How does one test their own religion?

Frank Goad · Jun 13, 2021

nPeace said:
I haven't claimed here that one who rejects God did so based on emotion. If I did, what would your response be?

Who does not want to live? Is it not those who are emotionally troubled?
So I am not seeing the logic in your assertion.... uninformed it would seem.

What evidence do "us" Atheist want to see?

I think atheist want to see something paranormal from God.That can answer all their questions.

nPeace · Jun 13, 2021

Frank Goad said:
I think atheist want to see something paranormal from God.That can answer all their questions.

No. Atheists do not care about seeing anything extraordinary. Science has the answer for everything, remember. Everything has a "natural" explaination... according to them.

Or are you speaking for Frank?
Is that the reason for your "obsession" with out of body experiences and lucid dreaming? That certainly would explain your postings.

Trailblazer · Jun 13, 2021

AlexanderG said:
Hm, I'm not actually seeing any evidence in your reply. You said:

1. "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."

The words of your scripture are the evidence that your scripture is true? This is circular reasoning and not evidence. Every soul recognizes the signs of god? My soul does not, so I can know that is false with absolute certainty.

I told you I would explain it to you because I knew you would not understand what that passage means.
The words He hath revealed is what Baha'u'llah wrote, which Baha'is refer to as "the Writings."
This is not circular reasoning because I am not saying He was a Messenger of God "because He said so."

The Writings (scriptures) are part of the evidence but not all of the evidence. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings) as the evidence that establishes the truth of His claims.

To give you an analogy, part of the 'evidence' that a man was a competent scientist that we should trust would be the scientific papers that he wrote.

The passage does not say that every soul recognizes the signs of god. It says that He (meaning God) has endowed every soul with the "capacity" to recognize the signs of God.

AlexanderG said:
2. "What really convinced me that the Baha'i Faith was true was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era because there were a lot of facts in there."

I wish you would lead with those facts. As it is, I don't know what you're referring to specifically. If it's just that the scripture contains some true facts, then that still doesn't mean its supernatural claims are also true. If so, this would mean that the existence of New York must mean Spiderman is real, because there are comics that describe both in the same book.

What I meant is that there are many facts about the Baha'i Faith in that book. The post was not intended to be a delineation of all those facts because that could or be contained in a post. What I mean by facts are the history, of the central figures, the teachings, and beliefs and practices of the Baha'i Faith. I was not referring to what is in the scriptures, such as supernatural claims about God, Messengers of God, the soul or the afterlife, because such claims are not facts that can be proven true.

AlexanderG said:
3. "Now that I have clearly glimpsed the spirit of this book I guess I am a lifer."

I don't know what this means but it sounds emotional.

I was just joking, and the recipient of the pot understands what I mean because he is a Bahai. I meant that because of what I know about the Baha'i Faith (the facts) coupled with the effect the Writings of Baha'u'llah had upon my soul I will always be a Baha'i because I know it is the truth from God. Of course there was some emotion involved but that was only "after" I had determied it was true by looking at the facts.

Frank Goad · Jun 13, 2021

nPeace said:
No. Atheists do not care about seeing anything extraordinary. Science has the answer for everything, remember. Everything has a "natural" explaination... according to them.

Or are you speaking for Frank?
Is that the reason for your "obsession" with out of body experiences and lucid dreaming? That certainly would explain your postings.

I believe Christ is my savior.God is my lord.And the Holy spirit is my comforter.If I don't get an out of body experience.Or lucid dream from God through praying over and over is God's choice.

nPeace · Jun 13, 2021

Frank Goad said:
I believe Christ is my savior.God is my lord.And the Holy spirit is my comforter.If I don't get an out of body experience.Or lucid dream from God through praying over and over is God's choice.

Certainly is good to hear that you accept what God wills, rather than what you want.
You are quite persistent in your prayers for God to grant your desire.
While it is good to persevere in prayer, don't you think it is also good to get to know the will of God, and do it?

