with no external referent. The nonexistent does none of that.

Reality, physical reality and nature are all synonymous and comprise the set of objects and processes that exist, are real, or are actual, all which are all synonymous as well.
Can you "see or hear" my mind? No.
No, but YOU can, and I can experience my mind directly as well. I can only "see" your mind when it modifies your body as when you type me a message.
Whose experience? Yours, or mine?
Anybody's. That which is not part of our reality doesn't affect any part of it and thus is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. If you experience something, it's physical, including your ideas.
nothing about his life or words was ordinary, and no ordinary man could have lived or wrote that way.
I could have lived and written that way. I'm sure you consider that arrogant to say, but there is nothing that man said or did that I couldn't do if so inclined, which is true of every person called a messenger or prophet.
Show me one man who ever did so.
They're a dime a dozen. Turn on your TV now to see a person who is a professional proselytizer claiming to speak for a god and exhorting the world to come together in vain. My former pastor fit that description. As I said, I could do that if I had a reason to, and so could you.
God and thus Messengers of God can never be proven to exist using a logical argument with a premise and conclusion, so there can be no logical argument with premises and conclusions.
Agreed. Many have tried and failed to argue gods into existence, especially medieval scholastics. They would need compelling evidence as well.
You believe they don't exist but you cannot claim that they don't exist unless you can prove they don't exist.
I don't claim that gods don't exist, nor do I need to demonstrate that they don't in order to not believe claims that they do.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I could have lived and written that way. I'm sure you consider that arrogant to say, but there is nothing that man said or did that I couldn't do if so inclined, which is true of every person called a messenger or prophet.
I disagree. You could have neither lived or written that way since that was not your fate, since you are not God's Messenger.
Nobody could have written like Baha'u'llah, and nobody except another Messenger of God would have any Source material.

Baha'u'llah did not just 'make up' all that He wrote about God. What He wrote about God nobody could have known unless it came from God. That is one reason I know He was a Messenger of God. My belief is is based upon logic and reason.
They're a dime a dozen. Turn on your TV now to see a person who is a professional proselytizer claiming to speak for a god and exhorting the world to come together in vain. My former pastor fit that description. As I said, I could do that if I had a reason to, and so could you.
It is laughable that you would compare a pastor to a Messenger of God. They have nothing in common.
I am sorry you have been tainted by Christianity. No pastor should EVER claim to speak for God.
I don't claim that gods don't exist, nor do I need to demonstrate that they don't in order to not believe claims that they do.
I don't claim that God exists, nor do I need to demonstrate that God exists in order to believe that God exists.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Baha'i Faith has a lot in common with Buddhism, although there are also some important differences.
Differences? They are at opposite poles. No God, no soul, no messenger, no 'eternal life'. :D :D
That is not the plan. It is a lot more nuanced than that. The international army is something recommended for the peoples of the world when they realize that a world government is necessary. The Baha'is will not control that. They will not form that government.
You know how effective UN has been. Wake up, wake up. Reality and dreams are two different things.
Whoever suggests a world government and a world militia is a fool.
That is one reason I know He was a Messenger of God. My belief is is based upon logic and reason.
Your belief is based on your logic and your reason (I do not know what it is). Others have their own logic and reasons.
My logic does not admit God, soul, messengers or 'eternal life' since I find no evidence for them.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
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.
Not only is that completely wrong, I'm pretty sure you are not at all familiar with the historical field.
First, it's the consensus of all historical scholars. Thousands, not "a few".
Second it's based on many many things, not "scraps of evidence".

It's based on excellent literary evidence, archaeological evidence, evidence from historians of that time, comparative religious studies, and other lines as well. Every OT and NT scholar confirms this. But since you think you know something what have you read for historical scholars?
What historical scholar is giving you this information? Or are you just making it up? I suspect you are.



..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
Yes, actions driven by a mind. A mind made by the brain. No court of law is suggesting we have a soul. No court of law is considering themself an expert on what a soul is.
Ants have minds that can choose to build, eat, fight, obey. Humans happen to have higher minds and we can decide between what laws to follow or break. There is no evidence for a soul in the fact that we have functioning brains. Brains that change our mind/personality if the brain is damaged.
You are just taking the fact that people have minds, which have been demonstrated to be a function of the brain, and adding a soul.

Ancient people thought this. They also thought almost all incorrect things about the body, world and universe.



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

This has no point. You have to demonstrate a soul. Obviously because you think we have a soul is also irrelevant to the point, so saying it to me means nothing.
I do have evidence. We have a brain, it's responsible for thought. When the brain changes, thoughts change. Nervous systems start at simple life and become more advanced as you look to higher life. Do viruses have a soul? No. Well we have the same just more advanced. A soul is not needed to explain anything.
Study neuroscience, nothing is explained by a soul. It's an outdated, useless concept. And the only way to make arguments for it are the following incorrect attempts you are making.






You are blinded by "history" .. your mind is closed,
Says the person who is taught a religion and blindly accepts it?

You have been convinced that looking at the past and finding out what the origins are to stories is something that "blinds" a person. You are not allowed to even attempt to find truth or you will be "blinded by history"? That is absurd. Please explain how knowledge of history blinds someone? How exactly does that happen?

