Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[Trailblazer]

There is no God, no ambassadors from God, no revelations. These are all beliefs of people. Society ascribed what it wanted from people to various Gods/Goddesses. Society wanted that people should speak truth between themselves, that became a rule from God. Society wanted that no person should covet what another had, that too became the rule and society ascribed it to God. What revelation is, is morals and ethical code of a particular society. That is why historicity of God/Goddesses is not important for us. What Krishna is supposed to have said in Gita is near about the ideal for Hindu society. These ambassadors just crop up and try to take all the credit for themselves.

You do not demand evidence from other religions because you have no evidence to show for your own religion except belief/faith. A seal, anybody could use the seal. Who knows if Abdul Baha used the seal in that way. Any opposition and he would stamp a paper. That is the way Mohammad came up with new Surahs as and when required. When he wanted to marry the wife of his step-son or when a month away from his wives became too much for him. Aisha mentioned that his God was very partial to him. In Buddha's time (around 500 BCE), India did not have writing.

No, I do not understand what Hinduism is, and there is no one belief because it is very different to different people. The older the religion, the more divergent it is from the original religion. Hinduism is very old.

All I can say is what I believe. The followers of the older religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have gotten away from the original teachings of the Prophets who revealed those religions. That is why they are religions of man, not religions of God.

I do have evidence for the Baha’i Faith and that is the only reason I believe in it. I do not even like religion and I am not all too fond of God either. I tried to NOT be a Baha’i for decades, but in the end I could not run away from what to me is so obviously the Truth from God.

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.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'is take it on evidence and faith that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.

You have repeated this for the second time. I accept it is your faith but do not add the word 'evidence' to it. I asked you about evidence earlier also, which you failed to provide. What Bahaullah said cannot be taken as evidence for his own falsehood or truthfulness. It is like a Scot saying 'Scots are always truthful', which we know is not true.

No, I do not understand what Hinduism is, and there is no one belief because it is very different to different people. The older the religion, the more divergent it is from the original religion. Hinduism is very old. All I can say is what I believe. The followers of the older religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have gotten away from the original teachings of the Prophets who revealed those religions. That is why they are religions of man, not religions of God.

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.

Well, Hinduism is not a revealed religion. We have no prophets though we had umpteen wise people, saints, who advised us. None of them claimed to have been sent by any God. Hinduism is not a straight-jacketed religion. It is constituted that way and gives freedom of belief. Hinduism does not begin or end with Gods/prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

All that does not constitute 'evidence' in scientific sense. The followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also think that he fulfilled all prophecies in Bible. And Bible and Quran themselves cannot be taken as 'evidence' of anything. Nostradamus also made predictions.

 

[Vinayaka]

All I can say is what I believe. The followers of the older religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have gotten away from the original teachings of the Prophets who revealed those religions.

Hinduism has no prophets. How can anything get away from something that was never there in the first place? That's as illogical as saying you got a divorce, but were never married.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I do not understand what Hinduism is, and there is no one belief because it is very different to different people. The older the religion, the more divergent it is from the original religion. Hinduism is very old.

All I can say is what I believe. The followers of the older religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have gotten away from the original teachings of the Prophets who revealed those religions. That is why they are religions of man, not religions of God.

With all due respect, @Trailblazer , you are missing the point and reaching such biased conclusions that they are dysfunctional.

Dharma is not Abrahamic revelation. We neither need nor want to emulate that premise. We do not necessarily have Messengers from God, nor is it at all clear that it would benefit us to have any.

Rather, we seek a Dharmic attitude. Which means, among other things, that we dare to learn better, to widen the inherited wisdom. Our gratitude towards the precursors is not meant to translate into refusal to expand from their teachings.

They were pioneers. They are not the be all, end all of religious truth, even within our respective traditions. And it would be poor show of gratitude to treat them as if they were.




Edited to add: One reason why I personally object to the idea of Messengers from God in the Bahai model is that it implies that most people are significantly disadvantaged in their abiilty to connect to the Sacred when compared and contrasted to those very few people that you acknowledge as Messengers.

That idea I find very unlikely to be accurate. Everyone has at least brief glimpses of the Sacred. The true religious Sages can attain them more often, deeper, for longer and more reliably. But they are ultimately of the same substance as anyone else. Which is a good thing; we are not quite so apart from their actualizations as to fail to understand what they have to teach.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Could not have said it any better. Thanks, Luis.

