Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

eg. an employed person is not paid for 30 days, instead of a week ( or day) .. eg. credit with high interest rates accepted.

So what? Don't take the job if you want to be paid more frequently, or become self-employed and be paid every day. And don't borrow if you don't like the terms of the loan.

eg. laws on gambling relaxed .. laws on prostitution relaxed .. laws on pornography relaxed

Those are changes for the better.

eg. sex before marriage is now widely accepted

Then it can't be a problem. It's only in societies where it is not tolerated that it's a problem, and the problem is not the vice, but rather, enforcement of laws intended to limit it as we learned with both the War on Drugs and Prohibition.

All these things lead to more enmity in the world

No, they don't. But do you know what does? Religion. You've got culture wars going on in America over abortion and LGBTQ+ issues (Christians) and a literal war in the Middle East (Jews and Muslims). The people advocating for the tolerance you bemoaned above are the humanists, and humanists don't cause wars. If they cause enmity, it is with the intolerant religious. Here's a good example:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do his duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had.

Here's more enmity from religion in conflict with humanist tolerance:

"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what? Don't take the job if you want to be paid more frequently, or become self-employed and be paid every day. And don't borrow if you don't like the terms of the loan..

You're very smug, aren't you.
Poor people do not have the luxury of choice. They are at the mercy of the ruling classes,
who decide how poor they should be (through financial manipulation)!

..and don't forget that adultery and other sexual immorality often leads to violence,
and even murder.

 

[Trailblazer]

And as your first definition of claim above suggests, a claim is a belief, and expressing a belief is making a claim.

No, I am not making any claims. Since I am the one writing the post I alone know if I am making a claim.
You just believe I am making a claim, but I am not.

Saying I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is just a statement of belief.
It is not a claim since I am not claiming that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Baha'u'llah is the one who claimed to be a Messenger of God.

What was your purpose for saying so if not to suggest that that is an endorsement of the idea by those people and that that should matter?

My point was that just because the existence of God is not believable to @joelr that does not mean that it is not believable to other people.

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.

I never said that God exists is true because many or most people believe it so it is not the fallacy of ad populum:

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 haven't made the case for false equivalence, just the claim. Evidence is evidence. There aren't separated categories of evidence for religion and science, nor for the evidence we encounter and interpret in daily life. It's all the same thing - whatever becomes evident to the senses - and it's all evaluated by the same critical criteria to determine what the evidence signifies.

I have made the case for false equivalence.
God can never be seen and be proven to exist so the evidence for God can never be equivalent to the evidence for science.
There can never be empirical evidence for God as there is evidence for material things that exist on earth.
That means that the evidence for God has to be different (not equivalent to) the evidence used in science.

No, evidence is not evidence. Do you encounter God in your everyday life? Is God evident to the senses?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have made the case for false equivalence.
God can never be seen and be proven to exist so the evidence for God can never be equivalent to the evidence for science.

That's not a reason to apply a separate standard for gods or anything else. Absence of compelling evidence for gods is a reason to not believe in them, not to use a different standard for belief.

That means that the evidence for God has to be different (not equivalent to) the evidence used in science.

Why? You just keep insisting that because one can't demonstrate that gods exist with evidence, one should believe they do without it. One could use that argument for known fictional characters as well:

"Well of course we can't produce evidence for Spiderman, but you should believe it anyway. You need to evaluate Spiderman claims by another method."

"Why?"

"Because Spiderman isn't like a real man. They aren't equivalent, and evaluating them using the same rules of critical thinking is false equivalence?"

"No it isn't."

"Yes it is."

"OK, there's the claim. Where's the argument to support the claim? Why should I use a different method for evaluating different claims of fact?" "Because. You just do."

"Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I just keep hearing you say that I can't use this method with Spiderman, and the only reason you give is that I shouldn't expect you to produce evidence for Spiderman."​

No, evidence is not evidence. Do you encounter God in your everyday life? Is God evident to the senses?

No, I don't, which is why I don't believe in gods, but I do use the same method to decide that as I do for things that DO have evidence. I just come to different conclusions. I use the exact same method to evaluate claims about wolves and werewolves.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not a reason to apply a separate standard for gods or anything else. Absence of compelling evidence for gods is a reason to not believe in them, not to use a different standard for belief.

Absence of evidence that is compelling to you. The evidence is compelling to me and most people in the world.

I am not saying that God exists because most people believe that God exists. I am saying that most people believe that God exists, either because of the evidence or for some other reason.

