The Exclusivity of Christianity

[mikkel_the_dane]

Notice you don't clarify a context for me to answer. If you really wanted an answer....

Which version of truth is per the above text I linked to the correct one?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

someone who does not believe a God exists and wants to find justification not to believe in Baha'u'llah will not be objective in reading Baha'u'llah's texts. This is a problem atheists have hanging over their heads. Can they be truly unbiased and objective when they have already decided that Messengers of God do not exist because God would not communicate via Messengers?

You're describing a faith-based thinker. He begins with a belief. The critical thinker ends with one. Why do you assume that critical thinkers routinely reject claims about Baha'u'llah by faith rather than reviewing and analyzing evidence? Because they reject the claim that it is evidence of a god? This is where your critical thinking skills let you down. There is another logical possibility, and you have eliminated it without cause. That makes your conclusion a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from what preceded it. Reason often takes us to "either A or B" but doesn't allow us to decide which at this time or maybe never.

An example: Life exists either [A] because it arose naturalistically or it was intelligently designed. I can't think of any other possibility, nor can I rule either of those in or out. I can only order them by likelihood, so that's the end that critical thought takes us to. If you pick one and call it fact, you've jumped the shark. You've careened off the reason reservation.

Baha'is do know, but we cannot prove what we know to other people.

Then you don't know as I use the word. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." There's an exception there, but it applies to events, not abstract concepts. I might know something because I saw it and not be able to demonstrate that, but that doesn't help you in this context when referring to religious beliefs.

Nobody can know that God exists as a fact, but they can believe with certitude.

I suppose that this is what you mean by knowing - being certain.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah were intended to appeal to ordinary people, but in order to understand what is written a person needs to have some background reading and understanding scriptures.

More argument against this coming from a god. How many books in a mall bookseller shop require background to understand? Here are non-fiction best sellers. None of these would require preparation other than achieving literacy in the language in which they are written to understand: Amazon Best Sellers: Best Nonfiction

Only technical matters require prior knowledge to understand, which is why a legal brief might be unintelligible to the uninitiated, but those words could be paraphrased for lay people, and anybody wanting ordinary people to understand it could and would choose such language. I have a different understanding of what it means when apologists tell me that their words require special knowledge to understand:

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

The Baha'i Faith is working for those who have embraced it

I think he meant accomplishing its stated mission. It's not accomplishing that.

The interpreters were appointed by Baha'u'llah through His Will to explain what Baha'u'llah meant

More arguments against a divine source for them.

I do not know exactly what you mean by critical analysis

I know.

we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean

Done. You didn't like the conclusion that critical analysis dictated, which is why you attribute it to faith that they are wrong even before looking at them. But you guessed wrong, which is always a problem with belief by faith. It's the easiest was to collect and believe wrong ideas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then stop calling it faith. Because faith is not belief.

Faith is the method of acquiring unjustified belief.

And faith means faith, not religion.

One word spelled that way does mean a religion. The Jewish faith is the Jewish religion.

You are deliberately and wrongly conflating these words to justify your own confused bias.

No, I'm doing the opposite. I'm teasing these different words apart and emphasizing their distinctions, warning about equivocation due to carelessness in their use. Remember this? :

"No, that is not faith. Let me be clear here - I am referring to unjustified belief, like religious faith, not justified belief based in experience. That's a different word spelled and pronounced the same, but defined differently. A third word spelled and pronounced the same but with a third meaning refers to a religion, like the Jewish faith. Conflating these is a logical error and leads to equivocation fallacy."

when you label their choices "unjustified" you're just doing so based on your own myopic bias.

I'm using the definition used by academia. And here is another of your unjustified (insufficiently supported by evidence) pronouncements: myopic. I say that it's you that doesn't see clearly. You don't seem to understand that I have tried and abandoned faith because of its failure to generate knowledge, just false belief. I've looked at the world through your lenses, and realized that I see better without them than with them. Why would I think you know better than me? Why would I take your advice or follow your example? You'd need to give a reason. Does my life have problems that could be corrected by taking your advice? Has your life worked out better than mine for being less myopic as you say? If not, your criticism is unfounded, and if you don't know those answers, why are you offering life advice to me?

