Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[joelr]

How many supposed prophets have said, "The Gods have spoken!" And the people are pretty much forced to believe and obey. I think there is evidence of that in ancient times. Lots of different Gods, lots of rules and rituals that the prophet claimed came from some God.

It worked in the past. But how is Baha'u'llah getting away with it in modern times? Now if he just claimed to be a philosopher or something and said that all people are one and should all work to together for a peaceful and united world, who would have listened or even cared? And I'm sure there's plenty of wise men that laid out plans on what people could do to make the world better. But once a guy claims that his message came from a divine revelation, everything changes.

The prophet of the Ahmaddiya. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, or even Joseph Smith were about the same time as Baha'u'llah and have more members than Baha'u'llah. But Baha'is believe one of them is a fake and the other not even a minor prophet. Yet, people believe them and follow them. It still works. Anybody that claims God sent them, will get a following. I don't believe Joseph Smith claims are for real. And I doubt Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also. But what about Baha'u'llah? I think he's quite a bit more believable, but he still has things I don't believe are true.

So, what am I supposed to do? Ignore those things? I can't do it. But I can see why some people do buy into it. But, just like literal-believing Christians, a true Baha'i has committed themselves to believing everything that Baha'u'llah has said and everything the Baha'i Faith says. And all that does is cause them to have to defend their Baha'i beliefs as true, because they came from some God.... no matter how difficult it might be to defend or how improbable it might be that it is true.

And the number one belief that they can't prove but must defend is that their guy is a true prophet from the one true God. What he said is meaningless if that claim isn't true. Their best defense then becomes... since his teachings are meaningful, then, therefore, he must be from God. Yeah, maybe. But maybe not. Like I said, for me there are some things that I don't believe are true. If it's a "divine" revelation, it has to be and better be all true.

His scripture I find offensive it's so poorly written and mainly just praising god over and over.
But the prophecies are at best vague and at worst literally wrong. I went through the book with 27 prophecies picked out and posted some of the big mistakes.
But even worse is the author of the book has to make long apologetics about the prophecies to justify making them work and the real clincher is he's picking these out of scripture. Which means he is finding the best possible things he can try to make into justified prophecies.

In one which is about physics and the "ether" he actually has to say Bahai is communicating in this weird language.
He said the ether is real and it turned out it isn't so in response the author of the book on prophecies has to say:
"I From the standpoint of classical physics, this was rank heresy. Although 'Abdu'1-Baha was using con-I ventional terminology, “"

So, while admitting the statement about physics is wrong when talking about physics, he somehow says it's still correct because he's using "con-I-ventional terminology", and in that jibberish, guess what, he's correct!! Wow, what an amazing hit, totally not BS at all! Thanks apologist for clearing that up.
Does he ever use "con-I-ventional terminology" again and what evidence does he have he's using it? Hey, too many questions, just buy the story. If a prophecy is wrong you just call it "con-I-ventional terminology" and it becomes correct.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The stories being told that Paul picked up on were a Jewish version of Hellenistic savior demigods.

There are no "Jewish versions"..
Orthodox Christianity is a mish-mash of Jewish-Hellenist origin.

..much like Sikhism is a mish-mash of Muslim-Hindu.

The idea was already in Paul..

I'm more interested in what Jesus said, than what Paul said.
Nevertheless, I do believe that Paul was sincere in his faith,
and that he is merely a scapegoat for those who wish to promote a trinity.

 

[joelr]

There are no "Jewish versions"..
Orthodox Christianity is a mish-mash of Jewish-Hellenist origin.

..much like Sikhism is a mish-mash of Muslim-Hindu.

First your two definitions are really the same thing, so again, I have no idea where you are going?
But yes, it's a Jewish version. Again, let's consult a NT PhD historian:

"No. The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had; it was so popular and influential, so fashionable and effective, it was inevitable the idea would seep into some Jewish consciousness, and erupt onto the scene of “inspired” revolutionizing of a perceived-to-be-corrupted faith. They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing.

It’s time to face this fact. And stop denying it. It’s time to get over it already. Resurrected savior gods were a pagan idea. All Christianity did, was invent a Jewish one."

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

I'm more interested in what Jesus said, than what Paul said.

We cannot know what Jesus ever said. Paul was claiming what was said to him was from a ghost Jesus, post-resurrection, so that isn't reliable.

The Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness and use OT stories, Romulus and other sources to create stories. The wisdom is Rabbi Hillell so parsing out Jesus here is impossible.

Nevertheless, I do believe that Paul was sincere in his faith,

Or he thought he could become a high-up in the movement. Or both. I don't believe he had those visions so that is suspect.

and that he is merely a scapegoat for those who wish to promote a trinity.

That came later, way later and isn't original to Christianity.


The Trimūrti (/trɪˈmʊərti/;[1] Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति trimūrti, "three forms" or "trinity") is the trinity of supreme divinity in Hinduism,[


Now I see, the Quran says the trinity isn't real. Well none of it is real so getting into details is pointless here. Revelations are not real, ever, or is any sign of theism or God so there is no need to get into the trinity here?

 

[Muffled]

What?
You can't "change your mind", as in swap it physically for another one.

I believe one can by dying and reincarnating.

 

[Muffled]

There are no "Jewish versions"..
Orthodox Christianity is a mish-mash of Jewish-Hellenist origin.

..much like Sikhism is a mish-mash of Muslim-Hindu.


