Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[CG Didymus]

What makes it logical if it is unconstrained thought?

Why would anybody follow a religion unless they were convinced it was really true? That's more than just "believing" it is true. But it's so circular. For a Christian... God is real, because the Bible says so. We can trust the Bible is the truth, because it is the word of God.

Not much different for a Baha'i. Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, because in his writings he says so. And... God is real, because Baha'u'llah said so. And we can trust him, because he's a manifestation of God.

With some people it's great they found a "truth" they can believe in. Trouble is... so many people don't seem to actually apply the teachings of their religion. It makes me wonder just how much they even believe it? It's too easy for them to talk about how true and how great their religion is, but much harder for them to live by it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

For a Christian... God is real, because the Bible says so..

..too simplistic.
I think most people think about whether this existence has a point, or
where it came from..
The Bible confirms their thoughts, and is evaluated accordingly.

We can trust the Bible is the truth, because it is the word of God.

..because people believe the people involved i.e. its authors, were sincere,
and because we are tribal by nature, and identify with churches, creeds etc.

With some people it's great they found a "truth" they can believe in. Trouble is... so many people don't seem to actually apply the teachings of their religion. It makes me wonder just how much they even believe it? It's too easy for them to talk about how true and how great their religion is, but much harder for them to live by it.

..well that applies to us all, regardless of religion.

 

[joelr]

Quotes are useless without a source..

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages ·

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"



a widely held but false belief or idea.


why does a source matter? Whatever a myth is exactly, most are fiction, like the Greek myths. Those were religion to some Greek people.
Modern religion looks to be equally as fictional. Like Greek and Hindu myths they seemed to have fictional deities and real locations and people.
Or people doing larger things than actually happened.

 

[joelr]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.
I do not believe that it is true because Baha'u'llah made a claim.
I believe because of the evidence that supports His claims.

There is no evidence that supports his claims.

I have posted the evidence myriad times.

"his life, his work....." not evidence that supports a claim of revelations. Not even close.

I said " first. he claimed to be......" I did not say that the claim was the evidence.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Either you have no ability to comprehend what I am saying or you cannot separate a claim from the evidence that supports the claim.

You are playing word games rather than having an honest discussion. When someone pins you down to something you cannot defend you act like a small change in words changes the meaning completely. I would not tolerate this. It's dishonest.
What you say are things like this:

"The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:" #310
Then post one of the links you always post, I have all of them.
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

The links contain CLAIMS. Claims of prophecies, except they are horrible. Claims of being a messenger of God. No evidence whatsoever. JUST CLAIMS. So you believe them because they SAY THEY ARE TRUE.
It's the same thing.

Stop making a straw man.

I never said it's true because he claims it's true or it's true because he CLAIMS to be a messenger.

The straw man comment was in regards to me saying you use circular logic. (It's true, there is evidence, the evidence is just him saying it's true, or someone else making the claim, therefore it's true) that is circular logic.

So let's again look at an example: post #310

"
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"

SO, the evidence is:
His own Self.
His Revelation
the words He hath revealed

welp, I've read them, nothing there is evidence, not even close, so what's left? The fact that the author and the prophet both claim he is a messenger. That is all you have.

But after so many posts you think I don't know that? You think you are going to trip me up suddenly?

Circular logic.

That was not listed a PART of the evidence. First the CLAIMS were listed. Then the EVIDENCE that supports the claims was listed.
Claims are not evidence. The claims are separate from the evidence.

Well, I guess I have to post what was on that thread here.

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. 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:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. 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.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims.
More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“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

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

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.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

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

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

* * * * * * * * * * *
I have no need to read any more of your rants. If people want to believe them that is their own business. I am not responsible for what other people believe.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

You did it AGAIN??????


This claim is your "EVIDENCE", get ready...............


"First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years,"



IT's TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID IT'S TRUE!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Next.....IS A BELIEF, not even a claim?????

"
With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah."

Insane.

Now for evidence. Here it comes, the big evidence that proves his claims.....................


"More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings)."


WOW!!!!!!!
His Self, His Works and HIS WORDS!!!

In his words he SAYS HE IS A MESSENGER OF GOD. SO THEREFORE YOUR CLAIM IS "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID SO".


That is your claim. It's true because he said so. And his life and works. NONE of which demonstrate in any way, messeges from any gods.

