Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Truly Enlightened]

I never pretended to be an expert on Communism. All I ever said was that given the precipitous drop in atheism during the 20th century and the precipitous drop in communism during the 20th century, it seems to me that those two are linked.

My mind is not closed because as soon as I get new information I take in that information. Of course everyone in a communist country is not an Atheist, but no doubt there are more Atheists in communist countries than there are in a democratic country like the United States, because most people are influenced by the ideology in the country they live in.

I am not going to accept that I am wrong. You can have your own ideas and I can have mine. I am not going to change my position. The mature thing to do is agree to disagree and move on.

One is accountable in court because the court holds people responsible for their actions. If people did not have free will to choose between right and wrong, they could not be responsible and they would not be held accountable because it would be unjust to blame someone for something that was not under their control. That is why those who are considered mentally ill or mentally impaired (not in their right mind) are not held accountable in a court of law. Anyone else is accountable because the assumption is that they are responsible for the crime. They are responsible because they have free will to choose between right and wrong. If they had no free will to choose between right and wrong then they would not be responsible and they could not be held accountable.

Not everything we do is subject to our free will, only our moral choices and other day to day choices we make. I can choose to murder my husband for insurance money or not so I am responsible for murdering him if I do. I can choose to post on this forum or do something else with my time. At this point, it is just easier to post what I believe about free will, instead of trying to paraphrase it.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?
Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them. Some Answered Questions, p. 248

You clearly are NOT an expert on Communism, or Atheism. Now you are saying that it only SEEMS that a link exist between the two. It is good that you can at least acknowledged this much. There are also many predominately Atheistic non communist countries, that have a higher percentage of Atheist, than Communist countries(Denmark, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, etc.). List of countries by irreligion - Wikipedia

You are clearly not an expert in Jurisprudence either. You are accountable for your actions regardless of your mental state. Do you really think that if someone commits a crime, who is mentally impaired, that he/she will not be held accountable for his actions by the courts? Everyone is accountable for their actions. It is the level of punishment that is dependent on how diminished their responsibility is. Not their free-will.

Having your own or different ideas is not the issue. Having the WRONG ideas is. You are just wrong if you believe that Atheism is directly dependent on the rise and fall of Communism. You are just WRONG if you think you are not accountable in court for your actions, if our free-will is impaired(nothing to do with morality or judgement). You are also just WRONG if you think that people will abandon their own religiosity, customs, rituals, language, and ideologies, just to become part of a Persian cult's new world order.

So No, I don't expect the rewired mind of any cult member to be open minded, or accept when they are clearly wrong. This forum is not equip to treat a viral, memetic infection. Having easy answers to complex questions is very appealing, especially to those who are emotionally vulnerable. I'm afraid that your claims are not realistic or credible. Your faith is just another of the thousands of fringe religious beliefs, that you have convinced yourself as being rational.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are the pot calling the kettle black and you cannot even see that. Your mind is as closed as a steel trap. It does not matter what anyone else says because you have your mind made up.

Far down the rabbit hole? Talk is cheap. What facts, logic, common sense, reason, and truth do you have?

Cognitive Dissonance and Social/Mental Conformity are powerful negative reinforcement tools is totally meaningless without any context. You have no context. Your only intent is to insult. If you do not agree with something you insult the person who believes it instead of explaining why you do not agree. I have been going down this road with Atheists for over five years so I know all the tactics they employ.

All you do is criticize and insult me as if I am intellectually inferior to you just because I believe in God and the Baha’i Faith. People who believe in God and religion are not intellectually inferior to Atheists. Atheists who say that do so because they need to feel superior. This is psych 101 stuff.

I never said that the Bible was proof that God exists. I said it was evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted by the one looking at it. Everyone looks at the evidence differently since humans are all individuals with different backgrounds and life experiences.

You are free to disbelieve whatever you want to and I am free to believe whatever I want to believe. My belief does not prove anything is true and your disbelief does not prove anything is false.

Whether something is credible to you has NO BEARING on whether it is true or false. It is either true or false. You have a right to your opinions and I have a right tom my beliefs.

Nobody can ever KNOW anything about God except through a Messenger of God. That is how I know what I know.

I do not need to make excuses for not providing evidence that does not exist. Take it up with God if you don’t like it. I am not in charge of the “evidence department.”

Are you ever going to stop obfuscating, denying and misrepresenting your own comments. Evidence speaking for itself is an idiom, not a literal expression. It means that the evidence is self-evident, and can be interpreted objectively. The Bible is NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF for the existence of God, a Messenger, or anything other supernatural mental construct. I am also not the one who is making any of these nonsense claims. You are the one ignoring your burden of proof. Oh that's right these ideas and truth claims, are only what you believe is true, therefore they don't require any proof. Since your comments are all unfalsifiable anyway, you could even justify your claims by using pixies and little green men. So if you claim that the moon is really made of blue cheese, my mind is closed because I don't accept what you say without evidence? How can you not see a problem with that logic. Sorry, the question was rhetorical. I do understand why you would not be capable of such introspection.

Your belief has nothing to do with your level of intellect(although some studies disagree). If you feel intellectually threatened, then maybe you should reassess your position. This is also rhetorical in your case. Cognitive dissonance, Conformity, Circular Reasoning, Repetition, and the fear of Social Rejection, are all powerful means of rewriting the brain. How cults rewire the brain

My beliefs are credible, verifiable, falsifiable, intuitive, demonstrable, practical, predictable, repeatable, rational, logical, and observable. Your beliefs are the exact opposite. I choose the former, and you choose the latter. Your belief in this nonsense is irrelevant to me, but your claims aren't.

Far down the rabbit hole? Talk is cheap. What facts, logic, common sense, reason, and truth do you have?

Facts, logic, common sense, reason, and truth do I have about what? That a belief in the supernatural, a Messenger from a God, an Afterlife, Writings from a God, are all unfalsifiable? I also claim that it is impossible for any supernatural or metaphysical phenomena to exist within our 4 dimensional reality, without leaving something that can be detected. So are you now asking me to disprove your personal belief with objective evidence? If I can't, does this mean that your belief is true by default? Please back up your claims with facts, not with just more claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

You clearly are NOT an expert on Communism, or Atheism. Now you are saying that it only SEEMS that a link exist between the two. It is good that you can at least acknowledged this much. There are also many predominately Atheistic non communist countries, that have a higher percentage of Atheist, than Communist countries(Denmark, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, etc.). List of countries by irreligion - Wikipedia

Yes, I know that there are a lot of countries that are predominantly Atheist, especially in Europe, but atheism is still on the decline.

Atheism growing? No, atheism is actually on the decline!

You are clearly not an expert in Jurisprudence either. You are accountable for your actions regardless of your mental state. Do you really think that if someone commits a crime, who is mentally impaired, that he/she will not be held accountable for his actions by the courts? Everyone is accountable for their actions. It is the level of punishment that is dependent on how diminished their responsibility is. Not their free-will.