I'm more interested in what Jesus said, than what Paul said.
Nevertheless, I do believe that Paul was sincere in his faith,
and that he is merely a scapegoat for those who wish to promote a trinity.

I believe Muslims are not supposed to say trinity. Of course that is because they don't understand it and for that matter many Christians as well but the Biblical fact is a Trinity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But yes, it's a Jewish version. Again, let's consult a NT PhD historian:

"No. The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had;

"some Jews" .. you mean Paul, and a few others?

Resurrected savior gods were a pagan idea..

Correct.

All Christianity did, was invent a Jewish one.

You say this, because you don't believe in G-d.
Jesus is not G-d .. Jesus prayed to His Father (YHWH), the creator of all.

What orthodox Christianity adopted, is the 'saviour/resurrected god thing', but Jesus
is/was the Jewish Messiah .. he was NOT the resurrected-god-thing.

We cannot know what Jesus ever said..

Really? ..we can know what Paul said, but not Jesus .. how convenient.

 

[Trailblazer]

That isn't how logic, arguments and evidence works. Otherwise I could read a Roswell book or the Mormon Bible and say the evidence shows me both are real, therefore they are.

This has nothing to do with logic. No logical argument can prove that God exists, but that doesn't mean that God does not exist. It only means that the existence of God is not subject to logical argumentation.

Evidence is what indicates to a person that something is true. You could read a Roswell book or the Mormon Bible and say the evidence shows you both are real revelations from God. That doesn't mean they are real revelations from God, it only means the evidence indicates that to you.

Saying you believe evidence is just a claim. You then need reasons that support the claim, and evidence that supports the reasons.

Saying I believe the evidence is just a statement of belief. It is not a claim since I have nothing to claim.
There are reasons why I believe the evidence but I do not need evidence to support my reasons. The are reasons why I believe the evidence are personal to me, and others won't believe the evidence since they have their own reasons not to believe it.

One's life does not support the claim of divine revelations. You would not accept evidence about Joseph Smiths life as evidence the Mormon Bible was true.
Nor does any of the other claims support divine revelations. If any of those were used for the Mormon Bible you would not even blink. Rightfully so.
The evidence doesn't show you anything. You bought the story, you may have faith in the story. If the evidence doesn't work for other claims it does not work for yours.

Just because the evidence doesn't work for other claims to divine revelations that doesn't mean it does not work for the claims of Baha'u'llah, because the evidence for Baha'u'llah is not the same as the evidence for Joseph Smith. You might view it as the same but I don't.

You can only say what the evidence shows you. You cannot say what the evidence shows me, since only I know that.
The evidence does show me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but the evidence for Joseph Smith does not show me that.
The evidence does not show you that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God since you view/interpret the evidence differently than I do.

Don't take this the wrong way. You should not talk about logic when it comes to other peoples actions. You are always incorrect. Always.

Then you should not talk about logic when it comes to other peoples actions either.

I never said my complete rejection of this being from a God means there is no God. I said the evidence in this religion for him talking to a God/angel is absolutely zero. It's literally just a claim.

The proof is zero, but whether or not there is evidence that indicates him talking to a God is a subjective opinion.

Bahai also does not work AT ALL and I am 100% certain it is a man making false claims.

Baha'i does not work FOR YOU but it works for me.
I am 100% certain it is a man making true claims.

Neither your certainty or my certainty is proof of anything. These are only subjective personal opinions. You can no more prove you are correct than I can. These discussions are useless because they never lead anywhere.

And part 3 of this "wrongness response" now goes to the copy/paste of a fallacy you looked up and incorrectly think is being used. I am embarrassed for you. I don't like this feeling, please stop, it's cringe.

Unwarranted assumption are claims or beliefs that have crappy or no supporting evidence, except here the evidence is excellent. So it isn't that.

So even if this were real, this God has no interest in me knowing anything because I completely reject the notion that this is a God.

Just because you reject the notion that this is a God that does not mean that God has no interest in you knowing anything about Him.
You are assuming that God has no interest in you knowing about Him. That is a clear cut case of the fallacy of unwarranted assumption.

Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Jun 15, 2022

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

You are assuming that God has no interest in you knowing about Him but you have absolutely no evidence to support that assumption.

But theism is a complete and utter unevidenced claim, revelations are not believable.

Not believable TO YOU. This is what you totally miss.
Obviously they are believable to most people since 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of these faiths are based upon a revelation from God.

All you can do is keep saying that these are not revelations from God, but that is not a fact, it is only your personal opinion, just as if I say that they are revelations from God that is only my personal opinion.

 

[joelr]

"some Jews" .. you mean Paul, and a few others?

We only know the religion starting from Paul. However during the 2nd Temple Period the Hebrew thinkers absorbed Persian theology - messianic and apocalyptic expectation. According to Josephus, before Jesus, Josephus talks about many Joshua Messiahs running around claiming to be the messiah. Jesus was also a Joshua Messiah. Messiah is translated to Christ and Joshua goes to Greek, (Yeshua), to Latin, (Lesous) and then english, Jesus.
The apocalyptic tradition was being preached heavily by all these figures. And of course add in Hellenism and you get everything in the religion.
Paul thought the world was going to end, he even said don't bother getting married unless you absolutely have to.
So some time after Hellenistic Judaism faded away, messianic preachers were popping up and this version must have gotten a following. Paul was a Jew and did not accept this but at some point he realized this was a popular and successful model and was working well in other religions and decided to back this version. The Gospels had not been written. Paul only knew of a spirit Jesus who already resurrected. No earthly stories had been invented.