Of course if I look to history and see we were wrong about dragons, giants, axis mundi, people made from clay, fairies, or any myth you don't believe then it's fine to study the historical trends about those? But you cannot look at things you still believe, because you will be "blinded" by history.
Or is it possible you will see these things are pure myth and never questioned for centuries and easily debunked?
Sounds to me like you want to be taught a story, any story, whatever you grew up with, then assume that is the one only truth and you just got lucky. All evidence against it is just "blinding you" to a false narrative, or something? I cannot even guess at this level of self-delusion
and will only accept your
own version / interpretation .. and that is one in which G-d does not exist.
Uh, how many times do I have to say I'll accept any evidence if it's reasonable? Because history is very clear that these things are myth you try to make it my fault and put it on me.
There is NO version where souls and God exists that is supported by evidence.
Only accept my version? Show me another version that holds up to investigation?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia
YES because YOU are begging the question that it's true that if someone makes this claim then it's true. It is not and it's begging the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I do not assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. I believe it's true because of the evidence.
There is no evidence. You haven't shown any evidence. AND you posted that itself as evidence by saying " first. he claimed to be......"

THAT WAS THE EVIDENCE, which is absurd and begs the question.


It is not begging the question since my premise doesn't lack support. My premise is supported by the evidence.
NOW you are using CIRCULAR LOGIC, it's true because he claims it's true. Or it's true because he CLAIMS to be a messenger. You cannot make a claim and say it's evidence. That is absurd.




This is exactly the same thing, slightly different claim. No fallacy.
LOL. Yes, it's JUST ANOTHER CLAIM????? It isn't evidence??? It's a guy making a claim? NOT EVIDENCE. It's a guy saying he;s this and that with NO EVIDENCE?????





I never said that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger because He declared He was a Messenger so that is big fat straw man.
YOU JUST DID ABOVE????????
In listing your evidence you posted the following:

"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 JUST SAID IT RIGHT HERE? So it isn't any fat straw man. You just go in circles. This is absolutely ridiculous.



Why do you keep repeating the same straw man?
After all this nonsense you say I'm using the fallacy? Either you cannot fathom how terrible this argument you are presenting is or you are being extremely dishonest.



Only an idiot would believe a man is a Messenger of God just because he declared it. I am not an idiot.

Another straw man. I do not believe Baha'u'llah is a Messenger because He claimed to be a Messenger.
I believe it because of the evidence that supports His claim.

so first, you listed lines of evidence, the FIRST ONE WAS HIM DECLARING HE IS A MESSENGER OF GOD?????!??!??!??!??!??!??!?1
Here it is:
"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:"

Second - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that justifies these 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 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.”​

Any logical person could see that this is the evidence. You can say that it is not enough evidence for you to believe, but it is the evidence.
No, any logical person would not see that as evidence. His "self" has nothing to do with supernatural revelations.
His "revelation" has at least to be studied. I have, it's all a bunch of man-made words. Nothing in them provide evidence of a supernatural magic power knowledge.

The words he "hath" revealed, are, no prophecy, no predictions, god-awful scientific words, no philosophy, no answers to deep questions, a complete scam.


If a man was a Messenger of God, what other kind of evidence could there be? I posted a thread asking that question years ago, and nobody could give me a logical answer.
Wow that's funny, how many times are you going to ignore the same post where I give some examples of things he could say that would be at least a start?
Atoms are real, they are a nucleus and an orbiting particle, they are both wave and particle, light is the same to each observer no matter their motion, the universe is expanding, 13.5 billion years old, big bang, virtual particles, gravity is bent spacetime, the 100 trillionth decimal point 10 numbers of pi, e, i.
And many many more. Penacillin, nuclear fusion, a missing link WILL be found. Even things we don't yet know.
Those are a few and I have given this answer almost every thread. Yet you still say not only what type of evidence but nobody could give you an answer???
So you are not even reading my posts? What is happening? Your evidence isn't evidence, you seem to have no idea of the actual conversation? YOu continue to post Wiki posts about fallacies when it's you who make fallacies?



Miracles are not evidence that a man received messages from God, but even if they are evidence of something supernatural, they are only evidence to people who witnessed the miracles when the Messenger was alive. What about everyone else?
Text is better. His text is awful his prophecies are awful.


You won't answer my questions, you will sidestep, since you cannot provide a logical answer.

You mean the questions I just answered, and have been answering all along? Yeah, those.
Did he tell me? Even if he did tell me how would that be any different from me reading what he wrote in a book? I would have to believe what he told me. How do we know anything? Because people tell us, or we read it in books or on the internet. A dead person cannot tell us so all we have is what they wrote.
Exactly, so you believe it because a book says so.


You would not know what logic is if it hit you in the face.
Says the person who thinks evidence is good if someone claims to be a messenger, writes some books and makes ridiculous prophecies, some actually wrong.

Please stop pretending like you actually know logic or it's foundations.



