Evidence

[Exaltist Ethan]

I believe that God created humans, not that humans created God. How could humans create God? Well, I guess that depends upon who or what you believe God is.

Humans are creating God by understanding certain utilities that allow us to be more generous, wise, establish sovereignty and with the land we obtain develop unity among people. Are you familiar with the concept of Manifest Destiny? Apparently the Americans that settled here during the formation of this country developed this concept in order to determine that they could slaughter the natives and establish a stronger sovereignty, and unity, among the populace that originally inhabited it. I have talked endlessly about how humans are creating God. If you do not wish to understand me, or read more about how I believe humans develop God, that is not my problem.

I would still believe in no sex before marriage no marriages between two same-sex couples even if Baha'u'llah had not established that. I never had sex before I became a Baha'i even though I had plenty of opportunities. It makes no sense to me that sex or marriage would be between two people of the same gender since the human body was not designed for sex acts between same sexes. I consider it an abuse of what God created sex for, which is procreation.

Asceticism is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith, and at the same time, our society has developed so sex is part of every day society. Most people do not have sex for procreation. Most people do it because it feels good and because they want a bonding experience with their partner. I know you are older and probably already went through menopause, Trailblazer, does that mean, because you cannot have children anymore, you no longer want to have sex? Then why are you using these forums to complain to us about how you cannot find a suitable partner? I find that conservatives often get married too quickly because they know that can't have sex without it, and then regret for the rest of their lives that they made that decision with someone they don't even like. If the person you marry becomes someone you don't even like, are you obligated at that point to procreate with someone who you don't even want to bear children with at that point? What if you don't want children at all? What if you want to get married because of the financial security of it, but have no reason or means to have children anytime during your life? Because of my bipolar disorder, I decided to get a vasectomy at the age of 27. I don't regret it. Because I am infertile, does that mean I should never have sex again?

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh dear..
Who is to say that these "apocryphal gospels" do not contain some truth?
Why is it that the Bible canon which was chosen by men, is the only truth, and nothing but the truth?

Is that story about Jesus making birds out of clay and then making them come alive taken literally by Muslims?

 

[F1fan]

That is not answering my questions..

Do you deny that the increase in global emissions coincides with the industrial revolution?

It's an irrelevant question since the Industrial Revolution lasted from 1760-1840. This link will inform you of it:

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

The current global emissions is tied to many factors since, including population increases. The demand for products has meant more production, and often without adequate planning of the effects.

Do you deny how it was financed?

With money.

I suspect you want to make this about how evil loaning money and investment is. I'm not sure why borrowing money to finance business is any worse than having the money in your pocket. In my busness I use credit due to convenience. It would be impractical to chase down money from my clients several times a week to buy materials in cash. Do you have any other reason why it's bad to use credit other than "God says so" in an old book?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is that story about Jesus making birds out of clay and then making them come alive taken literally by Muslims?

Yes .. it is one of the miracles that Jesus performed..
..as he did in causing people born blind to see, and curing lepers.
This was done by the will of the "Father" .. as was the splitting of the moon by Muhammad.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's an irrelevant question since the Industrial Revolution lasted from 1760-1840. This link will inform you of it:

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

It is not irrelevant.
This is when global emissions started to increase.

The current global emissions is tied to many factors since, including population increases. The demand for products has meant more production, and often without adequate planning of the effects..

That is besides the point.
It is usury that enabled the industrial revolution to take place.
Since then, the world has expanded the usurious banking system worldwide, with each nation mimicking the original "central bank" system.
The result is impending catastrophe.

I suspect you want to make this about how evil loaning money and investment is..

No, because it isn't. There is nothing wrong with investment and private ownership.
The problem is the underlying financial system, which has resulted in small business collapse, and being replaced by huge international companies, which have multiple subsidiares etc.
They are in effect 'banking monopolies', that have been created by the financial system.

Do you have any other reason why it's bad to use credit other than "God says so" in an old book?

That is all I need to know it's bad, because there are scores of reasons why I believe God's laws to be wise and just.

..but I have already explained why it is bad. It leads to inequality and enmity.