I never pretended to be an expert on Jurisprudence. All I was implying is that those who are mentally ill, mentally impaired (such as brain damage) or mentally challenged might not be held accountable for a crime or at least they would get a reduced sentence. It is a given that if someone is accountable that is because they are responsible, and they can only be responsible if they have free will to choose. That is validated by some excerpts from this article below.

“Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......

As you can see from the appellate opinion above, our criminal laws are founded on the notion that if a person is not acting by his free will, the law cannot hold him “accountable for his choices”. There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts. Other criminal law concepts would lose their meaning as well, like “premeditation”. Is it realistic to speak of premeditation if freewill doesn’t exist? Is a robot on an assembly line in China premeditating the building of an iPhone? The mere fact that a robot takes several distinct steps to complete a task doesn’t render its actions ‘premeditated’. Such concepts should be purged from our criminal justice system if we’re all just biological robots.

Should science convince the world that free will is an illusion–we must move past notions of “punishment” and “sentencing”. This is not just intellectual musings; concepts of free will impact the criminal courts on a daily basis....... The bottom line here is best expressed by Professor Shaun Nichols in his lectures entitled Free Will and Determinism: “if science convinces us that free will is an illusion, we seem to face a moral conclusion that is difficult to accept: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes.” (The Great Courses).
Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

Having your own or different ideas is not the issue. Having the WRONG ideas is. You are just wrong if you believe that Atheism is directly dependent on the rise and fall of Communism.

I never said it was directly dependent but religion grew after communism fell.

Christianity Is Flourishing in Eastern Europe Decades After Fall of Atheistic Communism

Roughly a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, religion has reasserted itself as an important part of individual and national identity in many places where communist regimes once repressed religious worship and promoted atheism, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey of 18 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition to religious identity, beliefs and practices, and national identity, the survey explores respondents’ views on social issues, democracy, the economy, religious and ethnic pluralism, and more.
9 key findings about religion and politics in Central and Eastern Europe

You are also just WRONG if you think that people will abandon their own religiosity, customs, rituals, language, and ideologies, just to become part of a Persian cult's new world order.

Since you cannot predict the future you cannot say I am wrong about that.

The Baha’i Faith is not a Persian cult. It is a world religion.

So No, I don't expect the rewired mind of any cult member to be open minded, or accept when they are clearly wrong.

I am not a cult member because the Baha’i Faith is not a cult. It is a widely recognized world religion. That is just a way to try to denigrate it but it won’t work. Anyone with any kind of education about religion knows the Baha’i Faith is a world religion. The fact that it is still small compared to the major world religions has nothing to do with it. Christianity was much smaller than the Baha’i Faith 155 years after Jesus declared His mission.

This forum is not equip to treat a viral, memetic infection. Having easy answers to complex questions is very appealing, especially to those who are emotionally vulnerable. I'm afraid that your claims are not realistic or credible. Your faith is just another of the thousands of fringe religious beliefs, that you have convinced yourself as being rational.

Being credible to Atheists or other religionists has nothing to do with whether the Baha’i Faith is actually a religion of God. It either is or it isn’t. I know it is but you are free to believe whatever you want to.

The Baha’i Faith is not a fringe belief. It is a widely recognized world religion.

Governments Recognize Baha’u’llah’s Bicentenary—Globally
Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s Writings Opens at British Museum

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you ever going to stop obfuscating, denying and misrepresenting your own comments. Evidence speaking for itself is an idiom, not a literal expression. It means that the evidence is self-evident, and can be interpreted objectively. The Bible is NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF for the existence of God, a Messenger, or anything other supernatural mental construct.

The Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ for one third of the world population and it is proof for a subset of those people. The fact that Atheists cannot see that does not change the FACT that the Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ (and Moses and the other prophets).

You do not get to determine what evidence is for anyone except yourself.

I am also not the one who is making any of these nonsense claims. You are the one ignoring your burden of proof. Oh that's right these ideas and truth claims, are only what you believe is true, therefore they don't require any proof. Since your comments are all unfalsifiable anyway, you could even justify your claims by using pixies and little green men. So if you claim that the moon is really made of blue cheese, my mind is closed because I don't accept what you say without evidence? How can you not see a problem with that logic. Sorry, the question was rhetorical. I do understand why you would not be capable of such introspection.

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything, and I never claimed there was proof, only evidence. Sorry you don’t like the evidence but that does not mean it isn’t evidence.

Your belief has nothing to do with your level of intellect (although some studies disagree). If you feel intellectually threatened, then maybe you should reassess your position. This is also rhetorical in your case. Cognitive dissonance, Conformity, Circular Reasoning, Repetition, and the fear of Social Rejection, are all powerful means of rewriting the brain. How cults rewire the brain

I do not feel intellectually threatened by anyone. I do not belong to a cult, I belong to a religion.

My beliefs are credible, verifiable, falsifiable, intuitive, demonstrable, practical, predictable, repeatable, rational, logical, and observable. Your beliefs are the exact opposite. I choose the former, and you choose the latter. Your belief in this nonsense is irrelevant to me, but your claims aren't.

What you call beliefs would be facts if they were verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable, and repeatable.

My beliefs are credible, intuitive, practical, rational, logical, and observable.

Why are my claims relevant to you, if you think my belief is nonsense?

Facts, logic, common sense, reason, and truth do I have about what? That a belief in the supernatural, a Messenger from a God, an Afterlife, Writings from a God, are all unfalsifiable?

So what if they are unfalsifiable? That means they could be true or false. I already know they are true. How I know is not something you could ever understand. You are free to believe they are false.

I also claim that it is impossible for any supernatural or metaphysical phenomena to exist within our 4 dimensional reality, without leaving something that can be detected. So are you now asking me to disprove your personal belief with objective evidence? If I can't, does this mean that your belief is true by default? Please back up your claims with facts, not with just more claims.

It can be detected by those people who are in tune with it. No, I am not asking you to disprove my personal belief with objective evidence. The fact that you can’t do that does not mean my belief is true. It is either true or false. Some of us were fortunate enough to realize that it is true but most people will not realize that for a long time.

There are many facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. That and the Baha’i teachings is why I became a Baha’i. I do not “just believe” in things without evidence. I do not even like religion, but I cannot deny what is so obviously true and it would not be in my best interest.

 

[Shad]

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action.

If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......

Intent is not an applicable clause in ever crime nor accident. Think about it. I could drive going 200km/h with no intent to hit anyone. I could get off manslaughter and only face a fine of $300 for speeding. Insurance may even cover the vehicle repair costs or total claim payouts. Hence why secondary conditions and actions matter not merely intent. Hence why my traffic violations establish a disregard for the safety of others and can be used against me in trial.

If a person had such a mental defect the trial typically would have them institutionalized for the rest of their life or until a treatment is found. It may not be prison but they are not freed as the grounds for not punishing them criminally is that they so mentally incompetent they are danger to others.

There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts.

This already exists. More so evidence is still required lest someone makes a false confession. A parent protecting their child. A business buying a scapegoat. Your ideas are nothing new nor unique.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes, I know that there are a lot of countries that are predominantly Atheist, especially in Europe, but atheism is still on the decline.

Atheism growing? No, atheism is actually on the decline!