All of your arguments are uncogent, weak, inductive arguments. The conclusion never follows and it's complete nonsense.
Again, just saying what I said in reverse is junior high level rhetoric. If that is how you want to represent yourself than I cannot stop you.


I explain why your arguments are such. In fact in the post you pulled this from that was just one small comment, the actual point of the post was a critique of several lines of evidence, which you have no response to. Nothing. You just took that one line and turned it on me. But no explanation of which argument had a faulty conclusion, which argument was weak and any reasons why.

So this was bigger than a fail, it was a time wasting bunch of childs play.






No, let's not. I have no need to read your gibberish.
So once again you cannot answer to the criticisms of this so called "evidence".
As usual, you call me names buy cannot explain why.



Carry on. All you succeed in doing is providing me with free ad space for the Baha'i Faith.
If by "ad space" you mean , completely debunk, demonstrate the evidence has no internal logic, is likely a scam, is in no way a revelation from a God.... and that you cannot defend the claims you make.

But you can take my sentences and reverse them back at me. Wow, great ad for Bahai. If you like terrible evidence and illogical claims then it's perfect.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Do you read anything I write and understand it? I am starting to doubt that.

I said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.
You said: Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

I said I have my own set of criteria, I did not say I laid out my own set of criteria. I did not lay that out.

You just committed the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.
Which you just looked up on Google. Please stop pretending.

YOu said:

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


You entered this nonsense AS EVIDENCE. If you have criteria that no non-messenger can meet than it would be universal and you would ebter it as evidence.
If right now you are actually trying to use the apologetics "it's been proven to me but it's personal", than as far as I'm concerned you just added another negative in the many negatives we have seen regarding these beliefs.

Provide evidence or we are done and the religion cannot be justified by evidence.


You are wrong Some things cannot be demonstrated, but that does not mean they are not true. They could be true, false, unknown to be true or false, or they could be unknowable.
But this is a forum to discuss, do you have evidence that is reasonable or not?






You just committed another fallacy because you are claiming that the proposition 'Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God' is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Those are your words, I did not say that. I said true things can be demonstrated. Also supernatural claims, like Jesus in AU, should NOT be believed until sufficient evidence is presented. That is not a fallacy.
But, amateur hour, is surely now going to post a Wiki post about a fallacy......





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

and there it is.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
God could be demonstrated to exist, but only if He wanted to be demonstrated. Since God has not demonstrated that He exists, even though He has the power to do so, the only logical conclusions are:

1) God does not want to demonstrate He exists, or
2) God does not exist

The REASON that God does not prove He exists to everyone is explained below.

“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

So your reason is as follows:

3) a book may make some random claim that a guy is getting messages from God, he may make up any excuse he likes for God's absence , maybe something like he wants those of pure spirit, by virtue of their own powers, to seek the all-glorius and be distinguished......which of course may be a bunch of whatever a man just made up. Because people do that sometimes. If no further evidence is shown it would be wise to hold off belief and steer clear of such claims


or said another way


4) It's true because a book says so







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 means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).


In short a guy said that. He also has no evidence, terrble prophecies and isn't getting revelations at all.
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.
Than this guy isn't so smart because those in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikh, and other religions DO consider themselves to be using their intelligence AND free will, they also sincerely search for him. As we see in Moroni:

Moroni 10.4
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.

AND, Mormons ask God of this and guess what? He answers in their hearts and tells them they are in the correct religion.


Same with Hindusim, and all others.
Which a real God would know and also know he needed more to convince most people beyond some claims and horrible evidence.




If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would be impossible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him.

So instead God leaves people with a religion with zero sufficient evidence and plays a trick on them with terrible prophecies.

Also the only reason you think this is true is because a man said it in a book.

It's true because the book says so.




That is not MY argument. It is your straw man.
It's the only argument you presented.
YOu said you had evidence then posted the ridiculous lines of evidence:
his life
his revelation
his work


LAME and not evidence. The Mormons make the same argument (plus a bit more)
Joseph Smith had revelations, saw an angel, saw golden plates, 12 people witnessed it, wrote a new Bible, his prophecy came true.

These arguments don't demonstrate anything supernatural.




I already told you that never plan to demonstrate that so why do you keep asking? Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Nobody can demonstrate that a man is a Messenger except to themselves, for obvious logical reasons that you simply do not understand.
One cannot make a person think logically if they don't think logically.
Not true, you continue to talk about "evidence". You say "I believe because of evidence"

Everything you have posted is some attempt to prove he is a messenger. So this is not true.

What you describe here is simply confirmation bias. You can fool yourself into thinking something. Religions and cults do this all the time.

You just admitted this is what one has to do.

If something is true it can be demonstrated.







If God actually started a religion with evidence that good, deserves to have more followers.

Yes, if he did. But he did not.
Not here or not with the OT, or the NT. Which Bahai thinks is real, so right there he is not telling truth. He is either telling a lie or he just thinks he is a messenger.
God did not send the angel Moroni to Joe Smith, show him golden plates or write a new Bible. That is not evidence of anything except that people believe that.
And Bahai did not get revelations from God, people just believe that.




