Is atheism a religion?

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence to support anything other than man created god(s) in his own image.

There is enough evidence for God to sink a ship... You just don't see it as the evidence, but that does not mean it is not evidence, because what you see is just what you see.

How do you know what a god wants?

From what Baha'u'llah wrote coupled with deductive reasoning.

Then why do so many people bow down and pray to a god? Are they all deluded believing this is something god needs?

God does not need it, people need it. God does not NEED anything from humans.

Don't bother posting excerpts from your scripture. I've read enough to know it is all fabrication.

No, it is all the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah. Nothing has been fabricated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is enough evidence for God to sink a ship... You just don't see it as the evidence, but that does not mean it is not evidence, because what you see is just what you see.

Can you give an example of such evidence?
Give me your BEST example, what you find most convincing.

No, it is all the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah. Nothing has been fabricated.

How do you know the original writings weren't fabricated to begin with?

 

[Trailblazer]

If "proper investigation" does not necessarily lead to "truth", then your "reason-based faith" is nothing more than "blind faith".

No, it is only blind faith if one believed it without looking at it.
In that sense they went into it blindly.

Whether it is true or not is an entirely different matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is your opinion. Try telling a Muslim that Allah is the same as Shiva. Try telling a Southern Baptist that his god really is Allah.

It does not matter what people think or believe because people are fallible. The fact that they do not KNOW that there is only one God does not mean there is not only One God. Reality is reality and it is independent of beliefs. They are all referring to the same God, they just don't realize it.

Why is that important? Is it a good thing to forbid women to get an education and forbid them to drive because there is something higher? Is it a good thing to denigrate science because there is something higher? Is it a good thing to repeatedly terrorize, ostracize and kill Jews because there is something higher?

None of those are good things and people should not believe in religions that teach those things. The Baha'i Faith does not teach those things. The Baha'i Faith teaches that it is more important for women to be educated tan men but that everyone should be educated. The Baha'i Faith teaches the harmony of science and religion and that science is just as important as religion for the advancement of humanity. Some of the core principles of the Baha'i Faith are as follows and they are explained in more detail on the website below:

• The oneness of God.
• The oneness of humanity.
• The oneness of religion.
• Religion as a school.
• Equality of women and men.
• Harmony of religion and science.
• Universal compulsory education.
• Universal auxiliary language.

Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Absolute nonsense.

If you hold a gun to my head and say "give me your wallet, don't make me shoot you"...
And I then refuse to give you my wallet and you shoot me...
I did not just commit suicide!

I guess this is the free will argument... Been there, done that.

I am not suggesting that everyone can just choose to be a believer... It is more complicated than that. I was only saying that those who do become believers are rewarded and those who don't miss out on the reward. I should not have posted that quote without explaining the context.

However, everything we do in this life is based upon rewards and punishments.

“The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 219

 

[Trailblazer]

Euh.............................
No, dude. Religion absolutely does that. Religion divides between the "followers" and "everybody else".

People divide themselves by deciding to be followers or not. Atheists divide themselves just as much as religionists divide themselves. And I am not a dude, I am a gal.

As Matt Dilahunty once said...
When he turned atheist, he received letters from his former friends saying "we can no longer associate with you because you are off the devil". His wife was like, completely cast out of her own family.

Him losing his faith had tremendous social repercussions. In his own words: "I did not end those relationships. Christians, ended those relationships. I did not send letters to them saying that I no longer could associate and socialise with them. Christians did that."

But I am not a Christian and I would never do that... I associate with more atheists than believers. The primary forum I post on is a primarily atheist forum run by an atheist. There is no them and us in the Baha'i Faith. We believe that humanity is all one people.

When you have a belief that all those not part of your little belief club deservs to be tortured forever, then people not part of your club can not be friends with you. This wall between you, is entirely build up by YOUR side.

I agree. If Christians do that they put up a wall. But I do not believe in walls and neither does God. My best friends are atheists.

God does not divide people, people divide people, and it is wrong. God's sheds His Light upon everyone, whether they believe God exists or not.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."

('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you give an example of such evidence?
Give me your BEST example, what you find most convincing.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are the best evidence for me.
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

How do you know the original writings weren't fabricated to begin with?

We know because we have the original Tablets and they have been authenticated by modern methods of handwriting analysis.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, what I responded to was written in YOUR POST.