 

[F1fan]

What is immoral about the Baha'i Faith? Okay, I get it, Baha'is don't allow sex between homosexuals, and don't allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry, but besides this one minor thing, what teachings do Baha'is have that is particularly immoral?

One minor thing?

To my mind this indifference by you is immoral. This is the sort of indifference to the pain and suffering of a marginalized group that allows more and more cruelty towards them. What if it was Jews that were prejudiced against? What if it was a prejudice of some group you belong to by virtue of your birth?

It is the bigotry in the Baha'i views that render it untrustworthy in any sense. Sure they have lofty aims, as most people do. But what actual plan do they have to make their goal happen? It's unrealistic. That sort of blind amition is rather funny to me. To my kind you make the planet a better place by advocating for tolerance, and baha'i fail that right out of the box with a bigoted attitude towards a group that has been making progress over the last 30 years in civilized nations.

If Baha'i want to sell themselves as a revealed truth and spiritual they will have a hard time accomplishing that as long as bigotry against gays remains part of their platform. Given the social tolerance and porigress in rights for gays over the last 30 years I find any religion that includes anti-gay attitudes is obsolete and sabotages any hope that it has a place in the future of civilization.

 

[Valjean]

No it doesn't.

This thread is about evidence. When evidence is given, you just wave it away as pointless.
..but that is what I expect. The life of the world is very alluring,
and people would rather pay homage to that, than acknowledge truth.

Generally, citations of evidence are met with explanations of why the evidence is problematic. They're not ignored. I know I've responded to at least two links here in the past few days, citing the problems with the articles linked.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

One minor thing?

To my mind this indifference by you is immoral. This is the sort of indifference to the pain and suffering of a marginalized group that allows more and more cruelty towards them. What if it was Jews that were prejudiced against? What if it was a prejudice of some group you belong to by virtue of your birth?

It is the bigotry in the Baha'i views that render it untrustworthy in any sense. Sure they have lofty aims, as most people do. But what actual plan do they have to make their goal happen? It's unrealistic. That sort of blind amition is rather funny to me. To my kind you make the planet a better place by advocating for tolerance, and baha'i fail that right out of the box with a bigoted attitude towards a group that has been making progress over the last 30 years in civilized nations.

If Baha'i want to sell themselves as a revealed truth and spiritual they will have a hard time accomplishing that as long as bigotry against gays remains part of their platform. Given the social tolerance and porigress in rights for gays over the last 30 years I find any religion that includes anti-gay attitudes is obsolete and sabotages any hope that it has a place in the future of civilization.

Fair enough. I should point out that homosexuals still represent a minority however. But the thing is, all change from the Baha'i Faith occurs from the UHJ, and if they don't approve of it because of what Baha'u'llah teaches, it's not going to change. And as I already said covenant breaking in the Baha'i Faith is the same as apostasy in Islam - declaring a new denomination that accepts homosexuality will get you expelled. If enough gay Baha'is put pressure into the UHJ they might change their mind, one day. Probably not, and definitely not within my lifetime. But it's a quaint idea that a progressive religion like the Baha'i Faith could have progressive ideas about morality and sexuality.

 

[F1fan]

It is not irrelevant.
This is when global emissions started to increase.

According to this graph the rise above natural drivers starts around 1960, and that post war economic boom is well established as the birth of the Amerian Dream in the USA.

That is besides the point.
It is usury that enabled the industrial revolution to take place.

Do you have evidence of this, and why is this wrong?

As I recall many of the big industrialists had money, and used their money to make more money. A lot of wealth came out of oil pumping and auto manufacturing. The basic goods of modern living meant there were designers and producers willing and able to fulfill the demand. Welcome to consumerism, and better living. You seem to have a sort of gripe against good living and modernity. Your previous posts suggest you aren't a happy person and have a grim attitude towards prosperity and happiness of others.

Since then, the world has expanded the usurious banking system worldwide, with each nation mimicking the original "central bank" system.
The result is impending catastrophe.

It have helped societies all other the world thrive, actually. It's helped people realize dreams. Now you could make an argument against greed, and cite the many occassions the global stock markets have collapsed. These have always been about greed and limited regulations by governments. But you are blaming loans, not gambling in the markets. Your claim is baseless, and ignores the good that banking does. That is bias, and a reason to reject your claim as incomeplete.