I had to push through all these posts and nothing has changed. Everything I said was correct. 2 claims, and then "evidence" which is just more claims. His "life" is not evidence. What the evidence is, is that HE CLAIMS HIS LIFE IS EVIDENCE.

His "works" are not evidence, what the evidence is , is that HE CLAIMS HIS WORK IS EVIDENCE. So the evidence also is a claim.
But it is not. Not at all. I can make that claim right now. Look at my life, my posts, I am a messenger of Thor. Obviously?


Well, we got that figured out.

 

[joelr]

No, Baha'u'llah said it was evidence. I just posted what He said.

So your saying it's evidence because he said so. Which means:



IT'S TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID SO.

My list of criteria that no non-messenger could meet is not evidence, and I never said it was evidence. I said it is my criteria.
In order to straighten this out I am going to list these criteria.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

So did Ghandi, so does many, many humans all over the world.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.

So did Joseph Smith, he also accomplished everything he wanted to. So did the Heavens Gate leader. So did many many cult leaders and this has NOTHING to do with any gods or supernatural aspect. Not evidence.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

So did Aquinas, Origen, Eusebius, thousands of theologians. Not evidence of a God. Not evidence of Gods messages.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.[1]

So did the Converstions With God guy, Neil Something. It's a common delusion people have

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

There are millions of JW, millions of Mormons. Does that make the Mormon Bible true?
Not evidence.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]
If you didn't annoyingly always do this I would also but you make it too tempting.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

Scientology was bigger. Does that mean it's true?


Appeal to popularity.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

So far we have no evidence. A bunch of normal non-evidence for god situations all added up still equal ZERO.

I'm not being facetious, this is not evidence. It's evidence that a man was really into his version of God and was a writer and devoted his work to living well and writing about God. I suspect he decided to take it a bit too far and make some claims that were not true.

I am not going to provide anything that I have not already provided.

There is no more non-evidence to add up.

You are not the one who determines if a religion is justified by evidence is, you just think you do.

Different topic. This isn't evidence. If Jesus in AU listed all these things, it would not be weird since they are all things people often do, it would not be evidence he was Jesus or evidence for any supernatural claims he said they justified.
Adding up zero evidence equals zero.

You keep saying we are done but then you keep coming back and repeating yourself.

You keep posting the same things over and over as if terrible evidence is suddenly going to make sense as real evidence.

I have no need or desire to read or discuss the same things over and over.

We have covered this. You are actually repeating yourself.

 

[joelr]

Only in your opinion. We all have opinions.

No this evidence can be broken down to show factually that they do not provide evidence that a god was speaking to this man.
Another thing that proves it is Joseph Smith met most of your criteria as well yet you wouldn't even consider Mormonism. MAny gurus also fit that evidence. Doesn't impress you then.

And you will be waiting till hell freezes over because beliefs cannot be proven, only evidenced.

No evidence for Bahai.

Straw man. I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true long before I read anything that Baha'u'llah wrote.
I believed it based upon logic and common sense. Nobody could have invented a religion such as the Baha'i Faith nor would they have any reason to do so. It is so perfect and so logical. It could never be invented by a human, it had to be revealed by God.

Ah, perfect, you just admitted a lot. That also explains a lot. Your personal incredulity about something doesn't mean it's true, it just means you have a limit to your own understanding.

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

If you read the great philosophers, starting with Greek and up to modern, I suspect you would see a person is capable of much more amazing literary things than you thought.
Also the Mormon Bible was written by Smith. There are many long religious text, some pretending to be divine, that would enlighten you that what he wrote is very possible.

As to "reason" that can only be confirmation bias. People start religions all the time. JW, Mormonism, Cargo Cults, Sikh, cults have books and books of text. Conversations With God book 1, 2, 3, 4.....there are 100 religiojs created since the 1800s?

List of founders of religious traditions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of those reasons justify belief in those claims.

You are so rude, contradicting me constantly.

Then you are also rude, because you constantly contradict me.

I am the ONLY PERSON who knows why I believe. You don't know why.

Actually I do and what I was responding to was you stating what you believe:

"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?"

LOL, the evidence is....................because god sent him as evidence..................pace palm.

Very circle-y. Not logic, but circular.

I do not believe it because it says so in a book, so I don't have to get around it.

No you believe because - "He is evidence because God sent Him as evidence."..

