Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To me, [material and physical] mean the same thing.

Matter is only one aspect of the physical, which also includes energy, force, space and time. I mentioned photons, which are immaterial but have physical existence as pieces of energy moving through space at or just below a fixed speed limit.

Of course your view of the Baha'i Faith has been tarnished by all the anti-Baha'i rhetoric on this forum.

My view of the Baha'i faith derives from the words of the Baha'i posting on RF. Other posters mostly agree with one another, but not because they get their opinions from one another. We all are witnessing the same thing. I agree with @ppp 's list but not because he wrote it. I've observed the same tendencies. The Baha'i appear to be like the flower children of the sixties or the Hari Krishna - all hat, no cattle. You can say peace and love all you like, but that accomplishes nothing, as has been the case since Jesus and Baha'u'llah did the same.

No, this forum is not the real world, it is just a discussion forum. Nobody is 'doing things' here. We are only discussing things.

Cyberspace is part of the real world. These discussions are "doing things." As I indicated, my entire knowledge of the Baha'i faith and its messenger comes from people like you. I've never read a word from Baha'u'llah that you didn't copy and paste onto RF. That's how I know that I could write like him, o ye of worldly substance and ethereal spirit.

Look at these quotes and tell me that there aren't millions of people that could write them, most of which read like fortune cookie fortunes or embroidered pillows: Bahá'u'lláh Quotes (Author of The Hidden Words Of Bahá'u'lláh)

Nobody could have written like Baha'u'llah

I can. What method would you use to decide which words came from the messenger and which I wrote?

Have you seen the quizzes that ask you to choose which words the messenger Jesus spoke (in the King James translation) and which Shakespeare wrote, also in King James English? Bible or Shakespeare?

It is obvious to anyone who has any logical abilities why this method cannot be applied to God or Messengers of God

Critical analysis? It applies to all matters regarding what is real versus what is imagined, including gods and the words of men. Theists frequently want a pass for their gods, perhaps because they don't exist. Remember, this method is useful for deciding what should be believed and what is just fantasy. Everybody who believes in imaginary beings wants that same pass for their beliefs.

Baha'u'llah did not just 'make up' all that He wrote about God. What He wrote about God nobody could have known unless it came from God. That is one reason I know He was a Messenger of God. My belief is is based upon logic and reason.

No, it is not based in logic and reason. If it were, you could demonstrate its correctness. You could cite passages from him that we would all agree that no man could have written alone, but you can't, because no such words exist anywhere on earth. Also, what you call logic is rogue thinking. Logic has a prescribed form. Your thinking is free form. You simply proclaim that the words of the messenger could not have come from anywhere but a god but cannot produce a shred of supporting evidence and feel no need to do so. Skilled logicians disagree with that kind of thinking.

It is laughable that you would compare a pastor to a Messenger of God. They have nothing in common.

They have the same job. They do the same thing. They say the same things.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Conversely, why should anyone accept any belief as true if they don’t believe it is true?

Writing is good for making people think. That is why long tedious, repetitive threads can have some value. A person may be unwilling to lose face, however we may secretly soften our position. Take for instance: a current event that we are debating about with new information unfolding. We may also start a new line if thought. Additionally we may return later and see that our thinking has changed.

 

[joelr]

I have already said that.
Your historical evidence that challenges the OT does not mean that it is entirely untrue..
..it just shows that the OT is probably inaccurate .. which I agree with.

Than why did you call it rubbish? Goalpost moved. Moses is also considered a literary figure from archaeological and literary evidence. See Thomas Thompson, The Historical Narrative of the Patriarchs

Exactly! 'mental techniques' .. that do not involve knowledge of how the brain interacts with
the self.

Which doesn't imply a soul but implies the brain has complex emotions regulated by chemicals which dramatically change personality. Natural or drug related. Demonstrating the brain is chemicals and matter. Not a spirit.

What comes first .. the chicken or the egg?

Uh, evolution. Higher emotions come with a more developed brain. Emotions, chemicals, the brain, behavior, NONE of this implies a soul. It's all answered by chemicals, neurons and all the other things I linked to in the brain studies.

Of course it doesn't .. that's absurd.
Our behaviour is not just dependent on 'brain chemicals'.

There are 1000s of surgeries every day. Almost every single person who is given a sedative post surgery experiences a drop in anxiety. Almost every person who uses opiates experiences a dramatic change in emotion. The hundreds of millions of opiate addicts enjoy euphoria from opiates.
Almost everyone experiences some change from SSRI meds. The times it's unpleasant. they switch medicines. This stuff works on like 70% of patients looking to cure depression/anxiety. For others it creates unpleasant experiences. This demonstrates that changing chemicals 100% will effect personality, mood, thoughts.
Our emotions are regulated by the sertrogenic system. Change that and you will change your personality. It's why SSRIs and benzodiazapines exist and are prescribed to hundreds of millions of people.

