Is Homeopathy Effective?

[Trailblazer]

When a group teaches the same thing about some supposed ideal knowledge it at least does not refute itself.

Fair enough. That makes logical sense. There are reasons why all religions don't teach the same things but that's another story.

 

[Tiberius]

Why would I care what you and your sidekicks buy? I could not care less what you think of me.
This is just a silly forum, not real life, in case you haven't noticed.

You certainly seem to treat it like one.

 

[Tiberius]

Why would different religions teach the same things? Why would God send a new Messenger to reveal exactly the same things He revealed before? Why would the needs of humanity in this new age be the same as the needs of humanity 2000 years ago?

Some of what the new Messenger reveals is the same as what the previous Messengers revealed but some of it is new and different teachings and laws which were revealed to suit the needs of humanity who live the age in which the religion was revealed.

And that's exactly what we'd expect to see if it was all made up by people and there was no God.

It is possible that all the religions are wrong, and if there is no God that would be true.
However, if there is a God then it makes sense that at least some of the religions are right or partially right.

Why?

Even if there was a God of some kind, it's still perfectly possible that every single religion so far has been completely wrong about it.

For you to say that some of the religions are wrong so all of them must be wrong is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Ah, look at this, you are misrepresenting me.

I said that "all religions being wrong" was possible, and that it is consistent with what I see in the world around me.

The truth is a little more complicated and it goes like this. All of the great religions teach the same spiritual truths so in that sense they are all right, but the older religions have been changed and corrupted my man over the centuries so they are no longer as true as they once were. The Baha'i Faith is the only revealed religion that has not been changed and corrupted by man because Baha'u'llah put protections in place to prevent that from happening.

Yeah, every religion has something which they claim proves that their faith is correct but all the other faiths aren't.

All religions have evidence, the Messengers who revealed them and the scriptures that were revealed and the historical facts connected with their revelations.

Nah, they have claims which can't be supported.

You yourself have said several times that there is no evidence at all for the supernatural claims of any religion. The existence of God, which is a foundation upon which just about all religions are based, is such a supernatural claim. Thus, there is no evidence to support the foundation of any religion. And without the foundation, the rest of it collapses.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that's exactly what we'd expect to see if it was all made up by people and there was no God.

What YOU would expect to see.

Why?
Even if there was a God of some kind, it's still perfectly possible that every single religion so far has been completely wrong about it.

It is possible, but not probably, because you would have to explain how great civilizations came to be.

Yeah, every religion has something which they claim proves that their faith is correct but all the other faiths aren't.

And so? That does not change the fact that the Baha'i Faith is the only revealed religion that has not been changed and corrupted by man because Baha'u'llah put protections in place to prevent that from happening.

Nah, they have claims which can't be supported.

You yourself have said several times that there is no evidence at all for the supernatural claims of any religion. The existence of God, which is a foundation upon which just about all religions are based, is such a supernatural claim. Thus, there is no evidence to support the foundation of any religion. And without the foundation, the rest of it collapses.

There is no way to prove the supernatural claims, but that is not the foundation of any religion, that is just what YOU are interested in verifying.

 

[Trailblazer]

You certainly seem to treat it like one.

And you know that how?

 

[Truthseeker]

I am glad I got out while the getting was good. Aside from finding the Baha'i Faith, I will never be more grateful for anything than discovering homeopathy when I did. The homeopath told me that if I had stayed on the drugs any longer I would not have been treatable with homeopathy. In fact he said that most people who were on drugs as long I was, five years, are not treatable because the disease has been driven so deep.

That guy in Baha'i forums has a wife that has had depression for years and used different drugs, and their effect waned over time. I know how that goes for various drugs. However, the drug I am using for tardive dyskinesia is holding steady. The psychiatrist I saw last time said that was characteristic long term for this drug.

 

[Tiberius]

What YOU would expect to see.

And what would you expect to see if there was no God?

It is possible, but not probably, because you would have to explain how great civilizations came to be.