I never pretended to be an expert on Jurisprudence. All I was implying is that those who are mentally ill, mentally impaired (such as brain damage) or mentally challenged might not be held accountable for a crime or at least they would get a reduced sentence. It is a given that if someone is accountable that is because they are responsible, and they can only be responsible if they have free will to choose. That is validated by some excerpts from this article below.

“Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......

As you can see from the appellate opinion above, our criminal laws are founded on the notion that if a person is not acting by his free will, the law cannot hold him “accountable for his choices”. There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts. Other criminal law concepts would lose their meaning as well, like “premeditation”. Is it realistic to speak of premeditation if freewill doesn’t exist? Is a robot on an assembly line in China premeditating the building of an iPhone? The mere fact that a robot takes several distinct steps to complete a task doesn’t render its actions ‘premeditated’. Such concepts should be purged from our criminal justice system if we’re all just biological robots.

Should science convince the world that free will is an illusion–we must move past notions of “punishment” and “sentencing”. This is not just intellectual musings; concepts of free will impact the criminal courts on a daily basis....... The bottom line here is best expressed by Professor Shaun Nichols in his lectures entitled Free Will and Determinism: “if science convinces us that free will is an illusion, we seem to face a moral conclusion that is difficult to accept: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes.” (The Great Courses).
Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

I never said it was directly dependent but religion grew after communism fell.

Christianity Is Flourishing in Eastern Europe Decades After Fall of Atheistic Communism

Roughly a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, religion has reasserted itself as an important part of individual and national identity in many places where communist regimes once repressed religious worship and promoted atheism, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey of 18 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition to religious identity, beliefs and practices, and national identity, the survey explores respondents’ views on social issues, democracy, the economy, religious and ethnic pluralism, and more.
9 key findings about religion and politics in Central and Eastern Europe

Since you cannot predict the future you cannot say I am wrong about that.

The Baha’i Faith is not a Persian cult. It is a world religion.

I am not a cult member because the Baha’i Faith is not a cult. It is a widely recognized world religion. That is just a way to try to denigrate it but it won’t work. Anyone with any kind of education about religion knows the Baha’i Faith is a world religion. The fact that it is still small compared to the major world religions has nothing to do with it. Christianity was much smaller than the Baha’i Faith 155 years after Jesus declared His mission.

Being credible to Atheists or other religionists has nothing to do with whether the Baha’i Faith is actually a religion of God. It either is or it isn’t. I know it is but you are free to believe whatever you want to.

The Baha’i Faith is not a fringe belief. It is a widely recognized world religion.

Governments Recognize Baha’u’llah’s Bicentenary—Globally
Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s Writings Opens at British Museum

We are making progress. Originally, you were implying that all Atheists were Communist, and that Atheism was directly tied to the rise and fall of Communism. Now we have reached the point that you have found a site on the internet that generally agrees with your belief that Atheism is on the decline. Now lets look at this in a more truthful perspective. The total number of Atheists and Agnostics is around 1.9 Billion people(2016). By 2060, by most estimates, it will reach around 2.3 Billion people worldwide. This in a clear increase in atheism by the year 2060. But compared to the rate of growth of the world religions its rate of growth is less, not the number. For those peddling this sort of beliefs, it is a chance to promote another half-truth. Of course you must leave out that the fastest growing religion in non-religious countries, is "no religion". Lets move on.

Is the Baha'i faith recognised in North Korea? In fact there are many countries that this faith is banned or not recognized. Bahai Faith is BANNED in Most Countries . Isn't it true that Bahaism was a Russian created religion in Iran to maintain its control over central Asia? Is it not true that "The Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís have had ties to foreign powers, and were agents of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and International Zionism?". let's look at some other facts. Only 0.12% of the world population is represented by this faith. It has roughly 8 Million followers worldwide. A ranking of 13th to 15th overall. Over 65% of its following is represented in only 3 countries(US, India, Africa). Hardly worldwide. Countries With The Largest Bahá'i Populations It is also the 2nd fastest growing religion GEOGRAPHICALLY, behind Christianity.

Many cult beliefs can be based on religion. But when that religion uses behavioural, informational, thought and emotional control over its followers, then that religion is a cult. If all you can do is parrot everything that you have been rote taught(including that you will never change), then you are a cultist. Whether it is an Iranian or Persian cult, is irrelevant.

The fact that it is still small compared to the major world religions has nothing to do with it. Christianity was much smaller than the Baha’i Faith 155 years after Jesus declared His mission.

I have no idea what any of this even means. Who has said that. What is the point you are trying to make that is germane to this conversation? Claiming to Atheist or not, that all faiths(and those without) will eventually join the Baha'i faith, because a Messenger from God told me so, is not credible or realistic. Except to a cultist. Are you suggesting that the Baha'i faith is true, because I am free to believe whatever I want? What does that mean? ​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ for one third of the world population and it is proof for a subset of those people. The fact that Atheists cannot see that does not change the FACT that the Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ (and Moses and the other prophets).

You do not get to determine what evidence is for anyone except yourself.

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything, and I never claimed there was proof, only evidence. Sorry you don’t like the evidence but that does not mean it isn’t evidence.

I do not feel intellectually threatened by anyone. I do not belong to a cult, I belong to a religion.

What you call beliefs would be facts if they were verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable, and repeatable.

My beliefs are credible, intuitive, practical, rational, logical, and observable.

Why are my claims relevant to you, if you think my belief is nonsense?

So what if they are unfalsifiable? That means they could be true or false. I already know they are true. How I know is not something you could ever understand. You are free to believe they are false.

It can be detected by those people who are in tune with it. No, I am not asking you to disprove my personal belief with objective evidence. The fact that you can’t do that does not mean my belief is true. It is either true or false. Some of us were fortunate enough to realize that it is true but most people will not realize that for a long time.

There are many facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. That and the Baha’i teachings is why I became a Baha’i. I do not “just believe” in things without evidence. I do not even like religion, but I cannot deny what is so obviously true and it would not be in my best interest.

The world population of children under 10 have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause. Do you really think that the nature of facts, is based on any popular consensus? We are taking about scientific facts, not social beliefs. One requires evidence, the other doesn't. One is objective, and the other is band-wagon logic. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of a God, then the Rules of Acquisition is evidence for the existence of Ferengi. I do get to chose the evidence that I want. My evidence must be observable, objective, falsifiable, and practical. What makes your beliefs rational, credible, practical, or observable? Lets hear your rational evidence supporting your claims. I certainly can produce the evidence supporting my scientific claims. I don't consider anyone's belief as being nonsense, but I do consider many religious or non-religious claims as being nonsense. I have no idea if a personal belief is right or wrong. But I do have the idea that extraordinary truth claims require extraordinary evidence. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims, then stop making them. Your beliefs are irrelevant to me, but your claims are not.

Something is called unfalsifiable BECAUSE no one knows if it is true or false. If it can't be falsified, then it can't be evidence for truth.

No, I am not asking you to disprove my personal belief with objective evidence. The fact that you can’t do that does not mean my belief is true. It is either true or false. Some of us were fortunate enough to realize that it is true but most people will not realize that for a long time.