Ow, my face.

You are the only troll on this thread. Everyone can see that except you and your cronies.

And the people who follow logic.

Cronies? I have cronies?

I am done with this post, no ore need to read any more of your uncontrolled rants.

So uncontrolled, runnin wild, crazy.....

Carry on!

I will carry on supporting logic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whatever a myth is exactly, most are fiction..

I never said that they weren't..

You said: "Because history is very clear that these things are myth.."
..so my real point, is that the conclusions of historians are not always correct.
..and that the origin of a myth is not necessarily based on fiction or superstition.

 

[joelr]

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.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah -- That is not my own set of criteria. I never posted those criteria until tonight, in this post: #422

Do you want to apologize for calling me a liar or should I report your post - your choice.

It would just reflect on the fact that I demonstrated you have no evidence to support belief in Bahai and you are upset about it.


In post #310 you laid out a specific claim about what evidence is available for Bahai:
"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"

Later in the post you made some personal claim, which has nothing to do with actual evidence for a position. You already stated the evidence that supports the claims are in the given link.
Personal feelings are not part of evidence, you said - "I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria."
That is a different topic, I'm looking for actual evidence and have been saying this all along. It turns out your personal criteria have nothing to do with evidence whatsoever. They are random and normal human acts and not connected to evidence of a God.


So regarding this post:
"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"

I replied:

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


Your reply was to move the goal post, as usual, confuse the issue and write:

@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.


So my response was to call you out on the goalpost move, because I was responding to the link and evidence in the link.

@joelr said:
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. Pulling this switcheroo is dishonest. You already posted the link to the evidence, once I say it's not evidence suddenly you were talking about a personal criteria. Which, by the way, is even less evidence.


So complain. I will contest it and suggest you are abusing the moderation to retaliate at members. It's all right here.

Meanwhile, try to grow up a little and act like an adult. You are embarrassing yourself in your futile efforts to prove you are right.

I have proven I'm correct many many times over. "It's true because God sent hime as a messenger" is the most illogical, circular, begs the premise, terrible evidence ever given.
My explaining how rational thought works does not justify an ad-hom about being immature and not acting as an adult. I believe your goalpost move (when you knew I was evaluating the evidence you linked to but instead pretended the real issue was some "personal criteria") was not an honest reply.
However this remark is in violation of rule 1 - 1. Personal comments about Members and Staff. So again, it's fine for you but you look to threaten and enforce rules over me. That seems again, dishonest. So go ahead, complain. I will as well if you want to play that game.

 

[joelr]

I never said that they weren't..

You said: "Because history is very clear that these things are myth.."
..so my real point, is that the conclusions of historians are not always correct.
..and that the origin of a myth is not necessarily based on fiction or superstition.

I don't know how that helps you. One million myths could be based on real things. That doesn't make any certain myth based on real things?

But what myth was based on real events?

 

[joelr]

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.

Political prophecies

This is not a list of prophecies that came true or fit some world situation, it’s a list of cherry-picked predictions that were able to fit to some world event. Predictions that could not be found to fit something are simply not on the list.

“What are the developments that have, in the words of Baha'u'llah, 'come to pass on this earth' after being 'announced and prophesied by the Most Sublime Pen'? Those of which I am aware, and which I discuss in the following pages, include:”

See they discuss certain prophecies. Cherry picked predictions that fit some world event.

“Within this broad context, Baha'u'llah offered specific advice to individual rulers and, in so doing, made a number of detailed prophecies. The most important of these letters were compiled in a book entitled Suriy-i-Haykal (Discourse of the Temple), published in 1869 in Bombay, India, and later reprinted several times. Many of the prophecies I will cite appeared in that book; all were published and widely circulated in advance of the events to which they refer.”

And "The most important of these letters" , in other words, the ones that worked. The others we left out.



Prophecy 1: The fall from power of the French Emperor Napoleon III and the consequent loss of his empire.


Besides that it was known France would have no allies in their upcoming war with Prussia, this prophecy, like all others was cherry-picked from text. It even tells us this in the book The Challenge of Baha’u’llah.




He said Napoleon III would lose his empire unless he turned to Jesus:


“For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God [Jesus] in this, the straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We”



Prophecy 6: The breakup of the Ottoman Empire, leading to the extinction of the 'outward splendour' of its capital, Constantinople.

