Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[idea]

I changed my mind, or my mi d was changed. It does come down to environment - past and present. Past includes travel and exposure to different cultures. Joined fir community/kids, thought it taught good lifestyle. Changed after seeing child abuse by church leader that was covered up by other church leaders. Realized it taught racism, sexism, codependency.

 

[jes-us]

I didn't miss your point. I rejected it.

You are welcome to reject it but then you will always remain wrong .

 

[ppp]

You are welcome to reject it but then you will always remain wrong .

And before the mods get all fusty and start clutching their pearls, that is a cackle of glee. Not mockery.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

I can't.

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.

Thank you for that. I agree.

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. I do not believe He had revelations from God "because he said so." I believe because of the evidence.

That's hard for me to understand. I can't understand how you can get from the evidence you offer to a god belief. Gods are believed by faith, not evidence, or else all or almost all critical thinkers and empiricists would be theists. It's not uncommon for faith-based thinkers to reverse engineer evidenced arguments to support their beliefs, but they're never convincing, and most if not all skeptics don't really believes that they got to their god belief using it.

But maybe you're different. I also consider you sincere. You have convinced me that you do not like the god you believe in and that you would prefer it didn't exist. I have never encountered anybody else with that position.

I have a good method and I used it.

You use rogue logic - your own rules.

All you have is an opinion about the evidence.

I'd say that that's all YOU have. Unlike you, he has a proven method for evaluating evidence, which makes it more than an opinion.

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

I have said the same to you as well. There is nothing about the life or words of any messenger or prophet that isn't very human. That's a valid opinion unless you think you can falsify it by producing something in that testimony or biography that a man could not say or do by himself. You think otherwise. That's why what HE has is a sound, falsifiable conclusion and your contrary opinion only an opinion.

Some things cannot be demonstrated, but that does not mean they are not true.

It means that they shouldn't be called true or believed to be true.

They could be true, false, unknown to be true or false, or they could be unknowable.

Agreed, and only the first of those four - things KNOWN to be true - should be called truth.

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

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

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71
In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

You were discussing begging the question earlier. This is what that looks like. You start out well with (1) and (2), although I would add (3) cannot demonstrate that he exists, but that doesn't change my point, so let's stipulate to one of those two being the case, or word it either God exists or doesn't. You then present an argument that assumes (1).

The thread starter , posted a post from her mind . I changed her mind by rearranging her own words in reply . Yes I can change minds. Changing ones mind is simply rearranging words in ones head.

I think you misunderstood the OP. It's not about whether one can change another's mind, but rather, whether one can believe something himself because he chooses to. Also, that's a trivial interpretation of a mind changing. I'm pretty sure she means changing a belief, not just presenting sensory input. You didn't do that.

your mind is closed, and will only accept your own version / interpretation .. and that is one in which G-d does not exist.

Translation: You will not relax your standards for belief to allow my god into your belief set. You require evidence that I can't provide and don't require myself.

You mean that you cannot detect the non-physical, by examining the physical?

No, he can't, and neither can I, you, or anybody else. I understand comments like yours to mean that you have a sincerely help belief and intuition that you misunderstand, failing to discern that you sense your own mind, not something outside of it, and mistake that as receiving sensory input from a place that nobody should expect to find because it has none of the qualities we find in things that we know exist, like the sun.

Perhaps it suits you to point at all these varying creeds of ancient history, in order to put out the light of truth?

What you call truth is not that to an empiricist (see above). Nor is it knowledge.

..but when a court decides somebody is guilty of a crime, it is not their "meat" that they
are judging .. it's their intentions and actions.
i.e. it is a matter of the soul

I call that the mind. The idea of a soul adds nothing to understanding minds or their intentions.

 

[ppp]

I do think it's a pretty good religion to believe in, if a person needs or wants to believe in a religion. But I can't totally give in to all of its claims and beliefs. And that's what's annoying... some people do go all in on Baha'is, Christianity, Islam or some belief. Then, they tell those of us that don't believe, how wrong we are, and how blind to the truth, as they see it, we are.