You assume that empiricism is the only justified method for determining a course of action while your fellow humans are free to use any number and combination of methods for doing so because they don't share you bias.

Empiricism is the only way to decide what is true about the world. Empiricism is the only method that allows one to generate ideas that predict outcomes. Collectively, these are what I call knowledge. But you are free to use whatever method you like. Go ahead and act on unjustified belief, and good luck with that.

I'm correct. If I'm not, you can successfully show where and why I am not. You can't do that. You don't try to, either. You don't give more than an expression of dissent and your own beliefs, but that doesn't change the minds of competent critical thinkers. Only successful rebuttal as I just described it can do that. And correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is a fringe religion that seems to attract religious rebels. This is also why there are so many diverse sects in Christianity because the "truth" only apveals to certain personality types and attitudes. Baha'i won't appeal to those who believe in gay rights.

I wonder... Which religion or even cult isn't working for those that believe it? But... how well is the Baha'i Faith working? I was around several Baha'is for three years and saw lots of disfunction and a problem with authoritarianism. But the biggest disfunction is too many followers of the Baha'i Faith really can't find peace and unity with others that believe differently. As is obvious here on the forum. When they can find a way to bring people together and build bridges between opposing groups, I'll be impressed. Right now, too many of them are doing a real good job at pushing people away.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think he meant accomplishing its stated mission. It's not accomplishing that.

In some things it is working. People from different religions, countries, and races are coming together as one... The Baha'is say, "Religions are one. And that there is only one race, the human race. And the world is one country and mankind its citizens." Sounds great, but then there are their other beliefs and laws and their administrative order that keeps an eye on them.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's easily falsified. I've explained one way of doing that to you twice already: using artificial intelligence to generate language indistinguishable from the writing you say couldn't have been generated by man.

No, it's not falsifiable at all. Any logical person would know that.
You cannot prove that a man is not a Messenger of God any more than you can prove that God does not exist.

Nor need I.

You only need to demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God if you are making that claim, which you are.

That's a good reason not to believe it.

I have already demonstrated it to myself. It is not my job to demonstrate it to anyone else.

I guess you don't see that that's a death sentence for the proposition for critical thinkers.

Yes, in a way it is a death sentence for them, since they will never attain eternal life.

If any part of your belief is faith-based, it's unsound. Faith contaminates the reasoning process, which must contain zero fallacies. One fallacy makes the conclusion unjustified and believable only by faith.

Faith does not affect the reasoning process in any manner shape or form. The reasoning process is used to look at the evidence for God. When we see evidence for God it is reasonable to believe on faith since nobody can prove that God exists, except to themselves.

You put them on display here every day. Why do you think I don't know what your thinking abilities are?

You put your thinking processes on display here every day. Why do you think I don't know what your thinking abilities are?

I know why. Maybe you should ask why you resent it.

If you know why then tell me why. Who says I resent it? Now you also read minds? I could not care even less what you think. All you are doing by critiquing me us putting your big ego on display for all to see. That does not hurt me in any way.

You call sound conclusions mere opinion.

You have no sound conclusions, all you have are personal opinions you believe are sound. Do you know the difference between a fact and a personal opinion? A fact is something you can prove.

TB said: It seems to me there must be a reason why you need to criticize me.
I've explained what I'm doing and why, but I might as well tell a boulder. There is no penetrating your (or any) confirmation bias and closed-mindedness. You have cut yourself off from learning.

No, you have not explained WHY you need to criticize me. I have given you a chance to explain why and you haven't so now I will speak.
I think I know why, because in your mind you have to be right about everything, which means in your mind I have to be wrong about everything.
It's called ego.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Yes, in a way it is a death sentence for them, since they will never attain eternal life.