BTW, I have tried to get an English translation of the Bahai Kitqb-i-Aqdas, but I find that Bahai Library has the Shoghi Effendi version of it. Why is that? Why not the original in English translation so that we could see for ourselves what Bahaullah actually wrote? Anything that the Bahais do not want the world to know? Effendi's version gives his own meaning.

 

[charlie sc]

think justice is based in both society and religion. Tell me why the best interests of criminals should be considered? Did they consider anyone else’s interested when they perpetrated the crimes? No. Part of justice has to be punishment, another part can be rehabilitation.

You're talking about punitive justice and it does not work. Criminals repeat their crimes if you treat them like garbage and that just reinforces how they think of themselves. So, unless you think capital punishment is warrant for every crime you're only making society worse and more judgemental. If you think, apparently, that free-will exists then it's obvious why you think people should be punished because they could have chosen differently.

So you disagree that a rapist or murderer should be punished?

Yes, if it can be avoided. This is actually what the evidence suggests, but you don't seem to care about evidence.

The question is: Is a hardened criminal going to change significantly? Has there been any research on this?

YES omg. Look at Norway or the Netherlands. the recidivism rate had dropped significantly since implementing restorative/rehabilitation methods of justice. look at the documentary. If you want I can give actual studies on the topic, but do you actually care about evidence? If recidivism drops it means convicts have changed. They are not in a life of crime anymore and, instead, actually contribute to society as a whole. If you don't want this to happen, then you're literally choosing your vengeance over the betterment of everyone.

I will try to watch the video when I have more time. Meanwhile, can you briefly explain what that quote above means to you? Does it means that peoples’ feelings do not matter, only the criminal matters?

Just watch the documentary.

When talking about religion, I'm fine with hypotheticals, but this is not such a topic. This topic has evidence and I do not need to even look at religion. Going to faith on this topic is like me arguing against the world is flat or 10 000 years old. It's really quite pointless.

 

[Trailblazer]

Though I do not go with Adbul Baha with all his blah-blah but I do agree that criminals should be punished appropriately. It is not fair that the society should bear the cost of a criminal living in luxury and undue facilities. The criminal should be charged for the expenses. For repeat offenders, I think it is better to put them to gallows. India has a large population and consequently a larger number of criminals. If we are not strict with the criminals, the society will suffer. I put no faith in reforming the criminals.

I agree with you on that. The punishment should suit the crime committed. The death penalty or life in prison is appropriate for first degree murder. Hardened criminals who commit heinous murders cannot be reformed, although some criminals who commit lesser offenses such as burglaries or drug-related offenses can be rehabilitated.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, Hinduism is not a revealed religion. We have no prophets though we had umpteen wise people, saints, who advised us. None of them claimed to have been sent by any God. Hinduism is not a straight-jacketed religion. It is constituted that way and gives freedom of belief. Hinduism does not begin or end with Gods/prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.

I am not going to define your religion. Your religion is your religion and my religion is my religion...

All I want to say is that Hinduism means different things to different people. There is no “one” true Hinduism, as there is “one” true Baha’i Faith.

On another forum, I had a good friend who was a Hindu and she considered Krishna the “god” of Hinduism.

Krishna, Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.
Krishna | Hindu deity | Britannica.com​

All that does not constitute 'evidence' in scientific sense. The followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also think that he fulfilled all prophecies in Bible. And Bible and Quran themselves cannot be taken as 'evidence' of anything. Nostradamus also made predictions.

The followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can “think” whatever they want to, but can they “prove” it? Baha’u’llah did.... William Sears, Thief in the Night

The Bible and the Qur’an are both evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hinduism has no prophets. How can anything get away from something that was never there in the first place? That's as illogical as saying you got a divorce, but were never married.

Maybe not, but according to Britannica, Hinduism has a god:

Krishna, Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.
Krishna | Hindu deity | Britannica.com​

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect, @Trailblazer , you are missing the point and reaching such biased conclusions that they are dysfunctional.

Dharma is not Abrahamic revelation. We neither need nor want to emulate that premise. We do not necessarily have Messengers from God, nor is it at all clear that it would benefit us to have any.

Rather, we seek a Dharmic attitude. Which means, among other things, that we dare to learn better, to widen the inherited wisdom. Our gratitude towards the precursors is not meant to translate into refusal to expand from their teachings.

They were pioneers. They are not the be all, end all of religious truth, even within our respective traditions. And it would be poor show of gratitude to treat them as if they were.