It's certainly the least harmful of the Abrahamic religions, if only because of it's lack of power and population. But I think that it is the most corrosive.

1. They have an aggressive ethos of appropriation - other cultures as being mere shadows of their own
2. they place themselves as the essential saviors and ultimate rulers of all humanity; and as a group,
3. they do nothing of demonstrable value for real people (individuals or groups) all the while promoting themselves as the bastions of moral competency. At least the Jews, Christians and Muslims make the effort; and have even been known to make a difference.

While I certainly would not saddle Bahai'i Faith with the nasty racial aspects, I have a hard time distinguishing the nature of their talking points from those of the Christian Nationalist in the US.

I would be happy to see and acknowledge some demonstration to the contrary.

 

[Trailblazer]

Leave aside the Eastern religions, Dharmic, Chinese or Japanese, which have nothing in common with Bahais.

It is not true that none of the Eastern religions have anything in common with the Baha'i Faith.
The Baha'i Faith has a lot in common with Buddhism, although there are also some important differences.

Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

I really like Buddhist philosophy and I might have been a Buddhist if I had not become a Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's certainly the least harmful of the Abrahamic religions, if only because of it's lack of power and population. But I think that it is the most corrosive.

1. They have an aggressive ethos of appropriation - other cultures as being mere shadows of their own
2. they place themselves as the essential saviors and ultimate rulers of all humanity; and as a group,
3. they do nothing of demonstrable value for real people (individuals or groups) all the while promoting themselves as the bastions of moral competency. At least the Jews, Christians and Muslims make the effort; and have even been known to make a difference.

All of what you listed in 1-3 is patently false.

Please bear in mind that I have been a Baha'i for 53 years and I have lived in many states during that time and I have been part of many different Baha'i communities, so I know more about what Baha'is 'think and do' than you do.

Please note that this forum does not represent what Baha'is think or do in the real world.

Of course your view of the Baha'i Faith has been tarnished by all the anti-Baha'i rhetoric on this forum.
You can choose to believe those people or you can do your own research and think for yourself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I call that the mind. The idea of a soul adds nothing to understanding minds or their intentions.

You may call it what you like .. and 'brain' does not equal 'mind'.

The brain is a physical organ in the body, whereas the mind encompasses a
non-physical concept of self.

 

[Link]

Going back to the OP. There is a such thing as cognitive dissonance. That is to hold two beliefs, one you think you have, but you inwardly act against it. You testify to one, but your actions speak of the opposite.

Per Quran, truthfulness will make one testify to the truth. Everyone else is lying to themselves about who they are to themselves even let alone others. The truthful actually try to hide their inward closeness to God as much as possible and not attribute themselves purity in reputation which even if they are pure, they cannot prove nor want to because their reward is from God. The exception is the chosen ones, who God proves their purity and attributes it to them so as to guide the rest.

There are some people who are outwardly friends of God but inwardly his enemies. If you face the Qibla and do not despair of all things but God, and say Takbir, it's a lie and deception to oneself. The people don't truly believe in the nature of God being greater then all rewards and that he should be alone worshipped if they wake up desiring other than God.

The Quran foremost thing is to awaken ourselves and realize our self-deception. For example, if we do not keep up the daily prayers (Salah), we are not truly believers even if we tell ourselves we are.

If we get angry at people for our own ego and don't pardon people for God's sake, we aren't true believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can't.

Neither can I, not as long as I am certain that my beliefs about God and my religion are true.
Something would have to happen to cause me to change my mind if I was going to disbelieve in God or my religion.

That's hard for me to understand. I can't understand how you can get from the evidence you offer to a god belief. Gods are believed by faith, not evidence, or else all or almost all critical thinkers and empiricists would be theists. It's not uncommon for faith-based thinkers to reverse engineer evidenced arguments to support their beliefs, but they're never convincing, and most if not all skeptics don't really believes that they got to their god belief using it.