Frank Goad · Jun 13, 2021

nPeace said:
Certainly is good to hear that you accept what God wills, rather than what you want.
You are quite persistent in your prayers for God to grant your desire.
While it is good to persevere in prayer, don't you think it is also good to get to know the will of God, and do it?

Yes.

AlexanderG · Jun 13, 2021

Trailblazer said:
The Writings (scriptures) are part of the evidence but not all of the evidence. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings) as the evidence that establishes the truth of His claims.

To give you an analogy, part of the 'evidence' that a man was a competent scientist that we should trust would be the scientific papers that he wrote.

The passage does not say that every soul recognizes the signs of god. It says that He (meaning God) has endowed every soul with the "capacity" to recognize the signs of God.

What I meant is that there are many facts about the Baha'i Faith in that book.

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still not seeing any evidence. If someone has a good character, then that doesn't mean we should take everything they say as true. And the scientific method specifically guards against this fallacy with the process of peer review, where multiple people carefully examine each scientific paper for its merits rather than trust the scientist who authored it.

Religious scriptures are the claims of that religion. They are not the evidence. As least for me, claims need to be corroborated externally and separately from the claim. Granted, testimony counts as a claim, (e.g. "this thing happened") plus evidence (e.g. "I saw this thing happen.") but testimonial evidence is notoriously unreliably, and I don't think it can count as evidence for claims which otherwise have no empirical basis in reality. If I testify that I saw a car, that is reasonable to believe because there is a vast body of evidence implicit in the word "car." If I testify that I saw a magic flying carpet, then that is not reasonable to believe; outside of my personal testimony, there is no implicit empirical basis to believe they can exist.

tarasan · Jun 13, 2021

osgart said:
Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Who here approaches religion from the ground up assuming nothing yet entertains existence as a mystery that requires some kind of spirituality and possibly a creative aspect requiring agency?

People invest their own personal identities in their religion, yet do they ever do external objective analysis and research before jumping into their faith?

Does your faith require that only internal sources of knowledge are allowed?

You can apply the scientific method to some religious claims it all depends if they are claiming something about they physical world. I suppose it is something that I have to think about to have a long lasting faith, I mean if I'm wrong I'm kinda wasting my life arnt I? I found the reasons to believe in my faith compelling enough.

AlexanderG · Jun 13, 2021

nPeace said:
I have spoken to Atheist and heard many express themselves, and the reason they became Atheist is not based on rationality, but a desire to break free from laws that went against their freedom - in other words, they found God's laws too restrictive, and prefer to have the freedom to do what they please.
Should I put you in that box?
Would you be comfortable that someone puts you in a box, of a handful of people, or those they make an assessment of - one that may be even based on bias, and subjective opinion?

I know of, and have personally heard former Atheist express that they had questions that were answered - not by science - but by the Bible, and they did a examination, using the same approach they use, in their life, and work (of science - if a scientist), and found evidence that they had found reliable answers, and that's more than a handful.
So is it okay with you if I put other former Atheists in that box?

Are you one of those Atheist that think Anthony Flew acted on emotions?
Many seem to judge others based on their worldview, but object to others judging them.

Nonetheless, I am not referring to those few former Atheist you conversed with, or gave your assessment of. Let's talk about Atheists who actually were primarily convinced by a critical examination of the evidence... even if by your judgment that's a handful.
What do you say of those former Atheists.

Please consider that people are different, and while people - regardless of whether they are Atheists or not - do become one thing or other based on emotion, or what have you, that doesn't mean that people do not do otherwise.
Some people tend to think that anyone outside their worldview is not sensible. Hopefully that's not how you are viewing it.

I thought so.
You seem to think all religious people are emotional 'misfits', for lack of a better word.
So basically what you are saying, if I have not misunderstood you, is that if a man like Einstein (for example) had turned religious, it would be evidence to you, that he was driven by emotions - maybe he had some problems in his life, so he got desperate.
Is that just about what you are saying?