Compelling evidence for God is a reason to believe in God. That is not a claim, it is my personal opinion.

Why? You just keep insisting that because one can't demonstrate that gods exist with evidence, one should believe they do without it.

One cannot demonstrate that God exists with empirical evidence but one can know that God exists with evidence.
There is no need to go "without it" since there is evidence. That evidence is the Messengers of God. That is not a claim, it is my belief.

I never said that one should believe in God based upon the evidence that exists. One should only believe in God if there is evidence that is compelling to them.

One could use that argument for known fictional characters as well:

Sure you can, but that does not mean that God is a fictional character but it also does not mean that God is real.

"Well of course we can't produce evidence for Spiderman, but you should believe it anyway. You need to evaluate Spiderman claims by another method."​

​

"Why?"​

​

"Because Spiderman isn't like a real man. They aren't equivalent, and evaluating them using the same rules of critical thinking is false equivalence?"​

​

"No it isn't."​

​

"Yes it is."​

​

"OK, there's the claim. Where's the argument to support the claim? Why should I use a different method for evaluating different claims of fact?" "Because. You just do."​

​

"Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I just keep hearing you say that I can't use this method with Spiderman, and the only reason you give is that I shouldn't expect you to produce evidence for Spiderman."​

Comparing God to Spider-man is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not equivalent to Spider-man.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The huge difference between fictional characters like Spider-man and God is that these fictional characters are known to be fictional but God is not known to be fictional. God is only 'believed' to be fictional by a small number of people in the world who are atheists.

No, I don't, which is why I don't believe in gods, but I do use the same method to decide that as I do for things that DO have evidence. I just come to different conclusions. I use the exact same method to evaluate claims about wolves and werewolves.

Are you saying that because you do not encounter God in your everyday life and because God is not evident to the senses that is a reason not to believe that God exists?

If you ever want to know if God exists you cannot use the exact same method to evaluate claims about God as claims about wolves and werewolves, since God is not equivalent to wolves and werewolves, but if you do not care if God exists no matter.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, I don't, which is why I don't believe in gods, but I do use the same method to decide that as I do for things that DO have evidence. I just come to different conclusions. I use the exact same method to evaluate claims about wolves and werewolves.

My answer to the question of the existence of gods is fairly simple: I don't know. To be honest, I'm not sure whether deities exist or not because I've never seen conclusive evidence that has convinced me or felt the presence of one in my life, even when I was a devoted Christian. I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of the biblical God or any other deity, for that matter. I don't entirely believe in the existence of gods since I haven't seen any kind of evidence that has convinced me of their existence. And while I practice Wicca and Druidry, I acknowledge that I lack empirical evidence or alleged evidence that any deities exist. Having said that, I choose to believe in the prospect of supernatural deities while recognizing that I can't prove or disprove their existence. I've always been fascinated with spirituality and beliefs in the supernatural, but I'm not willing to state that I am fully confident, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the God of the Bible or any other deities actually exist. I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. So, as far as I'm concerned, I can't honestly determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. Since I renounced my Christian faith and left Christianity, I've decided that I don't need to believe in the biblical God or in any deities in order to be a good person, make moral decisions, or feel peace, joy, and contentment in my life.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's not a reason to apply a separate standard for gods or anything else.

Are any of the Gods believed in by some Hindus real? Was the God of the Aztecs that demanded a human sacrifice real? Is the God of the Catholics and other trinitarian Christians real? Lots of us, maybe even some Baha'is would say "no", those Gods were not real. But I bet the people that believe in them, especially the Christian Trinitarian God, has the same kind of evidence and maybe even better evidence than the Baha'is have for their version of God.

My answer to the question of the existence of gods is fairly simple: I don't know.

But you believe in and communicate with spirit beings, don't you? If that's true, then how come the ultimate spirit being, the creator God, can't communicate to you or others? Except that some people do claim they do communicate with God and some claim that God has done things to prove that he is real. Like Gideon and his fleece. Only trouble is... is this, or any other similar story, in the Bible true?

When he rose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece together, he wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, “Do not be angry with me, but let me speak just once more: Let me test, I pray, just once more with the fleece; let it now be dry only on the fleece, but on all the ground let there be dew.” 40 And God did so that night.​

Judges 6:36-40 NKJV​

​

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

But you believe in and communicate with spirit beings, don't you?

Yes, this is what I believe to be true and what I've experienced for the vast majority of my life, as I explained in detail in other threads linked below.