Are you going to hold to the position that the Hindus of today believe and practice what the original Hindus believed and practiced? That is about as logical as saying that the Christianity of today is the SAME as the original Christianity of Jesus. It is even less logical since Hinduism is much older than Christianity:

Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years. Today, with about 900 million followers, Hinduism is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam.Oct 6, 2017
Hinduism - HISTORY​

So there would have been no way to even KNOW what the original teachings of Hinduism were, since the sacred texts were written thousands of years after the religion began.

Hindu Sacred Texts: The Vedas. The Vedas, or “Books of Knowledge,” are the foremost sacred texts in Hinduism. These books, written from around 1200 BCE to 100 CE, began with four vedas, or mantras: Rig Veda, Sama Veda, YajurVeda and Atharva Veda. These expanded over time to include Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
Sacred Texts: Hindu Sacred Texts: The Vedas - findingDulcinea​

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/guides/Religion-and-Spirituality/Sacred-Texts.pg_01.html
And who wrote these texts?

In the Hindu Epic the Mahabharata, the creation of Vedas is credited to Brahma. The Vedic hymns themselves assert that they were skillfully created by Rishis (sages), after inspired creativity, just as a carpenter builds a chariot. There are four Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda.
Who wrote the Rigveda? –QuoraA​

So a god wrote the texts? I am sorry, but this is getting more and more difficult to believe.

Who is the god Brahma?
Brahma (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा, IAST: Brahmā) is a creator god in Hinduism. He has four faces. Brahma is also known as Svayambhu (self-born) or creative aspect of Vishnu, Vāgīśa (Lord of Speech), and the creator of the four Vedas, one from each of his mouths.
Brahma - Wikipedia​

So I am holding to my position that what Hindus are practicing today is a man-made religion, not a religion of God.

Edited to add: One reason why I personally object to the idea of Messengers from God in the Bahai model is that it implies that most people are significantly disadvantaged in their abiilty to connect to the Sacred when compared and contrasted to those very few people that you acknowledge as Messengers.

That depends upon what you mean by “connect” and “Sacred.”All Bahaullah wrote is that there can be no direct intercourse between God and man, and that is why God sends Messengers who act as mediators between God and man.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence,and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318​

That idea I find very unlikely to be accurate. Everyone has at least brief glimpses of the Sacred. The true religious Sages can attain them more often, deeper, for longer and more reliably. But they are ultimately of the same substance as anyone else. Which is a good thing; we are not quite so apart from their actualizations as to fail to understand what they have to teach.

Religious Sages are men. They might have been very spiritual, but they are still men. If you want to trust men and follow their teachings, that is your prerogative. According to my beliefs, God gave us all free will, so we can all choose what to believe. Myself, I have no reason to consider any human being “Sacred.” But of course that is because I belong to an Abrahamic religion and I believe in Prophets/Messengers of God, and that they are a higher order of Creation, above an ordinary man.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're talking about punitive justice and it does not work. Criminals repeat their crimes if you treat them like garbage and that just reinforces how they think of themselves. So, unless you think capital punishment is warrant for every crime you're only making society worse and more judgemental. If you think, apparently, that free-will exists then it's obvious why you think people should be punished because they could have chosen differently.

You are assuming that criminals repeat their crimes just because they are treated badly in prisons, but how badly are they really treated? Even if they were treated badly, what evidence do you have that this is what causes them to repeat their crimes?

Yes, this is 100% based upon free will and that is the reason people should be punished, because they could have chosen differently.

Capital punishment is not suited for every crime, only for heinous crimes where there is certainty of guilt.

“So you disagree that a rapist or murderer should be punished?”
Yes, if it can be avoided. This is actually what the evidence suggests, but you don't seem to care about evidence.

I just don’t get it... Why should punishment be avoided? Why not just get them a room at the Hilton?

Evidence shows what, that a murderer or a rapist is better off not going to prison?

YES omg. Look at Norway or the Netherlands. the recidivism rate had dropped significantly since implementing restorative/rehabilitation methods of justice. look at the documentary. If you want I can give actual studies on the topic, but do you actually care about evidence? If recidivism drops it means convicts have changed. They are not in a life of crime anymore and, instead, actually contribute to society as a whole. If you don't want this to happen, then you're literally choosing your vengeance over the betterment of everyone.

I will look at the documentary and get back to you. But this is about more than recidivism, it is also about justice. It is not just not to punish someone for wrongdoing.

When talking about religion, I'm fine with hypotheticals, but this is not such a topic. This topic has evidence and I do not need to even look at religion. Going to faith on this topic is like me arguing against the world is flat or 10 000 years old. It's really quite pointless.