Again, you commit another logical fallacy, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The fact that many religious claims are false does not prove all religious claims are false.
That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
  • Religious claim a is false
  • Religious claim b is false
  • Religious claim c is false
  • Religious claim d is false
  • Religious claim e is false
  • Religious claim f is false
  • Religious claim g is false
Therefore, Religious claim h is false.

It is true that the world is full of false religious claims, but logically speaking that does not mean that all religious claims are false.
I haven't commited any fallacy, but as usual, the amateur hour posts a paste from Wiki as if you have just learned about fallacies las week and no one knows about them.
Besides looking silly, posting fallacy pastes when there is no fallacy is a face palm.

What I said was "Yup, Joseph Smith also did that. Not evidence. It's a cult. It's similar to Scientology."

Scientology, I am certain, is not true. It's sci-fi. I am also sure there is no evidence for the claims made by scientology. But I see why you are looking for anything to correct me on. Your premises are terrible.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
First, it's the consensus of all historical scholars..
Rubbish! :)

Second it's based on many many things, not "scraps of evidence"..
Relatively speaking, it's 'scraps of evidence' .. or have you detailed accounts of everything that
actually happened .. of course you haven't !

It's based on excellent literary evidence, archaeological evidence, evidence from historians of that time, comparative religious studies, and other lines as well..
You merely rely on ripping apart the accuracy of the OT.
..but I do not worship the accuracy of the OT .. it is as unreliable as your other
historical evidence. :)

Yes, actions driven by a mind. A mind made by the brain. No court of law is suggesting we have a soul. No court of law is considering themself an expert on what a soul is..
It doesn't have to. It makes little difference to the court how 'a mind' works.
A mind/soul is either deemed responsible or not, depending on age and mental ability.
Whether mental incapacity is due to physical damage OR OTHERWISE is irrelevant.

Note: a person who makes bad decisions, does not necessarily have any PHYSICAL
disability.

..we have functioning brains. Brains that change our mind/personality if the brain is damaged..
..and you keep harping on about this, as if it is conclusive proof that the brain is all that is needed.
Computer hardware is useless without software, for example .. so why should the brain be any
different?

You have to demonstrate a soul..
Can you demonstrate personality, for example, by giving me an image of the brain? No.
Personality can be described, but one does not have to be a brain surgeon. :)

Study neuroscience, nothing is explained by a soul. It's an outdated, useless concept..
Rubbish. There is a distinction between a psychiatrist and a psychologist
for very good reason.
One cannot describe all malfunction of life in terms of physiology.
The mind has an abstract concept, which is not solely dependent on brain tissue.
A sick mind cannot be healed purely by knowledge of physiology.

Says the person who is taught a religion and blindly accepts it?
Not at all .. I look at "the whole", and do not make conclusions purely based on a narrow,
specialised field.
eg. ancient history, or speculation of what might have happened according to constantly shifting opinion

Uh, how many times do I have to say I'll accept any evidence if it's reasonable?
You will not accept anything, unless your 'unconscious mind' allows you to. :)

Because history is very clear that these things are myth..
Myth can be true or false .. and historians have many different versions, for many different reasons.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I have evidence-based faith, which is a reliable path to truth.
Faith is not reliable. You have not presented good evidence at all yet.




Only in your opinion are they better than Baha'i.
Bahai has no proof as yet. Still waitiing. They have claims of miracles, God visits.

I never said it is true because the book says so, so that is another straw man. That straw is really piling up.
You haven't demonstrated I used one single straw man or any fallacy. You made the claim, I debunked it and you didn't respond.


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.
God is not going to tell anyone (except a Messenger) but even if God did, how would they know it was actually God?

So God told a messenger he was a messenger, then he said it in a book. You then read it and believed it.

You believe this because it says so in a book, your attempts to get around this don't work and are equally as ridiculous.

This is getting so bad I'm wondering if I'm being trolled?







It does not matter what God could do, it only matters what God actually does.
Yeah, I'm so over this, you are incredibly dishonest and inconsistent. You definitely haven't given evidence (how hard would it be?).
When I suggest God might do this or that you immediately seem to know what God's limits are and what he cannot do .........God cannot have a mouth, God cannot appear as people............but when you need to justify some God action that doesn't make sense it becomes the same old apologetic. "it only matters what God does....."

same material, no evidence, no proof.









I am not claiming it is true, I believe it is true.
IF it is true, it is true because it is true, not because the book says it is true.
Wow, you need a class in logic and ridiculous tautologies.


You HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF A CLAIM IS TRUE, when you read it in a book. You are reading a claim and accepting it's true.

There is no difference between the tap-dance you provide above and "it's true because the book says so".
You seem to think that if you take one meta-step forward it somehow becomes less gulliable. "well it's true anyways so ....."

No, it's equally as bad to read a claim in a book, take the claim and say "well the claim is definitely true, so it isn't really the book I'm believing....."


Yeah, NO, it's just as bad. You were told a claim, you bought it. Without sufficient evidence. You have had like 10 replies to present good evidence, so far it's over and over with:
"his life"
"his work"
his revelation"

EQUALLY AS TERRIBLE AS "it says so in th ebook"






Why would it matter to God how many Baha'is there are? God needs nobody's belief.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are reasons why few people find it.