No, because it isn't. There is nothing wrong with investment and private ownership.

Yet loans are investments, you can't have it both ways. Banks and individuals loan money to make profit. Do you have a gripe with banks? Is that it?

The problem is the underlying financial system, which has resulted in small business collapse, and being replaced by huge international companies, which have multiple subsidiares etc.
They are in effect 'banking monopolies', that have been created by the financial system.

A lot of vague claims here, and a lack of detail and evidence, so I reject this as valid. You need to work on clarity and providing evidence.

That is all I need to know it's bad, because there are scores of reasons why I believe God's laws to be wise and just.

..but I have already explained why it is bad. It leads to inequality and enmity.

So you can't think for yourself?

 

[Valjean]

I always thought common sense (in my language "healthy peasant brain") means using your brain, logical thinking, empirical realism... independent of any education... as exemplified by Sancho Panza.

My point is, people have been using common sense, even correctly applying erroneous, commonsense beliefs, for thousands of years, with a very slow increase in general knowledge. When the new, scientific method began ignoring common sense and actually testing proposals, a considerable dichotomy between reality and common sense frequently emerged -- and the sum of human knowledge skyrocketed.

 

[F1fan]

Fair enough. I should point out that homosexuals still represent a minority however. But the thing is, all change from the Baha'i Faith occurs from the UHJ, and if they don't approve of it because of what Baha'u'llah teaches, it's not going to change.

And this sort of blind obedience is what is a huge red flag to me. Imagine if these people had total power in the USA or some other nation, would they think twice about members assaulting gays? Or if members damaged businesses owned by gays? Or if there was such a distaste for gays that there was a policy to move them out of cities? And if that becamse too burdonsome that camps were created to put them in? None of this planned from the start, but one act follows another because gays are lesser people.

You seem well educated and I'll bet you recognize what I was referring to as a real histocal event. My concern about morality among people who believe they have God's eye view is that they tend to suspent any moral sense they might have, and that can lead to dangerous consequences. I would be impressed by the baha;i leadershi if they adjusted their religion to modern moral advances, but that they refuse concerns me. We can't trust anyone who advances a dogma that isn't open to personal moral accountability.

And as I already said covenant breaking in the Baha'i Faith is the same as apostasy in Islam - declaring a new denomination that accepts homosexuality will get you expelled. If enough gay Baha'is put pressure into the UHJ they might change their mind, one day. Probably not, and definitely not within my lifetime. But it's a quaint idea that a progressive religion like the Baha'i Faith could have progressive ideas about morality and sexuality.

I think one of the best things for the planet and peace is that religions divide. Less concentrated power and influence. Look at the harm the massive American evangelicals have done by meshing with the republican party. As a result many republicans deny science and reject expertise that is crucial for representatives making decisions for the nation. Arguably Trump lost in 2020 due to aligning too much to evangelicals and denying the reality of the pandemic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the religious, marriage is between three central figures: the husband, the wife and God. Baha'is are already conditioned, like Christians, to believe that religious law is meant to be taken seriously, but acknowledge already that everybody breaks God's law at times. If I had to guess I bet there's plenty of Baha'is who have sex before marriage (just not @Trailblazer ) and there are plenty of gay Baha'is who get married. It's just not officially sanctioned by the religion.

Because the Baha'i Faith is one of the world's youngest religions, it's also a religion that promotes peace and tolerance amongst its kind. If they condoned sex between unmarried couples or between two men or two women, you remove the part of marriage that is meant to be for God. Before we had all this fancy technology, people were only able to reproduce via vaginal sex, so reproduction was a much bigger thing back then, keeping in line that you have your own kin and they stay faithful towards the religion.

Now that it is medically possible for two men or two women to have children, or simply able to adopt or have a surrogate, the concept of traditional marriage, which was focused on reproduction, is no longer as important as it used to be. My question to Baha'is, and to all of the religious community is: homosexuality is a natural evolutionary trait. In fact, being gay corresponds to not just being a homosexual, but being happy as well. If God made certain people gay, and everybody is God's children, doesn't that also mean that God condones those feelings too?