It is possible the was an actual Rabbi who this was based on and he had a brother James. We don't know how big the myth had grown. It had some following in 50 AD. Maybe he was executed and this set the stage to bring in the Hellenistic savior thing and say he also resurrected?

Correct.

that is what the evidence points to.

You say this, because you don't believe in G-d.

(All Christianity did, was invent a Jewish one.) Wrong and wrong.
First, you already admitted it's a Greek myth that was imported into a new Jewish mystery religion. You don't need God, we already have a full explanation.
But because the Quran gives you a different story you now have to stick to it. Except the evidence is 100% in favor of a Joshua Messiah started an apocalyptic cult and the gospels writers grew it into a full mythology. There is ZERO evidence he was a human getting messages like Muhammad. We know the likely origin, we know what Paul said, he was zero % a "prophet" of God.

Next, there is no God to believe in here anywhere. A God is not found in ancient stories that are clearly made up by people. If I did believe in God I still find the scriptures and Quran to be exactly the same as the Mormon Bible, stuff people made up. No advanced science, math, medical advice, philosophy, silly miracles and hatred towards other nations. No God.
The Zeus myths are also the same, stories, no God.

As if because I believe in a God now suddenly I forget all the historical evidence and lack of evidence to support your position and just assume? I could join scientology if I wanted to be that loose with beliefs.

Jesus is not G-d .. Jesus prayed to His Father (YHWH), the creator of all.

I seriously don't care what you be;ieve or what you want to preach. I care about evidence.
If Jesus was a Rabbi preaching apocalyptic tradition then so be it, there is no other option.

Yahweh is not a creator of all he's a storm deity who was given Israel from the most high El and later got moved into the supreme spot. Because theologians updated the myth with Platonic ideas of the One and a first cause and so on.
Doesn't make it real. You cannot turn a fictional character into a real God.

What orthodox Christianity adopted, is the 'saviour/resurrected god thing', but Jesus
is/was the Jewish Messiah .. he was NOT the resurrected-god-thing.

Why are you preaching? You still haven't figured out preaching without evidence in a discussion is the lowest form of response demonstrating you have nothing to say except what a story told you?

Jesus was either a Greek savior deity or a man claiming to be a messiah. The other thing doesn't have evidence.
There are countless writings, 36 other gospels, historians, not one ever mentions anything about a prophet like you suggest.

Really? ..we can know what Paul said, but not Jesus .. how convenient.

Oh wow. The authentic letters of Paul have evidence and a writing style and confirmation from other sources that Paul is real and writing these letters. Something you can easily look into.
Everything Jesus said is a claim from someone else. The other 3 gospels were doing rewrites of Mark and Mark was rewriting Elijah, Moses, Psalms and other stories, so it's not possible to know if any of the words are said by him or if he even existed as a man or was just made up whole cloth?
Why would that be "convenient" in a sarcastic way? There might be no Jesus, Paul started out with him as a spirit. It might be euhemerization.
A story that took place in the celestial realm. This was common and in Paul's time and in the 1st century it was believed there were 7 levels above us. One level was a celestial version of Earth and the temple. In some myths and in Asension of Isaiah, Jesus dies battling Satan in the celestial realm and later goes to earth.

The first myth to start in the celestial realm and them the story was moved to earth and set as real history was Ehuhemerus.


So now in the Bahai religion God has chosen a new prophet, because progressive revelation. A new revelation was needed. God said. Must have had to change his mind. Sorry. If Paul can do it, then your religion changes an older religion, now a new religion gets to do it to you.
And so on. That is what happens when you don't insist on a standard of evidence and empirical methodology for beliefs. If your prophet is told he is the last, God can see an update is needed and change it.
I don't have evidence for Bahai, but you don't have evidence for your religion, but that is what happens. Anyone can make any claim and if it sticks, it's now the new truth. I am not interested in any belief not supported by evidence.

 

[joelr]

This has nothing to do with logic. No logical argument can prove that God exists, but that doesn't mean that God does not exist. It only means that the existence of God is not subject to logical argumentation.

Evidence is what indicates to a person that something is true. You could read a Roswell book or the Mormon Bible and say the evidence shows you both are real revelations from God. That doesn't mean they are real revelations from God, it only means the evidence indicates that to you.

It's like a tradition, start out with a strawman. The logic was about the evidence. You said -
"That is what the evidence shows
The evidence shows me that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is real. I don't know about the other revelations from God."

That isn't how logic, arguments and evidence works.
Saying you believe evidence is just a claim. You then need reasons that support the claim, and evidence that supports the reasons.

You hold a belief and it doesn't look to have reasonable evidence. That isn't going to change, in fact we have firmly established this.

Saying I believe the evidence is just a statement of belief. It is not a claim since I have nothing to claim.

So you just made a claim and then said you didn't make a claim. Your semantic word games, do they actually work on peers in real life? They make really bad rhetoric when written down.
Your claim is actually 2 things
1) you believe the evidence is good enough to warrant belief
2) you believe there is evidence (I haven't seen any)

There are reasons why I believe the evidence but I do not need evidence to support my reasons

So you don't need evidence to believe something. Perfect, there you go.

. The are reasons why I believe the evidence are personal to me,

If you have personal reasons then why are you constantly going in circles with "the evidence is....his life....his work.....his......"????
Can you present better evidence?

and others won't believe the evidence since they have their own reasons not to believe it.

Yes, others have reason not to believe the evidence because the evidence sucks.