"the actual evidence for religious claims just isn't there" is your subjective opinion. It is not fact. Do you agree?
To illustrate... because you can't see the beauty in an art piece, which the artist, wanted his audience to capture, and deliberately created it, it doesn't mean it's not there.
It just means it's lost to you, and sometimes there are obvious reasons for that. Would you agree?

Oh. You said, "There is a reason that evangelists and missionaries selectively target people who are emotionally vulnerable, confused, or desperate for affection."
Are you an evangelist? Have you ever been an evangelist?
If yes to the above, why would you put every evangelist in your box, as one who targets emotionally vulnerable people? Is that not how holding to a closed-minded worldview works?
If your answer is no, then you don't know this. It is a subjective opinion, based on your assessment, is that not true?
Again, keeping in mind that while people do certain things, it does not mean everyone in that area of life, does the same. Are you in agreement?

I'm getting less interested in a discussion with you. In my post, I was very careful not to make sweeping generalizations, using phrases like "many atheists" and "in these cases" and "some people." However, nearly your entire response is to accuse me of making absolute statements about all atheists and all Christians. In fact, I agree that such absolute statements would be inaccurate and that's why I didn't make them. You have successfully knocked down those straw men, but I wish you would have addressed my points instead.

I think I also described my opinions as my own opinions, so I'm not sure why you would accuse me of expressing ideas that are merely my opinion.

In another later post in this thread, you said of atheists that "science has the answer for everything, remember. Everything has a "natural" explaination... according to them." This makes me suspect you haven't spoken with many atheists, because I've only seen professional apologists assign these beliefs to atheism. Virtually no atheists are philosophical naturalists (or logical positivists for that matter). I've personally never met or heard of one, which makes sense because the notion is just as speculative and unfalsifiable as theism. Again, you have vanquished your straw men.

Whoever you're talking to, it doesn't seem to be me. I'll therefore take my leave from the discussion.

Aupmanyav · Jun 13, 2021

Frank Goad said:
I think atheist want to see something paranormal from God.That can answer all their questions.

That is right. When you propose something paranormal, then the proof also has to be paranormal.
Because your God cannot give a normal proof.

Trailblazer said:
There is no 'standard set' of evidence that everyone uses because everyone comes to believe for their own reasons.
I believe that after having looked at all after looking at the evidence that indicates that is true.
What we can know is whatever he can discover by looking at the history of that time.

There are standards but you make a mockery of standards. What proof you have for existence of God? What proof do you have that the Iranian was commissioned by Allah? What does history of that time tell? That a renegade to his religion and country was able to leave his country with the help of enemies of his country.

Trailblazer · Jun 13, 2021

Aupmanyav said:
What proof you have for existence of God? What proof do you have that the Iranian was commissioned by Allah?

As I have said numerous times, I have no proof, only evidence. God can never be proven to exist so obviously Messengers of God can never be proven to exist. It is a faith-based belief but it is also evidence-based.

Aupmanyav · Jun 13, 2021

nPeace said:
I haven't claimed here that one who rejects God did so based on emotion. If I did, what would your response be?

Who does not want to live? Is it not those who are emotionally troubled? So I am not seeing the logic in your assertion.... uninformed it would seem.

What evidence do "us" Atheist want to see?

No, it is not emotion, it is observation and analysis which spread over years.

It is a foolish desire. It is a denial of facts of life. People should come to terms with reality rather than believe on empty promises.

As I said earlier. If you propose something paranormal and say that there cannot be a nomal evidence, then show us a paranormal evidence.

Trailblazer · Jun 13, 2021

AlexanderG said:
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still not seeing any evidence. If someone has a good character, then that doesn't mean we should take everything they say as true.

No, a good character is not enough to show that someone is a Messenger of God, and that is why we also need to look at what He did on His mission (the history) as well s what He wrote (His scriptures).

AlexanderG said:
And the scientific method specifically guards against this fallacy with the process of peer review, where multiple people carefully examine each scientific paper for its merits rather than trust the scientist who authored it.

The scientific method and peer review does not work for religion since what other people believe has no bearing in what is actually true, and God expects everyone to investigate truth for themselves since everyone is held accountable for their own beliefs.