You've given no explanation why a civilization requires a CORRECT religious faith in order to form.

And so? That does not change the fact that the Baha'i Faith is the only revealed religion that has not been changed and corrupted by man because Baha'u'llah put protections in place to prevent that from happening.

Claiming again that only your religion got it right does not mean that your religion got it right.

There is no way to prove the supernatural claims, but that is not the foundation of any religion, that is just what YOU are interested in verifying.

"God exists" is a supernatural claim. I'm not really aware of any religion that does not make that claim, or at least some other supernatural claim, as the foundation from which that religion is built.

 

[Tiberius]

And you know that how?

You certainly seem to treat it like one.

You certainly SEEM to treat it like one.

You certainly SEEM to treat it like one.

You certainly SEEM to treat it like one.

You certainly SEEM to treat it like one.

 

[Trailblazer]

That guy in Baha'i forums has a wife that has had depression for years and used different drugs, and their effect waned over time. I know how that goes for various drugs. However, the drug I am using for tardive dyskinesia is holding steady. The psychiatrist I saw last time said that was characteristic long term for this drug.

I feel sad for the way he described his wife, but I am not going to say anything unless we start being friends and it comes up. I have not heard from him since he first send me a personal message. He said his wife was wondering who he was writing to. Forums is not something he has done before.

I am glad that drug is working for you and that you got financial help to pay for it... imagine if you didn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what would you expect to see if there was no God?

No religions.

You've given no explanation why a civilization requires a CORRECT religious faith in order to form.

I did not say anything about the religion being CORRECT but I do believe the religions were both correct and incorrect at various times throughout their history.

Claiming again that only your religion got it right does not mean that your religion got it right.

I never said that we are the only religion that 'got it right.' I only ever said it is the only religion that has not been corrupted because there were protections put in place by Baha'u'llah in order to prevent the religion from changing or being corrupted by man. No other religion had that.

"God exists" is a supernatural claim. I'm not really aware of any religion that does not make that claim, or at least some other supernatural claim, as the foundation from which that religion is built.

That's true, a belief in God is the foundation, but it is not the fundamental purpose of religion.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 215-216

 

[Tiberius]

No religions.

And why would religion be impossible if there was no God?

I did not say anything about the religion being CORRECT but I do believe the religions were both correct and incorrect at various times throughout their history.

Well, since you've already claimed that you believe that religion would be impossible without a God, then the implication that the religion is correct is there already, isn't it?

And you still haven't answered my question. Why does civilization require a CORRECT religious faith in order to form?

I never said that we are the only religion that 'got it right.' I only ever said it is the only religion that has not been corrupted because there were protections put in place by Baha'u'llah in order to prevent the religion from changing or being corrupted by man. No other religion had that.

So you believe that all the other religions we have today are corrupted, but still NOT WRONG?

How does that work?

That's true, a belief in God is the foundation, but it is not the fundamental purpose of religion.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 215-216

Except we can get that WITHOUT the need for a religion, can't we? We don't need religion to be good to each other. Otherwise you'd see atheists being jerks all the time, and that just isn't the case.

So, being nice to each other is not the foundation of RELIGIOUS belief. Religious belief requires a God. And that's a supernatural claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

And why would religion be impossible if there was no God?

Because religion is a Revelation from God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

Well, since you've already claimed that you believe that religion would be impossible without a God, then the implication that the religion is correct is there already, isn't it?

And you still haven't answered my question. Why does civilization require a CORRECT religious faith in order to form?

The implication is that the religion that was the basis for civilization was correct at one time.

Civilization requires a correct religious faith because what religion teaches is the basis of civilization. That does not mean that all the believers were correct about everything, only that the religion was founded by a Messenger of God.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

So you believe that all the other religions we have today are corrupted, but still NOT WRONG?

How does that work?

Just because they have been corrupted that does not mean that they are ALL WRONG. The scriptures and many of the teachings still stand as truth

Except we can get that WITHOUT the need for a religion, can't we? We don't need religion to be good to each other. Otherwise you'd see atheists being jerks all the time, and that just isn't the case.