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

There is no evidence that he did even that. God is a imaginary product of human fear of difficulties and death. Perhaps also of the guilt of our own evil acts, like the thugs worshiped Goddess Kali. I know, but at least it is in the realm of unanswered questions. But I have noticed that...

www.religiousforums.com

If that's true, then how come the ultimate spirit being, the creator God, can't communicate to you or others? Except that some people do claim they do communicate with God and some claim that God has done things to prove that he is real. Like Gideon and his fleece. Only trouble is... is this, or any other similar story, in the Bible true?

First and foremost, I don't believe the stories in the Bible. As I explained in another thread (read it here), I believe that the Bible is riddled with multiple contradictions and that the stories of Jesus Christ were most likely copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions.

Second, in further response to your post, I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I was a Christian for thirty years and had sincerely believed in God for ten years before that, and I had never seen, experienced, or interacted with God. I knew and know plenty of Christians who said they felt the "presence" of God in their lives, but I never felt it, and it wasn't for a lack of trying either. In my case, sincerely believing in God by faith didn't exactly work out for me, nor did years of dedicated and earnest prayer to God. So I no longer accept the existence of any deity based on faith. Having said that, I'm not willing to entirely dismiss the existence of any deities because I believe in supernatural phenomena, and the existence of deities could be a possibility in this regard. I can honestly say that I believe that human spirits and non-human entities exist, but I don't just claim to believe without providing what I consider to be evidence that substantiates my belief. I'm totally convinced, and I've shared my experiences on this forum for two years now. I'm not convinced that any deities exist, but I'm certain that human spirits and non-human entities exist.

I'm sure that it would make a significant difference for me if I could conclusively document the existence of deities like I can with human spirits and non-human entities as a veteran paranormal researcher and investigator, or if I could sense, see, hear, and directly communicate with any kind of deity like I can with human spirits and non-human entities as a psychic medium. As a medium, I've spent the past 44 years of my life sensing, seeing, and hearing human spirits as well as a few non-human entities. For the past sixteen years, my life has been comprised of having direct interactions with human spirits and a few non-human entities, but I have never had any form of direct encounter (feeling, seeing, hearing, or directly speaking to) with any deity. The only supernatural phenomena I have ever witnessed while in a church were the spirits of confused Christians who had no idea what was happening to them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, this is what I believe to be true and what I've experienced for the vast majority of my life, as I explained in detail in other threads linked below.

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

There is no evidence that he did even that. God is a imaginary product of human fear of difficulties and death. Perhaps also of the guilt of our own evil acts, like the thugs worshiped Goddess Kali. I know, but at least it is in the realm of unanswered questions. But I have noticed that...

www.religiousforums.com

First and foremost, I don't believe the stories in the Bible. As I explained in another thread (read it here), I believe that the Bible is riddled with multiple contradictions and that the stories of Jesus Christ were most likely copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions.

Second, in further response to your post, I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I was a Christian for thirty years and had sincerely believed in God for ten years before that, and I had never seen, experienced, or interacted with God. I knew and know plenty of Christians who said they felt the "presence" of God in their lives, but I never felt it, and it wasn't for a lack of trying either. In my case, sincerely believing in God by faith didn't exactly work out for me, nor did years of dedicated and earnest prayer to God. So I no longer accept the existence of any deity based on faith. Having said that, I'm not willing to entirely dismiss the existence of any deities because I believe in supernatural phenomena, and the existence of deities could be a possibility in this regard. I can honestly say that I believe that human spirits and non-human entities exist, but I don't just claim to believe without providing what I consider to be evidence that substantiates my belief. I'm totally convinced, and I've shared my experiences on this forum for two years now. I'm not convinced that any deities exist, but I'm certain that human spirits and non-human entities exist.

I'm sure that it would make a significant difference for me if I could conclusively document the existence of deities like I can with human spirits and non-human entities as a veteran paranormal researcher and investigator, or if I could sense, see, hear, and directly communicate with any kind of deity like I can with human spirits and non-human entities as a psychic medium. As a medium, I've spent the past 44 years of my life sensing, seeing, and hearing human spirits as well as a few non-human entities. For the past sixteen years, my life has been comprised of having direct interactions with human spirits and a few non-human entities, but I have never had any form of direct encounter (feeling, seeing, hearing, or directly speaking to) with any deity. The only supernatural phenomena I have ever witnessed while in a church were the spirits of confused Christians who had no idea what was happening to them.