Now this is the cultist elitism speaking. So you are the chosen special humans, given the gift of Godly insight. I really hope that He is not a trickster or the devil himself. Although for people like you, it wouldn't matter. You will continue to blindly worship, because that is now how your brain is wired. It is an enigma that on one hand you keep saying that you believe because of the evidence. And in the same breath, you claim that there is no evidence, but there is enough for you. I claim that if I don't eat, drink, or breathe, I will certainly die.These aren't even extraordinary claims. What objective evidence do you think I would need to prove my claims? What objective evidence do you think I would need, to prove the claim of a God, or a Messenger for a God? None, according to you. This is just cultist circular logic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you ever going to stop obfuscating, denying and misrepresenting your own comments. Evidence speaking for itself is an idiom, not a literal expression. It means that the evidence is self-evident, and can be interpreted objectively. The Bible is NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF for the existence of God, a Messenger, or anything other supernatural mental construct. I am also not the one who is making any of these nonsense claims. You are the one ignoring your burden of proof. Oh that's right these ideas and truth claims, are only what you believe is true, therefore they don't require any proof. Since your comments are all unfalsifiable anyway, you could even justify your claims by using pixies and little green men. So if you claim that the moon is really made of blue cheese, my mind is closed because I don't accept what you say without evidence? How can you not see a problem with that logic. Sorry, the question was rhetorical. I do understand why you would not be capable of such introspection.

Your belief has nothing to do with your level of intellect(although some studies disagree). If you feel intellectually threatened, then maybe you should reassess your position. This is also rhetorical in your case. Cognitive dissonance, Conformity, Circular Reasoning, Repetition, and the fear of Social Rejection, are all powerful means of rewriting the brain. How cults rewire the brain

My beliefs are credible, verifiable, falsifiable, intuitive, demonstrable, practical, predictable, repeatable, rational, logical, and observable. Your beliefs are the exact opposite. I choose the former, and you choose the latter. Your belief in this nonsense is irrelevant to me, but your claims aren't.



Facts, logic, common sense, reason, and truth do I have about what? That a belief in the supernatural, a Messenger from a God, an Afterlife, Writings from a God, are all unfalsifiable? I also claim that it is impossible for any supernatural or metaphysical phenomena to exist within our 4 dimensional reality, without leaving something that can be detected. So are you now asking me to disprove your personal belief with objective evidence? If I can't, does this mean that your belief is true by default? Please back up your claims with facts, not with just more claims.

Nice video

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the Baha'i faith recognised in North Korea? In fact there are many countries that this faith is banned or not recognized. Bahai Faith is BANNED in Most Countries . Isn't it true that Bahaism was a Russian created religion in Iran to maintain its control over central Asia? Is it not true that "The Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís have had ties to foreign powers, and were agents of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and International Zionism?".let's look at some other facts. Only 0.12% of the world population is represented by this faith. It has roughly 8 Million followers worldwide. A ranking of 13th to 15th overall. Over 65% of its following is represented in only 3 countries(US, India, Africa). Hardly worldwide. Countries With The Largest Bahá'i Populations It is also the 2nd fastest growing religion GEOGRAPHICALLY, behind Christianity.

You said “Isn't it true that Bahaism was a Russian created religion in Iran to maintain its control over central Asia? Is it not true that "The Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís have had ties to foreign powers, and were agents of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and International Zionism?" I do not think these things are true but you’d have to ask another Baha’i for a definitive answer. I do know some things through. The Baha’i Faith had spread to over 250 countries and territories within the first 100 years. Christianity is the only other religion that is more widespread but not by a wide margin. Of course that spread of Christianity took 2000 years, not 100 years.

Many cult beliefs can be based on religion. But when that religion uses behavioural, informational, thought and emotional control over its followers, then that religion is a cult. If all you can do is parrot everything that you have been rote taught(including that you will never change), then you are a cultist. Whether it is an Iranian or Persian cult, is irrelevant.

The Baha’i Faith absolutely does not use behavioural, informational, thought and emotional control over its followers. Explaining what I believe and quoting the Writings of the Baha’i Faith is not parroting. Everything I have been taught? Nobody taught me anything, I learned it all by myself just as all Baha’is do. There is no cult leader. There is nobody who controls anybody. Those are some reasons why the Baha’i Faith is a religion and not a cult.

I have no idea what any of this even means. Who has said that. What is the point you are trying to make that is germane to this conversation? Claiming to Atheist or not, that all faiths(and those without) will eventually join the Baha'i faith, because a Messenger from God told me so, is not credible or realistic. Except to a cultist. Are you suggesting that the Baha'i faith is true, because I am free to believe whatever I want? What does that mean?

It is a Baha’i belief that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, so whatever He said will happen will happen. It is credible and realistic to Baha’is because we believe Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith being a cult. Baha’u’llah wrote what will happen in the future. We simply believe what He wrote because we believe He speaks for God.

I said that I know that the Baha’i Faith is true, but you are free to believe whatever you want. Everybody is.

 

[Trailblazer]

The world population of children under 10 have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause. Do you really think that the nature of facts, is based on any popular consensus?

No, children do not have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause.
I never implied that popular consensus proves anything. To say that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

We are taking about scientific facts, not social beliefs. One requires evidence, the other doesn't. One is objective, and the other is band-wagon logic. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of a God, then the Rules of Acquisition is evidence for the existence of Ferengi. I do get to chose the evidence that I want. My evidence must be observable, objective, falsifiable, and practical.

You can want whatever kind of evidence you want but that does not mean you are going to get what you want. Obviously, if you do not believe the Bible was divinely inspired it would not be evidence for a God, it would just be a history book.

Religion is not science, you will never get the same kind of evidence for religion as you can get for science.

What makes your beliefs rational, credible, practical, or observable? Lets hear your rational evidence supporting your claims. I certainly can produce the evidence supporting my scientific claims. I don't consider anyone's belief as being nonsense, but I do consider many religious or non-religious claims as being nonsense. I have no idea if a personal belief is right or wrong. But I do have the idea that extraordinary truth claims require extraordinary evidence. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims, then stop making them. Your beliefs are irrelevant to me, but your claims are not.

I consider the evidence for the Baha’i Faith extraordinary. NO other religion has EVER has as much evidence to back its claim. That is the only reason I am a Baha’i. I have listed the categories of evidence on this forum many times: The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now. All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable if someone is willing to do the research.

Something is called unfalsifiable BECAUSE no one knows if it is true or false. If it can't be falsified, then it can't be evidence for truth.

I am confused. You are saying that if it cannot be proven false then it cannot be evidence for truth, but if it can be proven false it cannot be true.

Now this is the cultist elitism speaking. So you are the chosen special humans, given the gift of Godly insight.

No, it is not elitism. Nobody was chosen, but rather we made a choice. WHY we made that choice and others didn’t is related to myriad factors. Also, Baha’u’llah said that some of us are guided by God, but we do not know the reasons for that. I surmise it is related to the fact that the All-Knowing God knows who will believe so He guides those people. Conversely, God knows who won’t believe so God does not bother to guide them. This is predicated on the fact that we all have free will to choose what to believe and God does not interfere with our free will.