All I can do is explain my position as best I can. It starts with what I consider to be evidence of God's existence. I believe that the Manifestations of God (who I refer to as Messengers of God) are the only way we can know anything about God, so they are the evidence of God.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49​

Obviously, the first step was to believe that that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, as otherwise I would not have believed what He wrote.
I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God based upon the evidence that supports my belief.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have evidence. This evidence is not proof that Baha'u'llah received messages from God as there is no way to prove that, for obvious logical reasons.

Obviously, atheists and those of other religions do not come to the same conclusions about the evidence as Baha'is do. To Baha'is this evidence indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but it does not indicate that to other people.

But maybe you're different. I also consider you sincere. You have convinced me that you do not like the god you believe in and that you would prefer it didn't exist. I have never encountered anybody else with that position.

I go back and forth. Sometimes I would prefer that God did not exist but that is because of my feelings about God, which I consider an unreliable way to know the truth about God. Other times I am glad that God exists even though believing that does not help me ll that much with everyday life, which is what I need help with. So I am with you. What good is God is He doesn't do anything to affect our lives?

You use rogue logic - your own rules.

My method is not all based upon logic. If one wants to know what is true about God or Baha'u'llah, logic won't get you there.

I'd say that that's all YOU have. Unlike you, he has a proven method for evaluating evidence, which makes it more than an opinion.

Can you explain what you think that method is and why it is a good method for evaluating evidence for God or Messengers of God?

I have said the same to you as well. There is nothing about the life or words of any messenger or prophet that isn't very human. That's a valid opinion unless you think you can falsify it by producing something in that testimony or biography that a man could not say or do by himself. You think otherwise. That's why what HE has is a sound, falsifiable conclusion and your contrary opinion only an opinion.

You are correct. There is nothing about the life or words of any messenger or prophet that isn't very human, and that is because they are human, and they conceal their divine nature, which is in accordance with the Divine Purpose.

The Manifestations of God (Messengers) have two natures, their divine nature and their human nature.
The second nature their divine nature, is not revealed to the eyes of men, and the reason it is not revealed is explained below:

"... While the Manifestations of God all shine with the splendours of God's Revelation, they can reveal themselves in only two ways. The first is to appear in their naked glory. Should this happen, all human beings would witness their awesome power, would bow before their majesty and would submit their will entirely to God's Viceregent on earth. People would thus become puppets of God and lose their free will; all would follow the path of truth, not by their own volition but by capitulating to the irresistible power of the Manifestation of God………​

​

The only other way that the Manifestations of God can reveal themselves, which ensures the preservation of human free will, is to conceal their divine power behind the veil of human characteristics. Although they possess majestic, divine qualities, it is, according to Bahá’u’lláh, against the law of God for them to reveal these to the generality of mankind. Through this method people can exercise their free will to accept or to reject the Message of God, to live in accordance with His teachings or to disobey Him."​

​

Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 17​

It means that they shouldn't be called true or believed to be true.

If one can demonstrate to oneself that they are true, and then they believe they are true.

Agreed, and only the first of those four - things KNOWN to be true - should be called truth.

No, they should not be claimed to be true unless they can be proven to be true, but they can be believed to be true.
Religious beliefs are unknown to be true or false, since they can never be proven true or false, so in that sense they are unknowable.

 

[ppp]

All of what you listed in 1-3 is patently false.

Please bear in mind that I have been a Baha'i for 53 years and I have lived in many states during that time, so I have been part of many different Baha'i communities, so I know more about what Baha'is think and do than you do.

I live in a society where people who for 53 years have promoted policies that increase child pregnancy, and maternal and infant mortality tell me they are pro life, pro child and definitely moral. Where people who have been members of white nationalist groups for 53 years tell me they are definitely "on my side." Where people who have opposed queer visibility for 53 are lovingly supportive of their "troubled" brothers and sisters, yada yada.