So you obtain eternal life because of a belief you have? Being a critical thinker, like @It Aint Necessarily So is, stops you from having an afterlife? Or at least a pleasant one? How and why would a fair or just God punish people for a belief? You already mentioned that atheists can obtain spiritual wellness without the need for God. Why would God be so unjust and cruel to send his creation to Hell or abstain an afterlife at all when God has done nothing in the past hundred years+ to show that He exists? Is the God of the Baha'is as vindictive and jealous as the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism? And why should anyone be punished simply for thinking differently than you? I thought what really matters is what people do, not think.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is why science is peer reviewed. That is why forums are useful. We can all check each other's thinking and work.

Religion is not like science because science is provable and religion is not. Peer review does not work of religion. Everyone is responsible to to determine what they will believe since we are each accountable to God for what we believe. We can learn from other people but we have to come to our own decision about what to believe.

We should not check each others thinking and work, we should do our own thinking and work.

You have it backwards. From this approach you suggest we all assume a God exists, and that Baha'u'llah was a messenger, and then look for ways that these aren't true. Reasoning begins without belief or assuming validity, and looks for evidence that justifies judgment. This is how juries work as well. This reply illustrates why your conclusions and beliefs are flawed.

I am not suggesting that anyone assume that God exists, I never did. Reasoning begins without belief or assuming validity, and looks for evidence that justifies judgment.

Another flawed claim. You insist Baha'is know their messenger is genuine but can't show this is true? This is non-rational and absurd. Knowledge that is actually based on fact isn't personal knowledge, it is objectively true and anyone can understand it is true without biased, subjective assumptions. You leave out that it is assumptions that allow you Baha'i to falsely claim knowledge when it isn't.

I said: Baha'is do know, but we cannot prove what we know to other people. Everyone has to come to that knowledge by themselves.

No, I cannot prove it to anyone else and there is nothing irrational or absurd about that. What is irrational and absurd is to think that I could ever prove it to anyone.

Knowledge of God is not based upon facts, and that us why it cannot ever be proven that God exists. All we have is evidence that comes to us by way of Messengers of God. Everyone is responsible to look at the Messengers for themselves, if they want to believe in God, and come to their own determination.

There are facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah that are objectively true, and anyone can understand it is true without biased, subjective assumptions. However, what we think these facts mean, whether they mean Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not, is a subjective determination.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you obtain eternal life because of a belief you have? Being a critical thinker, like @It Aint Necessarily So is, stops you from having an afterlife? Or at least a pleasant one? How and why would a fair or just God punish people for a belief?

@It Aint Necessarily So said: I guess you don't see that that's a death sentence for the proposition for critical thinkers. Propositions can either be confirmed, disconfirmed, or they are untestable.

I said: Yes, in a way it is a death sentence for them, since they will never attain eternal life.

The existence of God cannot be confirmed, disconfirmed, or tested.

The reason the so-called critical thinkers will not attain eternal life is because eternal life is nearness to God.

I as not referring to a pleasant afterlife, but according to my beliefs a pleasant afterlife is nearness to God. How can atheists have nearness to God if they do not even believe in God?

God does not punish anyone, people punish themselves, by choosing not to believe in God.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

There is no way around the fact that we are all responsible for our own beliefs, since God gave everyone free will to choose.

You already mentioned that atheists can obtain spiritual wellness without the need for God. Why would God be so unjust and cruel to send his creation to Hell or abstain an afterlife at all when God has done nothing in the past hundred years+ to show that He exists? Is the God of the Baha'is as vindictive and jealous as the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism?

I said that I think atheists can obtain spiritual wellness without the need for God, but that only applies to their lives in this world, not to their life in the next world.

I do not believe that God sends anyone to hell, I believe hell is distance from God and people sends themselves to hell by rejecting God.
When they reject the Messengers of God they are rejecting God.