So, being nice to each other is not the foundation of RELIGIOUS belief. Religious belief requires a God. And that's a supernatural claim.

No, you don't need religion to be good to each other, but whether atheists realize it or not they have been influenced by religion because religion affects society and you are part of society.

It is true that God is the foundation of religious belief because there would be no religion without Revelations from God.

 

[Tiberius]

Because religion is a Revelation from God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

Please show that no one can make up a religion.

The implication is that the religion that was the basis for civilization was correct at one time.

No it doesn't.

Civilization requires a correct religious faith because what religion teaches is the basis of civilization.

No it isn't.

That does not mean that all the believers were correct about everything, only that the religion was founded by a Messenger of God.

No, it means that it was founded by a bunch of people who were able to stay in one place because they had developed agriculture, and found it better to live in communities and trade rather than living in small nomadic family groups.

Just because they have been corrupted that does not mean that they are ALL WRONG. The scriptures and many of the teachings still stand as truth

And how do you tell which bits are corrupted and which bits aren't?

No, you don't need religion to be good to each other, but whether atheists realize it or not they have been influenced by religion because religion affects society and you are part of society.

Or maybe religion was influenced by the needs of society.

It is true that God is the foundation of religious belief because there would be no religion without Revelations from God.

Thus any claim based on religion is a supernatural claim, and thus has no supporting evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please show that no one can make up a religion.

They can make up a false religion but they cannot make up a true religion because a true religion is revealed by God to a Messenger.

No it doesn't.

No it isn't.

No, it means that it was founded by a bunch of people who were able to stay in one place because they had developed agriculture, and found it better to live in communities and trade rather than living in small nomadic family groups.

Lots of personal opinions.

And how do you tell which bits are corrupted and which bits aren't?

By comparing it to the truth from God revealed by Baha'u'llah, which has not been corrupted.

Or maybe religion was influenced by the needs of society.

That would only be true if the scriptures were not revealed by God and you are welcome to have that opinion.

Thus any claim based on religion is a supernatural claim, and thus has no supporting evidence.

There is no proof but there is supporting evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not anywhere near as lucrative as the big pharma. I suggest you do some research before you talk.

"Alternative medicine" is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Global Homeopathy Products Market Will Reach USD 15.98 Billion by 2024: Zion Market Research
Alternative medicine industry revenue U.S. 2021 | Statista
AAAS
Complementary & Alternative Medicine Market Worth $404.66 Billion By 2028
Americans Spend $30 Billion a Year on Alternative Medicine

 

[Tiberius]

They can make up a false religion but they cannot make up a true religion because a true religion is revealed by God to a Messenger.

Irrelevant. They can make up a religion convincing enough to build a society from, can't they?

Lots of personal opinions.

You've presented no evidence to dispute the "no it doesn't"s, and the claim that people founded civilizations as they developed agriculture has a great deal of support.

By comparing it to the truth from God revealed by Baha'u'llah, which has not been corrupted.

Begging the question fallacy. You are assuming that Mr B's writings and what he claimed was revealed to him are the best measure of what has been corrupted and what hasn't, which leads you to the conclusion that what Mr B said was revealed to him was the least corrupted.

If I decide that the Bible was the best measure, it would lead me to the conclusion that the Bible was the least corrupted. If I used the Koran as the best measure, it would lead me to the conclusion that the Koran was the least corrupted. If I used the Vedas as the best measure...

Ya see where I'm going here?

That would only be true if the scriptures were not revealed by God and you are welcome to have that opinion.

And you are welcome to have the opinion that they are. However, in this thread (as you have no doubt seen) your opinion alone is not good enough. You have to back it up.

Now, you may say that you didn't come in here to try to convince anyone. If so, I can only conclude that you just came in here to say what your beliefs are. However, in that case, you've already said it, so I have to wonder why you stuck around.

There is no proof but there is supporting evidence.