Please note that this forum does not represent what Baha'is think or do in the real world. Of course your view of the Baha'i Faith has been tarnished by all the anti-Baha'i rhetoric on this forum.

So, listen closely. On this forum you are a real Baha'i doing things in the real world. You are interacting with real people who live in a real society (again) in the real world. You may find it comforting to think that non-Baha'i are the tarnishers, but that is not the case. The actions and deeds of you and your fellow Baha'i have primary place.

 

[Trailblazer]

I live in a society where people who for 53 years have promoted policies that increase child pregnancy, and maternal and infant mortality tell me they are pro life, pro child and definitely moral. Where people who have been members of white nationalist groups for 53 years tell me they are definitely "on my side." Where people who have opposed queer visibility for 53 are lovingly supportive of their "troubled" brothers and sisters, yada yada.

Who are these people?

So, listen closely. On this forum you are a real Baha'i doing things in the real world. You are interacting with real people who live in a real society (again) in the real world. You may find it comforting to think that non-Baha'i are the tarnishers, but that is not the case. The actions and deeds of you and your fellow Baha'i have primary place.

No, this forum is not the real world, it is just a discussion forum. Nobody is 'doing things' here. We are only discussing things.

You cannot know what Baha'is are doing in the real world based upon what a few Baha'is write on this forum. That is fallacious since it is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it just too small. Essentially, you can't make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy | Excelsior OWL​

 

[ppp]

No, this forum is not the real world, it is just a discussion forum. Nobody is 'doing things' here. We are only discussing things.

Then quit complaining. If nothing here can affect anything that is real, then there is nothing to tarnish and your complaints are not only moot, but imaginary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The brain is a physical organ in the body, whereas the mind encompasses a non-physical concept of self.

The mind is physical just like the brain. Perhaps you're conflating material with physical. The mind is not material as best we can tell. Neither is a photon, but it IS physical.

Everything that can be said to exist is physical. If it weren't, it couldn't be detected. It couldn't affect experience, and it would be meaningless ("not even wrong") to say it exists.

I believe that the Manifestations of God (who I refer to as Messengers of God) are the only way we can know anything about God, so they are the evidence of God.

This is your circular argument. It ASSUMES that a god exists and communicates with man through messengers, which message is then called evidence for the assumed deity, when it is only actually evidence that person claimed to be channeling a deity. You'd need something that he couldn't have done without the help of a god to call it evidence that his words and deeds weren't fully human.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have evidence. This evidence is not proof that Baha'u'llah received messages from God

It's also not evidence that he wasn't an ordinary man living an ordinary life and writing ordinary words. Anybody who wants to can live and write that way.

Can you explain what you think that method is and why it is a good method for evaluating evidence for God or Messengers of God?

Yes. It's critical analysis, which employs valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions beginning with any evidence or correct premise. It's analogous to arithmetic - a set of rules which, if learned and applied successfully, converts addends to correct sums. Vary from its rules of inference at all and you get a wrong sum.

This is a valid method to investigate any evidence or claim, and no other method is valid. Nobody gets a walk because they say that these rules don't apply to gods or messenger's messages or anything else they claim is real and exists. Why should they? Assuming that that is your position, what argument can you offer for why their claim that the rules don't apply there should be respected?

There is nothing about the life or words of any messenger or prophet that isn't very human, and that is because they are human, and they conceal their divine nature, which is in accordance with the Divine Purpose.

This is a statement that their words and lives are NOT evidence of a deity, yet these very same very human ideas and acts are what you say reveals that the message indicates more than a human presence.

Couldn't you also say that about a dog barking, substituting canine for human? It's canine life and "words" are concealed evidence (an oxymoron) for the existence of a dog god. If somebody did say that to you, what would your response be?

If one can demonstrate to oneself that they are true, and then they believe they are true. they should not be claimed to be true unless they can be proven to be true, but they can be believed to be true.