Believers have to spend time coming to a belief in God, and after that they continually have to have faith in God, spend time reading their scriptures, worshiping God and obeying the Laws of God, whereas atheists don't have to do any of that, but rather they spend their time enjoying the material world pleasures, all the while rejecting God. Tell me why you think it is just that atheists end up with the same reward that believers get?

And why should anyone be punished simply for thinking differently than you? I thought what really matters is what people do, not think.

The only punishment is not getting the reward they could have had.
It does matter what people do, not what they think, but thinking leads to what people do.

According to my beliefs, the first duty prescribed by God for humans is the recognition of the Messenger of God, Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, and the second duty is observance of His Laws. Neither one is acceptable without the other.

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”
Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 19

 

[F1fan]

In some things it is working. People from different religions, countries, and races are coming together as one... The Baha'is say, "Religions are one. And that there is only one race, the human race. And the world is one country and mankind its citizens." Sounds great, but then there are their other beliefs and laws and their administrative order that keeps an eye on them.

One interesting thing that I don;t anyone has mentioned is that Vedanta was formed by a guy about the same time as Baha'u'llah, but in India I think it was. Vedanta is also a unifying approach of all world religions. I attended some events by the Vedanta Society where i live and they are very gentle people. FDoir as similar the approach these two religions have Vedanta practitioners are vastly different in personality than Baha'i. It is very much the East versus West differences, and the Western approach has serious flaws that appeal to egos, and not in the best of ways. The Vedanta folks have no social goals like Baha'i, rather they focus on the self being a better person and that reflects on the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're describing a faith-based thinker. He begins with a belief. The critical thinker ends with one.

No, a faith-based thinker begins by looking at the evidence that leads to the belief and then has faith.

Then you don't know as I use the word. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." There's an exception there, but it applies to events, not abstract concepts. I might know something because I saw it and not be able to demonstrate that, but that doesn't help you in this context when referring to religious beliefs.

We cannot show what can never be shown. God cannot be shown so we cannot show God to you. We can know God exists but how we know is not something you can understand. It is only by God's grace that we know.

I suppose that this is what you mean by knowing - being certain.

Yes, I mean certitude.

I think he meant accomplishing its stated mission. It's not accomplishing that.

You are wrong about that. Every goal that has been set forth by the Universal House of Justice has been achieved to date. That means that the religion is achieving its stated mission.

Done. You didn't like the conclusion that critical analysis dictated, which is why you attribute it to faith that they are wrong even before looking at them. But you guessed wrong, which is always a problem with belief by faith. It's the easiest was to collect and believe wrong ideas.

I do not dislike the conclusions of your critical analysis, I do not care one way or another...
My critical analysis drew other conclusions.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Tell me why you think it is just that atheists end up with the same reward that believers get?

Well, I don't believe that there is a "king" of The Omniverse like you think God is. I simply believe that humans were made with such evolutionary perfections that humans themselves are and can be the shapers of the Universe, possibly beyond that too. Everybody has something in them that they wish they could do now but for some reason is unable to do that thing. I believe in many ways the afterlife is simply an extension of this life, but without the necessary restrains and restrictions we have now.

It doesn't matter if you are an atheist, syntheist or Baha'i because everybody will get exactly what they imagine a near-perfect reality which each person owns sovereignty of a galaxy in this Universe, effectively becoming the God of that land. That person then can decide how they want that galaxy to be run. This is the natural course of evolution that will be laid out for us - a reality which what we imagine becomes true, and there are virtually no limits to the way things can be run.

There are 80-120 billion people to have said to exist, yet there are over two trillion galaxies in the observable Universe. That means each person could in theory have over sixteen galaxies to attend to. By creating as much unique life on every planet we are essentially doing the work of your God, but in areas foreign to complex life. We will find new technologies that will enable us to terraform various planets, and transfer energy when applicable and needed to sustain more life on certain planets.