Thanks Sgt. Pepper, I have no problem believing that people in ancient times made up their Gods. My main argument with Baha'is is that they claim that all the religions of the past are all true... or at least the main ones. But even with them, I think it's very probable that they were made up. So, instead of "progressive" revelation like the Baha'is believe, where God sent complimentary messages to different people in different times and places, I think that religions and Gods have evolved... some ideas got dropped, some got added on to and built upon.

But I've said before, I do think that if people believe in any religion, it will seem true to them. And they will find enough "evidence" to support their belief. So, how can anyone argue against that? For those believers it is those arguing against them that are wrong... that they are blind and can't see "the truth". Because of that, these threads really don't do much. The various Christians will keep believing in Jesus, in God, in Satan and the rest of it. Baha'is will keep believing in their prophet and that "Christ" has returned.

 

[Trailblazer]

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement.
post # 322, Trailblazer:

"I do not assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. I believe it's true because of the evidence.
It is not begging the question since my premise doesn't lack support. My premise is supported by the evidence."

your claim is its' true because it has evidence and that demonstrates it's true. Your belief is also declarative.

I never said "its' true because it has evidence and that demonstrates it's true."
I said: I believe it's true because of the evidence.

Why do you twist my words to mean something I did not say?

I make no claims. I only state my beliefs.

Do you have an actual argument or evidence?

You already know what I have for evidence. Why are you asking again?

A claim that the evidence is good.
I looked at many lines of the evidence, they all suck. I can repost my findings.

I did not make a claim that the evidence is good.
I said: It is evidence that indicates to me that my belief is true.

Why do you twist my words to mean something I did not say?

Of course there is. There is endless evidence that the majority of people would agree on. Let's look at a few:

atoms are real
Trump was president
Kang is on trial for assault
Zeus is a fictional deity
many people claim revelations from a god
the missing links in hominid evolution has been found, several of them
magnetism has a physical reality
there is a number in pi that is the quadrillionth decimal point, it will always be the same number


this list could go on for a long time

We are talking about evidence for religion, not evidence for science.
There is no such thing as evidence for a religion that everyone would agree on for obvious logical reasons.

Wrong again, people have claimed to see god and you cannot prove they didn't.

I do not have to prove that they did not see God in order to believe that they didn't.

Most likely they are fictional stories. But, if you accept that, most likely revelations are also fictional stories. But yet, you will special plead and say those old stories are made up while the stories you believe are real.
Hello special pleading. Goodbye logic.

I do not believe stories. I only believe revelations from God.

Than why do you believe such obvious misinformation?

Because I don't believe it is misinformation.

No, but there is many ways to suggest it's false. And we have excellent evidence that indicates he is a fraud.
writing style
bad prophecies
copy-cat
no miracles
no super powers
no supernatural
apologist lies for him in prophecy book
knows nothing a human wouldn't know as if a god can't give you at least one piece of information to get peoples attention
we know people like to make up religious stories, especially revelations

All of those suggest that Baha'u'llah was not a fraud.

It's hopeless because the thing you substitute for logic and call it "logic" is some weird confirmation bias, semantic games, and inability to take a loss and move forward.

It's hopeless because of your confirmation bias, semantic games, and inability to take a loss and move forward.

This is so wrong I need a list to school you
1) you are using circular reasoning to prove a point that cannot be proven with circular reasoning.
2) Twice
3) They are also fallacies.
4)Appeal to Ignorance (Presenting Evidence the Audience Can’t Examine) - ie "only certain minds" Cool, give an actual example of something proven to be true where only certain people can understand the evidence.
5)"The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true." is circular. It asserts a truth but doesn't demonstrate it. This is also another example of "the book says it so it's true".

6) this line of argument is going down in flames and I tried to warn you last time

Misapplication of fallacies won't work for you. Your line of argument is going down in flames and you don't even know it..

You said: "give an actual example of something proven to be true where only certain people can understand the evidence."
We are not talking about things that have been proven to be true. We are talking about God and religion, things that can never be proven to be true.

Human minds work so differently that so the evidence for God and religion can only be understood by certain minds. The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true. It is also drop dead logical since no two minds think alike. That is a fact of science.

"spiritually" is ill-defined and abstract, please define your terms.

"spiritual sight" is going to be very hard to demonstrate, both a lack of and that it exists in the first place.

It does not have to be demonstrated, it is clearly defined in scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

In theism, God interacts with the world, which is what you are. So there would be evidence.

There is evidence. The Messengers of God are the evidence. That is not a claim, it is a belief.

