If God existed, would there be any atheists?

[CG Didymus]

We put our religion under scrutiny when we fully investigate it for ourselves.

And every Baha'i, including you, has "fully" investigated all religions?

So you said "fully". How do you define "fully"? A half %&# look at you want to look at to satisfy your curiosity? To trust fully without examining the things that Bill Sears has said?

The video did not say we have to investigate all the religions to determine if they are true.

Look again 25-30 seconds in. Something about every aspect of every religion should be examined to see if it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then supposedly Jesus cuts into this vision and says that he is coming soon. The author recognizes it to be Jesus speaking and says "Come, Lord Jesus."

I do not give a rip what the author thought.
Coming soon? Where is Jesus then. did He get delayed in traffic?

Too bad it was not Jesus, but as someone said on another thread, "Most people will believe whatever they want to believe and will disregard anything that could disprove what they want to believe."

Baha'is have to do this with all the major religions.

Baha'is do not have to do jack squat with the other religions because the Revelation of Baha'u'llah does not depend upon any other religions, it stands on its own merit. You are not required to believe that but I believe it, so it is disrespectful to keep saying we depend upon other religions. If you do not stop saying that over and over and over and over again, I won't reply to you anymore and you won't have any Baha'is to talk to regularly. Is there a reason why you have to keep repeating the same mantra? Do you see any other Baha'is replying to that?

 

[CG Didymus]

people only like to hear things that agree with what they've decided on,

There is a quote from one of the Baha'i leaders about that if two people disagree on 9 out of 10 things... to focus on the one that they agree on. And, if two people agree on 9 out of 10 things to disregard the one thing and focus on what they agree on. I very rarely see a Baha'i do this. Instead, I've seen Baha'is argue people right out of a thread. The religion that is supposed to be bringing peace and harmony to the people and religions of the world?

Just out of curiosity, what episode was it, and how did it change you?

I was just generalizing. There are more than one. The one where Cartman forms a Christian rock band. The one that had Van Halen playing a song at the end. The Jews, Christians and Muslims had just united under one new symbol. Then there was the one when the kids received a goat as a present from some Islamic kids. Oh, and the one about all elections are a choice between a douche bag and a turd sandwich.

Other influences have been Mel Brooks movies and other satire/parodies, the TV show "Psych" Lots and lots of songs, but my tastes keep changing.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here's what I said...

You don't call what you do these verses "wiggling"? Revelation might be all BS, but there it is. It is in the NT, so what are we going to do with it? Baha'is use parts of it to show that Muhammad and Ali are the Two Witnesses. That Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah are the Three Woes... But they don't say who the Lamb is? Christians do, the Lamb is Jesus. Then supposedly Jesus cuts into this vision and says that he is coming soon. The author recognizes it to be Jesus speaking and says "Come, Lord Jesus."

I do not give a rip what the author thought.
Coming soon? Where is Jesus then. did He get delayed in traffic?

Too bad it was not Jesus, but as someone said on another thread, "Most people will believe whatever they want to believe and will disregard anything that could disprove what they want to believe."

I doubt this is the official Baha'i stance, but nothing more than your opinion. And, to me, it is "wiggling". It say "I, Jesus"? You disregard that. But the author was right about the Three Woes and the Two Witnesses? You even said that going by what is written the Lamb is Jesus. But you still think that? Because the whole book of Revelation focuses on the Lamb. If Baha'u'llah is the promised return of Christ than it should be easy for the Baha'is to tell me who the Lamb is... It is Baha'u'llah. But Baha'is can't do that.

You have used the words "rude" and "arrogant" a few times. What do think about things that you say? Like..

I do not give a rip what the author thought.
Coming soon? Where is Jesus then. did He get delayed in traffic?

That's okay for Baha'is to say things like that? That's being respectful of Christians and their beliefs? No, that might be how you feel, but you're representing the Baha'i Faith here.

Tons and tons of interpretation problems, and this is just one book in one religion. Baha'is have to do this with all the major religions. And then there are the many religious beliefs ignored by Baha'is. Where did they come from? Like the religion of the Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Greeks etc.