"Since all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, there is no way for you to demonstrate just how all other religions are false, or that your religion is true. At best, you can only BELIEVE that yours is the true religion, and theirs is false. At worst, you can convince yourself that you KNOW that yours is the true religion, and theirs is false." #886 Truly Enlightened, Yesterday at 9:36 AM

Then I said what is below in response to your post.

"All of God's religions are true. Their spiritual verities are the same; only the social teachings and laws change from one religion to the next. There is also a new message that is revealed with each new religion, a message that is pertinent to the times in which the religion was revealed, a message that addresses the ills of humanity in that age." #897 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 9:53 PM

I picked out what I wanted to respond to, which was not what you thought I should respond to (the fallacy of hasty generalization), but I do not care what you want me to respond to because you have no right to tell me what I can post on a public forum.

I am not going to admit I am wrong about the fallacy of hasty generalization because I am not wrong. Atheists employ that fallacy left and right, whenever they ASSUME (without even looking) that the Baha'i Faith is the same than the other religions. Clearly it is different, and anyone who has really looked can see that. You have a right to think it is the same if you want to, but that does not mean it is the same, it just means that is what you think. But what you think does not determine reality.

I clearly pointed out your mistake. I pointed out how you were wrong and why. It is not a hasty generalization to assume that all religions think that theirs is the true religion. Or, that their religious beliefs are the true beliefs. In this respect they ARE all the same. If not, point out ONE religion that doesn't think this? You can't. Do I need to list just how similar the Baha'i faith is to other religions? Therefore, it is a fact, not a generalized belief, that all religious believe that theirs is the true religion, and that theirs is the true belief. Why do you need to create this straw man("...I do not care what you want me to respond to because you have no right to tell me what I can post on a public forum."), which falsely presumes that I want you to respond in the way I want. I don't or can. It is also ironic that by saying, "Atheists employ that fallacy left and right, whenever they ASSUME (without even looking) that the Baha'i Faith is the same than the other religions...", you are committing the same fallacy that you accuse Atheists of committing(hasty generalization). Except, they are right and you are wrong. You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to admit to being wrong on even the most trivial of matters. Therefore, I expect you to continue to manipulate the language, terms, and context of what posters post. I expect you will continue to misrepresent their meanings, stretch the context of their narrative, twist the logic of their comments, find a word or sentence to exploit and ignore how they are being used in context, all to avoid accepting the reality of your truth. That is, underneath all the foreign religiosity, rituals, customs, and languages, there is absolutely no evidentiary substance supporting its beliefs or its ecclesiastic foundation. Just smoke-and-mirrors, and the perception of truth.

People can believe anything they want to be true. But they must prove what they claim to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I clearly pointed out your mistake. I pointed out how you were wrong and why. It is not a hasty generalization to assume that all religions think that theirs is the true religion. Or, that their religious beliefs are the true beliefs. In this respect they ARE all the same. If not, point out ONE religion that doesn't think this? You can't.

No, it is not a hasty generalization to assume that most religions think that theirs is the only true religion. Most religions believe that.

Baha’is believe that the Baha’i Faith is the religion God wants humanity to follow in this age, but the Baha’i Faith does not claim to be the only true religion that ever existed or that ever will exist in the future.

That is the salient difference between the Baha’i Faith and other religions that claim to be the only way for all of time. The Baha’i Faith was not the religion that God wanted people to follow in past ages and it will not be the religion God wants humanity to follow in the future. There will be a NEW religion in the future that will supersede the Baha’i Faith.

Show me one other religion that has these beliefs.

Do I need to list just how similar the Baha'i faith is to other religions?

No, I already told you that the spiritual verities of all the religions are the same.

People can believe anything they want to be true. But they must prove what they claim to be true.

They must prove it only to themselves. They have no obligation to prove it to anyone else.

 

[Trailblazer]

When you accept things as true which can't be demonstrated to be true, which can't be verified in any way, then you are by definition being gullible.

That is what "gullible" means: to accept things as true without sufficient evidence.

No, that is not what gullible means. It means easily persuaded to believe something; credulous. If one is not easily persuaded they are not gullible. If one had sufficient evidence and they were persuaded by it they are not gullible.

No. When someone makes a claim that can't be verified and then asks me to "just believe", then that person is asking me to be gullible.

I never told you to “just believe” anything. I said you had to do your due diligence.