Hmmm, kind of like how you DO NOT BELIEVE JOSEPH SMITH'S REVELATIONS, Or Jesus in AU. Because the evidence is terrible.

If something has good evidence proportional to the claim than it's worth looking into. That is the reason I don't believe it, all evidence is awful.

Just because the evidence doesn't work for other claims to divine revelations that doesn't mean it does not work for the claims of Baha'u'llah, because the evidence for Baha'u'llah is not the same as the evidence for Joseph Smith. You might view it as the same but I don't.

The evidence for Mormonism isn't exactly the same, but it's exactly as poor. Mormonism is slightly better. His Bible is much better written, he didn't have a book of absolutely failed prophecies released like Bahai did.

You can only say what the evidence shows you. You cannot say what the evidence shows me, since only I know that.

Uh, No, absolutely not. Have you met anyone who says Israel and Palestine are not at war? No? Why? Because the evidence is such that it's believable.
Have you ever heard a scientist introduced as "a scientist who believes the evidence for atoms", unlkine the other scientists who do not?

No. Because the evidence is good, all around. No one says "well the evidence for atoms shows me it's not true"

That is word salad for crummy evidence.

The evidence does show me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but the evidence for Joseph Smith does not show me that.

Based on what you have shown me I do not believe this. I believe you read his work and bought into his claims, without applying a critical, empirical methodology to your standards of belief and became attached to it such that you accept lousy evidence. as everyone seems to do in every religion.
You may have been looking for something new-agey and similar to his spirituality and so on. I am not a mind reader but that is my speculation.

Again, good evidence doesn't "show" one person one thing and another something else when both are basically " a guy said...." It doesn't work that way unless one has bought into a movement first and will then make apologetic excuses.

The evidence does not show you that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God since you view/interpret the evidence differently than I do.

Yes I interpret evidence with skepticism, rational, critical, and empirical thinking and not with an attitude of I already want it to be true.

And I disagree we interpret evidence differently otherwise because you find the Mormonn claims to be ridiculous, find Islam to be not convincing and same for Christianity and Jesus in AU.
So I don't buy that.

Also, there is only one way to interpret failed predictions.

Then you should not talk about logic when it comes to other peoples actions either.

Sure, if you can demonstrate where I mis-used logic. Not the times you accused me of a fallacy and it wasn't, an actual example

The proof is zero, but whether or not there is evidence that indicates him talking to a God is a subjective opinion.

Yeah, subjective, some people read that a guy says he talks to God and some people go "wow, he said it so it must be true!".

My standards are a bit higher.

Now, the missing link will never be found. Subjecive? It's found, you find it's still subjective? Magnetism isn't physical, or electricity? Subjective?

No, he's wrong.

Baha'i does not work FOR YOU but it works for me.

Mormonism works for millions. Doesn't mean it's true.

I am 100% certain it is a man making true claims.

And Jesus in AU has a ministry that is certain he is Jesus. Not everyone has good evidenciary standards.

Neither your certainty or my certainty is proof of anything. These are only subjective personal opinions. You can no more prove you are correct than I can. These discussions are useless because they never lead anywhere.

I don't care what you believe, you are determined to believe things without good evidence. But I have demonstrated that your claims of evidence are not at all evidence (his like?), his prophecies are not correct, he said nothing of interest as far as proof one is speaking to a deity, his writing is not advanced and it looks to be either made up claims or he actually believes it. But no God is involved.

It's good to speak up for empirical thought. Because revelations never end, people just get better tools to evaluate them.

Just because you reject the notion that this is a God that does not mean that God has no interest in you knowing anything about Him.
You are assuming that God has no interest in you knowing about Him. That is a clear cut case of the fallacy of unwarranted assumption.

Already debunked this. Unwarranted assumption has no evidence to support the claim. I have massive evidence. The complete lack of evidence for one. Were a God real he made and led me to logic, rational thought and so on, so he would either think I'm stupid or is uninterested in me. I didn't want to stoop to your weird thing but this is now the 2nd time so:

Unwarranted assumptions are claims or beliefs that possess little to no supporting evidence, things we might take for granted as true, or just completely false ideas we inherited without reflection.

The opposite of what I'm doing. So again, please leave the fallacies alone.

Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Jun 15, 2022

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

Oops, I spoke too soon, there it is. It's like you enjoy swimming around in your wrongness. Enjoy.


https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/5-5-informal-fallacies

 

[joelr]

You are assuming that God has no interest in you knowing about Him but you have absolutely no evidence to support that assumption.

Right. Except the abysmal prophecies that are completely wrong. The utter lack of information given when in 1870 we NEEDED information about the atom, countless medical advice that would have been easy to explain and save millions of lives, cosmology, energy and mass, "progressive revelation", we were entering the scientific revolution. All other stories of Gods have miracles and super powers. He got NONE OF THAT. Philosophy, even about God? Was Aquinas correct, was God the first cause, and so on..............


Instead some writer, who I strongly dislike his writing style, says nothing of interest, advice, philosophy, I find him a complete fraud, not even once does he get my attention. How about help with pediatric cancer? Nope.

How many galaxies, smallest particle, pi at 10 trillion, I have ALL THE INFORMATION. If this were God he must think I am a complete and utter moron to act like a fraud man making up claims. Yes, I have evidence.


Guess what, you do too! Of Mormonism and their claims of revelations. You KNOW it's a fraud. Your thing is the same.

