I tell you what, this is a good outline for a discussion. You take each three of these items and you offer bullet points of evidence that suggests your position is true. And then others will see if they are factual and compelling. Others will also offer evidence and arguments against your three items. This will be like a court case, where the prosecutor outlines their case, and the defense outlines theirs. We can let the group assess and decide who has a better case.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Whatever. I might copy and paste my post in another Bahai thread sometime.
This OP was only to settle what is the Evidence that can be used.
Thank you, you have now set the foundation that I agree with. This will be the evidence we could use in a court case.
Interestingly there is a great movie called the 'Man who Sued God'
It actually confirms this OP as to what is Evidence.
Regards Tony
The Buddha: an actual person, did not claim anything supernatural, said any follower could accept or reject any of the teachings.
The Revelation (Enlightenment): enlightenment is a state of mind that comes as a result of disciplined meditation. It is not belief. It is a state acheived after long, serious focus. In essence enlightenment is a realization of one's balance and self-awareness.
The Record of that Revelation.: Much of it is an oral tradition. The teachings have been recorded. There are subsets of Buddhism that differ from the original form. The forms that describe divinity is not synonymous with the Western ideas of divine.
From the given evidence it appears that Nirvana is the goal. Nirvana is an ultimate state of enlightenment. It is a temporary state, not permanent.
Now the quandary is what do we each get from the evidence and what is Nirvana, which can mean many different things, to many different people. A person can read about the concepts and teachings in books. This would be knowledge of the concepts, but not enlightenment itself. Enlightenment is the process as a person applies the teachings. The concepts are very abstract and could seem incomprehensible until a person engages in the process, and then there is a tangible experience that allows the person a practical context.
Now we get into the area of the reliability of the evidence, a different topic.
Also, what people determine from the evidence also requires individual investigation.
Regards Tony
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Equally, why can't people reject religious beliefs without being called a "fool" (from the Bible verse), accused of really believing in God but wanting to avoid doing as they are told, accused of hating God when they clearly state that they don't believe there is a God, and so on and on.
Nobody should be rude in what is after all just a place have discussions. I would suggest (seriously) though, that those who think people are rude here should lurk for a while at some other sites that I have visited. People here are saints by comparison with those places.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Monty Python said it all.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man: (pause) I’ve told you once.
Man: No you haven’t!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn’t!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn’t!
O: I did!
M: You didn’t!
O: I’m telling you, I did!
M: You didn’t!
O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let’s get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
progressively faster exchange
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn’t!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN’T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN’T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN’T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
(pause)
M: It’s just contradiction!
O: No it isn’t!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn’t!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn’t!
M: Yes it is! (pause) I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn’t, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can’t! An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn’t!
M: Yes it is! ‘tisn’t just contradiction.
O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn’t just saying “no it isn’t”.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN’T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.
A fictional movie and the point of it was to draw attention to the unfair practises of insurance companies.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Are you arguing in your spare time?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
After reading several pages of this, a question. Are you actually suggesting that people should not engage in debate when they believe contradictory things? In that case we should just shut down the debate areas of RF, right?
You'll never make any progress with the faithful, and I think you know that. They don't benefit from the arguments presented to them. They don't wonder why a dozen critical thinkers all disagree with them in the same way, a finding that a critical thinker understands means he needs to review his position and if possible, engage in dialectic to reconcile the differences.
They won't wonder why their evidence was rejected because they find no value in such arguments. They'll never attempt to explain why what they call their evidence points to their conclusions as we've seen repeatedly in this thread. None of the Baha'i posting here has even tried to answer why they think their evidence supports a god belief with anything less vague than because of the message or because of the life. That's life on RF.
But that doesn't mean that critical thinkers can't benefit from the experience. I used to call this exercise humanist school, complete with lecture and lab sections. We learn from one another, and we have an opportunity to observe how faith limits and distorts thought.
You've never looked for any information on this subject, have you? It is readily available on the Internet. Can't you imagine a series of small steps each conferring survival advantage? The Wiki article on the subject has illustrations.
I answered, "I don't know that the eye formed that way [naturalistically]." Why did you want to make it? What larger point do you think it supports?
Certitude by itself does not indicate knowledge. And what you call knowledge is not what the people you are disagreeing with call knowledge. Much of what you call knowledge is unjustified belief to the critical thinker. If I understand your words above, you consider you god belief knowledge because you fervently believe in something you say it isn't even established exists. Can we assume that you would also call that truth?
Nothing you say is difficult to understand, and little of your reasoning is valid.