I really hope that He is not a trickster or the devil himself. Although for people like you, it wouldn't matter. You will continue to blindly worship, because that is now how your brain is wired. It is an enigma that on one hand you keep saying that you believe because of the evidence. And in the same breath, you claim that there is no evidence, but there is enough for you. I claim that if I don't eat, drink, or breathe, I will certainly die.These aren't even extraordinary claims. What objective evidence do you think I would need to prove my claims? What objective evidence do you think I would need, to prove the claim of a God, or a Messenger for a God? None, according to you. This is just cultist circular logic.

I never said there is no evidence for Baha’u’llah. I listed that evidence above. I only said that there is no objective evidence that God exists or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. This is just reality. Nobody can ever SEE or HEAR from a God who is exalted beyond any human understanding, but that does not mean that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got a message from God because He was the only one who experienced that communication. That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God.

Proof does not MAKE God exist. Proof is just what some people want. But since God does not provide objective proof that is why you will never have any. God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence and that is adequate proof for some of us.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Nice video

Thank you. If you list 10 reasons why your own s**t would be good enough to eat, there would be hundreds(maybe thousands) that would give it a go. This is a genetic and psychological weakness of the human condition. The brain(mind) is not always rational. It is a learning organ, not a moral organ. When it compartmentalize processed information, some information will simply slip through the cracks during the process. No one is immune to religious or non-religious cons and claims. Hopefully, like all other nonessential traits for survival, it too will go the same way as our vestigial organs, and be deleted from the gene pool over time.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You said “Isn't it true that Bahaism was a Russian created religion in Iran to maintain its control over central Asia? Is it not true that "The Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís have had ties to foreign powers, and were agents of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and International Zionism?" I do not think these things are true but you’d have to ask another Baha’i for a definitive answer. I do know some things through. The Baha’i Faith had spread to over 250 countries and territories within the first 100 years. Christianity is the only other religion that is more widespread but not by a wide margin. Of course that spread of Christianity took 2000 years, not 100 years.

The Baha’i Faith absolutely does not use behavioural, informational, thought and emotional control over its followers. Explaining what I believe and quoting the Writings of the Baha’i Faith is not parroting. Everything I have been taught? Nobody taught me anything, I learned it all by myself just as all Baha’is do. There is no cult leader. There is nobody who controls anybody. Those are some reasons why the Baha’i Faith is a religion and not a cult.

It is a Baha’i belief that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, so whatever He said will happen will happen. It is credible and realistic to Baha’is because we believe Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith being a cult. Baha’u’llah wrote what will happen in the future. We simply believe what He wrote because we believe He speaks for God.

I said that I know that the Baha’i Faith is true, but you are free to believe whatever you want. Everybody is.

Unfortunately, the things that are attributed to your faith ARE TRUE(for the most part). A simple fact check should be enough. But if you are saying, that you can voluntarily accept that a human being can also be a Messenger of an infinitely powerful God, then the rest doesn't matter. If you have arrived at your conclusions because you stumbled upon some random information(by yourself), and just KNEW that it must be true, then who can argue with that? There are many people standing in subway stations, also saying what their beliefs are, or being whom they claim to be. They also claim this to be a fact, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Some believe that they are the last passengers from an earlier alien race, waiting for the return of their ship to take them home again. They also claim that theirs's is a religion(scientology). Some believe that the American Indians are the descendants from the lost tribe of Israel. Or, that an box buried by the prophet Moroni(sounds like another word) in 421 AD, and by using some magical eyeglasses made of stone(peep-stone) and an Angel(Moroni), can decipher the “reformed Egyptian” language, and create 116 pages of the Book of Mormons(Mormonism). Then there are people that think that a created Russian religion deposited in Iran, representing a hotchpotch composite of other major religions, will somehow save all of humanity from itself, if only they just join(Bahaism).

If you were not influenced in anyway, to hold such profound, and fundamentalist beliefs, then my reality is clearly different than yours. My standard of evidence is different than yours. My standard of logic and reasoning, is clearly different than yours. If the idea that a Messenger from a God is not counterintuitive to you, then our intuitions are clearly different as well. If fact, all I hear is extraordinary claims, denials, and blind ignorance. Since there are no leaders, there must not be any hierarches, or levels of authorities, right? Is it the same as a bunch of people attending a public library, all searching for the truth? Can you pick and choose which rules to follow, and which to ignore? Can you choose not to participate in the "Naw-Ruz"? Did God say through the Messenger, anything about death, disease, pestilence, hatred, wars, and sicknesses in the world?

It is a Baha’i belief that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, so whatever He said will happen will happen. It is credible and realistic to Baha’is because we believe Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith being a cult.

Not only is the first statement has everything to do with cultism, but it is the very definition of cultism. I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe that any rational human being could accept such extraordinary claims, without some encouragement. But you are free to remain in denial.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you. If you list 10 reasons why your own s**t would be good enough to eat, there would be hundreds(maybe thousands) that would give it a go. This is a genetic and psychological weakness of the human condition. The brain(mind) is not always rational. It is a learning organ, not a moral organ. When it compartmentalize processed information, some information will simply slip through the cracks during the process. No one is immune to religious or non-religious cons and claims. Hopefully, like all other nonessential traits for survival, it too will go the same way as our vestigial organs, and be deleted from the gene pool over time.

The narrow gate was Christianity when Christianity was new but Christianity is not new anymore... Obviously Christianity is not the narrow gate since many have now entered and one third of people in the world are Christians.

In this new age, the narrow gate is the Baha’i Faith and it is narrow because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning. That is why the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”​

In every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and He said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.

Eventually it won’t matter how small the Baha’i Faith was in the beginning because in the distant future everyone will recognize Baha’u’llah and enter through the same gate, the gate that leads to life. However, those that enter now will have a huge reward after they die, because they made the effort to look for the narrow gate and they had the courage and common sense to walk through it, rather than following the crowd.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, children do not have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause.
I never implied that popular consensus proves anything. To say that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

You can want whatever kind of evidence you want but that does not mean you are going to get what you want. Obviously, if you do not believe the Bible was divinely inspired it would not be evidence for a God, it would just be a history book.

Religion is not science, you will never get the same kind of evidence for religion as you can get for science.

I consider the evidence for the Baha’i Faith extraordinary. NO other religion has EVER has as much evidence to back its claim. That is the only reason I am a Baha’i. I have listed the categories of evidence on this forum many times: The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now. All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable if someone is willing to do the research.

I am confused. You are saying that if it cannot be proven false then it cannot be evidence for truth, but if it can be proven false it cannot be true.

No, it is not elitism. Nobody was chosen, but rather we made a choice. WHY we made that choice and others didn’t is related to myriad factors. Also, Baha’u’llah said that some of us are guided by God, but we do not know the reasons for that. I surmise it is related to the fact that the All-Knowing God knows who will believe so He guides those people. Conversely, God knows who won’t believe so God does not bother to guide them. This is predicated on the fact that we all have free will to choose what to believe and God does not interfere with our free will.