 

[joelr]

No, I am not making any claims. Since I am the one writing the post I alone know if I am making a claim.
You just believe I am making a claim, but I am not.

Saying I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is just a statement of belief.
It is not a claim since I am not claiming that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Baha'u'llah is the one who claimed to be a Messenger of God.

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement.

My point was that just because the existence of God is not believable to @joelr that does not mean that it is not believable to other people.

I find it hard to believe you wanted to point out that other people believe in God when the person I'm talking with believes in God.
Or that you imagined I am not fully aware people believe all sorts of unjustified things.

God can never be seen and be proven to exist so the evidence for God can never be equivalent to the evidence for science.
There can never be empirical evidence for God as there is evidence for material things that exist on earth.
That means that the evidence for God has to be different (not equivalent to) the evidence used in science.

All religions claim mental and physical interaction, magic and all of this can be used to demonstrate in a scientific way a god is real. But it never happens in real life.

Bahai didn't seem to think the evidence needed to be different and released proof in the form of knowledge of world events and science that would demonstrate he has knowledge beyond what a human could know. It's just that he failed.

But if you have no evidence then your beliefs are not justified.

No, evidence is not evidence. Do you encounter God in your everyday life? Is God evident to the senses?

God is evident in no way that is reliable. So belief in this God is unreliable and at best wishful thinking.

 

[CG Didymus]

Absence of compelling evidence for gods is a reason to not believe in them

Bahai didn't seem to think the evidence needed to be different and released proof in the form of knowledge of world events and science that would demonstrate he has knowledge beyond what a human could know. It's just that he failed.

Strange that Abdul Baha says things like this...

Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175​

Does religion, even the Baha'i religion, stand the analysis of reason? Does it agree with scientific fact? And if it doesn't what does Abdul Baha say about that religion?

But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144​

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion?​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144​

Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching even though it were not in accord with human reason and judgment.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 247​

Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 247​

​

 

[joelr]

I never said "its' true because it has evidence and that demonstrates it's true."
I said: I believe it's true because of the evidence.

Why do you twist my words to mean something I did not say?

Your words were - ""I do not assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. I believe it's true because of the evidence."

I paraphrased it as - "its' true because it has evidence and that demonstrates it's true."

they are the same thing. Yet you continue to play word games which is SUPER obvious you are just sore about refusing to concede a point.

But also your belief is declarative, making it a claim.

I make no claims. I only state my beliefs.

When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement.

You already know what I have for evidence. Why are you asking again?

Because you are wasting time with games and splitting hairs on belief/claim/. Can you demonstrate your beliefs are justified? I'm getting it back to some type of actual point.

I did not make a claim that the evidence is good.
I said: It is evidence that indicates to me that my belief is true.

Why do you twist my words to mean something I did not say?

More word games, they won't help you, they will help you look pedantic.

If you think evidence justifies belief, then you think the evidence is good.

What a stupid thing to have to argue over? As if it means the evidence is bad?

We are talking about evidence for religion, not evidence for science.
There is no such thing as evidence for a religion that everyone would agree on for obvious logical reasons.

Yet Bahai put out a list of scientific prophecies and historical predictions as proof. HE failed, but he did exactly what you claim cannot be done.

And, if a God were real, he COULD give all of that information I listed which would be interesting evidence.

In all other religions they seem to believe evidence is also needed and give the deities magic of all sorts, super-powers, ESP, healing. If any God were real, all of this could be done to help demonstrate it really is a God.

I do not have to prove that they did not see God in order to believe that they didn't.

But you didn't say that you "believe" they didn't now did you? Nope.
What you said was:

"That is empirical evidence but no such evidence exists for God because nobody can SEE GOD."

You made a definitive statement that no one has ever seen god. But when called out you change it to "I believe they never saw a god".
Dishonest way to have a discussion. I'm getting some real red flags here, when someone can never be wrong, even at the expense of obvious word manipulation and they will just keep going non-stop forever, it's not a good look. In real life it's my cue to exit for good.

I do not believe stories. I only believe revelations from God.

Which is circular, you haven't proven they are revelations. And is exactly the same as the other line of reasoning.
"I believe in Gods words"
"How do you know they are Gods words?"
"Because they are in the Bible which is a book of Gods words, which I believe in....."


Oh, since you like copy/paste definitions so much (as if you invented them and are sharing them with everyone else):
A circular argument (or circular reasoning) is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything. An argument consists of one or more statements (premise) and a claim (conclusion). A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the argument's conclusion

Because I don't believe it is misinformation.