So if you say that god doesn't want us to test his existance, even prevents us from doing so and then rewards those who believe anyway, then that god rewards gullibility.

No that is not gullibility because there is no reason to think we could ever test God’s existence as a way to know God exists.

If god would value rationality, he wouldn't demand faith.

No, that is not true, because a person can be rational and still have faith. There is no contradiction if faith is based on reason. There is no way around having faith in what cannot be proven to exist. There is evidence but not proof that God exists.

How "believable" something is, depends on the evidence in support of the claims.
All these religions have the same kind of evidence: claims, more claims and anecdotes.

That makes all of them equally (un)believable.

How do you know that unless you have looked at all of them? Have you?

And christians only care about biblical revelations.
And muslims only care about quranic revelations.
I care about no revelations. I care about evidence.

Revelations ARE the evidence.

What evidence?

All the evidence that supports the truth of the Revelations.

And again we are back to this god valueing gullibility over rationality.
A god who values rationality, would make himself known instead of demanding irrational belief.

God does value rationality. God did make Himself known when He sent Messengers who revealed Him.

A god that can't be found looks very much like a god that does not exist.

How do you think you are going to find a God who is not a material entity?

Yep. So all you can do is "just believe" the claims.
The point exactly.

No, you should never believe the claims without thoroughly checking them out.

You "just believe" your prophets.
Christians "just believe" their prophets.
Muslims "just believe" their prophets.

I cannot speak for Christians and Muslims but Baha’is do not just believe; we checked Baha’u’llah out BEFORE we believed.

Why?
And I'll add that you only consider this important, because you actually already believe it.

Because that many people cannot be wrong about something that vital to existence.

And I'll add that you only consider this unimportant, because you actually do not believe it.

To me, your god claims aren't any more important then the god claims of any other religion, or the claims of Scientologists, or the claims of alien abductees. But i'll guarantee you that scientologists consider their beliefs about their inner Thetans and Lord Xenu to being extremely important.

I hope you realize it is illogical to say my religion is the same as other religions without knowing anything about it. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Maybe YOU should think about.
The VAST MAJORITY of those 93% believe very different things then you do.

Whys would that matter much? There is only One God and God is God.

It is very dishonest of you to pretend as if those 93% stand together against the "unbelievers" like myself. Because christians, to name just one example, disbelieve YOUR religious claims just as much as I do.

I never said that believers stand against nonbelievers.

Bahá'í statistics - Wikipedia

The total amount of followers of the religion you hold so dear, numbers are 8 million worldwide.
That's about 0.1% of the world population

How many Christians do you think there were 127 years after Jesus died?

“There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.
These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.” From: How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

Clearly you don't. You are just as atheistic as me when it comes to religious beliefs of any religion that isn't your own. Yet, you pit 93% against 7% atheists. Even though you actually disbelieve the religions of 92.9% of that 93%.

I did not pit believers against nonbelievers. I was just pointing out the percentages worldwide.

I do not think the other religions are false. All major religions are true but they no longer apply to the current age of history.

In reality, 99.9% of humans disagree with you.

Why would that matter? The religion is either true or false, logically speaking.

How are these things objectively testable?

Religious beliefs are not objectively testable because God is not an objective reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

“That depends upon how you define reality. What is reality?”

The environment we all exist in and which continues to be after we are long gone.
The state of things as they actually exist, independently of what we believe.

That is just the physical reality. Is not thought a reality?

What is "spiritual reality" and how can you demonstrate that it is actually real?

It cannot be proven but that does not mean it does not exist. There is evidence but not proof.

What soul?
All the evidence I am aware of suggests that what you call "mind" is just a functioning living brain.

The soul and the mind are not the same. The mind works through the brain but the soul functions through the brain only as long as we are alive in a physical body. After we die, the soul continues to function independent of the brain.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

That's demonstrably false. A lot, if not most, religions also condone and regulate slavery, promote homophobia, promote misogeny, etc.

Yes, some older religions do, and that is why we should not follow the older religions; they are outdated.

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right.

Again completely demonstrably false. See above. Slavery, homophobia, mysogeny,...
These things are anything but moral.

Those were not contained in the spiritual, immutable law of any religion.

Again, how do you do that, if you can't empirically test them against reality?

Why would you want to empirically test the teachings of a religion? Religion is not the same as science. However, you can read the teachings and see how well they apply to our reality.

No. How do you determine if something is in accordance with reality, without actually testing it against reality?