If you choose not to live in that world, the real world, of course there could be made simulations of Universes that feel real but give you exactly what you want in the afterlife, but at a much later timeframe - like being reunited with your husband and your cats in Abha Kingdom (I don't know what the Baha'i teaching is of pets in Heaven but lets go with that). Reality itself can and has the ability to transform inside anyone's imagination, with the proper technology to fuel that passion and I figure there's going to be a lot of people who reject the notion that they can have a resurrection and instead live in a bubble forever worshipping their prophets or messengers in a vacuum cycle until the end of time itself.

No thanks. I want to live in the greatest existence to ever come together - this reality, in this Universe, and I want to continue building that reality until humans create as much diverse, multicellular life that is permissible in this Universe, possibly beyond that too. I don't understand why people want an afterlife that doesn't change, that is focused on the static sameness of its followers, never changing, never growing, never evolving into something it isn't right now. If I were given the opportunity and guarantee from God Himself to go to Heaven just because I follow this jealous, vindictive God after I die I would still choose this reality we have here right now and continue to exist in the physical plane of reality for as long as I humanly can, or until we find ways to exist in Universes that aren't physical to begin with.

So, maybe I don't believe believers and atheists will have the same afterlife at all. Maybe believers will get some kind of artificial Heaven that they can enjoy for eternity, and atheists and syntheists will come back after a technological resurrection permits them to exist once again. Honestly I think some atheists given their world view will choose not to come back at all, but that is their choice. I don't claim to know all the answers, but what I do know now is that humans are making some rather remarkable things currently - like AI, electric cars, smartphones and even Internet forums where we even have the opportunity to talk about these things in the first place.

That's where we come in. Just by having this dialogue I believe we give each other the light we need to say our opinions on such matters, and determine at a much later date where we all go from here. I want a new body and I want to control a distant galaxy, if that is permissible in a future such as that. I don't want to spend all my time idolizing what I consider a false God because it happens to appear to me that it created reality - we are already doing a good job with that, for the most part.

 

[Trailblazer]

Empiricism is the only way to decide what is true about the world.

but it will never tell you what is true about God.

 

[F1fan]

Religion is not like science because science is provable and religion is not. Peer review does not work of religion.

Religion has no interest in being correct in what it claims as truth. Your religion is no exception. Peer pressure works to nudge citizens towards one way to believe or another, and with some excevtions most conform to the religion around them. What doesn't work on theiosts is reason and evidence, so you are correct that peer review doesn't work on believers.

Everyone is responsible to to determine what they will believe since we are each accountable to God for what we believe.

And if all humans were rational, didn't have the social/cultural pressure to believe in one religion or another, and were uniformly skilled at reasoning, then yes, there would be a large and consistent number of citizens who took their intellectual responsibility more seriously. As it is most societies are very lax in what it allows for it's citizens and what they can get away with as far as reasoning and religious belief goes. Since religion is so prevalent many citizens feel pressure to adot one of them for the sake of belonging and conformity.

We can learn from other people but we have to come to our own decision about what to believe.

Unless you are making mistakes. How would you know if you assume you are correct and won't listen?

We should not check each others thinking and work, we should do our own thinking and work.

Then how do we learn from other people? We can't all be correct.

I am not suggesting that anyone assume that God exists, I never did.

Yet no rational mind can conclude a God exists with the exceptionally weak evidence you offer (as well as other theists, so don't feel picked on). The only reason someone would decide a God exists on weak evidence is if they already thought it exists.

Reasoning begins without belief or assuming validity, and looks for evidence that justifies judgment.

Well you make it sound like you have a judgment and look for evidence for it. No. You collect evidence and you make judgments based on the facts. We see police often have a suspect they are sure did it and look for evidence for that person, but they will ignore evidence that points to a different person. This seems to be what you are suggesting, and it is flawed.

I said: Baha'is do know, but we cannot prove what we know to other people. Everyone has to come to that knowledge by themselves.