All of these arguments you put to me you literally do the same thing with Mormonism, similar time frame, similar claims, similar updates to a religion. Yet you would never consider taking it serious. You do exactly the thing you accuse me of. Do you have evidence Mormonism isn't true? YES. It's not convincing


What if God really was giving J Smith uupdates? And you are over here with this false religion. Is that your fault of Gods fault?

Here is a hint, it's not your fault what you are attracted to, if God wanted you to follow him he could do something better than Mormonism.


Mormons can say the same to you, you use unwarranted assumption when thinking Joe Smith wasn't telling the truth.


No, you are not, if that was God he did a terrible job at communicating with you.


And that is exactly how I feel about Bahai as well.

Not believable TO YOU. This is what you totally miss.
Obviously they are believable to most people since 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of these faiths are based upon a revelation from God.

Now that is a fallacy. an argumentum ad populum .



1) doesn't make it true



2) most believe the stories they are told in their culture





3)1/3 are Christian, ~1/3 are Islam, `1/3 are Jewish, Sikh, Hindu





which tells you they are all wrong. How many periodic tables of elements are there? Is science dependent on which culture you grew up in? No.

Truth is truth. Myths are myths and why there are so many different, all without evidence.

All you can do is keep saying that these are not revelations from God, but that is not a fact, it is only your personal opinion, just as if I say that they are revelations from God that is only my personal opinion.

No, it's not equal like that at all.



If you say the Mormon revelations are a hoax is that equal with the idea that it really was God?

If you say Jesus in AU is just a guy running a scam is that equal with the idea that he is real? No.



Evidence is what matters. I have already explained all of the issues with Bahai writings. There are more . They weigh th evidence far in favor of this being the same as all other claims. Not real.



Is flat earth on the same footing as round earthers? Nope, what is different? Evidence.



I am speaking to people looking to understand how to develop a logical epistemology. Evidence matters. Don't accept claims without proportinate evidence. Don't ignore incorrect prophecies like people who already believe just shrug their shoulders and make up some excuse.



The only irony is you use the same method for all other claims. But you cannot word salad your way into calling claims and faith evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Saying you believe evidence is just a claim. You then need reasons that support the claim, and evidence that supports the reasons.

Saying I believe evidence is not a claim, it is a belief. I BELIEVE.

There are reasons why I believe what I do and they are personal to me. I do not know all the reasons because 95% of what is in the mind is subconscious. I only know what I am consciously aware of.

There are reasons why you do not believe what I do and they are personal to you. You do not know all the reasons because 95% of what is in the mind is subconscious. You only know what you are consciously aware of.

Apparently you cannot grasp the concept that people do not all think alike. What is contained in your mind determines what you think. What is in your mind is not the same as what is in my mind so you think differently than I do. That is why you cannot believe what I do based upon the same evidence.

So you just made a claim and then said you didn't make a claim
Your claim is actually 2 things
1) you believe the evidence is good enough to warrant belief
2) you believe there is evidence (I haven't seen any)

I do not claim anything. I say I believe it.

1) I believe there is evidence
2) I believe the evidence is good enough to warrant belief

Saying I believe there is evidence is just a statement of belief. It is not a claim since I am not claiming shat I believe is the case.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

Based on what you have shown me I do not believe this.

I do not care what YOU believe I did. I alone know what I did.

I don't care what you believe, you are determined to believe things without good evidence.

I don't care what you believe, as it is no skin off my nose. I am only responsible to God for my own beliefs.

But I have demonstrated.......

You have demonstrated NOTHING. All you have is a personal opinion. We all have those.
Good luck with your personal opinion. I have no interest in arguing with you because I have no need to prove anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not believable TO YOU. This is what you totally miss.
Obviously they are believable to most people since 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of these faiths are based upon a revelation from God.

Now that is a fallacy. an argumentum ad populum .

It is not the fallacy of argumentum ad populum because I DID NOT SAY that it is true because many or most people believe it.
I only said that most people believe it.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[Arnaud1221]

There is the solid opinion and the opinion that can change easily. And other kind of opinion: the mind is a very complex thing with various stuff.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul thought the world was going to end..

..along with the vast majority of Jews, until this day.

Paul was a Jew and did not accept this but at some point he realized this was a popular and successful model and was working well in other religions and decided to back this version.

Umm .. you cannot know why he decided to believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
You purely theorise, from a position of disbelief.

First, you already admitted it's a Greek myth that was imported into a new Jewish mystery religion..

I did not say that.
Jesus did not start a "new Jewish mystery religion".
Neither did Paul, for that matter.

The emphasis of Orthodox Christian creed over the shema came centuries later.

Yahweh is not a creator of all he's a storm deity..

YHWH can be whatever you want him to be.
God can be whatever you want him to be.

As far as knowledgable believers are concerned, He is One, and the Creator
and Maintainer of the universe, and all it contains.

You cannot turn a fictional character into a real God.

What is a "real god"?

Jesus was either a Greek savior deity or a man claiming to be a messiah. The other thing doesn't have evidence.
There are countless writings, 36 other gospels, historians, not one ever mentions anything about a prophet like you suggest.

In fact, the Gospel in the Bible mentions Jesus to be a Prophet.
It is just that Orthodox Christians have made him 'more than that'
i.e. son of God .. one of three etc.

I am not interested in any belief not supported by evidence.

What you mean is, you prefer to believe in a materialist interpretation of history.
One in which the concept of G-d is man-made.

No amount of evidence can lead you to know whether your belief is correct.
It is nothing but conjecture.