How do you think you could test the teachings of a religion?

So you never actually stopped believing in God then?

I never really believed in God before. I knew God existed but it did not mean anything to me, I had no faith or certitude like I do now.

When you have independent scientific studies of reality, one eventually converges on the same answers. There's plenty of examples of scientists who, independently from one another, came up with the same explanatory models.

There isn't a SINGLE example of independently converging on the same religion. Not a single one.

Why would there be? All religions are not the same. Religion is not science and it cannot be studied like science.

The only way someone ends up with christian beliefs, is if somebody else tells them about it.

Not necessarily. They might have decided to look into it on their own.

But religions as we know them today, would never see the light of day again. Instead, at best, brand new religions will be invented.

That would actually be a good thing.

But religions are mutually exclusive. At best, only one can be correct.
If the christians are right, then you are wrong.

That is true because Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it is false doctrines of the Church. Early Christianity does not contradict Baha’i.

So a proper analogy would be that of all the car brands, only one (at best) will actually drive.
You would not buy a car not knowing if it will drive. You'll test it first, before forking up a couple thousand dollars. And you will continue testing brands, until you stumble upon one that actually drives. And you won't require faith for it, because you'll actually KNOW it drives before you buy it.

You cannot test religion that way but you can research it exactly that way to find out which religion makes sense.

You belong to a religion that is followed by 0.1% of humans.
The other 99.9% of people, disagree with you.

Of those 99.9%, 7% (your numbers, which I didn't doublecheck) are atheists.
The other 92.9% believe that their religions, which disagrees with yours, makes just as much sense to them and "their reality", as you do. Yet, they believe very different things then you do.

Anyone who knows anything about religious history knows that religions always start out small and grow gradually over time.

It does not matter what makes sense to other people, it only matters what makes sense to you. That is the test.

Bottom line is that that which seems sensible to you (based on what you already believe), has no bearing on what is actually true.

That is a true statement. Beliefs do not create reality. So how do you think we can know what is true?

I did not already believe it before I researched it so it did not make sense to me before. I had no beliefs before that.

This is why we have something like the scientific method. It's a tool to literally bypass our bias, subjectivity and our desire to "believe".

Sorry but the scientific method does not work on religion because religion is not science. But you can bypass your desire to believe if you look at all the evidence and evaluate it with your rational mind. Unless you are really gullible you cannot be fooled. But if skepticism overrides open-mindedness you do not stand a chance. That is the position of all atheists I have ever encountered. A person has to be a true seeker to overcome their bias and skepticism. They have to have a desire to believe and that comes from within.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess this is the free will argument... Been there, done that.

No, it's not at all the free-will argument.

I am not suggesting that everyone can just choose to be a believer... It is more complicated than that. I was only saying that those who do become believers are rewarded and those who don't miss out on the reward.

That makes it even worse...........
If one gets rewarded or punished for things that one can not choose.... then that is akin to punishing or rewarding somebody for being black or caucasian.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are the best evidence for me.
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

/facepalm


Those are the claims that are in need of evidence...........................................

We know because we have the original Tablets and they have been authenticated by modern methods of handwriting analysis.

Woosh!

That was the point, flying over your head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that is not what gullible means. It means easily persuaded to believe something; credulous. If one is not easily persuaded they are not gullible.

You know who is not easily persuaded? People who are sceptical of claims that have bad or no evidence.
You know who IS easily persuaded? People who don't care about evidence, don't recognize evidence, who aren't skeptical of bare claims.

So yes, to just believe things on bad evidence, is being gullible.

If one had sufficient evidence and they were persuaded by it they are not gullible.

"IF", yes. Which is not the case here.
This is why religions require "faith" instead.

Faith = gullibility

I never told you to “just believe” anything.

You did. Every time you said god isn't testable. Without testability, all I'm left with is to "just believe" (or not, off course).
When I asked for evidence, you gave me your religious writings - the very thing that needs to be demonstrated.

No that is not gullibility because there is no reason to think we could ever test God’s existence as a way to know God exists.

I rest my case.

No, that is not true, because a person can be rational and still have faith

Faith isn't rational.

There is no way around having faith in what cannot be proven to exist

Sure there is.
Just consider your stance on Ra, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, interdimensional 7-headed dragons, leprechauns, santa clause,...

There is evidence but not proof that God exists.

Claims aren't evidence.