Baha'is do reinterpret the beliefs of other religions. Baha'is do quote from the Scriptures of other religions. And yet you say...

Baha'is do not have to do jack squat with the other religions because the Revelation of Baha'u'llah does not depend upon any other religions, it stands on its own merit. You are not required to believe that but I believe it, so it is disrespectful to keep saying we depend upon other religions. If you do not stop saying that over and over and over and over again, I won't reply to you anymore and you won't have any Baha'is to talk to regularly. Is there a reason why you have to keep repeating the same mantra? Do you see any other Baha'is replying to that?

You know it is time Adios. Grow up Trailblazer. I will respond only to posters on your threads, but not to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I very rarely see a Baha'i do this. Instead, I've seen Baha'is argue people right out of a thread. The religion that is supposed to be bringing peace and harmony to the people and religions of the world?

Funny thing, that is not what I see. You just can't quit criticizing that Baha'is can you? What is your reason for doing this? I won't try to guess.

You keep talking about the Baha'is being so bad, but all you do is bring negativity to this forum, all directed at the Baha'is. By contrast, I do not see Baha'is criticizing people. Defending ourselves from personal attacks or criticism is not criticizing. DISAGREEING on religious beliefs on a religious forum is not criticizing, it is what people do on religious forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you said "fully". How do you define "fully"? A half %&# look at you want to look at to satisfy your curiosity? To trust fully without examining the things that Bill Sears has said?

I have examined the Baha'i Faith for 50 years, so I have done my due diligence. I do not need to question Bill Sears because he did his research for seven years and he presents all kinds of references.

Look again 25-30 seconds in. Something about every aspect of every religion should be examined to see if it is true.

Look again yourself. I just copied what he said word for word, and here is what he said:

He said that every aspect of every belief should be questioned and examined by each person to make sure that it makes sense, that they’re true.

He said nothing about examining each religion.

He meant that any belief that you are considering should be carefully examined before you accept it as true. I have examined the beliefs of other religions and determined which ones 'I consider' true and false.

Why don't you just give up this game? I am a Baha'i because I believe what the religion teaches and I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God. I have had 50 years to reconsider and there is nothing I can find that is not true. I do not need to compare it with any other religions in order to know that, not anymore than I need to compare other men in order to know if I made a mistake in marrying my husband.

 

[Trailblazer]

I doubt this is the official Baha'i stance, but nothing more than your opinion.

The official Baha’i stance is that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ so that means that Jesus is not coming soon, or EVER.

If Baha'u'llah is the promised return of Christ than it should be easy for the Baha'is to tell me who the Lamb is... It is Baha'u'llah. But Baha'is can't do that.

Tony has told you what he thinks, that it was the Bab, but you do not accept what he says, not anymore than you accept what I say. You just keep asking about the Lamb over and over and over again, as if that is going to be the tipping point that determines whether Christians or Baha’is are right about the return of Christ.

That's okay for Baha'is to say things like that? That's being respectful of Christians and their beliefs? No, that might be how you feel, but you're representing the Baha'i Faith here.

I am not representing the Baha’i Faith on this forum, I am representing myself.

No it is not being disrespectful of Christians because I am talking to you about something specific that you keep goading me about. If Jesus is coming soon, where is He?

Christians are free to keep waiting if they want to, as we all have free will. There is no resolution to this, no meeting of the minds, because Baha’is cannot agree with Christians about the Second Coming. We can’t agree, but we can allow Christians to have their own beliefs and we can agree about how wonderful Jesus was.

You know it is time Adios. Grow up Trailblazer. I will respond only to posters on your threads, but not to you.

Grow up yourself. All I did was call you out for repeating the same old things I have already answered over and over. Enough is enough. I should have never allowed it to go this far so that I finally lost it, and for that I take responsibility, because everyone is responsible for their own behavior.

Please bear in mind that if you continue ranking on the Baha’is and misrepresenting what we do and what we believe I will respond but you do not have to respond to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

You just can't quit criticizing that Baha'is can you?

You keep talking about the Baha'is being so bad, but all you do is bring negativity to this forum, all directed at the Baha'is.