 

[joelr]

Saying I believe evidence is not a claim, it is a belief. I BELIEVE.

Your claim is that something is true.

There are reasons why I believe what I do and they are personal to me. I do not know all the reasons because 95% of what is in the mind is subconscious. I only know what I am consciously aware of.

I have never heard "personal reasons" turn out to be actual evidence. A scientist has never given a lecture and said " I cannot show the evidence because it's personal to me".

There are reasons why you do not believe what I do and they are personal to you. You do not know all the reasons because 95% of what is in the mind is subconscious. You only know what you are consciously aware of.

They are not personal, it is because of evidence. Attempting to use a neuroscience statistic about the subconsious is meaningless hand waving.
Despite 95% of the brain being subconscious humans have made huge advances in science, logic, philosophy, technology, medicine and more. We also have been able to shift through the massive amounts of false data in all those fields to come to what is true.
The 5% of your brain that is conscious is doing just fine seeing that Mormonism, Jesus in AU, Hinduism, Islam and all other religions and cults are not real. So that is total nonsense.

Apparently you cannot grasp the concept that people do not all think alike.

All or nothing fallacy.
But people DO think enough alike that we have an entire field of psychology and the empirical, scientific method has not failed us yet.

And you continue to forget that besides the one thing you buy into for some reSON, WE SEEM TO BOTH UNDERSTAND THE 10,000 other religions and cults are not real. So bad point. I'm wondering how far you are going to try to stretch this?

What is contained in your mind determines what you think. What is in your mind is not the same as what is in my mind so you think differently than I do. That is why you cannot believe what I do based upon the same evidence.

Looks like you are riding this one into the dirt.
No. Just no.
AGAIN, you seem just fine with understanding Joseph Smith was running a con. Jesus in AU, preaching at his ministry, you're not there, neither am I.
Humans are all given a similar model of the world, we are taught similar logic and the only time this differs in a big way besides politics is religion. Yet many leave religion and completely agree with secular people after deconversion. The only difference is confirmation bias.
You hold a bias and accept terrible evidence. Just like others do in religions you don't believe and would never believe.
Has nothing to do with anything except you are giving a pass to terrible evidence.

This new line is not going to change that.

I do not claim anything. I say I believe it.

1) I believe there is evidence

Which is a claim. There is evidence and it's terrible AND it shows he was wrong many many times. You don't care. Bias.

2) I believe the evidence is good enough to warrant belief

sure, prophecies that are literally wrong. Good enough!

low grade, repetitive, praise writings. Good enough!

trying to change a prophecy about the entire world becoming like the Eden garden (animals and people all at peace) into a plant garden on a hill? Good enough!

No supernatural abilities like every other religion has. Good enough!

No information beyond what humans knew, even though we were close to incredible discoveries. Good enough!

No medical information which would have saved millions of lives. Good enough.

Clearly copying older religions and adding nothing new. Good enough.


I have a hard time believing you actually think that and want it to be true so bad you are using some type of denial.

Saying I believe there is evidence is just a statement of belief. It is not a claim since I am not claiming shat I believe is the case.

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when it becomes a claim. Saying evidence is good enough to believe the supernatural and God is a HUGELY declarative way.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

What a waste. Jesus in Australia can come over and make this same word salad argument. He is still not Jesus and Bahai has no evidence to warrant belief.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/belief

I do not care what YOU believe I did. I alone know what I did.

Yes, you used confirmation or a cognitive bias to buy into a belief that has poor evidence. Prove me wrong, show me evidence.

I don't care what you believe, as it is no skin off my nose. I am only responsible to God for my own beliefs.

You sure write a lot for someone who claims they don't care? It's looks like this God is in your mind only.

You have demonstrated NOTHING.

Sure, if by "nothing" you mean -
But I have demonstrated that your claims of evidence are not at all evidence (his like?), his prophecies are not correct, he said nothing of interest as far as proof one is speaking to a deity, his writing is not advanced and it looks to be either made up claims or he actually believes it. But no God is involved.

It's good to speak up for empirical thought. Because revelations never end, people just get better tools to evaluate them.

and I can continue to give more and more examples.

All you have is a personal opinion. We all have those.

An opinion based on facts and probabilities and not on confirmation bias.
It is not a personal opinion the missing link was falsely predicted to be never found. Or the ether or electricity and magnetism isn't physical is a prediction that is false.
Or the apologist writing had to claim he was speaking about magnetism in a "con - I- ventional".....(made up wu wu BS) in order to brainwash readers.
Yeah, he never again mentioned what that meant, why it wasn't ever again used, why was it even used there? He just moved on to more sales pitch.

Good luck with your personal opinion.

I already debunked this claim. Now it's very obvious what you are doing. Hint, it's not truth.

I have no interest in arguing with you because I have no need to prove anything.

Yet you are arguing with me.

You have long since proven there is nothing to prove.
But for someone who has nothing to prove you just spent a lot of time trying to prove a bunch of things. Dictionary entries, misplaced psychology....

 

[joelr]

It is not the fallacy of argumentum ad populum because I DID NOT SAY that it is true because many or most people believe it.
I only said that most people believe it.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You implied it right here:



"Not believable TO YOU. This is what you totally miss.
Obviously they are believable to most people since 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of these faiths are based upon a revelation from God."


There is no reason to point this out and claim I "totally miss" that fact if you are not using it in an appeal to peoples beliefs.

 

[joelr]

..along with the vast majority of Jews, until this day.

And all Jehovas Witness and most Christians.