Besides chemicals, exterior evets or internal thought change emotions. But when that happens we ALWAYS get corresponding changes to the sertogenic and reward pathways, which can be seen in a Catscan. This is 100% known in neuro science.

There is no evidence for a soul here. Sorry, chemicals regulate emotions. You can research this. When you talk yourself out of anxiety you are lowering your own stress chemicals. This shows it's a chemical phenomenom. Plus brain states. No soul to be found.

You say that, because of the widespread belief that 'the soul' does not perish at physical death.
..but the concept of soul exists, whether that belief is true or not.

Yes the concept exists? So? Many concepts exist that are not true. Like all forms of ESP.

I think you better refer to a dictionary.

Ok

myth


a widely held but false belief or idea.





a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (like Thor, Zeus, Osirus, Inanna, Jesus, )

mythology​

a body of myths: such as
a
: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people


Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.


As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience.




" variance with natural law or ordinary experience."


That means not true, unless evidence is presented to support the myth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Matter is only one aspect of the physical, which also includes energy, force, space and time..

Energy = mass x speed of light x speed of light

i.e. they are equivalent

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok

myth


a widely held but false belief or idea.

Quotes are useless without a source..

 

[ppp]

That is too vague. I don't know what you consider rational or what you mean by reality.

It is not too vague. It's just difficult.

 

[ppp]

Also, what you call logic is rogue thinking. Logic has a prescribed form. Your thinking is free form. You simply proclaim that the words of the messenger could not have come from anywhere but a god but cannot produce a shred of supporting evidence and feel no need to do so. Skilled logicians disagree with that kind of thinking.

 

[ppp]

Matter is only one aspect of the physical, which also includes energy, force, space and time.

Energy = mass x speed of light x speed of light

i.e. they are equivalent

That is a mass/energy conversion formula. Not a matter/energy conversion formula.
Mass is not the equivalent of matter. Please stop using them interchangeably.


.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Mass is not the equivalent of matter. Please stop using them interchangeably.

Semantics..
Nuclear bombs would not work without matter..

 

[ppp]

Semantics..

Your remark, "Semantics," suggests that you see the distinction as a matter (no pun) of mere word choice or terminology. However, in scientific contexts, the distinction is important and not just semantic. Understanding the difference between mass and matter is fundamental in physics and chemistry, as these concepts have specific meanings and implications. In everyday conversation, the distinction might not always be critical, and the terms can sometimes be used more loosely. However, when making scientific references, precision in language is important for clear understanding and communication.

Nuclear bombs would not work with out a clear understanding of the distinction between matter (unit-less definition of what) and mass (quantitative measure).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Semantics

Yes, semantics, an important aspect of language and communication. You might want to pay more attention to the meanings of words. You made no distinction between physical and material, and now none between matter and mass. You don't seem to value precision in your thinking, but others are less dismissive about these differences than you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You made no distinction between physical and material, and now none between matter and mass. You don't seem to value precision in your thinking, but others are less dismissive about these differences than you.

In most contexts, the distinction between physical and material is irrelevant.

You said: "If you experience something, it's physical, including your ideas."
What has an idea got to do with matter or mass? In what way is it physical
or material?
One cannot detect "an idea" .. one can only see the result of putting an idea into practice.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is not too vague. It's just difficult.

Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't.

 

[ppp]

Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't.

I have already made up my mind that you don't. So what?

 

[Trailblazer]

My view of the Baha'i faith derives from the words of the Baha'i posting on RF. Other posters mostly agree with one another, but not because they get their opinions from one another. We all are witnessing the same thing. I agree with @ppp 's list but not because he wrote it. I've observed the same tendencies. The Baha'i appear to be like the flower children of the sixties or the Hari Krishna - all hat, no cattle. You can say peace and love all you like, but that accomplishes nothing, as has been the case since Jesus and Baha'u'llah did the same.

Do you know anything about what the Baha'i Faith is doing in the real world. What exactly are you witnessing?

Since this is a debate forum, please present the real world evidence that supports your opinion that anything on this list is what the Baha'i Faith is doing.
Either that or I will consider your assertions to be bald assertions.

1. They have an aggressive ethos of appropriation - other cultures as being mere shadows of their own
2. they place themselves as the essential saviors and ultimate rulers of all humanity; and as a group,
3. they do nothing of demonstrable value for real people (individuals or groups) all the while promoting themselves as the bastions of moral competency. At least the Jews, Christians and Muslims make the effort; and have even been known to make a difference.