Now, I know this doesn't apply to everything. Some people are born antisocial. They're destructive. If they are God's children, then God himself must be antisocial, too, right? Well, what if all the good and bad of humans is also represented in God? What if God is everything humans are, and everything we're not, too? I mean, if someone who is antisocial is one of God's children, isn't it true then that God is capable of just about any behavior -- but uses us to enact those feelings? I guess God is partially antisocial, and definitely bisexual. God is all of these things and more.

But what we need to remember that destructive tendencies in humans, like antisocial personality behaviors, aren't divine characteristics in people - they are there to remind us of what good people have in themselves, too. Baha'is often suggest that you cannot know what good is without evil, and that evil is simply the absence of light, or God. If there was light, or God, everywhere, nothing would be good nor evil. I'm not entirely sure I can believe this, and I honestly believe humans will make enough progress to not only define definitive good and evil, as I am a moral objectivist, but I also believe we will go beyond that too, becoming post-moral too.

Conservatives will often note this study that suggests that waiting to have children after 21 and getting married means your chances of being in poverty falls to just a 2% chance. Religions often create artificial boundaries for people to help them achieve the most success at their lives. When I listen to Joel Osteen (which isn't often, but he is uber-popular) he often talks more like a life-coach to me or a success guru than a religious figure. Maybe both roles are played by him. But typically those who have sex before marriage are often having kids out of wedlock and possibly before they turn 21 too.

Baha'is who do not follow their own religious law has virtually no repercussions for doing so - except one thing. Covenant breaking. Claiming that you have a Baha'i-centric religion and wanting to create a denomination of the Baha'i Faith is such a no-no in the religion that you can be permanently expelled from it, just by mentioning it - in a similar fashion that the Islamic world treats Baha'i "apostates". Simply put, if you are a gay Baha'i who has sex before marriage with your same-sex partner, that might not look good for the Baha'is, but if a straight and otherwise Baha'i-law obedient was caught trying to divide the unity of the Baha'i Faith and thus covenant breaking, the gay Baha'i would stay Baha'i and the straight Baha'i would be expelled from the religion.

In that case, does religious law even matter anymore? Yes, all religions say things about God that he wishes us to do. For us to have a better, more prosperous society at large. But unless you get expelled for essentially breaking the covenant, it doesn't really matter. Of course, there are religions like Jehovah Witnesses that doesn't allow homosexuality, or anything different for that matter. You can be expelled for Jehovah Witnesses just by being a smoker! Of course, Baha'is don't like it when people smoke, but you aren't considered covenant breaking in the Baha'i Faith if you do, but you are covenant breaking as a JW if you do smoke!

I wouldn't be surprised if the UHJ starts to accept gay marriages, but I would be surprised if they allowed sex before marriage. As I said before, marriage for the religious is a contract between two people and God, and if you remove the idea that God needs to approve of your sex before marriage, why call it a religion at all? The way I see it, marriage not only shows commitment but it also shows to other people that you are taken. The ring that you wear, and the covenant you make before your friends and family - essentially your localized version of God - symbolizes that you will be faithful towards your partner. And how is waiting until marriage, and protecting that covenant, before having sex immoral at the least? Abstinence means no unwanted pregnancies, and no sexual diseases transmitted between a commited couple.

And remember, Baha'is forbid both asceticism and monasticism, so you can't play that card and say that they are restricting people in those ways, either. In almost every way I see the Baha'i way of life better, with a few small disagreements. In any case, religious law is meant to be taken as advice, not like political law which you can be arrested for. Atheists like you take religious law as if it is as serious as political law, and read the Bible and other texts as if the whole thing is meant to be taken literally. Ironically, it is only die-hard atheists and fundamentalists who do take everything these people say word for word. By understanding the symbolism these religions place, you start to understand where they are truly coming from - not what people like Ken Ham or Bill Nye want you to believe.

Sorry but that is just weak apologetics. What reason do you have that marriage has to be between a man and a woman and God? Why not a man and a man and God? Or a woman and a woman and God? Or if one likes to get kinky why not all sorts of combinations? As long as God is involved that should be good enough. As to premarital sex leading to babies that is more often than not the fault of the religions. You should know that. Do you need an explanation.