If you use logic and reason you would realize that few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...


Pace palm.....For one, the "narrow" gate is a metaphor.
If you used any logic and reason you would realize the Bible is not true as written, the God is made up, the NT is a Persian and Hellenized Jewish mystery religion and all claims stemming from it are also folk tales.


But forget that, if you used your logic and reason just on this issue at hand, a few things come to mind:

1) By the Middle Ages (after Matthew was written), the entire European, U.K., and more, had become Christian. The entire Western world was Christianized.
The rest became Muslim, same God.
but....
2) You cannot quote Matthew because you believe the Bible has been corrupted, therefore you cannot cherry-pick which verse you want to use when it suits you. Unless you think making things up as you go equals truth in any way. It doesn't.

3) People generally don't want the "broad road". They want to work, raise a family, pay bills, maybe have a vacation and survive. Barely. They are not planning to assassinate the King or steal bank money. But in the post Enlightenment people understand we don't just believe folk tales about Gods without proper evidence. They don't need the "narrow road" because they already are just living, raising kids, working and surviving.
If a God existed he would not make it look like a myth or a man running a scam, and if he did he would not be surprised when people were like "no thanks". If he did, then it's his problem.
It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.
And that is what Scientology says. That is what every cult says. Give up preconceived notions, just go with out terrible evidence and stop looking for obvious evidence of fraud.
No, people should not do that.
That is also brainwashing. People follow a road that has reasonable evidence, most of the time. They believe the old stories are real, which is evidence.
People are generally not going to believe a man had revelations without good evidence.





I never said it is true because it says so in a book, NEVER. I said I believe it is true because of the evidence.
Every time you answered a question with scripture to back up th eanswer you are saying "it's true because the book says so".

You believe he is a messenger because the book says so.
You believe there is evidence (his life, his revelation, his work) because the book says so



All you've done is a massive dissertation on how to present logical fallacies.
I have not used one single fallacy. When you accuse me I explain why it isn't a fallacy. Then you fail to respond because you have nothing to say. There has been zero fallacies on my part.


If you continue to misrepresent my position I will continue to correct you. It's all in a day's work.
This isn't work.
You are the one representing your position. All these posts have done is completely expose how little evidence these claims have. It's showing all it has are claims, written in books. No good evidence at all. You don't need me, the religion debunks itself.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

@joelr said: Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

I never listed 'my own set of criteria' so he jumped to conclusions when he assumed I was referring to what I have thus far laid out.
That is a lie.

Your own words:

post #310

"
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"

But here is a real fallacy used by you, moving the goalpost. You 100% asserted the above evidence WAS THE EVIDENCE you were speaking of. Multiple times you did this.
NOW, suddenly, you are claiming that it isn't about this but rather "I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria. "

which you never posted or mentioned until these posts.

But that doesn't mean anything, every person in any cult has convinced themself that the cult beliefs are true and they used their own set of standards.
The Heavens Gate UFO cult sacrificed themselves so their soul would enter a UFO that was passing by Saturn during Haley's Comet.
Their internal logic convinced themself. That means nothing to actual reality.

I am willing to say your criteria is in no way able to demonstrate in any logical way that this person is a messenger of God.

But you moved the goalpost, I could look through all old posts and find many references to this evidence.
Here is another where you claim the evidence is from Bahai:



"
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"


You said Baha'u'llah provided the evidence.
His self, his words, his revelations

Go ahead with the denial and twisting words now........


Moving the goalposts​

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage.[1]
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Rubbish! :)



Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD


9:30


The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.






Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.



Consensus on Gospels




1:05:35. Mainstream consensus











Myths


Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages.


The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life. Similarly, the Babylonians told of the formation of humankind from clay. But, whereas in the pagan tale the first man’s function is to serve as an earthly menial of the gods, in the scriptural version his role is to rule over all other creatures. The story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. There, however, the hero is eventually made immortal, whereas in the Bible this detail is omitted because, to the Israelite mind, no child of woman could achieve that status. Lastly, while the story of the Tower of Babel was told originally to account for the stepped temples (ziggurats) of Babylonia, to the Hebrew writer its purpose is simply to inculcate the moral lesson that humans should not aspire beyond their assigned station.





Scattered through the Prophets and Holy Writings (the two latter portions of the Hebrew Bible) are allusions to other ancient myths—e.g., to that of a primordial combat between YHWH and a monster variously named Leviathan (Wriggly), Rahab (Braggart), or simply Sir Sea or Dragon. The Babylonians told likewise of a fight between their god Marduk and the monster Tiamat; the Hittites told of a battle between the weather god and the dragon Illuyankas; while a Canaanite poem from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in northern Syria relates the discomfiture of Sir Sea by the deity Baal and the rout of an opponent named Leviathan. Originally, this myth probably referred to the annual subjugation of the floods.





