Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Trailblazer]

"the missing link will never be found"

That is WRONG. Funny, because YOU posted this link as evidence. Seems like you are walking that back now.

I posted that on October 29, 2020.

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

If one believes in One God, Worships One God in the Muslim fashion or similar throughout the day, then they are pretty much a Muslim in my view I see a Muslim is one that Submits to One God. So I see your view is valid. We should not veil ourselves by the Names God has sent the Messengers in...

www.religiousforums.com

Yes, I am now walking that back as evidence. Can we move on now, or are you going to keep harping on it?

 

[Trailblazer]

In fact the "forest" thing has been debunked.

No, it had not been debunked because you cannot debunk a personal opinion.
In my opinion you are lost in the forest so you cannot see the trees.

It's evidence you put forth. I just analysed it , found it incorrect and now you cannot stop with the "you are lost in the trees".

Yeah, the trees of the evidence you linked to as if it would help. But it failed and here you are walking that one back as well.
You have done more to disprove the religion than me by acting this way.

I made a post I over 3 years ago and you picked out one book I had linked to in that post.

I already admitted I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence.

Grow up and get over it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Speaking of bias sources.....

Scholarship believes it's mythology because that is what the evidence suggests/. Over and over.

You go with what evidence is strongest. Here, there is only evidence that it's mythology.

Biased sources BELIEVE it is all mythology but they do not KNOW that.
That is not evidence of any kind.

Feel free to find examples of why you think that isn't so. Name the scholar, the conclusion and show why it's wrong.

Some of the Bible is probably mythology, I will give you that. I don't need any scholars to tell me that, only a rational mind!

Now, (this is funny) also, you claim scholars in the field don't know how to interpret evidence, BUT............you happen to know that the Bible is MOSTLY WRONG AND CORRUPTED. HA HA HA HA HA. You have no evidence, but a guy who made up a religion said so.

I never said that biblical scholars don't know how to interpret evidence.
I never said that the Bible is mostly wrong and corrupted. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted.

Addressing the Muslims, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89

It is the religions of the past that have been corrupted.

LOL!!!!!! Scholars just use real "evidence", while you have something much better, anecdotal claims by a guy who said he talked to god.

HA!

Those scholars are clueless about God, unless they are Christian or Baha'i scholars. LOL.

Jesus Christ was not "a guy who said He talked to God." Nothing could be funnier.
Even if Baha'u'llah had never come, Jesus would be ample evidence that God exists.
Your so-called evidence cannot hit the broad side of a barn.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Biased sources BELIEVE it is all mythology but they do not KNOW that..

No, they just conclude "it is likely"

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

I more or less agree with that, actually..
Many Muslims claim that the Gospel was literally a book given to Jesus .. like the Qur'an..
..but I don't think that all the previous messengers had books .. they had their nature, and
G-d's guidance.

There again, I don't believe that 'the Injeel' is the four Gospels either.
Nevertheless, the Christians have their messenger and message!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How childish.. Try replying to my posts, instead of making spurious comments.. You say your comment applies to historical texts, but you don't suggest HOW you employ "empirical evidence" to decide on their accuracy. I'm sure that you don't reject the whole of mankind's history!

I just realized that my referral to Socrates and Jesus that I said I made to you was to another poster on another thread. Apologies. Perhaps this will answer your question:

He: "when you accept the evidence for the existence of many Hellenic teachers, do you apply the same standards as to the existence of Jesus?"
Me: "You didn't ask me, but my answer is yes. Why would a critical thinker introduce a second set of standards for evaluating evidence? Did Jesus and Socrates really live? Did one die on a cross and the other from drinking poison? Probably, but nobody knows. In each case, what we think we know comes second-hand, and in each case, it doesn't really matter if either of those people actually lived, so we can be agnostic about it and say maybe they did, maybe they didn't. One standard for both."

Hopefully, that answers your question. I'm agnostic about most historical claims. Does it really matter if Caesar ever lived? I think the evidence there is robust, but there's room for doubt. Does it matter whether Shakespeare was the author of the plays attributed to him. Some contend that it was somebody else. Once again, there's room for doubt, and once again, it doesn't really matter. Was there a historical Jesus? Maybe, maybe not, and once again, unless you consider him a god, it doesn't matter. I remain agnostic on all of these matters. And all of these conclusions however tentative are based in evidence and are thus empirically derived. As we move closer to present times, the likelihood that say an Abraham Lincoln or and FDR actually existed becomes so close to 1 that it becomes unreasonable to think that they didn't.

Now, to the other matter. Let's review our discussion:

You: "Both Christians & Muslims believe that, in effect.. i.e. he rose up to heaven to be with "his father"
Me: "As we just discussed, they have no reason to believe that. All they have are their books claiming that something like that happened, which is evidence of nothing except that people chose to write that story down. It's not even evidence that the writers believed it themselves. They're just words, just claims."
You "They are more than just words. Most historical texts are"
Me: "No, books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink"
You: "You seem to be purposely ignoring the context .. which is historical texts. Do you believe ANY historical text? How can you empirically prove them to be accurate?"
Me: "Historical texts are no different from any other text. My comment above applies to them as well. How about addressing what was written to you, which was, "books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink." Do you agree? If not, what part of that do you consider incorrect and why?"

You began by referring to scripture and then claimed that you were talking about historical texts. I consider both the Bibler and Qur'an to be historical texts whenever they report about some person or event from their past. Thus, the Exodus story purports to be history. So do the garden story and the flood story. If were referring to other texts, then you've moved the goalpost, but no matter, as my comments refer not just to scripture and not just what others call history books, but ALL written and spoken words.