Umm .. you cannot know why he decided to believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
You purely theorise, from a position of disbelief.

There is no other position. Unless I lie to myself and I cannot do that. It's a mythology from the start. Show me evidence it's not.

Paul's motive cannot be known, but you don't belive Paul either, you are also from the position of disbelief. Paul said he rose, he saw Jesus AFTER he was already in the spirit body.

I did not say that.
Jesus did not start a "new Jewish mystery religion".
Neither did Paul, for that matter.

The emphasis of Orthodox Christian creed over the shema came centuries later.

It was mystery religion from the start. The theology Paul and the Gospels use is Hellenism. Mark even uses mystery religion terms to conceive of the religion.

Four Trends in Mystery Religions


- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.


- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.


- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.


- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it


Also -

All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?


Mysteries in scripture


1C. 4:1 We are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed


R. 11:25 (Do not) be ignorant of this mystery


R. 16:25 (the) message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed


1C. 2:6, 7 (We) speak a message of wisdom among the mature….(and) declare God’s wisdom, a. Mystery that has been hidden


1C. 15:51 Listen I will tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed


1C. 3:1-2 I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (Milk and solid food is mystery cult terminology)


H. 5:13-14 Anyone living on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for that mature. (Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms)


Mark 4:11-12 (Jesus) told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so (they won’t understand)”


Dead giveaway Mark is conceiving the teachings in mystery cult terms

YHWH can be whatever you want him to be.
God can be whatever you want him to be.

As far as knowledgable believers are concerned, He is One, and the Creator
and Maintainer of the universe, and all it contains.

In the early books he was a warrior storm deity, battles a sea monster and was lower than El,
later after Aquinas used Platonic philosophy and added it to Yahweh he became more of the modern idea of God. It's a myth, created slowly. All made up.


Plato and Christianity

36:46 Tertullian (who hated Plato) borrowed the idea of hypostases (used by Philo previously) to explain the relationship between the trinity. All are of the same substance.

38:30 Origen a Neo-Platonist uses Plato’s One. A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe

41:10
Agustine 354-430 AD taught scripture should be interpreted symbolically instead of literally after Plotinus explained Christianity was just Platonic ideas.

Thought scripture was silly if taken literally.

45:55 the ability to read Greek/Platonic ideas was lost for most Western scholars during Middle Ages. Boethius was going to translate all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin which would have altered Western history.

Theologians all based on Plato - Jesus, Agustine, Boethius Anslem, Aquinas


59:30


In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware

What is a "real god"?

When a real God exists and shows up I'll let you know.
By real God here I mean the modern conception. In 600BCE people thought of real Gods as what are now typical Near Easter deities and that's how Yahweh was written. Because it's made up and there was no god to tell people what he was.

In fact, the Gospel in the Bible mentions Jesus to be a Prophet.
It is just that Orthodox Christians have made him 'more than that'
i.e. son of God .. one of three etc.

No, that's in Paul and the Gospels. It's a Hellenism where the NT derives everything from as well.


The Religious Context of Early Christianity


A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions

HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK


Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Munich, Germany

e) Myth and rite


The best way to tackle the question of what the aim of the performance of the mysteries was, or in other words what kind of salvation the mystery cults promised, is to attempt to determine the relationship between myth and rite. Every cult is based on its own divine myth, which narrates what happens to a god; in most cases, he has to take a path of suffering and wandering, but this often leads to victory at the end. The rite depicts this path in abbreviated form and thus makes it possible for the initiand to be taken up into the story of the god, to share in his labours and above all in his victory. Thus there comes into being a ritual participation which contains the perspective of winning salvation (awrqpia). The hope for salvation can be innerworldly, looking for protection from life's many tribulations, e.g. sickness, poverty, dangers on journey, and death; but it can also look for something better in the life after death. It always involves an intensification of vitality and of life expectation, to be achieved through participation in the indestructible life of a god (cf in general terms Burkert 11: mysteries 'aimed at a change of mind through experience of the sacred').

What you mean is, you prefer to believe in a materialist interpretation of history.

Materialism has nothing to do with beliefs that have no evidence? There are thousands of cults and religions you also don't believe, because they have no evidence.

AND, if Jesus, Paul, or whomever, spoke to angels, heard words, saw miracles, GUESS WHAT? THAT MEANS, the deity can interact with the material world.
Those stories look to be false is the issue.
Religious people always use materialism - "the supernatural cannot be detected". Well than how did you detect it?
From someone who did detect it? Great, then evidence can be found, studies and so on. OR was it just the one time? Well that sounds like BS. That is evidence it's just a story.

Also so is the palimpset from as early as 5 CE.

 

[joelr]

One in which the concept of G-d is man-made.

it is man made, you think God showed up and pretended to be like all the other Mesopotamian deities for fun? Then as Persia invades and has an end times myth, a god vs devil myth, end times resurrection myth, suddenly the Hebrew people get it from God, but this time it's real!?

Not likely.


Then Greeks invade and they have a trending movement that is basically Christianity and a Jewish version comes out? Starting in Antioch, the hub of Hellenism????? Yeah right.

Hellenistic religion

The apotheosis of rulers also brought the idea of divinity down to earth.


Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Antioch on the Orontes

The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]



[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186

• [6] "Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". biblehub.com.