How do you know that unless you have looked at all of them? Have you?

It's the very nature of religioous belief.
If there were rational evidence, it wouldn't be religion but common knowledge.

Revelations ARE the evidence.

No, those are claims. THE claims, even, in a lot of cases.

All the evidence that supports the truth of the Revelations.

Such as? More revelations and anecdotes?
Piling on claims, does not evidence make.

God does value rationality. God did make Himself known when He sent Messengers who revealed Him.

Are you again pretending that all religious believers are in your camp, while in reality only 0.1% of people actually agree with you?

So god reveals himself as Visjnoe to some, Allah to others, Jesus to even others, Thor to vikings, etc?

By the way.... the extra-dimensional unicorn that never lies just revealed to me that there are no gods and that all those religious "revelations" were actually the work of his evil twin who enjoys toying with people's superstitious beliefs.

So I guess that according to your logic this is evidence that you are all wrong.

How do you think you are going to find a God who is not a material entity?

Supporting a god is not my job, since I'm not the one claiming such a thing exists.
Do your own homework.

Because that many people cannot be wrong about something that vital to existence.

"that many"? You mean the 0.1% that share your particular religious beliefs?
And how is it "vital"? Again, you only consider it vital because you believe it.
I don't consider it vital at all. Au contraire. I consider it detrimental and at best a distraction.

And I'll add that you only consider this unimportant, because you actually do not believe it.

And that, just shows the merrit of the claims.
If the importance is dependend on wheter or not it is believed, then it is objectively not important at all.


Case in point......................

I hope you realize it is illogical to say my religion is the same as other religions without knowing anything about it. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

The stuff you say in defense of it, is the exact same stuff I hear from other believers of other religions.
"you gotta have faith", "it can't be tested", yada yada.

Same old, same old.

Whys would that matter much? There is only One God and God is God.

It matters if you are going to pretend that those 93% are all in your camp, while in reality it's only 0.1%

How many Christians do you think there were 127 years after Jesus died?

“There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.
These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.” From: How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

So are you claiming that in the future, the 0.1% of your fellow believers, will grow out to 30-40%?
Not that it matters to the point being made.

You consistently pretend as if 93% of religious believers means something, while 99.9% of them completely disagree with your beliefs.

I did not pit believers against nonbelievers. I was just pointing out the percentages worldwide.

And you broke it up between "93% believers" vs "7% unbelievers", as if that means something.
As if those 93% agree with you (they don't).
As if X amount of people believing Y, adds credibility to Y (it doesn't).

I do not think the other religions are false. All major religions are true but they no longer apply to the current age of history.

So god amused himself with revealing completely contradicting and mutually exclusive religions to the point where the followers thereof even fight wars over it?

Awesome.

Religious beliefs are not objectively testable because God is not an objective reality.

Exactly. God is a subjective reality. AKA: he exists between the ears of believers. Not in the real world.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

There is no evidence to support anything other than man created god(s) in his own image.

There is enough evidence for God to sink a ship... You just don't see it as the evidence, but that does not mean it is not evidence, because what you see is just what you see.

Evidence that man created god(s) in his own image:

All gods look like the people who worship them. African gods look like Africans. Asian gods look like Asians. Grecko Roman gods looked like Greeks and Italians. Christ has been anglicized.

Over the centuries there have been thousands of gods created and worshipped. For centuruies, people worshipped multiple gods.​

On the other hand, the "evidence" that you have for god is what some of these god believers wrote hundreds and thousands of years ago.

From what Baha'u'llah wrote coupled with deductive reasoning.

Much of what Baha'u'llah wrote is obvious fabrication as I clearly demonstrated in previous posts. There are things he is credited with writing. You, even getting information from other sources within the Bahai movement, could not explain how Baha'u'llah could have known some of the things he allegedly wrote. Furthermore, much of the writing that you quote is not even the writing of Baha'u'llah himself as you yourself have admitted.

As to "coupled with deductive reasoning"...it is the same kind of "deductive reasoning" that people use and have used to be certain that Thor was a God who threw lightning bolts and that Tepeu and Gucumatz... sat with each other and created the world.

No, it is all the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah. Nothing has been fabricated.

I guess you have forgotten that you have posted and referenced original writings of Shogi Effendi.

I guess you have forgotten that all of the alleged writings of Baha'u'llah are just translations by Shogi Effendi.