Still waiting for evidence of why it's not information.

All of those suggest that Baha'u'llah was not a fraud.

They suggest he was making it all up. Please explain how they demonstrate he was speaking to a God?

writing style
bad prophecies
copy-cat
no miracles
no super powers
no supernatural
apologist lies for him in prophecy book
knows nothing a human wouldn't know as if a god can't give you at least one piece of information to get peoples attention
we know people like to make up religious stories, especially revelations

It's hopeless because of your confirmation bias, semantic games, and inability to take a loss and move forward.

That works. If you just copy my words back it's a confirmation that I am correct because you have no defense.

I have given examples of all of those things you employ, many times.

Misapplication of fallacies won't work for you. Your line of argument is going down in flames and you don't even know it..

again, you haven't debunked one single thing on the list and even used my phrase. So again, if that's how you take a loss than so be it.

This is so wrong I need a list to school you
1) you are using circular reasoning to prove a point that cannot be proven with circular reasoning.
2) Twice
3) They are also fallacies.
4)Appeal to Ignorance (Presenting Evidence the Audience Can’t Examine) - ie "only certain minds" Cool, give an actual example of something proven to be true where only certain people can understand the evidence.
5)"The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true." is circular. It asserts a truth but doesn't demonstrate it. This is also another example of "the book says it so it's true".

6) this line of argument is going down in flames and I tried to warn you last time

You said: "give an actual example of something proven to be true where only certain people can understand the evidence."
We are not talking about things that have been proven to be true. We are talking about God and religion, things that can never be proven to be true.

You contradict yourself, you say they can never be proven true then below you say certain people can understand God and religion.

You again, give an example of something someone understands.
For now all you are doing is saying some people have employed confirmation bias to justify beliefs. I agree!

Human minds work so differently that so the evidence for God and religion can only be understood by certain minds. The Biblical and Baha'i scriptures say that because it is true. It is also drop dead logical since no two minds think alike. That is a fact of science.

"One of the main challenges in neuroscience is understanding the origin and the possible functional significance of the very wide spectrum of link strengths which is common in all brains."

Great minds may think alike, but all minds look alike

Though humans differ widely in their congenital abilities, a newly-discovered brain learning mechanism has led researchers to reveal an origin of the identical spectrum of strong and weak links that compose all brains.

www.sciencedaily.com

Prove it. Explain something that you understand that some minds cannot. Explain by what methodology you determined it was supernatural/God vs confirmation bias.
Then explain why a God would provide evidence that only certain minds can understand. Why not evidence all minds can understand? What kind of being would create people but than only provide evidence for some people? A terrible deity would do that.

It does not have to be demonstrated, it is clearly defined in scriptures.

So it's true because the book says so. Once again. Please define "spirituality" as defined in scriptures. Then explain how you know this version is correct.

so far I have confirmation bias, circular reasoning, as the two main tools used for belief.

 

[joelr]

There is evidence. The Messengers of God are the evidence. That is not a claim, it is a belief.

More circular logic.

"God has messengers"
"Do you have proof God is real?"
"Messengers are proof"
"Right but you haven't proven God or that the so called messengers are actually getting messages from God?"
"The messengers of God are the evidence"
I'm dizzy.

Cool, so after all that we establish you do not care if your beliefs are true. But God must be real, lots of them, because there are a lot of messengers.

• Cyrus Teed (1839–1908), proponent of the Hollow Earth theory who created a distinct model in which the world is an inverted sphere that the rest of universe can be seen from by looking inward and claimed to be the incarnation of Jesus Christ after being electrocuted when attempting to practice alchemy with doses of magnetism during 1869.[66]

• Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) of Nazi Germany has been claimed by some practitioners of Esoteric Nazism as the messiah, including Colin Jordan,[67] Savitri Devi,[68] and Miguel Serrano.[69] Hitler had never claimed to be the messiah during his life, having had changing views towards religion.
• Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia (1892–1975), Emperor of Ethiopia and Messiah of the Rastafari movement. Never claimed himself to be Messiah, but was thus proclaimed by Leonard Howell, amongst others.
• André Matsoua (1899–1942), Congolese founder of Amicale, proponents of which subsequently adopted him as Messiah.
• Samael Aun Weor (1917–1977), born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez, Colombian citizen and later Mexican, was an author, lecturer and founder of the Universal Christian Gnostic Movement. By 1972, Samael Aun Weor referenced that his death and resurrection would be occurring before 1978.
• Nirmala Srivastava (1923–2011), guru of Sahaja Yoga, proclaimed herself to be the Comforter promised by Jesus (that is, the incarnation of the Holy Ghost / Adi Shakti).[70]
• Raël, founder and leader of Raëlism (born 30 September 1946); Rael claimed he met an extraterrestrial being in 1973 and became the Messiah.
• World Teacher (unknown), a being claimed to be the Theosophical Maitreya and the Messiah (promised one) of all religions. He is said to have descended from the higher planes and manifested a physical body in early 1977 in the Himalayas, then on 19 July 1977 he is said to have taken a commercial airplane flight from Pakistan to England. He is currently said to be living in secret in London;[71][72][73] promoted by New Age activist Benjamin Creme and his organization, Share International (See Maitreya (Benjamin Creme)).
• David Icke (born 29 April 1952), New Age conspiracy theorist who came up with the idea of Draconians[74] and claimed to be the "son of God" during an interview on Wogan in 1991.[75]
• Shoko Asahara (1955–2018), the founder of the Japanese doomsday-cult group Aum Shinrikyo. In 1992 Asahara published Declaring Myself the Christ, within which he declared himself Christ, Japan's only fully enlightened master, and identified with the Lamb of God. Following the Tokyo subway sarin attack of 1995, Asahara was arrested and executed by hanging in 2018.
• Ezra Miller (born 1992), an actor, has claimed to be Jesus, the next Messiah, and the devil, saying they would bring about a Native American revolution.[76]
• Baháʼu'lláh, Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri, (1817–1892), born Shiite, adopting Bábism in 1844 (see "Bab" in Muslim messiah claimants section above). In 1863, he claimed to be the promised one of all religions, and founded the Baháʼí Faith.[58] He claimed to be the fulfillment of the prophecies of the coming of a promised figure found in all 6 of the major prophetic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism) as noted in the authoritative history of the Baha'i Faith.[59] He also claimed to be the prophet predicted by the Bab (see Muslim messiah claimants section above) as "He Whom God shall make manifest"[60] His followers have also claimed that his coming fulfilled prophecies of various smaller (often native) religions.
• Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) in 1909 renounced the status of Messiah and Maitreya incarnation given him by the Theosophical Society.
• Peter Deunov Bulgarian white brotherhood sect leader
• Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (born 25 November 1941) is a spiritual leader and the founder of the spiritual movements Messiah Foundation International (MFI) and Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam.[61][62] He is controversial for being declared the Mehdi, Messiah, and Kalki Avatar by the MFI.[63][64][65]
• Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda (1946–2013), a Puerto Rican preacher who had claimed to be both "the Man Jesus Christ" and the Antichrist at the same time. He claimed he was indwelled with the same spirit that dwelled in Jesus; however, Miranda also contradicted his claims of being Christ incarnate by also claiming he was the Antichrist, even going as far as tattooing the number of the beast (666) on his forearm, a behavior his followers also adopted. Founder of the "Growing in Grace" ministries, Miranda died on August 14, 2013, due to liver cancer.
• Ryuho Okawa (1956–2023), was the founder of Happy Science in Japan. Okawa claimed to channel the spirits of Muhammad, Christ, Buddha and Confucius and to be the incarnation of the supreme spiritual being called El Cantare.
• 
  

are but a few of them

 

[joelr]

There is evidence. The Messengers of God are the evidence. That is not a claim, it is a belief.

A circular argument (or circular reasoning) is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything.

Please demonstrate evidence this belief even could be true. Like some scientific prophecies he would not know otherwise.......oh wait, never mind...he tried that, didn't work.
Maybe historical prophecy? No, that failed.
Something in his writing that a human would not be able to write?

Or do you just buy every claim of revelations? I strongly suspect that you like his writings and like the model presented of reality and strongly want this to be true and have decided to accept his claims. Which is confirmation bias and not a good path to true things.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Thanks Sgt. Pepper, I have no problem believing that people in ancient times made up their Gods. My main argument with Baha'is is that they claim that all the religions of the past are all true... or at least the main ones. But even with them, I think it's very probable that they were made up. So, instead of "progressive" revelation like the Baha'is believe, where God sent complimentary messages to different people in different times and places, I think that religions and Gods have evolved... some ideas got dropped, some got added on to and built upon.

But I've said before, I do think that if people believe in any religion, it will seem true to them. And they will find enough "evidence" to support their belief. So, how can anyone argue against that? For those believers it is those arguing against them that are wrong... that they are blind and can't see "the truth". Because of that, these threads really don't do much. The various Christians will keep believing in Jesus, in God, in Satan and the rest of it. Baha'is will keep believing in their prophet and that "Christ" has returned.