Legends and other tales





Legends in the Hebrew Scriptures often embellish the accounts of national heroes with standard motifs drawn from popular lore. Thus, the Genesis story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife recurs substantially (but with other characters) in an Egyptian papyrus of the 13th century BCE. The account of the infant Moses being placed in the bulrushes (in Exodus) has an earlier counterpart in a Babylonian tale about Sargon, king of Akkad (c. 2334–c. 2279 BCE), and is paralleled later in legends associated with the Persian Cyrus and with Tu-Küeh, the fabled founder of the Turkish nation. Jephthah’s rash vow (in Judges), whereby he is committed to sacrifice his daughter, recalls the Classical legend of Idomeneus of Crete, who was similarly compelled to slay his own son. The motif of the letter whereby David engineers the death in battle of Bathsheba’s husband recurs in Homer’s story of Bellerophon. The celebrated judgment of Solomon concerning the child claimed by two contending women is told, albeit with variations of detail, about Buddha, Confucius, and other sages; the story of how Jonah was swallowed by a “great fish” but was subsequently disgorged intact finds a parallel in the Indian tale of the hero Shaktideva, who endured the same experience during his quest for the Golden City. On the other hand, it should be observed that many of the parallels commonly cited from the folklore of indigenous peoples may be mere repetitions of biblical material picked up from Christian missionaries.


The Hebrew Bible also contains a few examples of fables (didactic tales in which animals or plants play human roles). Thus, the serpent in Eden talks to Eve, and Balaam’s *** not only speaks but also seeks to avoid an angel, unseen by Balaam, that is blocking the road, while trees compete for kingship in the celebrated parable of Jotham in Judges. Finally, in the Book of Job (38:31) there are allusions to star myths concerning the binding of Orion (called “the Fool”) and the “chaining” of the Pleiades.




Dr. Joel Baden OT Historian, Harvard , Yale Divinity







23:11


"Why would anyone think the Bible stories are anything but fiction"








All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. They all agree the Gospels are myths about him. They simply conclude that those myths contain some kernels of fact, and that Jesus was originally not a flying, magic-wielding supergod. But they agree the super-Jesus, the only Jesus about whom we have any accounts at all, didn’t exist. They think some mundane Jesus did, who was dressed up with those legends and beliefs later. But that still admits he belongs to a reference class that the Hannibals of the world do not: that of mythically-attested savior gods who speak to their followers in dreams and visions. So we actually need more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal, to be sure Jesus isn’t just like all other mythical savior gods, who also had amazing stories about them set on earth history, and who also appeared to people in dreams and visions—yet never plausibly existed.

 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Relatively speaking, it's 'scraps of evidence' .. or have you detailed accounts of everything that
actually happened .. of course you haven't !
DNA of modern Israelites show they are from Canaan, archaeology has found many many ancient temples in Israel, many ancient towns, many text, there was no war but they emerged out of Canaan peacefully, no Exodus, literary styles show many forgeries, there are full historical works of Philo and other historians and well as comparative literature. Thomas Thompson has shown Moses is a composite of different stories and much more.
You merely rely on ripping apart the accuracy of the OT.
..but I do not worship the accuracy of the OT .. it is as unreliable as your other
historical evidence. :)
We have good historical evidence but if we don't then how can you know it's true?


Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel


K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are
It doesn't have to. It makes little difference to the court how 'a mind' works.
A mind/soul is either deemed responsible or not, depending on age and mental ability.
Whether mental incapacity is due to physical damage OR OTHERWISE is irrelevant.
This isn't relevant to evidence of a soul. You are going off on a non-related tangent.






Note: a person who makes bad decisions, does not necessarily have any PHYSICAL
disability.
You cannot study a living brain, there are trillions of connections and things happening.
However the complexity is staggering, and new things have ben discovered:

We cannot explain consciousness because of that but the brain is complex enough to create consciousness. The soul is an outdated concept from before we knew this.





..and you keep harping on about this, as if it is conclusive proof that the brain is all that is needed.
Computer hardware is useless without software, for example .. so why should the brain be any
different?
See, I didn't say it was conclusive. Science doesn't have to know everything or else ancient myths are real, it doesn't work that way.


But we do have an analogue to software, The "hardware" component of wetware concerns the bioelectric and biochemical properties of the CNS, specifically the brain. If the sequence of impulses traveling across the various neurons are thought of symbolically as software, then the physical neurons would be the hardware.



Can you demonstrate personality, for example, by giving me an image of the brain? No.
Personality can be described, but one does not have to be a brain surgeon. :)
Yes. In the early 20th century, neuroanatomists identified the limbic lobe, an arc-shaped part of the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes that sits in the middle of the brain as the seat of emotion. It was recognised as making an important contribution to personality and you can see it light up in scans with some emotional reactions.
Rubbish. There is a distinction between a psychiatrist and a psychologist
for very good reason.
You say rubbish but then show you haven't even begun to actually study these things?

A Psychiatrist prescribes medication, a psychologist cannot and works on mental techniques to reduce stress and anxiety, listens to problems and gives advise. Often on relationships. That is the good reason. When they feel you need meds they refer you to a psychologist.




One cannot describe all malfunction of life in terms of physiology.
No there is mental illness which is also a chemical problem. In fact changing brain chemicals ALWAYS fixes the issue. SSRIs work, not always but almost 100% of the time a person given a benzodiazapine for pre-surgery anxiety will completely calm down and a person on opiates will experience loss of physical and emotional pain. All chemicals.