Another prophecy that was being predicted by all political analyists as it was evident:

"The newer academic consensus posits that the empire continued to maintain a flexible and strong economy, society and military throughout the 17th and for much of the 18th century.[34] However, during a long period of peace from 1740 to 1768, the Ottoman military system fell behind that of its European rivals, the Habsburg and Russian empires.[35] The Ottomans consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. "


Prophecy 7: The downfall of Nasiri'd-Din Shdh, the Persian monarch.


Not really, he didn't predict that, what he said was:

“Would that the world-adorning wish of His Majesty might decree that this Servant be brought face to face with the divines of the age, and produce proofs and testimonies in the presence of His Majesty the Shah! This Servant is ready, and taketh hope in God, that such a gathering may be convened in order that the truth of the matter may be made clear and manifest before His Majesty the Shah. It is then for thee to command, and I stand ready before the throne of thy sovereignty. Decide, then, for Me or against Me.”


Prophecy 8: The advent of constitutional government in Persia.


This was in the air and people were already headed in this direction in 1873.

Between 1872 and 1905, a series of protests took place in response to the sale of concessions to foreigners by Qajar monarchs Naser-ed-Din and Mozaffar-ed-Din, and led to the Constitutional Revolution in 1905.

He also knew about these protests:


“Although Baha'u'llah had foreseen the emergence of constitutional government in Persia, He did not allow His followers to take part in the agitation that brought it about. “



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


A ridiculous prophecy that 100% will happen eventually if you apply it to the entire world. You might as well say the sun will rise at some point.


Prophecy 10: A worldwide erosion of ecclesiastical authority.



Another thing that was on the rise in the late 1800’s. This was already happening and had been since the enlightenment.



Prophecy 12: The spread of communism, the 'Movement of the Left', and its rise to world power.


Prophecy 13: The catastrophic decline of that same movement, triggered by the collapse of its egalitarian economy.


He predicted a political cycle that would eventually always happen. The sun once again, did rise.



Prophecy 19: The failure of all attempts to create schism within the Baha'i Faith.

Which members of the religion make sure to keep this prophecy true by not forming divided sects. It’s also not a fundamentalist religion like Christianity, multiple sects are not needed.

There is not one single impressive prediction here. The author of the book takes pages after each prophecy to set up a belief that the prophecy is accurate and divine. It's such a work.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But what myth was based on real events?

Errr .. the underlying narration of Moses and Pharaoh, for example.

..but not the details ..
I don't say that details of places or times in the OT are correct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am the ONLY PERSON who knows why I believe. You don't know why.

He was summarizing and critiquing your argument in defense of your beliefs, and did so in detail. In essence, you are arguing that you have evidence that the Messenger was who he said he was, but you evaluate that evidence according to your own criteria: "I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria."

When asked to provide that evidence, you provided 'two bold claims' followed by categories of evidence (His own Self, His Revelation [mission], The words He hath revealed, Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies), but still no specific examples of what you are calling evidence. You also wrote, "I have posted the evidence myriad times," but I haven't seen the specific words or deeds that you say are evidence for a god - just these claims already summarized.

You also wrote, "I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true long before I read anything that Baha'u'llah wrote," which seems to contradict your claim that his words were evidence for you.

He is telling you - and I agree - that none of this is evidence in support of your beliefs to him. You've concealed both what you call the evidence that justifies your belief to you and your rules of inference that take you from that evidence to, "therefore God." And it is this that allows any critical thinker to conclude that your beliefs are faith-based and not evidence-based as you keep insisting.

It also seems likely that you sincerely believe that you are on a firm, evidence-based foundation and cannot be shown otherwise.

The problem for people like him and me is that we cannot shake the idea that the right words exist that can show you what you haven't seen yet, which assumes that all or most minds are more or less alike below the surface. We might disagree on what tastes good but agree that some things taste better than others and pursue that which we prefer. And we extrapolate that regarding reason. Some may not be as practiced or adept at it as others, but surely, we think, if we are clear enough, we will be understood and agreed with by most people. The illusion is so compelling that many try and try and try in vain.

There's a name for this cognitive bias that we all have more in common than we actually do: false consensus - "The tendency to overestimate how much others agree with us is known among social psychologists as the false consensus effect. This kind of cognitive bias leads people to believe their own values and ideas are "normal" and that the majority of people share these same opinions, even if that's not the case."