You're welcome. Personally, I don't have an argument against the Baha'i Faith. First, I don't know much about it other than what I read on this forum. And second, I have no complaint against the Baha'is because none of them have tried to impose their beliefs on me. Honestly, I don't care what other people's spiritual beliefs are as long as they don't try to push them on me by unsolicited proselytizing and preaching or using their religious beliefs to be abusive.

 

[joelr]

Strange that Abdul Baha says things like this...

Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175​

Does religion, even the Baha'i religion, stand the analysis of reason? Does it agree with scientific fact? And if it doesn't what does Abdul Baha say about that religion?

But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144​

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion?​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144​

Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching even though it were not in accord with human reason and judgment.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 247​

Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 247​

​

That is funny because his prophecies about science are horribly wrong. He said we would never find the missing link, alchemy would be common, cancer would be found to be communicable, magnetism/electricity has no physical existence, the ether will be found, then the ether was proven wrong so they changed it so that he was talking in different physical terms called "con-I-ventional", which doesn't agree with science and is made up BS.
He also said humans are not animals, didn't evolve from animals, got stuff about cells wrong. More importantly he didn't know one single scientific fact on science not yet discovered. But he was trying with those predictions. HE knew it would be some time before those prophecies would be proven true of false and he went with what he felt would be correct.

He also predicted war, industrial revolution and the fall of leaders when the entire world was also predicting the same. I think the book even states a messenger must know new science.
Notice how vague much of his proclamations are, must be in accord with science? He doesn't make any cosmological claims or do science experiments, what does he mean by that? The religion is set up to be vague and work with science. Except for the prophecies about science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Explain something that you understand that some minds cannot..

If you know anything about psychology, you might realise why that is so.
A person who turns away from G-d, as in ignores what Scriptures teach,
will not "think" in the same way that a person who considers it to be true.

Then explain why a God would provide evidence that only certain minds can understand..

We are not compelled to believe, but the path we take affects our very being/soul.
We CAN change our mind about what we believe, but the further we get from spiritual truth,
the harder it is to see this truth.
..much like getting out of a pit .. the deeper we go in disbelief, the harder it becomes
to change.
..it is not impossible, but it usually takes some sort of 'shock'. or change in our lives..

Why not evidence all minds can understand? What kind of being would create people but than only provide evidence for some people?

G-d's guidance is for those that work righteousness .. our minds can be our own worst enemy.
It is not purely a matter of 'matter', as it were, but also a matter of conscience.

So it's true because the book says so..

No. A book is not true because it claims that it is. We will only accept it as truth if we can 'see' that it is.
A matter of conscience.

Conscience comes first, and the evaluation of evidence follows it.

Once again. Please define "spirituality" as defined in scriptures..

Matters of the soul .. the psyche .. the part of mind which involves conscience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you know anything about psychology, you might realise why that is so.
A person who turns away from G-d, as in ignores what Scriptures teach,
will not "think" in the same way that a person who considers it to be true.

He asked you to, "Explain something that you understand that some minds cannot," and that is what you told him, which doesn't give a single example of what he asked for.

We are not compelled to believe, but the path we take affects our very being/soul.
We CAN change our mind about what we believe, but the further we get from spiritual truth,
the harder it is to see this truth.
..much like getting out of a pit .. the deeper we go in disbelief, the harder it becomes
to change.
..it is not impossible, but it usually takes some sort of 'shock'. or change in our lives..

Then came this is response to, "explain why a God would provide evidence that only certain minds can understand," also a non-responsive reply. A responsive reply to the first question would be, "An example of something I understand that some minds cannot would be ..." A responsive answer to the second would be something like, "The reason a god would reveal itself to some but not all is ..."

I think he's making the same point I do from time to time when others describe seeing further than the empiricists, who they deride for small-mindedness and short-sightedness using words like materialist and scientism. They claim to sense gods and possess spiritual truths unavailable to the empiricist, but ask them what they see or what truths they possess, and it all falls apart. You get answers like your last one: "Please define "spirituality" as defined in scriptures" -> "Matters of the soul .. the psyche .. the part of mind which involves conscience." I don't see a definition of spirituality there. Matters of psyche and consciousness are psychology, and the soul is a poetic construct standing for the essential character of an individual unless meant literally - an immortal ghost that inhabits a body during its lifetime and then leaves it at death.