Christianity[


Antioch was a chief center of early Christianity during Roman times.[26] The city had a large population of Jewish origin in a quarter called the Kerateion, and so attracted the earliest missionaries.[27] Evangelized by, among others, Peter himself, according to the tradition upon which the Patriarchate of Antioch[28] still rests its claim for primacy,[29] and later (according to the Acts of the Apostles) by Barnabas and Paul[30][clarification needed], its converts were the first to be called Christians.

No amount of evidence can lead you to know whether your belief is correct.

Of course it can, the world works on probabilities. You already know the other 10,000 religions and cults are made up.


You know big foot, area 51, Roswell, all hoax. Zeus, Krishna, myth. We don't know 100% but the probability it's fake is high.


I find one more to also be in the same boat because I have no attachments to try and make it real.

It is nothing but conjecture.

As I just explained, your belief Krishna or Zeus isn't real is more than conjecture. I use evidence which makes it hypothesis or theory.


Hand waving won't change that.

The Sanaa palimpsest , you have to use conjecture on that and say it's somehow not real. Because it definitely is evidence the Quran was written over centuries and had early drafts.

Sanaa Quran is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence.[1] Part of a sizable cache of Quranic and non-Quranic fragments discovered in Yemen during a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanaa, the manuscript was identified as a palimpsest Quran in 1981 as it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of chapters (suwar, singular sūrah), whereas the lower text (the original text that was erased and written over by the upper text, but can still be read with the help of ultraviolet light and computer processing) contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its chapters corresponds to no known Quranic order. A partial reconstruction of the lower text was published in 2012,[2] and a reconstruction of the legible portions of both lower and upper texts of the 38 folios in the Sana'a House of Manuscripts was published in 2017 utilising post-processed digital images of the lower text.[3] A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy.[4]

 

[muhammad_isa]

I use evidence..

..and so do I.

If the Bible and Qur'an did not exist, I wouldn't know what I know.
You do not believe what they teach .. I do.

Your so-called evidence is deeply flawed, but you do not perceive.
You assume that what they teach is some kind of deception.
The deception is that of 'the devil' .. evil ones promote disbelief and hate,
and have their own agenda .. which is BY DEFINITION man-made.
i.e. you follow what seems good to you

 

[joelr]

..and so do I.

What evidence is proportinal to the claim? Not a claim of revelations because then you would have to accept all others as well.

If the Bible and Qur'an did not exist, I wouldn't know what I know.

Heavens Gate members could have said the same before they drank poison to get their souls to the ufo near Saturn. They didn't know until they read the writings. So what? Are the Heavens Gate scriptures "evidence"?

You do not believe what they teach .. I do.

Because you don't believe anything anyone is teaching without reasonable evidence. Never on wishful thinking or bad apologetics, if you want to believe true things.
If you don't care then no problem.

Your so-called evidence is deeply flawed, but you do not perceive.

Which evidence, I have given may different lines and many different scholars. And guess what, YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ONE SINGLE TIME ANY SINGLE FLAW.
THEN, going further down the apologist sink-hole, you tell me I do not perceive, yet you can't seem to SHOW ME WHERE THEY ARE WRONG??????

You cannot seem to present a counter argument by other PhD or archaeologist or anyone in the field demonstrating the information is flawed.

so most likely, you cannot and now have to just flat out make stuff up. If that works for you great, go for it, I care about what is actually true and so far I see what is most likely true to be something like what I am saying.

Or by "perceive" do you mean confirmation bias, just buy into a completely improbable story because it's my culture or some other reason and ignore all the evidence against it? No thank you.

You assume that what they teach is some kind of deception.

Another flawed argument already discussed like 4 times. You say "deception" like it's bad and improbable. Yet you also believe Mormonism is false, Christianity in it's current form false, Sikh, Bahai, Buddhism, all 5 Hinduism, all cults, Jesus in Australia, and all others. So the majority of religious beliefs in the world actually are a type of deception.
Meaning it's very reasonable that this type of thing would happen.

we even have a 5th century rough draft of the Quran.
And the religion it's based on looks to be as mythical as the Greek religions and all comes from older religions.
Modern ideas about God are not scriptural but come from Aquinas, way later and he's borrowing from Greek thought.
He also makes so many unfounded guesses and relies on scripture to answer questions it's ridiculous.

He answers the problem of infinite regress by introducing a God. Who is infinite. Same problem. If we can never arrive at this spot in infinity neither can a deity.

And if you bother to study history (prob not) you will see people did not trust critical thinking in those times, they trusted divine revelations and were primed to believe folk tales about angels and God.
That was how you framed laws and ethics, people would not have listened to anything else. That is how they knew illness was from God, lightning, weather, if you lost a war, all god, epilepsy, a demon, always god or a devil.
And how they knew the earth was the center of the universe and the sun went around it. Critical thinking was bad because if God wanted you to know he would have put it in scripture.

We moved past that despite of religion who screamed all the way. Bruno and the first astronomers who said the earth may go around the sun were burned alive.
They are myths.

The deception is that of 'the devil' .. evil ones promote disbelief and hate,

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

In the myth Yahweh creates evil

But really, devils? Egyptian level myths?

and have their own agenda .. which is BY DEFINITION man-made.

People had reason to make up divine communication then, as I mentioned. For modern people we can move on.

Scholars have an agenda, to show what is true in history and use the best evidence. apologists and fundamentalists will cover their eyes and ears but I am interested in truth, even if it stings a little.

i.e. you follow what seems good to you

Yes, truth seems good to me. Not being fooled by ancient folk stories and tales of afterlifes is important.I don't want to waste time on beliefs not supported by evidence.