I never said there is no evidence for Baha’u’llah. I listed that evidence above. I only said that there is no objective evidence that God exists or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. This is just reality. Nobody can ever SEE or HEAR from a God who is exalted beyond any human understanding, but that does not mean that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got a message from God because He was the only one who experienced that communication. That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God.

Proof does not MAKE God exist. Proof is just what some people want. But since God does not provide objective proof that is why you will never have any. God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence and that is adequate proof for some of us.

No, children do not have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause.
I never implied that popular consensus proves anything. To say that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

The Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ for one third of the world population and it is proof for a subset of those people. The fact that Atheists cannot see that does not change the FACT that the Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ (and Moses and the other prophets).[/QUOTE

Clearly my comment was meant to highlight the absurdity of your argument from popular opinion, but nice try in misrepresenting and deflecting my comment. Claiming that the Bible is fact because 3/4 of the worlds population believe that it is evidence for God and Jesus Christ, is the real argument "ad populum". You are correct, Religion is NOT science, it is a belief. There is only one kind of scientific evidence, it is called objective. All the rest are subjective. If I don't get the evidence that I want, then I don't believe that the claim is true. Otherwise, I would just be gullible. This doesn't mean that your claim is NOT true. It only means that there is no evidence to support your claim. I'm simply looking for the facts to justify my claims. You're are simply looking for any reason to support your claims(confirmation bias).

What are these extraordinary prophecies and prediction that have been fulfilled? How many times are you going to keep denying your own words?

Some of us were fortunate enough to realize that it is true but most people will not realize that for a long time.

I surmise it is related to the fact that the All-Knowing God knows who will believe so He guides those people. Conversely, God knows who won’t believe so God does not bother to guide them

Sounds like the specially privileged to me(elitism). Not only is your conclusion self-serving, but it would require that you have some insight into the mind of a God. If the evidence can't be falsified, it can't be true or false. If it is true, then it can be falsified. In science the evidence must be falsifiable, for the claim to be valid. In religion, this is irrelevant. No evidence is required at all, only faith.

I never said there is no evidence for Baha’u’llah. I listed that evidence above. I only said that there is no objective evidence that God exists or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. This is just reality. Nobody can ever SEE or HEAR from a God who is exalted beyond any human understanding, but that does not mean that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got a message from God because He was the only one who experienced that communication. That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God.

I never asked for evidence for the existence of a human being. I asked for evidence that the human being was indeed a Messenger of a God, that his message came from a God, or that a God even exists. But again, nice try. Since none of this is falsifiable, it does not prove or disprove anything. How you get from no evidence to "That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God", seems a mystery, or is it simply more special pleading, creative logic, and denial? Do you think that all extraordinary claims should require some objective evidence? Or, do you think that all unfalsifiable claims should be excluded?

​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, children do not have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause.
I never implied that popular consensus proves anything. To say that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

You can want whatever kind of evidence you want but that does not mean you are going to get what you want. Obviously, if you do not believe the Bible was divinely inspired it would not be evidence for a God, it would just be a history book.

Religion is not science, you will never get the same kind of evidence for religion as you can get for science.

I consider the evidence for the Baha’i Faith extraordinary. NO other religion has EVER has as much evidence to back its claim. That is the only reason I am a Baha’i. I have listed the categories of evidence on this forum many times: The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now. All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable if someone is willing to do the research.

I am confused. You are saying that if it cannot be proven false then it cannot be evidence for truth, but if it can be proven false it cannot be true.

No, it is not elitism. Nobody was chosen, but rather we made a choice. WHY we made that choice and others didn’t is related to myriad factors. Also, Baha’u’llah said that some of us are guided by God, but we do not know the reasons for that. I surmise it is related to the fact that the All-Knowing God knows who will believe so He guides those people. Conversely, God knows who won’t believe so God does not bother to guide them. This is predicated on the fact that we all have free will to choose what to believe and God does not interfere with our free will.

I never said there is no evidence for Baha’u’llah. I listed that evidence above. I only said that there is no objective evidence that God exists or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. This is just reality. Nobody can ever SEE or HEAR from a God who is exalted beyond any human understanding, but that does not mean that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got a message from God because He was the only one who experienced that communication. That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God.

Proof does not MAKE God exist. Proof is just what some people want. But since God does not provide objective proof that is why you will never have any. God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence and that is adequate proof for some of us.

No, children do not have evidence that proves the existence of Santa Clause.

I never implied that popular consensus proves anything. To say that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

The Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ for one third of the world population and it is proof for a subset of those people. The fact that Atheists cannot see that does not change the FACT that the Bible is evidence for God and Jesus Christ (and Moses and the other prophets).[/QUOTE

Clearly my comment was meant to highlight the absurdity of your argument from popular opinion, but nice try in misrepresenting and deflecting my comment. Claiming that the Bible is fact because 3/4 of the worlds population believe that it is evidence for God and Jesus Christ, is the real argument "ad populum". You are correct, Religion is NOT science, it is a belief. There is only one kind of scientific evidence, it is called objective. All the rest are subjective. If I don't get the evidence that I want, then I don't believe that the claim is true. Otherwise, I would just be gullible. This doesn't mean that your claim is NOT true. It only means that there is no evidence to support your claim. I'm simply looking for the facts to justify my claims. You're are simply looking for any reason to support your claims(confirmation bias).



What are these extraordinary prophecies and prediction that have been fulfilled? How many times are you going to keep denying your own words?

Some of us were fortunate enough to realize that it is true but most people will not realize that for a long time.

I surmise it is related to the fact that the All-Knowing God knows who will believe so He guides those people. Conversely, God knows who won’t believe so God does not bother to guide them

Sounds like the specially privileged to me(elitism). Not only is your conclusion self-serving, but it would require that you have some insight into the mind of a God. If the evidence can't be falsified, it can't be true or false. If it is true, then it can be falsified. In science the evidence must be falsifiable, for the claim to be valid. In religion, this is irrelevant. No evidence is required at all, only faith.
​

I never said there is no evidence for Baha’u’llah. I listed that evidence above. I only said that there is no objective evidence that God exists or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. This is just reality. Nobody can ever SEE or HEAR from a God who is exalted beyond any human understanding, but that does not mean that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got a message from God because He was the only one who experienced that communication. That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God.

I never asked for evidence for the existence of a human being. I asked for evidence that the human being was indeed a Messenger of a God, that his message came from a God, or that a God even exists. But again, nice try. Since none of this is falsifiable, it does not prove or disprove anything. How you get from no evidence to "That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God", seems a mystery, or is it simply more special pleading, creative logic, and denial? Do you think that all extraordinary claims should require some objective evidence? Or, do you think that all unfalsifiable claims should be excluded?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The narrow gate was Christianity when Christianity was new but Christianity is not new anymore... Obviously Christianity is not the narrow gate since many have now entered and one third of people in the world are Christians.

In this new age, the narrow gate is the Baha’i Faith and it is narrow because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning. That is why the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”​

In every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and He said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.