Now how about addressing the claims made there? Books are just printing on paper, and that includes both scripture and other history and non-history books. You say that historical texts are more than just words. Were you referring to page numbers and photographs?

 

[Trailblazer]

Me: All they have are their books claiming that something like that happened, which is evidence of nothing except that people chose to write that story down.

Hey, that's my line.
I got it from an atheist I posted to for 8 years on other forums, when he was talking about the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I have changed it over the years, but the gist of it is that a story is only evidence that someone can write a story, not evidence that anything in the story ever took place.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I just realized that my referral to Socrates and Jesus that I said I made to you was to another poster on another thread. Apologies. Perhaps this will answer your question:

I'm confused..

He: "when you accept the evidence for the existence of many Hellenic teachers, do you apply the same standards as to the existence of Jesus?"
Me: "You didn't ask me, but my answer is yes. Why would a critical thinker introduce a second set of standards for evaluating evidence? Did Jesus and Socrates really live? Did one die on a cross and the other from drinking poison? Probably, but nobody knows. In each case, what we think we know comes second-hand, and in each case, it doesn't really matter if either of those people actually lived, so we can be agnostic about it and say maybe they did, maybe they didn't. One standard for both."

..still confused..

I'm agnostic about most historical claims. Does it really matter if Caesar ever lived? I think the evidence there is robust, but there's room for doubt. Does it matter whether Shakespeare was the author of the plays attributed to him. Some contend that it was somebody else. Once again, there's room for doubt, and once again, it doesn't really matter. Was there a historical Jesus? Maybe, maybe not, and once again, unless you consider him a god, it doesn't matter. I remain agnostic on all of these matters..

I would agree with you that the further we go back, the harder it is to "pin down", and
hence its accuracy begins to be in question.

As we move closer to present times, the likelihood that say an Abraham Lincoln or and FDR actually existed becomes so close to 1 that it becomes unreasonable to think that they didn't.

Agreed .. but it's not so much a case of evidence, as it is the timescale.
Documents exist, but not many from 10,000 years ago, no.

Now, to the other matter. Let's review our discussion:

You: "Both Christians & Muslims believe that, in effect.. i.e. he rose up to heaven to be with "his father"
Me: "As we just discussed, they have no reason to believe that. All they have are their books claiming that something like that happened, which is evidence of nothing except that people chose to write that story down. It's not even evidence that the writers believed it themselves. They're just words, just claims."
You "They are more than just words. Most historical texts are"
Me: "No, books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink"
You: "You seem to be purposely ignoring the context .. which is historical texts. Do you believe ANY historical text? How can you empirically prove them to be accurate?"
Me: "Historical texts are no different from any other text. My comment above applies to them as well. How about addressing what was written to you, which was, "books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink." Do you agree? If not, what part of that do you consider incorrect and why?"

You began by referring to scripture and then claimed that you were talking about historical texts..

Well they are!
What do YOU think they are .. written relatively recently?

I consider both the Bibler and Qur'an to be historical texts whenever they report about some person or event from their past. Thus, the Exodus story purports to be history. So do the garden story and the flood story. If were referring to other texts, then you've moved the goalpost..

No I haven't .. plus you are ignoring the fact that the OT has some ancient texts that are very likely
to be inaccurate, for reasons just discussed above .. as well as other reasons.

..but no matter, as my comments refer not just to scripture and not just what others call history books, but ALL written and spoken words..

Agreed .. all written books need to be scrutinised, and evaluated as a whole.

You say that historical texts are more than just words. Were you referring to page numbers and photographs?

Ha! I mean that the words represent something .. concepts, meaning .. and reporting events.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

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

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

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

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

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

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

What's your evidence for what god?

 

[Trailblazer]

What's your evidence for what god?

I believe there is only one God and the evidence for that God is the Messengers of God that God sends.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I believe there is only one God and the evidence for that God is the Messengers of God that God sends.

Okay. What's your evidence that the messengers are from god? Where did you get that inclination?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay. What's your evidence that the messengers are from god? Where did you get that inclination?

The evidence is the character of the Messengers, what they did on their mission, and what they revealed to others or wrote in their own pen.

 

[ChieftheCef]

The evidence is the character of the Messengers, what they did on their mission, and what they revealed to others or wrote in their own pen.

How do we know they are messengers?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do we know they are messengers?

How do we know people are pop-stars?

 

[ChieftheCef]

How do we know people are pop-stars?

Because we see with our eyes, no one's second guessing them, it's not even a matter of question. Muhammad was even worthy of uttering that god is singular, when his actions show us, ultimately, pagan ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do we know they are messengers?

We cannot know that as a fact, since it cannot be proven. We can only believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because we see with our eyes, no one's second guessing them, it's not even a matter of question.

It's not even a matter of question for those of us who believe in the Messengers even though we cannot see them with our eyes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because we see with our eyes, no one's second guessing them, it's not even a matter of question..

In a similar way, we have people who have "seen with their eyes", and not second guessing
them .. the companions of the messengers, for example.

 

[ChieftheCef]

It's not even a matter of question for those of us who believe in the Messengers even though we cannot see them with our eyes.

How do you sense them?

 

[ChieftheCef]

We cannot know that as a fact, since it cannot be proven. We can only believe it.

Why do you believe it? What benefit is it to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you sense them?

I do not sense them. I look at what they did and what they wrote.