Once again, if it can't be tested and checked for accuracy, it's not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. They can make up a religion convincing enough to build a society from, can't they?

I don't think so. Underpinning all great civilizations was a great religion, e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam.

You've presented no evidence to dispute the "no it doesn't"s, and the claim that people founded civilizations as they developed agriculture has a great deal of support.

Of course people built civilizations, but civilizations would not have been possible without religion.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

Begging the question fallacy. You are assuming that Mr B's writings and what he claimed was revealed to him are the best measure of what has been corrupted and what hasn't, which leads you to the conclusion that what Mr B said was revealed to him was the least corrupted.

If I decide that the Bible was the best measure, it would lead me to the conclusion that the Bible was the least corrupted. If I used the Koran as the best measure, it would lead me to the conclusion that the Koran was the least corrupted. If I used the Vedas as the best measure...

Ya see where I'm going here?

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia

No I am not begging the question because my conclusion does not lack support. I am not assuming that Baha'u'llah's writings and what he claimed was revealed to him are the best measure of what has been corrupted and what hasn't. I do not need a measure because I have objective evidence. I only need to look at whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah have been corrupted and they have not been corrupted, nor has the Baha'i Faith organization been corrupted.

And you are welcome to have the opinion that they are. However, in this thread (as you have no doubt seen) your opinion alone is not good enough. You have to back it up.

Now, you may say that you didn't come in here to try to convince anyone. If so, I can only conclude that you just came in here to say what your beliefs are. However, in that case, you've already said it, so I have to wonder why you stuck around.

Once again, if it can't be tested and checked for accuracy, it's not evidence.

That is only your standard but it does not line up with any definition of evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

What you are referring to is not evidence, it is proof. Proof is not evidence. If you expect evidence for a religion to be scientifically verifiable that is an illogical expectation since religion is not science (fallacy of false equivalence).

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think so. Underpinning all great civilizations was a great religion, e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam.

And what about the Incas? They had a great civilisation, was their religion of Human sacrifice to make the sun rise every day a correct religion?

And what about the Australian aboriginal people? Was their religion true, or do you claim they weren't civilised?

Of course people built civilizations, but civilizations would not have been possible without religion.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

I prefer to get my science from actual SCIENCE books, and I prefer my history to come from archaeologists.

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia

Yes, we all know what it means. I thought you were going to stop posting stuff that everyone knew.

No I am not begging the question because my conclusion does not lack support. I am not assuming that Baha'u'llah's writings and what he claimed was revealed to him are the best measure of what has been corrupted and what hasn't. I do not need a measure because I have objective evidence. I only need to look at whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah have been corrupted and they have not been corrupted, nor has the Baha'i Faith organization been corrupted.

Are you for real?

And a Christian would look at the Bible and conclude that it had not been corrupted. A Muslim would look at the Koran and conclude that it had not been corrupted. A Jew would look at the Talmud and conclude that it had not been corrupted.

Your objective evidence is nowhere near objective.

That is only your standard but it does not line up with any definition of evidence.

Yes it does.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

By this reasoning, a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze would count as "evidence" to you if he said something you agreed with.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

FACT. That's a very important word there, and you have not got any fact, you have belief, which (as we have already agreed) is just an opinion.

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Again, this would include the aforementioned deliorious ranting person.

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Perhaps you should have looked at the bit about OBJECTIVE. Particularly the bit where it says, "Objective information is based on facts."

Because you have presented precisely ZERO facts to support the supernatural claims of your religion, and you have admitted that you are utterly incapable of providing such facts.

What you are referring to is not evidence, it is proof.

Proof is not evidence. If you expect evidence for a religion to be scientifically verifiable that is an illogical expectation since religion is not science (fallacy of false equivalence).

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

This doesn't help your case. All it does is show that what you have can never be shown to be true. And that makes it opinion. Not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what about the Incas? They had a great civilisation, was their religion of Human sacrifice to make the sun rise every day a correct religion?