Eventually it won’t matter how small the Baha’i Faith was in the beginning because in the distant future everyone will recognize Baha’u’llah and enter through the same gate, the gate that leads to life. However, those that enter now will have a huge reward after they die, because they made the effort to look for the narrow gate and they had the courage and common sense to walk through it, rather than following the crowd.

I apologize, my post don't seem to be going through. This is only a test.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately, the things that are attributed to your faith ARE TRUE(for the most part). A simple fact check should be enough. But if you are saying, that you can voluntarily accept that a human being can also be a Messenger of an infinitely powerful God, then the rest doesn't matter. If you have arrived at your conclusions because you stumbled upon some random information(by yourself), and just KNEW that it must be true, then who can argue with that?

No, I did not stumble upon some random informationby myself and just KNEW that it must be true. I discovered it and then I researched it in order to determine if it was true or not.

The TRUTH about Messengers is determined by an informed faith which results from what Baha’is call an independent investigation of truth:

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.”
– Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.​

Then there are people that think that a created Russian religion deposited in Iran, representing a hotchpotch composite of other major religions, will somehow save all of humanity from itself, if only they just join (Bahaism).

That is absolutely FALSE. The Baha’i Faith is not a created Russian religion deposited in Iran. The Baha’i Faith is a “new” independent religion that originated in Persia. It is not a composite of other major religions, it is based upon a “new” Revelation for God.

That is what people like you end up believing when you DO NOT DO an independent investigation of truth but rather “just believe” the false information you read on the internet... There is lots of that because people do like to attack the Baha’i Faith and hurl falsities hoping they will stick with people who did not even bother to check them out.

As a matter of course, rational people who want to be properly informed about a religion first get hold of literature that is self-descriptive, showing what the religion in question is according to its own teachings and history. They do not look on the internet for websites that are posted by detractors, those whose sole purpose is to discredit the Baha’i Faith. He who would like to know what the Baha’i Faith is, and how it sees itself, should not seek information from its declared enemies before he is familiar with its followers. Otherwise his research is unscientific; he bars himself from the way to a personal evaluation and a proper understanding.

If you were not influenced in anyway, to hold such profound, and fundamentalist beliefs, then my reality is clearly different than yours. My standard of evidence is different than yours. My standard of logic and reasoning, is clearly different than yours. If the idea that a Messenger from a God is not counterintuitive to you, then our intuitions are clearly different as well. If fact, all I hear is extraordinary claims, denials, and blind ignorance.

There is no reason for why a Messenger of God should be counterintuitive because it makes absolute sense to me, since there is no other way God could communicate to humanity. Moreover, there is evidence that God has communicated through Messengers (Prophets) since the beginning of human history. For five years I have been asking Atheists why they take issue with God using Messengers but I still await a rational response. “I don’t like the idea” is not a response. They have to give a reason why they don’t like the idea, one that makes sense. They have to propose some other way God could communicate to humanity that is realistic and makes sense. So far, no such responses have been forthcoming.

Since there are no leaders, there must not be any hierarches, or levels of authorities, right? Is it the same as a bunch of people attending a public library, all searching for the truth? Can you pick and choose which rules to follow, and which to ignore? Can you choose not to participate in the "Naw-Ruz"? Did God say through the Messenger, anything about death, disease, pestilence, hatred, wars, and sicknesses in the world?

All of us search for the truth independently before we become a Baha’i so as not to be influenced by what others think or believe, but after we become a Baha’i, we participate in activities with other Baha’is and learn from others. We are all bound by Baha’i Laws but nobody is enforcing the Law unless it becomes a matter wherein a breakage of the Laws reflects badly upon the Baha’i Faith, as in the case of a Baha’i who goes to a bar and gets drunk and announces that he is a Baha’i.

It is not a Baha’i Law that we have to participate in Naw-Ruz. It is not a Bahai Law that we have to participate in any Baha’i activities although it is encourages that we at least attend the Nineteen Day Feast. However, we are left to decide if we want to or not.

Baha’u’llah did write about death, disease, pestilence, hatred, wars, and sicknesses in the world.

There are levels of authority within the Baha’i Faith but there are no individuals who have any authority. They only have authority when they meet as a group. These are called LSAs (Local Spiritual Assemblies) and NSAs (National Spiritual Assemblies), and the UHJ (Universal House of Justice).

That is explained in detail in Wikipedia: Bahá'í administration.

Not only is the first statement has everything to do with cultism, but it is the very definition of cultism. I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe that any rational human being could accept such extraordinary claims, without some encouragement. But you are free to remain in denial.

Baha’is believe that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, and since God does not make mistakes, whatever Baha’u’llah said will happen will indeed happen. That is not the definition of cultism. It is the definition of religion. It is not different from what Christians believe about Jesus.

You are free to have your opinion but you do not determine who is rational and who is not. This is the same ploy I get from most Atheists and the obvious reason they call me irrational is so they can smugly consider themselves rational. I have heard it all before, for five years – “rational people do x.” However, there is nothing rational about dismissing out of hand the possibility that God and Messengers do exist, considering the consequences of such a dismissal.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds like the specially privileged to me(elitism). Not only is your conclusion self-serving, but it would require that you have some insight into the mind of a God. If the evidence can't be falsified, it can't be true or false. If it is true, then it can be falsified. In science the evidence must be falsifiable, for the claim to be valid. In religion, this is irrelevant. No evidence is required at all, only faith.

Nope, there is nothing special about me except that I am a sincere seeker of Truth. There are others, but there do not seem to be many. Most people only seek to disparage.

I do not have or need any insight into the mind of God. I only know God’s Will for humanity for this age in history (what God wants humanity to do), because Baha’u’llah revealed it.

Evidence is required and I have plenty of it, reams of books that have been written about the Baha’i Faith as well as what Baha’u’llah wrote.

I never asked for evidence for the existence of a human being. I asked for evidence that the human being was indeed a Messenger of a God, that his message came from a God, or that a God even exists. But again, nice try. Since none of this is falsifiable, it does not prove or disprove anything. How you get from no evidence to "That is why we look at the evidence that indicates that He was actually a Messenger of God", seems a mystery, or is it simply more special pleading, creative logic, and denial? Do you think that all extraordinary claims should require some objective evidence? Or, do you think that all unfalsifiable claims should be excluded?

The Baha’i Faith is falsifiable. If Baha’u’llah could be proven to be a false prophet then that would mean He was not a Messenger of God. Jesus explained how to distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet is in Matthew 7:16-20.

I have asked people to try to prove Baha’u’llah was a false prophet more than once, but so far nobody has been able to bring forth any evidence that would prove He was a false prophet. The truth about Baha’u’llah has been carefully documented and it is in books that depict the history of the Baha’i Faith. Detractors who bring forth lies about Him do not count as evidence.

I am not saying that it can be proven as a fact that Baha’u’llah was a real Messenger of God, but it can be proven to individuals who did the “independent investigation” and proved it to themselves. That is the only way it can be proven.

“The essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly—their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4​

 

[joelr]

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?

If the biblical god existed he is something of a king, dictator or ruler who demands all sorts of attention and obediance.
So think of any king or dictator of any society, did they make themselves known beyond a shadow of a doubt? Yes, people had zero questions as to who their king was. In the same way god would appear and provide absolute proof to every nation and person, he would leave no doubt if he wanted to be known and believed in.