Also, Baha'u'llah seems to think he is not a messenger of God, but god himself when he writes:

O CHILDREN OF MEN!
Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other.
...
Know thou, that I have wafted unto thee all the fragrances of holiness,
​

"We created you"?
"I have wafted"?

What was that you said...
From what Baha'u'llah wrote coupled with deductive reasoning.

 

[ecco]

ecco↑​

If "proper investigation" does not necessarily lead to "truth", then your "reason-based faith" is nothing more than "blind faith".

No, it is only blind faith if one believed it without looking at it.
In that sense they went into it blindly.

Whether it is true or not is an entirely different matter.

So you admit that your "looking into it" led you to believe something that may not be truth.

 

[ecco]

It does not matter what people think or believe because people are fallible. The fact that they do not KNOW that there is only one God does not mean there is not only One God. Reality is reality and it is independent of beliefs. They are all referring to the same God, they just don't realize it.

Nonsense. This is the same ego-driven prating that we hear from every religious person: My God is the Real God; My Religion is the Real Religion.

There is nothing that you can present that lends more credence to your claims than those of any other person.

 

[ecco]

None of those are good things and people should not believe in religions that teach those things. The Baha'i Faith does not teach those things. The Baha'i Faith teaches that it is more important for women to be educated tan men but that everyone should be educated. The Baha'i Faith teaches the harmony of science and religion and that science is just as important as religion for the advancement of humanity. Some of the core principles of the Baha'i Faith are as follows and they are explained in more detail on the website below:

• The oneness of God.
• The oneness of humanity.
• The oneness of religion.
• Religion as a school.
• Equality of women and men.
• Harmony of religion and science.
• Universal compulsory education.
• Universal auxiliary language.

Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia

Let's look at just one:

• Equality of women and men.

First of all that is a Wiki page about Bahai. It is not actual scriptual writings. Nevertheless, if we take the time to actually read and learn (did you?), we see that there are exceptions:

In terms of Bahá'í administration, all positions except for membership on the Universal House of Justice are open to men and women. No specific reason has been given for this exception, but `Abdu'l-Bahá has stated that there is a wisdom for it, which would eventually become clear.
​

Trailblazer, has enough time passed where it has become clear why women cannot become members on the Universal House of Justice?

​

Furthermore, we have this...

The Seven Proofs​

The Seven Proofs Haji Siyyid ‘Alí Muhammad Shirazi (The Báb)

The essence of this discourse is this that God, in His sublime wisdom, gave the Qur’án as proof of the Mission of Muhammad.
​

The Báb clearly states that the Qur’án was given by God to man. Therefore, teachings from the Qur’án are the word of God:

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
​

Clearly, writings from The Bab and writings from God's Qur’án clearly state that "Equality of women and men" is not supported by scripture. How did you not know this?



Yeah, I know what you are going to say, God teaches different things at different times to different people. Uh huh.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, it is not a hasty generalization to assume that most religions think that theirs is the only true religion. Most religions believe that.

Baha’is believe that the Baha’i Faith is the religion God wants humanity to follow in this age, but the Baha’i Faith does not claim to be the only true religion that ever existed or that ever will exist in the future.

That is the salient difference between the Baha’i Faith and other religions that claim to be the only way for all of time. The Baha’i Faith was not the religion that God wanted people to follow in past ages and it will not be the religion God wants humanity to follow in the future. There will be a NEW religion in the future that will supersede the Baha’i Faith.

Show me one other religion that has these beliefs.

No, I already told you that the spiritual verities of all the religions are the same.

They must prove it only to themselves. They have no obligation to prove it to anyone else.

Wow, maybe you forgot that it was YOU that accused another poster of hasty generalization in numerous posts. He claimed that your religion, like others all preach that their religion is the true religion. Therefore, making your religion the same as any other religion(in this respect). Now, you are agreeing with him, thus admitting that accusing him of hasty generalization was false. Then in the post to me, you claim that you were not wrong, but don't explain why. Like Trump, you don't admit mistakes, because for you, perception seems to be everything. Not truth.

If you believe that the Baha'i faith will be superseded by another faith, why are you still there and following its teachings? Or, is this just a curiosity lure? I think this pattern of misinterpretation, misdirection, denial, and false equivocation, is part of your standard mode of argument. Eventually people will realize that they are only arguing with themselves. Intellectually dishonest.

 

[lukethethird]

And people ask if atheism is a religion.