OK, but that's not good enough for the critically thinking empiricist. They need to demonstrate it to him as well. What people believe isn't interesting if they can give a compelling reason for others to believe along with them that their belief is correct.

Religious beliefs are unknown to be true or false, since they can never be proven true or false, so in that sense they are unknowable.

Those are reasons for me not to believe them, and why I'm an atheist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then quit complaining. If nothing here can affect anything that is real, then there is nothing to tarnish and your complaints are not only moot, but imaginary.

Who is complaining? What people say here is like water off a duck's back for me.
All that matters to me is that I conduct myself according to my own moral standards.

 

[ppp]

Who is complaining?

You.

complaining
/kəmˈplāniNG/
noun
the expression of dissatisfaction or annoyance about something.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Everything that can be said to exist is physical. If it weren't, it couldn't be detected..

That makes no sense..
Is the concept of number physical? No.
Can you "see or hear" my mind? No.

It couldn't affect experience..

Whose experience? Yours, or mine?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is your circular argument. It ASSUMES that a god exists and communicates with man through messengers, which message is then called evidence for the assumed deity, when it is only actually evidence that person claimed to be channeling a deity. You'd need something that he couldn't have done without the help of a god to call it evidence that his words and deeds weren't fully human.

It is not a circular argument because it is not an argument at all, it is a belief. Moreover, I do not ASSUME anything, I believe what I believe based upon the evidence. The evidence I have is evidence to me that He was channeling a deity. To call it evidence, you might need something supernatural, something he couldn't have done without the help of a god, but I don't need that.

It's also not evidence that he wasn't an ordinary man living an ordinary life and writing ordinary words. Anybody who wants to can live and write that way.

No, nothing about his life or words was ordinary, and no ordinary man could have lived or wrote that way. Show me one man who ever did so.

Yes. It's critical analysis, which employs valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions beginning with any evidence or correct premise. It's analogous to arithmetic - a set of rules which, if learned and applied successfully, converts addends to correct sums. Vary from its rules of inference at all and you get a wrong sum.

This is a valid method to investigate any evidence or claim, and no other method is valid. Nobody gets a walk because they say that these rules don't apply to gods or messenger's messages or anything else they claim is real and exists. Why should they? Assuming that that is your position, what argument can you offer for why their claim that the rules don't apply there should be respected?

It is obvious to anyone who has any logical abilities why this method cannot be applied to God or Messengers of God.
God and thus Messengers of God can never be proven to exist using a logical argument with a premise and conclusion, so there can be no logical argument with premises and conclusions.

However, that does not mean that God and Messengers of God do not exist since proof is not what makes either one of them exist. They either exist or not and proof is just what people want in order to know that they exist. You believe they don't exist but you cannot claim that they don't exist unless you can prove they don't exist. For the same reason I cannot claim they exist, I can only believe that they exist.

This is a statement that their words and lives are NOT evidence of a deity, yet these very same very human ideas and acts are what you say reveals that the message indicates more than a human presence.

I said: There is nothing about the life or words of any messenger or prophet that isn't very human, and that is because they are human, and they conceal their divine nature, which is in accordance with the Divine Purpose.
The caveat is that some people can see their divine nature expressed in their human actions.

Those are reasons for me not to believe them, and why I'm an atheist.

That's fine by me. We all think differently and for different reasons. I don't think we can change our beliefs or non-beliefs unless we start to think about them differently, and that usually doesn't happen unless a person wants to change.

 

[ppp]

That makes no sense..
Is the concept of number physical? No.
Can you "see or hear" my mind? No.



Whose experience? Yours, or mine?

Concepts don't exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

You.

complaining
/kəmˈplāniNG/
noun
the expression of dissatisfaction or annoyance about something.

Show me where I did that and I will admit to doing it.

p.s. You thinking it was complaint doesn't make it a complaint.