Evidence of less recidivism still begs the question of punishment. We cannot have a society that does not punish people for wrongdoing. This is based upon the free will to choose between good and evil. They made a choice so there has to be consequences for that choice, or all order in the world would be topsy-turvy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Maybe not, but according to Britannica, Hinduism has a god:
Krishna, Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.
Krishna | Hindu deity | Britannica.com

It is not correct to say that Hinduism has a God. Hinduism has many Gods and Goddesses, probably their number goes into hundreds and thousands.
Sure, Krishna is a popular Hindu God, but as you yourself said just one of the nine avataras of Lord Vishnu. There are many others. For some, he is the Supreme God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All I want to say is that Hinduism means different things to different people. There is no “one” true Hinduism, as there is “one” true Baha’i Faith.

The followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can “think” whatever they want to, but can they “prove” it? Baha’u’llah did.... William Sears, Thief in the Night

The Bible and the Qur’an are both evidence for the existence of God.

That is no problem. Hinduism has many denominations and even if I belong to one, I will say that all the rest are valid and I will respect them completely. That is, completely valid, without any reservation; and not like Bahais who would say "We believe in this, this, and this prophet/messenger - but only ours is the only true and valid religion at the moment till the arrival of the next manifestation in the year 2865 (or whatever)'. Hinduism is constituted in that way.

Sure, Ahmadiyyas can prove the mission of their Mahdi just as well as you can prove the 'divine mission' of Bahaullah.

Bible and Quran or any other scripture that sources itself to God or his ambassadors is very poor evidence. Circular reasoning.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you going to hold to the position that the Hindus of today believe and practice what the original Hindus believed and practiced?

Uh? No. It would be rather sad if they did.

Besides, we know for a fact that they do not. Perhaps the most clear evidence of such is the existence of the Upanishads. But even without those, I do not have quite so little faith in the wisdom of five millennia or so of Hindu sages.

Heck, we Buddhists arose a few millennia later and even so we had our Shiram Shonins, our Boddhidharmas, our Atishas.

Above all, we all have our moments and that does contribute to the collective of Dharma. As we shall ever hope to.

That is about as logical as saying that the Christianity of today is the SAME as the original Christianity of Jesus. It is even less logical since Hinduism is much older than Christianity:

Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years. Today, with about 900 million followers, Hinduism is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam.Oct 6, 2017
Hinduism - HISTORY​

So there would have been no way to even KNOW what the original teachings of Hinduism were, since the sacred texts were written thousands of years after the religion began.

Hindu Sacred Texts: The Vedas. The Vedas, or “Books of Knowledge,” are the foremost sacred texts in Hinduism. These books, written from around 1200 BCE to 100 CE, began with four vedas, or mantras: Rig Veda, Sama Veda, YajurVeda and Atharva Veda. These expanded over time to include Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
Sacred Texts: Hindu Sacred Texts: The Vedas - findingDulcinea​

And who wrote these texts?

In the Hindu Epic the Mahabharata, the creation of Vedas is credited to Brahma. The Vedic hymns themselves assert that they were skillfully created by Rishis (sages), after inspired creativity, just as a carpenter builds a chariot. There are four Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda.
Who wrote the Rigveda? –QuoraA​

So a god wrote the texts? I am sorry, but this is getting more and more difficult to believe.

Who is the god Brahma?
Brahma (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा, IAST: Brahmā) is a creator god in Hinduism. He has four faces. Brahma is also known as Svayambhu (self-born) or creative aspect of Vishnu, Vāgīśa (Lord of Speech), and the creator of the four Vedas, one from each of his mouths.
Brahma - Wikipedia​

So I am holding to my position that what Hindus are practicing today is a man-made religion, not a religion of God.

You say that as if it were a drawback or a flaw in some way. That just does not make sense to me.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is any God, nor any religion of God. Far as I now or care, all religion is indeed man-made, and that much more valuable for it.

Sure, all worthy religion will also be skilled at teaching the appreciation and expression of the Sacred. But the Sacred in not God. It is something much purer, less saddled and more sublime, at least to my eyes.

That depends upon what you mean by “connect” and “Sacred.”All Bahaullah wrote is that there can be no direct intercourse between God and man, and that is why God sends Messengers who act as mediators between God and man.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence,and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318​

Religious Sages are men. They might have been very spiritual, but they are still men. If you want to trust men and follow their teachings, that is your prerogative. According to my beliefs, God gave us all free will, so we can all choose what to believe. Myself, I have no reason to consider any human being “Sacred.” But of course that is because I belong to an Abrahamic religion and I believe in Prophets/Messengers of God, and that they are a higher order of Creation, above an ordinary man.