The mind has an abstract concept, which is not solely dependent on brain tissue.
A sick mind cannot be healed purely by knowledge of physiology.
Emotional sickness is still a chemical issue. Seretonin, dopamine, adrenaline, and other chemicals get out of balance.





Not at all .. I look at "the whole", and do not make conclusions purely based on a narrow,
specialised field.
eg. ancient history, or speculation of what might have happened according to constantly shifting opinion
I have looked at every aspect of belief, philosophy, history, ontological arguments and more. But this is about the soul. There is no evidence for a soul.




You will not accept anything, unless your 'unconscious mind' allows you to. :)
I accept many things all the time. There just needs to be evidence. Some things believed to be real are not real and do not stand up to a rational methodology in inquiry.



Myth can be true or false .. and historians have many different versions, for many different reasons.
No myth is false. If it's true then it's history. All myths are false, there is no evidence that any myth is true but plenty of evidence myths are false.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins..
I have already said that.
Your historical evidence that challenges the OT does not mean that it is entirely untrue..
..it just shows that the OT is probably inaccurate .. which I agree with.

A Psychiatrist prescribes medication, a psychologist cannot and works on mental techniques..
Exactly! 'mental techniques' .. that do not involve knowledge of how the brain interacts with
the self.

No there is mental illness which is also a chemical problem..
What comes first .. the chicken or the egg?

In fact changing brain chemicals ALWAYS fixes the issue..
Of course it doesn't .. that's absurd.
Our behaviour is not just dependent on 'brain chemicals'.

I have looked at every aspect of belief, philosophy, history, ontological arguments and more. But this is about the soul. There is no evidence for a soul..
You say that, because of the widespread belief that 'the soul' does not perish at physical death.
..but the concept of soul exists, whether that belief is true or not.

All myths are false..
I think you better refer to a dictionary. :)
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I have evidence-based faith, which is a reliable path to truth.
I'mm looking at his prophecies, he has political and science. First science. I have a few comments as well.




Science

All of these prophecies take huge amounts of apologetic explaining and weaving together desperate narratives to even justify most of them. Even when he explains a prophecy that is completely wrong about hominid fossil remains and has to cite a fringe outdated book from 1984 he ends the section with “'Abdu'l-Baha's prediction and actual events is nothing less than astounding.”

’This is manipulation designed to leave the reader with an impression that he was not only correct but astoundingly so. It’s designed to make one forget they just basically read that he was wrong. Because he is. There is no scientist who will say the “missing link” has never been found. Only creationists still claim this. But read on, we will get to that one.



Prophecy 20: The explosive acceleration of scientific and technological progress

This had been already happening for centuries. You cannot be serious with this. So obvious.




Prophecy 21: The development of nuclear weapons.

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal.141


This reference to 'strange and astonishing things' apdy describes the twin processes of fission and fusion by which we obtain nuclear energy. The reality of such a power was again affirmed in 1911 by 'Abdu'1-Baha:


There is in existence a stupendous force, as yet, happily, undiscovered by man. Let us supplicate God, the Beloved, that this force be not discovered by science until spiritual civilization shall dominate the human mind. In the hands of men of lower material nature, this power would be able to destroy the whole earth.142”


Fusion and fission is not “in the earth”. It does not change the atmosphere. There is always going to be “a stupendous force” that is yet undiscovered. This is still true today. Atoms had been a serious theory in 1860 with Maxwell and all he hd to do here was confirm atoms are real. He could have talked about a nucleus and an orbiting particle. He could have said this is where the force would come from. He could have said the force keeping the nucleus together is what is responsible for the greater of the 2 forces. He did not say there would be 2 forces at all. Notice how vague all prophecies are, they can fit any new discovery, even true today.



Prophecy 22: The achievement of transmutation of elements, the age-old alchemist's dream.


This is simply wrong. What he is talking about was an obsession for Newton. From that obsession he likely also believed it would one day become real. The alchemy he is talking about is not what was ever discovered.


Prophecy 23: Dire peril for all humanity as a result of that achievement

Also wrong, big time.


Prophecy 24: The discovery that complex elements evolve in nature from simpler ones.


Before this prediction there had already been so much work on elements. This was already known.


In the real world, before this prophecy around 1870:
In 1864, a book of his was published; it contained an early version of the periodic table containing 28 elements, and classified elements into six families by their valence—for the first time, elements had been grouped according to their valence.”




Prophecy 25: The recognition of planets as a necessary by-product of star formation.



This was known or speculated by 1870, but it doesn’t say exactly what he even said. As you see here, much of what he says is nonsense, the author even has to say it’s “up to science to determine” the actual answer. Uh, right, or you could just say the answer if you have magic powers?


(Furthermore, Baha'u'Uah's teachings explicitly state that even 'minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage ... even as He saith in the Qur'an, "All things are living".'156 Thus rocks, ponds, clouds and other inanimate objects may, in some rudimentary sense, fall within Baha'u'Uah's definition of'creatures'. Shoghi Effendi has in any case stated: 'The creatures which Baha'u'llah states to be found on every planet cannot be considered to be necessarily similar [to] or different from human beings on this earth ... It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures'.157)”


Prophecy 26: Space travel.