I adamantly disagree that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that most educated people would agree no man could have written alone. Whether or not a passage sounds like no man could have written it alone is a matter of personal opinion. Most educated people are going to have different opinions. It has nothing to do with education.

You seem to be saying that no matter what words a Messenger uses, his words won't be evidence for that god in the eyes of most educated people. If so, then the deity who chooses to communicate through them has chosen an ineffectual method of making it presence and will known.

that is not representative of what the Baha'is are doing in the real world. It is only a discussion forum.

Many Baha'i have summarized that as well. I don't recall any specific achievements mentioned beyond forming committees and issuing position papers.

what you observe in the Baha'is here is not representative of all the Baha'is. It is only a handful of Baha'is and some of them have a certain agenda. Some of them might also be biased by rather extreme views.

Like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, you're a remarkably homogeneous denomination. I find that significant and indicative of how what the religion teaches affects adherents. That's my interest with all denominations, and I contrast that with my atheistic humanist worldview.

..too simplistic.
I think most people think about whether this existence has a point, or
where it came from..
The Bible confirms their thoughts, and is evaluated accordingly.

That was a response to, "For a Christian... God is real, because the Bible says so." I agree with him for the most part and disagree that what you wrote happens. People don't come to god conclusions that are then "confirmed" by scripture. Scripture tells them what to believe, and they do so passively and uncritically.

because people believe the people involved i.e. its authors, were sincere,

That's not a reason to believe that they were correct.

we are tribal by nature, and identify with churches, creeds etc.

Now you're getting warm. Notice that that may be a practical advantage of getting on the local religious bandwagon, but not a reason to believe that one's tribe's religious beliefs are correct. In the end, people believe in gods to meet psychological needs such as being in a tribe, having all questions "answered," or to comfort fears of vulnerability or mortality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That was a response to, "For a Christian... God is real, because the Bible says so." I agree with him for the most part and disagree that what you wrote happens. People don't come to god conclusions that are then "confirmed" by scripture..

..well, I must be the odd one out then.

Scripture tells them what to believe, and they do so passively and uncritically..

That is what you assume..

That's not a reason to believe that they were correct..

..well it certainly isn't a reason to believe, if you think they are NOT sincere..

Now you're getting warm. Notice that that may be a practical advantage of getting on the local religious bandwagon, but not a reason to believe that one's tribe's religious beliefs are correct..

'correct' as in a particular creed, or 'correct' as in what Jesus taught us about our Father (God)
is true?

In the end, people believe in gods to meet psychological needs such as being in a tribe, having all questions "answered," or to comfort fears of vulnerability or mortality.

We all have psychological needs .. are you pretending that you don't?

 

[Bthoth]

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Because that belief conflicts with their conscious.

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

They should not fight themselves to keep a belief. It's self destructive, about like suicide.

 

[Trailblazer]

He was summarizing and critiquing your argument in defense of your beliefs, and did so in detail. In essence, you are arguing that you have evidence that the Messenger was who he said he was, but you evaluate that evidence according to your own criteria: "I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria."

My own set of criteria that I believe Messengers have to meet is not the evidence I was referring to.
It is SEPARATE from the evidence that was provided on the post that listed the (1) claims and (2) evidence that supports the claims.

When asked to provide that evidence, you provided 'two bold claims' followed by categories of evidence (His own Self, His Revelation [mission], The words He hath revealed, Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies), but still no specific examples of what you are calling evidence.

The claims ARE NOT the evidence. They are the claims, so that we will know who Baha'u'llah was claiming to be.
The evidence is what supports the claims.

You also wrote, "I have posted the evidence myriad times," but I haven't seen the specific words or deeds that you say are evidence for a god - just these claims already summarized.

When I said "I have posted the evidence myriad times," I meant that I had posted that this link that lists the evidence many times:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

You also wrote, "I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true long before I read anything that Baha'u'llah wrote," which seems to contradict your claim that his words were evidence for you.

I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true 'initially' because of all the books I read. Much later, when I read Gleanings and other books written by Baha'u'llah, that 'further confirmed' by belief that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

He is telling you - and I agree - that none of this is evidence in support of your beliefs to him.