No, I cannot prove it to anyone else and there is nothing irrational or absurd about that. What is irrational and absurd is to think that I could ever prove it to anyone.

Knowledge isn't sloppy belief. Actual knowledge can be shared to others, it's just that religion lacks the thing that's required, and that is adequate evidence, or as you call it, "proof". Knowledge = proof, and Baha'i don't have it. Baha'i might want their beliefs to have a high status, but they don't have the goods. That is greedy and fraud. That is why critical thinkers can't accept what you or others claim.

Knowledge of God is not based upon facts,

There is no knowledge of God. There is knowledge of what religions claim about the many versions of gods.

and that us why it cannot ever be proven that God exists.

It is "proof" that allows knowledge, and you admit you don;t have it. So God is largely irrelevant. Believers can do anything they damn well please to get off on their illusions. They can put underwear on their heads and dance naked under the full moon if they believe it gets them closer to God. That is just an individual thing that their brains want and create. It ends there.

All we have is evidence that comes to us by way of Messengers of God.

That's all your tribe of believers have. It ends there. It's irrelevant beyond your tribe.

Everyone is responsible to look at the Messengers for themselves, if they want to believe in God, and come to their own determination.

And you know where skilled thinkers stand on this. You are on the other side of skilled thinkers.

There are facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah that are objectively true, and anyone can understand it is true without biased, subjective assumptions.

There are facts about Disney characters, too. Critical thinkers have explained how your thinking is flawed IF you want a sound conclusion.

However, what we think these facts mean, whether they mean Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not, is a subjective determination.

Right, and that is your error if you want a sound conclusion.

 

[F1fan]

No, a faith-based thinker begins by looking at the evidence that leads to the belief and then has faith.

That's called bias. And faith-based believers have no need for evidence. It's similar to what you said in your reply to me. Your statement here is what police do when they have a suspect and look for evidence they did it., and not following the evidence to where it leads

We cannot show what can never be shown. God cannot be shown so we cannot show God to you.

Imaginary beings can't be shown either, so how is a God that doesn't exist differ?

We can know God exists but how we know is not something you can understand. It is only by God's grace that we know.

This is circular reasoning. You refer to knowing a God exists, so then can refer to its grace that gives you the knowledge it exists. This whole mind game with such little evidence.

Can you consider the possibility that you use language deceptively that fools your thinking that you have knowledge of things that lack evidence of existing?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I don't believe that there is a "king" of The Omniverse like you think God is. I simply believe that humans were made with such evolutionary perfections that humans themselves are and can be the shapers of the Universe, possibly beyond that too. Everybody has something in them that they wish they could do now but for some reason is unable to do that thing. I believe in many ways the afterlife is simply an extension of this life, but without the necessary restrains and restrictions we have now.

It doesn't matter if you are an atheist, syntheist or Baha'i because everybody will get exactly what they imagine a near-perfect reality which each person owns sovereignty of a galaxy in this Universe, effectively becoming the God of that land. That person then can decide how they want that galaxy to be run. This is the natural course of evolution that will be laid out for us - a reality which what we imagine becomes true, and there are virtually no limits to the way things can be run.

There are 80-120 billion people to have said to exist, yet there are over two trillion galaxies in the observable Universe. That means each person could in theory have over sixteen galaxies to attend to. By creating as much unique life on every planet we are essentially doing the work of your God, but in areas foreign to complex life. We will find new technologies that will enable us to terraform various planets, and transfer energy when applicable and needed to sustain more life on certain planets.

If you choose not to live in that world, the real world, of course there could be made simulations of Universes that feel real but give you exactly what you want in the afterlife, but at a much later timeframe - like being reunited with your husband and your cats in Abha Kingdom (I don't know what the Baha'i teaching is of pets in Heaven but lets go with that). Reality itself can and has the ability to transform inside anyone's imagination, with the proper technology to fuel that passion and I figure there's going to be a lot of people who reject the notion that they can have a resurrection and instead live in a bubble forever worshipping their prophets or messengers in a vacuum cycle until the end of time itself.