Already a huge part of science fiction and something that would happen someday. All one has to do is wait and claim their magic powers.



Prophecy 27: The realization that some forms of cancer are communicable.

Never happened.


Prophecy 28: Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape.



This is the biggest fail of all. At the time it was thought the missing link would never be found. Religious people were very much against the idea of a line of evolving hominids because they were certain a God had created humans. This was standard belief even for casual religious minded people.



Prophecy 29: The nonexistence of a mechanical ether (the supposed light-carrying medium posited by classical physics) and its redefinition as an abstract reality.



The author goes on to say,
During the latter part of the 1800s, evidence had mounted steadily that light (once regarded as a stream of particles) was actually a wave or vibration.” He could have simply predicted that in the first place.


On this topic he said”'Abdu'l-Bah£ indicated that this conception was wrong. In explaining the distinction between the two types of reality, He left no doubt as to where ether belonged: 'Even ethereal matter, die forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality.. ."85 He emphasized that M it was 'not material', had 'no outward form and no I place', and was describable only by symbols and meta-■ phors no more to be taken literally than those referring I to any other abstract phenomenon.186 I From the standpoint of classical physics, this was I rank heresy. Although 'Abdu'1-Baha was using con-I ventional terminology, “



Notice the author has to make excuses for the BS here calling it “con-I-ventional terminology”. He's saying heat, electricity and magnetism are intellectual matter and abstract, having no form or outward place, not material, only symbols could describe it.
That is not correct. All forces are made of particles. Electricity isn't even a force? He's making this up.


That is the some bad excuse apologetics right there. He makes prophecies because he “knows stuff” but has to talk about science in some abstract language? Or is he simply wrong? Yes, he is, because he manages to talk about most science in the same terms as scientists. It’s just when he’s wrong it becomes “con-I-ventional”. The author even says it's heresy in terms of physics but he's talking in some magic-speak. Which he never does again, just when he's wrong about physics is it a special magic language.

Whatever.


He spends the next chapter trying to justify this prediction. These are prophecies that mostly need long extended explanation apologetics to even make any sense of. You should read how bad he tries to justify the no missing link prophecy.






“At the time of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Stanford address, evolutionists anticipated that palaeontology would quickly redraw the fossil histories of man and ape, showing just where and how the two lines were connected. Today, after approximately eighty years of intense research, they seem as far as ever from their goal. It no longer seems far-fetched to believe 'Abdu'l-Baha was right - that fossil proof of such kinship will always remain out of reach. Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, in The Myths of Human Evolution, conclude that man's search for his ancestry probably is futile. If the evidence were there, they write, 'one could confi-dendy expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.'180


We are, of course, free to speculate on what new findings may come to light as a result of deeper digging. Nevertheless, the correspondence to date between 'Abdu'l-Baha's prediction and actual events is nothing less than astounding.”


So he’s completely wrong, but he’s massively outdated. He has to source a 1984 book that is more of an apologetic work and not remotely the consensus even at that time. Since then much has changed regarding the findings of fossil remains. We found the missing links.


There is an academic review of the book he sources and it is as bad as I’m making it out to be, it shows how bias it is and makes mistakes. This is the only source the Bahai author could find to even agree with his prediction. But now it's 2023 and we have found many more hominid fossils, many. We have a good picture of our evolution. The prophecy is wrong.

science review:


“I have several beefs with this book.


First, there are too many signs of carelessness. I have already referred to errors in the first section, and while some errors in the rest of the book are relatively esoteric (e.g., George Busk was a surgeon, not “an anatomist”; Sir Arthur Smith Woodward did not “excavate cranial, mandibular and dental evidence of Piltdown”; Olduvai Gorge is not an erosional “gulley”; the “First Family” did not perish together; there is no preserved Australopithecus anamensis “ankle joint”, and australopiths did not live in “high densities”), others connected with the tables and figures are not. For example, all three columns in Table 2.1 are mislabeled, the field/museum number of the “Lucy” associated skeleton given in Figure 4.1 is AL 488—it should be A.L. 288, and the modern human and Neanderthal skeletons in Figure 8.2 are mislabeled. For non-specialist readers, for whom this book is presumably intended, these errors will lead to unnecessary confusion. Hopefully, they can be put right, but it does make one wonder what editorial controls are in place for checking the books in this relatively new series.


Second, my preference is that the personal opinions of the authors of introductory books should not be apparent to the reader. I am aware that this is not easy, and although I tried to do this for the OUP’s Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, I am sure I did not always succeed. In contrast, Tattersall seems to revel in emphasizing his preferences and prejudices, but they are not what readers wants to know. They want to know where the middle ground is. If it is useful to know both sides of a debate, then give both sides, not just one, and unless one side is obviously wrong, don’t add your hand to one side of the scale.”




These prophecies are really really bad. The political prophecies are no better.
 
Last edited:
Top