AlexanderG said:
Religious scriptures are the claims of that religion. They are not the evidence. As least for me, claims need to be corroborated externally and separately from the claim.

Religious scriptures contain the claims of the Messenger who established the religion, but the claims are not part of the evidence. It is what is contained in the scriptures, the teachings and principles, that constitute part of the evidence. Do these teachings ring true? Are they useful for humanity?

AlexanderG said:
Granted, testimony counts as a claim, (e.g. "this thing happened") plus evidence (e.g. "I saw this thing happen.") but testimonial evidence is notoriously unreliably, and I don't think it can count as evidence for claims which otherwise have no empirical basis in reality. If I testify that I saw a car, that is reasonable to believe because there is a vast body of evidence implicit in the word "car." If I testify that I saw a magic flying carpet, then that is not reasonable to believe; outside of my personal testimony, there is no implicit empirical basis to believe they can exist.

You are correct. The testimony that Baha'u'llah gave, stating that God communicated to Him, is not evidence, it is only a claim.

Speaking of claims and evidence, I wrote this long post that has the claims of Baha'u'llah and what I consider to be the evidence that supports those claims.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Fallen Prophet · Jun 14, 2021

Valjean said:
How does praying yield any tangible, testable evidence?

Who said that it did?

nPeace · Jun 14, 2021

Aupmanyav said:
No, it is not emotion, it is observation and analysis which spread over years.

I disagree.
I say religious people use observation from investigation and analysis. What do you say?
We can do this forever, can't we.

Aupmanyav said:
It is a foolish desire. It is a denial of facts of life. People should come to terms with reality rather than believe on empty promises.

I think it is foolish and unreasonable thinking, and a denial of what can be clearly seen, if one lets go of their own feelings of superior wisdom, which really from the trail left in history clearly reveals the lack of wisdom, or rather, how flawed that wisdom is.
All we need to do, is look around, but also, open our "eyes".

Aupmanyav said:
As I said earlier. If you propose something paranormal and say that there cannot be a nomal evidence, then show us a paranormal evidence.

I think you were talking to Frank.
There is no need for paranormal propositions, imo.
Telling me you saw a U.F.O, or the military tracked some, won't convince me they saw what they think they did, either.

RestlessSoul · Jun 14, 2021

Valjean said:
How does praying yield any tangible, testable evidence?

It can't. But it can yield insight, understanding and enlightenment.

And most important of all, it can yield inner peace in the midst of turmoil and sorrow.

Marcion · Jun 14, 2021

Trailblazer said:
The scientific method and peer review does not work for religion since what other people believe has no bearing in what is actually true, and God expects everyone to investigate truth for themselves since everyone is held accountable for their own beliefs.

I will have to correct you there. The scientific or experimental method does work for the tantric side of so-called religions. For their superstitious and ritualistic sides however you are right, no scientific experiment will yield anything useful there. The more tantric a tradition is, the more it will be in harmony with the scientific or rational way of thinking.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 14, 2021

nPeace said:
What do you say of an Atheist, born to Atheists; exposed to Atheism all their early years, who becomes religious and believes in a supreme creator - God?

Hardly surprising that it would happen occasionally.

Being an atheist isn't a guarantee of rational thinking, and - depending on the society we're talking about - societal pressure to be religious can be a major thing.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 14, 2021

osgart said:
Is religion falsifiable?

Can we apply the scientific method to religion?

Depends on the claims of the religion.

What religion did you have in mind? What factual claims does it make?

osgart · Jun 14, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Depends on the claims of the religion.

What religion did you have in mind? What factual claims does it make?

No religion in particular. Religion's general claims of intelligence and agency in creation. Historical events. The moral teachings.

Other religious claims about Brahman. Perhaps the four noble truths in Buddhism.

Perhaps the idea that reality is conditionally dependent upon a more foundational reality that is unconditioned or simple and self existing.

How does one test their own religion?

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Be your own guru

Veteran Member

Be your own guru

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

1/10 Subway Stalinist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Nothing my eye, Something for sure