No thanks. I want to live in the greatest existence to ever come together - this reality, in this Universe, and I want to continue building that reality until humans create as much diverse, multicellular life that is permissible in this Universe, possibly beyond that too. I don't understand why people want an afterlife that doesn't change, that is focused on the static sameness of its followers, never changing, never growing, never evolving into something it isn't right now. If I were given the opportunity and guarantee from God Himself to go to Heaven just because I follow this jealous, vindictive God after I die I would still choose this reality we have here right now and continue to exist in the physical plane of reality for as long as I humanly can, or until we find ways to exist in Universes that aren't physical to begin with.

So, maybe I don't believe believers and atheists will have the same afterlife at all. Maybe believers will get some kind of artificial Heaven that they can enjoy for eternity, and atheists and syntheists will come back after a technological resurrection permits them to exist once again. Honestly I think some atheists given their world view will choose not to come back at all, but that is their choice. I don't claim to know all the answers, but what I do know now is that humans are making some rather remarkable things currently - like AI, electric cars, smartphones and even Internet forums where we even have the opportunity to talk about these things in the first place.

That's where we come in. Just by having this dialogue I believe we give each other the light we need to say our opinions on such matters, and determine at a much later date where we all go from here. I want a new body and I want to control a distant galaxy, if that is permissible in a future such as that. I don't want to spend all my time idolizing what I consider a false God because it happens to appear to me that it created reality - we are already doing a good job with that, for the most part.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. I always like hearing about them because they are interesting, even though I hold different beliefs. I am not slap happy with the all-powerful God who is in charge of everything, including my fate, and I am not that excited about going to the next world when I die, but those are the beliefs I hold. Hopefully the next world won't be as bad as I think it could be.

 

[CG Didymus]

Empiricism is the only way to decide what is true about the world.

And it does tell us about the Gods. They are not there. The Baha'is almost say that, but they don't include God as being part of the superstitious beliefs that people hold.

The Baha’i teachings ask us to avoid falling into the trap of superstition – even including believing in any religious claim that contravenes science. Abdu’l-Baha said:​

​

Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance. ​

To eliminate superstition and the spread of misinformation, education that emphasizes the vital necessity of the harmony between spiritual reality and scientific knowledge is required. Purely secular education alone will not achieve this purpose. The Baha’i teachings, which condemn all forms of superstition and prejudice are quite explicit in this regard:​

​

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably, there must be agreement between true religion and science.​

 

[Trailblazer]

Religion has no interest in being correct in what it claims as truth. Your religion is no exception.

But that does not mean that the claims are not true.

As it is most societies are very lax in what it allows for it's citizens and what they can get away with as far as reasoning and religious belief goes. Since religion is so prevalent many citizens feel pressure to adopt one of them for the sake of belonging and conformity.

Maybe some people hold religious beliefs for the sake of belonging and conformity. For example most people in the United States claim to be Christians but I don't think all of them really believe. Maybe some Baha'is believe because they like to belong to a group, but not me. Baha'is do not believe for the sake of conformity becaue we are noncomformists.

Unless you are making mistakes. How would you know if you assume you are correct and won't listen?

What reason is there to believe the other people are right? Why should we listen to them unless they can prove we are wrong and they are right?

Then how do we learn from other people? We can't all be correct.

We can learn from other people and still do our own work. No, we cannot all be correct, but we are responsible to ourselves for what we end up believing, so it has to be our own decision, what we believe is true. As individuals, ware all each accountable to God so we cannot tell God that we believed what John believed because John believed it.

Yet no rational mind can conclude a God exists with the exceptionally weak evidence you offer (as well as other theists, so don't feel picked on). The only reason someone would decide a God exists on weak evidence is if they already thought it exists.

What you consider weak evidence I consider strong evidence and thus the beat goes on.