You keep mistaking not being agreed with as either not being understood or your evidence not being looked at. Both are incorrect. You are very easy to understand. And many have worked hard to stop thinking with such a mind, but still know what it's like and what kind of output such a mind generates. I see it every day I'm on RF. I see it in your every post.
Nobody has asked you for proof of gods, just evidence that supports the belief. And what is enough evidence for you to believe fails to convince people more experienced in evaluating evidence. Of course, you find no significance to that observation. That probably stems from an "all opinions are equal" position, which you take repeatedly in the form of "That's just your opinion" in response to demonstrably correct propositions according to the rules of critical analysis.
Here's some more tortured thinking that results from assumptions believed by faith. In life, if somebody is asking you to believe by faith what can be demonstrated to you if it were true but won't, you're talking to a gaslighter. I always like to see the keys my wife says she remembered before we lock the gate behind us which we couldn't get back through without borrowing the neighbor's spare key. I would consider it a character flaw if her answer were that she could show me, but prefers that I believe that by faith.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Again... if you follow it for Krishna or Buddha, what do you come up with? Does what you come up with resemble any of the Hindu or Buddhists sects that are followed and believed in today? I don't think Baha'is do. The excuse Baha'is have given is that the "original" message has been lost. So, what are Baha'is basing their beliefs about Hinduism and Buddhism on?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Nobody should ever be called a fool or any other derogatory names for NOT believing in God. That is just rude and disrespectful.
Of course the converse also applies.
We all have our own reasons for believing or disbelieving in God and we should treat all others with dignity and respect. There is no verifiable proof that God exists and some people need that kind of proof. Others are willing to believe on faith and the evidence that "we believe" God has provided. The only reason 'some atheists' insist their position is the only reasonable or rational one is because of ego. If believers insisted they alone are right I would say the same thing, but it is usually not believers who are saying that, it is 'certain' atheists. Evidence
Yes, people on RF are saints compared to people on other forums, although there are a few sinners about!
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Which "frame" of reference are you going to take? A fundy Christian one that believes we are all lost in the sin nature that we inherited from Adam? The same Adam that Baha'is make into a manifestation of God? That Jesus is the only way to pay our sin debt to God? I think if a person reads the NT, they will see plenty of evidence that what fundy Chrisitan say and believe is true.
Yet, lots of people don't believe them. If it has anything to do with looking at it logically and rationally and not believing assumptions that must be taken on faith, then why not do the same and expect the same when looking at the Baha'i Faith?
There are just too many religious beliefs of different people and cultures that most all of us would say, "No, that is not true. That is just them making up myths." And what do Baha'is say about people that believe things they can't prove scientifically? Oh yes, that it's probably superstition. And superstition ain't the way.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Actually it's more that you "like" red more. Something in your brain or body feels better when you see red as opposed to other colors. That is actually a fact. You do like red more. It doesn't mean red has some objective superiority over the other colors.
And if I say "blue is better" I'm really saying "I like blue more", and that's a fact too.
And we are both correct.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
He should have said a "distributed negative". I can easily prove there are no elephants in my room. If I claim there are no elephants in any room in this town, that's a different matter. It seems likely, but even if I search the whole town and find no elephants I cannot be sure that the elephant wasn't moving from one room to another.
Expanding that to disproving the existence of a god should be obvious. We're now into searching the whole universe.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
But what if I believe in Vishnu or that Jesus is God. The God I believe in is different from the God you believe in. And since neither of us can prove our version of God is real, then who are the smart ones? Maybe the ones that don't believe either of us? But ask, "What is you proof and evidence that your God exists." And it all comes down to our faith-based beliefs that can't be proven. The problem with the Baha'i Faith, it can't merely be another one of the many religions out there. The Baha'i Faith must be the one and only true religion from the one and only true God. But Baha'is can't prove it.
All they can say is Baha'u'llah said so, and we believe him because of his character, his mission and his revelation. Which isn't much different than what others say about their religion. And they all believe theirs is the right one, and they all contradict each other. Like a Christian can say, "Look... who else walked on water? Who else rose from the dead? Just look at the empty tomb. He's not there. He has risen." Why not believe them? That's what the gospels say happened. But Baha'is make those things symbolic, thus eliminating their truth, and eliminating the contradictions between the Baha'i Faith and the gospels. Oh, and those Christians don't believe in evolution. How do Baha'is explain that? Probably that the creation story in Genesis is symbolic? That's fine. But then what was ever really true about the Bible and the NT?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is no such evidence because it can never be proven that there is a God, or that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God.
That must be believed on faith and evidence, or not believed at all.
I come up with a difficult task of finding reliable evidence, but not an impossible task.
Luckily I have other sources of evidence that can confirm Krishna.
Regards Tony