These were civilizations but where are they now?

And what about the Australian aboriginal people? Was their religion true, or do you claim they weren't civilised?

I wouldn't know.

Are you for real?

And a Christian would look at the Bible and conclude that it had not been corrupted. A Muslim would look at the Koran and conclude that it had not been corrupted. A Jew would look at the Talmud and conclude that it had not been corrupted.

So what? What do claims prove?

Your objective evidence is nowhere near objective.

It is perfectly objective.

Yes it does.

Prove it with the definition.

By this reasoning, a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze would count as "evidence" to you if he said something you agreed with.

No, because evidence is evidence. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not.

FACT. That's a very important word there, and you have not got any fact, you have belief, which (as we have already agreed) is just an opinion.

I have facts and information about the Baha'i Faith.

Again, this would include the aforementioned delirious ranting person.

If I saw or experienced a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze it would be evidence that He was a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze.

Perhaps you should have looked at the bit about OBJECTIVE. Particularly the bit where it says, "Objective information is based on facts."

Because you have presented precisely ZERO facts to support the supernatural claims of your religion, and you have admitted that you are utterly incapable of providing such facts.

I never said that I had any evidence to support the supernatural claims of my religion.

This doesn't help your case. All it does is show that what you have can never be shown to be true. And that makes it opinion. Not evidence.

It has been shown to be true to me and other Baha'is based upon the evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

These were civilizations but where are they now?

What difference does that make?

First of all, it proves that religions you no doubt consider to be false still were able to support the rise of a civilisation.

Secondly, are you SERIOUSLY claiming that every religion you believe is true not only supported the rise of a civilisation, but that civilisation is still around today?

I wouldn't know.

Well, don't you think you better figure it out? I mean, depending on the answer, it has the power to drastically change your position in one way or the other!

Of course, I suspect you'll just take the easy way and just pretend that those religions and civlisations don't exist.

So what? What do claims prove?

It doesn't PROVE any claim.

But it sure DISPROVES your claim that the words of Mr B are the only uncorrupted religion.

All you can say is that it is your OPINION that Baha'i is the only uncorrupted religion. Which is meaningless because people of every faith believe their faith is the true and uncorrupted religion.

It is perfectly objective.

No it isn't.

Prove it with the definition.

Okay.

You provided the definition of evidence as, "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

FACTS require verification before they can be considered to be factual. If they aren't verified (and not your convincing yourself of your own opinion "verification" but actual verification where it is tested against reality) then they are just opinion.

No, because evidence is evidence. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not.

Irrelevant. The definition you provided would still include a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze as evidence because he is something that you can latch on to to support your position.

I have facts and information about the Baha'i Faith.

But as you've said several times now, NONE of those facts or information offer any actual evidence for the supernatural claims of Baha'i, do they?

If I saw or experienced a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze it would be evidence that He was a delirious person ranting in a drug fueled haze.

Deflection.

I never said that I had any evidence to support the supernatural claims of my religion.

So you've gone from saying you have evidence (the aforementioned facts and information), now you say you have no evidence...

It has been shown to be true to me and other Baha'is based upon the evidence.

And now you have gone back to saying you DO have evidence.

How about this...

No one in this thread has EVER disputed the claims you've made that Mr B really wrote those things, or that he really said what you say he said, or that he went to whatever places you say he went to. Those have NEVER been disputed, have they?

So how about you just accept that we are all happy to accept those particular claims. And in the future, let's confine our discussion to the validity of the SUPERNATURAL claims of Baha'i faith. Because TYHOSE are the things that people are disagreeing with. And when we are having a discussion about the evidence for and validity of the supernatural claims and you say you have evidence, people who haven't followed the thread might think that you are saying you have evidence for the supernatural claims, and that's just not true.

So from now on, if you want to say that you have evidence for the existence of Mr B, or evidence that he wrote, said or did certain things, save your breath. Because we aren't disputing any of that. You don't need to present that evidence because we already accept the claims, okay?