I will file this in the same folder where I put the realization, back some 15 or 20 years ago, that I can never be a Bahai, since the whole doctrine is so completely theistic.

Bahaullah seems to have done considerable good, but I simply can't agree with him on this matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe not, but according to Britannica, Hinduism has a god:

Krishna, Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.
Krishna | Hindu deity | Britannica.com​

With the proviso that I am not a Hindu, allow me to point out a few things.

Hinduism does indeed include god teachings, or more accuratelly it does teach of the Devas and their Avatara. It has virtually as many Gods as one may see use for in one's practice, from none to millions.

It is however premature and IMO misleading to conclude that the Devas or the Avataras are necessarily similar to the Gods and Messengers of the Bahai Faith and its predecessors.

 

[Vinayaka]

Maybe not, but according to Britannica, Hinduism has a god:

Krishna, Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatara) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right.
Krishna | Hindu deity | Britannica.com​

Hinduism has many Gods. No prophets, many Gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Trailblazer , in Hinduism there is room for lots of mutually divergent (yet not necessarily unfriendly) stances towards the Devas.

For instance, there are those who see Krishna as a more primordial, more supreme Deva than Vishnu, while many others hold the exact opposite opinion. There are those who believe in an original deity from whom Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva emanated. There is a very popular stance, called Advaita, that proposes that there is no true separation between the Sacred and the human.

Those stances can not all be reconciled with each other. Nor is there any great call for the attempt to be made. It is about as serious a matter as whether people should wear blue, yellow, brown or tan. People can disagree in peace and mutual respect.

And I for one feel pretty sure that the Devas themselves feel no great anxiety due to our lack of consensus. One way or another, they are all well beyond such petty worries. As a matter of fact, so are nearly all Hindus, far as I know. They do not need to convince others, they need only the freedom to practice as they see fit.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And I for one feel pretty sure that the Devas themselves feel no great anxiety due to our lack of consensus. One way or another, they are all well beyond such petty worries. As a matter of fact, so are nearly all Hindus, far as I know. They do not need to convince others, they need only the freedom to practice as they see fit.

Right you are. Abrahamic religions will be like prisons for us where we would sit bound by iron chains.

 

[Shad]

First, I do not demand evidence for other religious beliefs or their Prophets, because I am not looking at them to determine if they are the truth from God or not. It is those religious believers who should be demanding the evidence for their Prophets and religions.

Stay on topic... The point was about scripture in which you demand it for X but not for your view. You couldn't leave the point at merely the Buddhists lack of contemporary scripture. You made a claim about that scripture according to your religion.

Second,

this discussion was about having original scriptures written by the Prophet. All I was saying is that we have no original scriptures written by the Buddha, all we have are what people wrote down hundreds of years later, and the religious followers called these the teachings of the Buddha.

What did Buddha write?
The Buddha did not write anything down. The earliest known scriptures were recorded hundreds of years after the Buddha's death. Still, the Buddhavacana (Words of the Buddha) are claimed to be the literal utterances of the Buddha as the Sangha orally maintained them since the Buddha's death.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-know-what-the-Buddha-taught-and-how-does-this-...​

You said more than that. You put forward a knowledge claim merely based on your existing belief not the scripture you demanded from others.

Anyone can claim anything, but can they prove it? That is different from the Baha’i Faith in that we have the original scriptures of Baha’u’llah, written in His Own Pen, and the original Tablets reside in a vault in Haifa, Israel. Because He had been poisoned by His enemies, He later had difficulty writing, so some of His Tablets were dictated to His secretary, but Baha’u’llah immediately reviewed them before He stamped them with his Official Seal. Thus all of Baha’u’llah’s Writings are fully authentic.

You do not have the relevant Buddhist text. So now follow your logic above.....

Third,

of course I demand evidence for my religion. I have evidence and I have examined the evidence.

No you didn't as you made a statement without the Buddhist scripture to back it.

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

Sophistry

 

[Trailblazer]

It is not correct to say that Hinduism has a God. Hinduism has many Gods and Goddesses, probably their number goes into hundreds and thousands.
Sure, Krishna is a popular Hindu God, but as you yourself said just one of the nine avataras of Lord Vishnu. There are many others. For some, he is the Supreme God.

That’s true, as the website said, Krishna is just one of the many Gods of Hinduism.