He can tell me anything he wants to tell me, and I have heard it all before - "that's not evidence!" To that I have responded many times -- "Well, then what do you think would be evidence if a man was a Messenger of God?" I have received various replies, none of which I would consider good evidence and many of these replies were just goofy, and illogical. For example, one atheist suggested that God should write a banner in the sky that says "I am God and Baha'u'llah is my Messenger." Why would anyone believe this was actually written by God? How could they ever verify that it was? It could just be a hoax or an alien from outer space.

Others have suggested that miracles are evidence. Miracles are not evidence that a man is a Messenger of God, but even if they convinced some people, they are only convincing to the people who witnessed the miracle. Moreover, Baha'u'llah is no longer alive so nobody can witness any of His miracles, so they have to believe what was written in about His miracles. How is this different from reading about the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed in the Bible? Do you believe what is written in the Bible is evidence that Jesus was a Messenger of God?

You've concealed both what you call the evidence that justifies your belief to you and your rules of inference that take you from that evidence to, "therefore God." And it is this that allows any critical thinker to conclude that your beliefs are faith-based and not evidence-based as you keep insisting.

My beliefs are evidence-based and I have listed the evidence. Just because you don't think it is evidence that doesn't make it non-evidence.
If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, therefore God exists, so the first step is to determine if He was a Messenger of God.

It also seems likely that you sincerely believe that you are on a firm, evidence-based foundation and cannot be shown otherwise.

Yes I do believe that.
If a man was a Messenger of God and what I have presented is NOT evidence, then what would be the evidence?

You seem to be saying that no matter what words a Messenger uses, his words won't be evidence for that god in the eyes of most educated people.

No, the words alone would not be evidence for most people that God exists, and they won't be evidence for atheists because they have a bigger hill to climb if they are going to believe in God. That is why Baha'u'llah offered other evidence that we should look at -- His Person and His Revelation (which is what He accomplished on His earthly Mission and can be read about in the history of the Baha'i Faith.)

If so, then the deity who chooses to communicate through them has chosen an ineffectual method of making it presence and will known.

How else could a deity communicate such that everyone could receive the message if not in words? Please give me a logical answer.

Many Baha'i have summarized that as well. I don't recall any specific achievements mentioned beyond forming committees and issuing position papers.

There is much more than that. What Baha'is are doing all over the world can be read about here:
Bahá’í World News Service (BWNS) - Official news source of the worldwide Bahá’í community

 

[Trailblazer]

So your saying it's evidence because he said so. Which means:

IT'S TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID SO.

No, It does not mean that.
Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not true because He said so. That is utterly ridiculous and illogical.
That would mean that every man who said he was a Messenger of God is a Messenger of God, and obviously that is not the case.

Baha'u'llah never said that he was a Messenger of God because He said so.
I never said that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because He said so

Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is true only if God sent Him as His Messenger.

Sure, Baha'u'llah made the claim to be a Messenger of God, how else could we know who He was?
However, the claim IS NOT evidence of any kind. The evidence is what supports the claim.

I said: No, Baha'u'llah said it was evidence. I just posted what He said.
Below is what He said about 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 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.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have covered this. You are actually repeating yourself.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Trailblazer]

No this evidence can be broken down to show factually that they do not provide evidence that a god was speaking to this man.

That cannot be proven as a fact, not anymore than I can prove God was speaking to Him as a fact.
All you have is a personal opinion.
Better luck next time.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have proven I'm correct many many times over. "It's true because God sent hime as a messenger" is the most illogical, circular, begs the premise, terrible evidence ever given.

Words matter.

I never said: "It's true because God sent him as a messenger."
I said: "It's true if God sent him as a messenger."

Any logical person would know that it has to be true if God sent him as a messenger.

 

[Trailblazer]

which you never posted or mentioned until these posts. Pulling this switcheroo is dishonest. You already posted the link to the evidence, once I say it's not evidence suddenly you were talking about a personal criteria. Which, by the way, is even less evidence.

So complain. I will contest it and suggest you are abusing the moderation to retaliate at members. It's all right here.

I pulled no switcheroo. You simply misunderstood what I was referring to.
It is not my fault if you cannot understand what I am saying, and that is exactly what is going on here.
Not only that, after I explain what I was saying, you contradict me and say no, that is not what I was saying, rather than just accepting my explanation, like everyone else on this forum.

Don't worry, I don't report people for misunderstanding, but if you call me a liar again I might report you since that is a personal attack and it is against the forum rules.