Well you make it sound like you have a judgment and look for evidence for it. No. You collect evidence and you make judgments based on the facts. We see police often have a suspect they are sure did it and look for evidence for that person, but they will ignore evidence that points to a different person. This seems to be what you are suggesting, and it is flawed.

What I meant is that we should look for evidence based upon facts and then we can form a judgment.

Knowledge isn't sloppy belief. Actual knowledge can be shared to others, it's just that religion lacks the thing that's required, and that is adequate evidence, or as you call it, "proof".

The knowledge (facts and information) about the religion can be shared with others but not everyone will believe it means that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists.

No matter how adequate the evidence is, evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, and there is not and never will be any way to verify that God exists or sends Messengers. That is why faith coupled with evidence is necessary to believe.

Knowledge = proof, and Baha'i don't have it. Baha'i might want their beliefs to have a high status, but they don't have the goods. That is greedy and fraud. That is why critical thinkers can't accept what you or others claim.

Knowledge about Messengers of God and thus God is not proof that Messengers were sent by God or that God exists.
Baha'is don't have proof and no religion has proof, since religion cannot be proven true (or false.)

There is no knowledge of God. There is knowledge of what religions claim about the many versions of gods.

Knowledge of God comes through revelations that come from God through Messengers. It is not factual knowledge since nobody can verify that it is true.

It is "proof" that allows knowledge, and you admit you don;t have it. So God is largely irrelevant. Believers can do anything they damn well please to get off on their illusions. They can put underwear on their heads and dance naked under the full moon if they believe it gets them closer to God. That is just an individual thing that their brains want and create. It ends there.

Proof is not what makes God exist. Proof is just what atheists want in order to believe that God exists.
Proof is not required in order to have knowledge. Awareness and understanding bring knowledge.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

That's all your tribe of believers have. It ends there. It's irrelevant beyond your tribe.

It doesn't matter if it is irrelevant to beyond my religion. Relevancy does not equate to truth. The religion is true or not.

And you know where skilled thinkers stand on this. You are on the other side of skilled thinkers.

You are no more skilled than we are. You only believe you are more skilled.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's called bias. And faith-based believers have no need for evidence. It's similar to what you said in your reply to me. Your statement here is what police do when they have a suspect and look for evidence they did it., and not following the evidence to where it leads

A faith-based thinker begins by looking at the evidence that leads to the belief and faith in the belief.
Evidence leads to Belief on faith and evidence.

There is no bias since they looked at the evidence with an open mind, and without prejudice.

Imaginary beings can't be shown either, so how is a God that doesn't exist differ?

That's true that imaginary beings cannot be shown, but just because God cannot be shown that does not mean that God is imaginary.
All existent things cannot be shown. Only existent things in this world can be shown. God does not exist in this world.

This is circular reasoning. You refer to knowing a God exists, so then can refer to its grace that gives you the knowledge it exists. This whole mind game with such little evidence.

God's grace is what allows us to know that God exists. There is nothing circular about it.

Can you consider the possibility that you use language deceptively that fools your thinking that you have knowledge of things that lack evidence of existing?

No, because I have evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You cannot prove that a man is not a Messenger of God any more than you can prove that God does not exist.

Nor need I.

Faith does not affect the reasoning process in any manner shape or form.

Believing by faith is a logical error.

You have no sound conclusions, all you have are personal opinions you believe are sound.

That is incorrect. And how would you know if a conclusion were sound?

No, you have not explained WHY you need to criticize me.

I don't criticize you. I point out errors. Another person might welcome that.

God does not punish anyone, people punish themselves, by choosing not to believe in God.

Where's the loss? Incidentally, once one chooses critical thought over faith, he does not choose what to believe. Only sound conclusions should be believed.

a faith-based thinker begins by looking at the evidence that leads to the belief and then has faith.

This is why I asked about how you could recognize which arguments are sound. Believing by faith is a logical error. Such a belief is a non sequitur, the opposite of a sound conclusion.