Cyberspace is part of the real world. These discussions are "doing things." As I indicated, my entire knowledge of the Baha'i faith and its messenger comes from people like you. I've never read a word from Baha'u'llah that you didn't copy and paste onto RF. That's how I know that I could write like him, o ye of worldly substance and ethereal spirit.

And you call yourself a critical thinker? No, this forum is not the real world, it is just a discussion forum. Nobody is 'doing things' here. We are only discussing things. Baha'is actually do things in the real world but you are so biased and sure you are right about the Baha'i Faith that you don't even bother to look. If you looked you would see and then you would have to admit that you are wrong.

Look at these quotes and tell me that there aren't millions of people that could write them, most of which read like fortune cookie fortunes or embroidered pillows: Bahá'u'lláh Quotes (Author of The Hidden Words Of Bahá'u'lláh)

Nobody except Baha'u'llah could have written those, and that is why they never did. Got any logical abilities at all?

I can. What method would you use to decide which words came from the messenger and which I wrote?

Go ahead, but if you do please present new content, content other than what Baha'u'llah presented, things about God that have not been presented before. That is the only way I can know that you did not copy what He wrote and present it in your own words.

Critical analysis? It applies to all matters regarding what is real versus what is imagined, including gods and the words of men.

No, it only applies to what can be identified and studied and proven to be real. That excludes God and Messengers since they cannot be proven to be real (something that exists in reality). Any logical person would immediately know that there are things that are real but cannot or have not been proven real. The planet Pluto is real but before 1930 it was not known to exist since it had not been seen and discovered.

Being able to prove something is real is not what makes it real. Something is either real or imaginary. Just because it cannot be proven to be real that does not mean it is imaginary.

No, it is not based in logic and reason. If it were, you could demonstrate its correctness.

You have no ability to think logically if you don't know why I cannot demonstrate its correctness to you, or anyone else for that matter. You also know nothing about how the human mind works.

You could cite passages from him that we would all agree that no man could have written alone, but you can't, because no such words exist anywhere on earth. Also, what you call logic is rogue thinking. Logic has a prescribed form. Your thinking is free form. You simply proclaim that the words of the messenger could not have come from anywhere but a god but cannot produce a shred of supporting evidence and feel no need to do so. Skilled logicians disagree with that kind of thinking.

I said that my belief is is based upon logic and reason, I never said that it follows a prescribed form and it does not have to follow that form in order to be logical.

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic.

Logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It us completely illogical that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that we would all agree that no man could have written alone.
If you cannot figure out what that is impossible then you have no logical abilities.

That is so illogical that it makes me want to cry! But before continuing I have to go get a Coke from the fridge because I still have miles to go.

They have the same job. They do the same thing. They say the same things.

You will never win any arguments saying things like that because I can clearly demonstrate with evidence that preachers and Messengers do not do or say say the same things.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have already made up my mind that you don't. So what?

So nothing. I have also made up my mind that you and other atheists do not have a rational methodology for evaluating reality.
Atheists posting on here do not think logically. When people cannot even think logically it is a lost cause.

 

[ppp]

So nothing.

You are literally saying that you had no point in saying, "Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't."

 

[Trailblazer]

You are literally saying that you had no point in saying, "Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't."

Some things are difficult but not impossible. Haven't you ever heard that nothing is impossible with God?

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

I am an eternal optimist.

 

[ppp]

Some things are difficult but not impossible. Haven't you ever heard that nothing is impossible with God?

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

I am an eternal optimist.

​

So nothing.

You are literally saying that you had no point in writing the text, "Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't."

 

[CG Didymus]

I can. What method would you use to decide which words came from the messenger and which I wrote?

Have you seen the quizzes that ask you to choose which words the messenger Jesus spoke (in the King James translation) and which Shakespeare wrote, also in King James English? Bible or Shakespeare?

You simply proclaim that the words of the messenger could not have come from anywhere but a god but cannot produce a shred of supporting evidence and feel no need to do so.

Being "in love" with his poetic, middle eastern writing might be part of why people think that this man that took the title "Glory of God" must be from God. But still, does everything he say make sense? Like his belief about how all religions are one and from one true God.

Progressive revelation, a core teaching in the Baha’i Faith, suggests that religions are inherently one and that truth is revealed by God progressively through a series of divine Messengers. Each Revelation is tailored to suit the needs of the time, the place of their appearance and the capacity of humanity.​

​

To believe this, a Baha'i has to disregard all the major differences between the different religions. I've asked Baha'is a few times now to tell me when did Christianity, as compared to Baha'i beliefs, ever have or teach the truth? From the beginning of Christianity, they had beliefs that contradict what Baha'is believe to be the truth about God and Jesus.

If the Baha'i Faith is right, then Christianity was never right.