So how does your God defend his evil attitude towards gay people?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Wow. Just .... wow!

Sorry, I did not see it like that. The video was black. The music drowns the voice.

Yet good effort, I am a critic, not a singer.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn't.

This thread is about evidence. When evidence is given, you just wave it away as pointless.
..but that is what I expect. The life of the world is very alluring,
and people would rather pay homage to that, than acknowledge truth.

It does though It has nothing to do with evidence. I have a feeling that you do not even properly understand the concept.

Can you properly define evidence? What evidence would refute your beliefs? What evidence supports them?

 

[Trailblazer]

Asceticism is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith, and at the same time, our society has developed so sex is part of every day society. Most people do not have sex for procreation. Most people do it because it feels good and because they want a bonding experience with their partner. I know you are older and probably already went through menopause, Trailblazer, does that mean, because you cannot have children anymore, you no longer want to have sex? Then why are you using these forums to complain to us about how you cannot find a suitable partner?

I am not saying that sex is only for procreation, only that is its primary purpose. I never had children when I was married, but I did have sex. I no longer want sex because I have no sexual desire. I think part of the reason is because I have not had sex for so long, after I decided I did not want or need it anymore, and part of the reason is the decline in hormones that came after menopause. I think another reason is because of what I believe from the Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah about being attached to the things of the flesh.

In my opinion, something is wrong when older people are compelled to continue to have sex after the desire is no longer there and after the ability is lost, so they take hormones to pump up the desire and drugs to enable the functionality. This goes against nature, the natural process of aging, and it demonstrates how attached to pleasure people are in this materialistic pleasure-seeking society.

I am not looking for a partner to have sex with, I am looking to get married. I might have sex if I meet and marry a man who wants sex, because most men want sex, but I will cross that bridge if and when I come to it. One thing I do know is that I will not marry a man who places a high value on the sexual relationship, since that would mean we are incompatible.

When I was younger and first married, and for about 15 years after I got married, I placed a high value on sex to the exclusion of God and the Baha'i Faith. I can even remember telling my husband that if he had an accident that caused him to be impotent and we were no longer able to have sex I could not stay married. Now I have done a 180 and I am much, much happier. I never felt so free as when I decided I did not want to have sex anymore. Studies say that people think about sex about six time a day. I never thought about sex after I gave it up unless someone was talking about it on a forum.

Because of my bipolar disorder, I decided to get a vasectomy at the age of 27. I don't regret it. Because I am infertile, does that mean I should never have sex again?

I did not know that bipolar depression is genetic but it makes sense that it would have a genetic component. Both my parents had depression and anxiety and all three children also had those conditions.

I guess you were worried that your bipolar disorder is genetic so you would pass it on to your children. that is responsible of you to not want to pass that on. No, of course that does not mean you should not have sex. Sex is for more than procreation.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it's a quaint idea that a progressive religion like the Baha'i Faith could have progressive ideas about morality and sexuality.

Some things in religion do not change that much over time. Sex is one of them.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry but that is just weak apologetics. What reason do you have that marriage has to be between a man and a woman and God? Why not a man and a man and God? Or a woman and a woman and God? Or if one likes to get kinky why not all sorts of combinations? As long as God is involved that should be good enough. As to premarital sex leading to babies that is more often than not the fault of the religions. You should know that. Do you need an explanation.

Well the reality is that marriage is between two people and the state. It is literally a legal contract that is about material possessions and wealth. God doesn't resolve divorce cases, lawyers do. If marriage realy was a divine union between two people, they would never seek a divorce. Divorce would be against God's will.

So how does your God defend his evil attitude towards gay people?

And given that this is an absent God, the dirty work has to be done by the believers of God. Of course they are absolved of any guilt for harm that is caused, because the middlemen to God ensure the believers they are doing God's will. This is how evil is justified in the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you meant “random variation” then no there is no consensus.

If you mean any type of variation (random or non random) then yes there is obviously a consensus given that “variation” includes a wide range of possible mechanisms and obviously one has to be correct.......
But I would point out the straw man, since you are changing my original words

Sorry, but if you go by your original words you were wrong. I was merely explaining why. What makes you think that there is no consensus about variation?