Have you seen the latest re-make of Superman? That is exactly what he would do. Except instead of saying "I'm not god, I'm just a guy from Krypton" he would say "I'm God" then he would smash a tank and fly away and rescue people off a burning oil rig. Then fly across NY city and create a sonic boom and everyone would be set on if God existed.

He wouldn't be an invisible concept in a religion stolen from earlier religions.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, I did not stumble upon some random informationby myself and just KNEW that it must be true. I discovered it and then I researched it in order to determine if it was true or not.

The TRUTH about Messengers is determined by an informed faith which results from what Baha’is call an independent investigation of truth:

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.”
– Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.​

That is absolutely FALSE. The Baha’i Faith is not a created Russian religion deposited in Iran. The Baha’i Faith is a “new” independent religion that originated in Persia. It is not a composite of other major religions, it is based upon a “new” Revelation for God.

That is what people like you end up believing when you DO NOT DO an independent investigation of truth but rather “just believe” the false information you read on the internet... There is lots of that because people do like to attack the Baha’i Faith and hurl falsities hoping they will stick with people who did not even bother to check them out.

As a matter of course, rational people who want to be properly informed about a religion first get hold of literature that is self-descriptive, showing what the religion in question is according to its own teachings and history. They do not look on the internet for websites that are posted by detractors, those whose sole purpose is to discredit the Baha’i Faith. He who would like to know what the Baha’i Faith is, and how it sees itself, should not seek information from its declared enemies before he is familiar with its followers. Otherwise his research is unscientific; he bars himself from the way to a personal evaluation and a proper understanding.

There is no reason for why a Messenger of God should be counterintuitive because it makes absolute sense to me, since there is no other way God could communicate to humanity. Moreover, there is evidence that God has communicated through Messengers (Prophets) since the beginning of human history. For five years I have been asking Atheists why they take issue with God using Messengers but I still await a rational response. “I don’t like the idea” is not a response. They have to give a reason why they don’t like the idea, one that makes sense. They have to propose some other way God could communicate to humanity that is realistic and makes sense. So far, no such responses have been forthcoming.

All of us search for the truth independently before we become a Baha’i so as not to be influenced by what others think or believe, but after we become a Baha’i, we participate in activities with other Baha’is and learn from others. We are all bound by Baha’i Laws but nobody is enforcing the Law unless it becomes a matter wherein a breakage of the Laws reflects badly upon the Baha’i Faith, as in the case of a Baha’i who goes to a bar and gets drunk and announces that he is a Baha’i.

It is not a Baha’i Law that we have to participate in Naw-Ruz. It is not a Bahai Law that we have to participate in any Baha’i activities although it is encourages that we at least attend the Nineteen Day Feast. However, we are left to decide if we want to or not.

Baha’u’llah did write about death, disease, pestilence, hatred, wars, and sicknesses in the world.

There are levels of authority within the Baha’i Faith but there are no individuals who have any authority. They only have authority when they meet as a group. These are called LSAs (Local Spiritual Assemblies) and NSAs (National Spiritual Assemblies), and the UHJ (Universal House of Justice).

That is explained in detail in Wikipedia: Bahá'í administration.

Baha’is believe that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, and since God does not make mistakes, whatever Baha’u’llah said will happen will indeed happen. That is not the definition of cultism. It is the definition of religion. It is not different from what Christians believe about Jesus.

You are free to have your opinion but you do not determine who is rational and who is not. This is the same ploy I get from most Atheists and the obvious reason they call me irrational is so they can smugly consider themselves rational. I have heard it all before, for five years – “rational people do x.” However, there is nothing rational about dismissing out of hand the possibility that God and Messengers do exist, considering the consequences of such a dismissal.

"Informed faith"? Sounds oxymoronic to me, like informed ignorance. Faith, by definition, requires NO evidence at all, only a BELIEF that the evidence exists. Even the Aqdas is hearsay without corroborating objective evidence. Let the facts fall where they may. Correct me at anytime if the facts are incorrect(not simply denying them). The Baha'i faith was created in Iran in 1844. The Baha'i faith reaffirms that Islam is the true religion as revealed by Allah. The Baha'i faith believe that Mohammed is a true prophet of God, and that the Qur'an is the Word of God. The forebears of the Babi Sect led a violent revolution in Iran, and some of the members even attempted to assassinate the Shah. Their leadership was later exiled to the Ottoman Empire(Persia), where internal violence lead to house arrest. Baha'u'llah was poisoned by his brother. The Baha'i faith was restricted, members arrested or banished, by the governments of most of the Middle eastern countries. Baha'u'llah's brother also claimed to be the Messenger(manifestation) from a God. Is this a true representation of parts of your history? Do you select only the parts that support your belief, and deny or ignore the rest? It is only the evidence that tells the true story. Since your own sites ovoid posting evidence(just like you), they are NOT credible. They are all self-promoting, and not meant to inform. They are only meant to convince those already susceptible to this type of rhetoric. For example Jessica's problem with her ethnicity, and early childhood experience, made her vulnerable.

. Allowed to question? Independent search for the truth? Maybe we should only go to sites that promote the wisdom of White Supremacy and the KKK, and avoid those sites who's intentions are to expose their obvious danger to society, as well as the impartial truth. Surely everyone outside of the faith can't be all wrong?
BBC - Religions - Bahai: Bahá'u'lláh

All you do is make truth assertion, while depositing absolutely no objective evidence. You have no idea if a messenger is the only way a God can speak to humans, yet you keep implying that you have. You have no idea how a God would think, or what he/she can or will do. You simply believe everything that you are taught, because this is your level of susceptibility. For example, asking people who do not believe in the existence of a God, why they have issues with a Messenger from a God, seems a very odd and ill-conceived question. Since the question only supports two irrational presumptions(God and Messenger exist), it might be easier to rephrase the question more rationally. What would be your reason why all men are literally Gods?

Baha’is believe that anything Baha’u’llah wrote is the Will of God, and since God does not make mistakes, whatever Baha’u’llah said will happen will indeed happen. That is not the definition of cultism. It is the definition of religion.

Let's see. All members of the group believe that anything and everything that a dead person wrote 127 years ago, is truly the Will of a God. And your rational justification is, "that God doesn't make mistakes". This is worst than the absence of truth, is the truths. This blind level of adherence, and blind obedience, IS the very definition of a cultist mentality. What religion? Yours is a composite of many religions, mainly Shiite. If you tell me that you are the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte, then I can certainly determine that you are not rational. If you claim that a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present entity, needs a Messenger to communicate with the being He/she created in the first place, then YES, I can determine that it is not rational. You are not talking about possibilities, you are talking about certainty. Any rational person will indeed question this certainly, because of the counterintuitive, and irrational nature of the claim. The old adage will always be, "if it sounds too good to be true, than chances are....". Exactly, what are the consequences that rational thinkers will face, if they do not agree with your nonsense? Especially, since you claim belief is voluntary. Please don't suggest that rational people would voluntarily choose a negative outcome, over a positive one.