Ok my mistake I meant random variation, not random mutation


But I have problems in spotting points of disagreement between you and I in this particular subject.......care to spot those points please?

Random variation is not a meaningful phrase this day. What else besides mutations would cause variation? And no, I get tired of restating what has been gone over countless times already.

I am not claiming that anyone has refuted Darwin………I am saying that we dont know if the mechanism that he proposed is the main one (random variation + natural selection)

If you disagree then please support the claim with a proper source……………if you g}agree then we can simply shake hands and move on

You don’t have to read between the lines, you don’t have to discover the hidden meaning of my words , this is not a trap all I am saying is that the claim

“organism evolve mainly through random variation + natural selection” is a controversial claim , that lacks consensus, and we simply don’t know if it´s true or not. (and my bet is that we won’t know anytime soon, perhaps next century)

if you claim the opossite (that we know with high degree of certanity that the claim is true) then please support it

If you are going to claim "random variation" then the only mechanism for that are mutations. If you claim "variation" then changes can come through gene flow and even the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction. But those are not really random since they depend upon existing genes:

Genetic variation - Understanding Evolution

If you just use the word "variation" then you are good.

Well scientists disagree on whether if mutations are mainly random or non random I personally view this as an important point, but if you want to claim that it is a secondary point, I guess it´s ok (we are dealing with subjective stuff)


sure

That is not quite true. They may not be totally random. Some spots on the genome are very well protected from mutations. When a mutation occurs the change itself will be random. If a mutation causes an early death it may seem as if that mutation never occurs since quite often we only see mutations after they have been passed on many times. So it could appear that some changes do not happen when they do. It is a complex topic.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Too much to reply to.

@F1fan , I do not view homosexuals as lesser people. And I hope you don't either. I do not think Baha'is view homosexuals as lesser people either, but maybe @Trailblazer could tell you better than me, since I am not a Baha'i. All I'm saying is that at one point in history it was considered to be better straight than gay for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean Baha'is actively try to stop talking to gay people. It seems like a lot of Baha'is are tolerant of homosexuals. But I don't know. Instead of grouping people into categories like homosexual or Baha'i maybe we should understand that each scenario is different.

@Subduction Zone , I am trying to understand both points of view. Yes, I consider myself religious, and I have even said I was religious, but I'm religious to a point. If I were in an established religion I would accept gay marriage as part of my mantra. I'm part of Earthseed, which, is probably one of the most progressive, but religious, institutions there are. In Earthseed God is change. My idea of God is that God isn't a being but a concept of a being, meaning, it's not the being itself that is God but what is does that makes it God. In fact, being generous to those around you means being generous to homosexuals too, and I support gay marriage as part of the institution of marriage.

The reason why I threw around the other side about the religious saying it's between a man and woman was trying to understand the other point of view. A homosexual couple cannot conceive children unless they do with adoption or science, and, typically doesn't have children before they are 21.

@Trailblazer , The most useful part about sex is procreation, I'll give you that. I'm not sure about primary though.

@F1fan , (second post), good points there. Maybe it's a combination of man (person), woman (person), God and state. lol. I don't know! I really don't know much about marriage honestly. How did we get here? We got on this topic to begin with during this point in the thread because I said it wasn't a big deal that Baha'is don't honor gay marriage. The same is true for Mormons but Mitt Romney advocated for the bill the Respect of Marriage Act. According to my LDS friend you cannot even be gay and Mormon at the same time.

I don't know. All of this is confusing. I'm trying to understand something that doesn't make sense to me. I don't think gay people shouldn't be allowed to have the exact same rights as straight people and enter in same-sex unions and marriages with each other. I think civil unions are between person, person and state and marriage is between person, person, God and state. But most people, even atheists, tend to get married and not just have a civil union.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The Holy Spirit is not evidence to us humans, but it is evidence to the Messengers since they know it is God speaking to them.

OK, Baha'is accept only Messengers as Manifestations. But the Bible is full of other forms of theophany. You say Holy Spirit is evidence only to the Messengers but the Bible says the Holy Spirit speaks (and is evidence) to all believers... This means message of Baha'i faith contradicts with message of the Bible. God must be a lousy communicator then.