Look again yourself.

Why don't you just give up this game?

I do not give a rip what the author thought.
Coming soon? Where is Jesus then. did He get delayed in traffic?

No it is not being disrespectful of Christians

Please bear in mind that if you continue ranking on the Baha’is and misrepresenting what we do and what we believe I will respond but you do not have to respond to me.

Wow! Good bye.

 

[Trailblazer]

But when it comes to the nature of reality, then we must do everything that we can to remove any possible influence from our own opinions, and peer review is the best way to do that.

Peer review is useless for determination of the nature of spiritual reality (thus what religious beliefs are true) because the nature of spiritual reality cannot be proven thus religious beliefs cannot be proven true. As such what we end up believing is a matter of opinion and no other opinions are any better than our own opinions. In fact, other opinions would create an unwanted bias. Say for example we are investigating the Baha’i Faith and we ask a Christian and an atheist to peer review our opinions on the religion. All we will get from that is their personal bias towards the Baha’i Faith; we will not get information about the Baha’i Faith.

And if we ask a Baha’i we might get some information, but since they are already a Baha’i they would have a personal bias so whatever they told us would probably bias our own opinion of the religion. We would never want to because a Baha’i just because of what other Baha’is told us about the religion and Baha’is would never tell us to do that since the first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth

The following is from “The Light Shineth in Darkness” by Udo Schaefer. What is cited here is from the introduction, p. 2.

“Whoever wants to be properly informed about a religion would first do well to get hold of literature which is both self-descriptive and self interpretive which shows what the religion in question is and what its claims are according to its own teachings and history. This is a matter of course. He who really wants to know whether a retailer’s merchandise is good and worth the money will buy from him before he criticizes; he will not be satisfied merely with information given him by competitors. He who would like to know what Catholicism is, and how it sees itself, should not seek information from its declared enemies before he is familiar with its followers. Otherwise his research is unscientific; he bars himself from the way to a personal evaluation and a proper understanding.”

So what we need to do is not gather opinions of others but rather gather as much information as we can find to determine which religion is true.

So, let me ask you this...

Do you think finding your beliefs is an investigation into the true nature of the universe, or is it just a personal opinion?

I do not know ‘what you mean’ by the true nature of the universe. The purpose of religious beliefs is not to uncover the true nature of the universe but rather to understand the purpose of physical and spiritual reality.

The purpose of this physical reality is to learn the lessons we need to learn in preparation for the life beyond in the next world, which is where we will spend all of eternity.

“Why do spiritual beings--human souls--begin their lives in the physical world? According to well-known Baha'i author, scholar, and educator John Hatcher, the world is a classroom designed by God to instigate and nurture mental and spiritual growth. The Purpose of Physical Reality examines the components of this classroom to show how everyday experience leads to spiritual insight. Viewing life in this way, we can learn to appreciate the overall justice of God's plan and the subtle interplay between human free will and divine assistance in unleashing human potential. The idea of physical reality as a divine teaching device not only prepares us for further progress in the life beyond, it also provides practical advice about how to attain spiritual and intellectual understanding while we are living on earth.”

The Purpose of Physical Reality, by John S. Hatcher

But if religious belief ever hopes to be taken seriously as a description about the way the universe really is, then it can't just present itself as our own personal desires and preferences. Because the true nature about the universe doesn't give a damn about your desire and opinions and what you'd prefer to be true.

Religious beliefs do not constitute a description about the way the universe really is. They might have within them some beliefs about the way the universe really is, but these are not scientific facts, they are religious beliefs, none of which can ever be proven.

Which will only leave us with an opinion which has no bearing on whether whatever religion you believe actually describes the universe.

Religious beliefs are not revealed by God to describe the universe. See above.

Can it be tested and verified, or is it another one of those things where you just decide if you want it to be true?

No, the spiritual world cannot be tested and verified because it is not the physical world.

No, I did not just decide I want it to be true, I believe it is true based upon ‘what I consider’ evidence.

We need to decide exactly what is meant by "verified." Because you seem to be using two different definitions based on whether you are talking about your subjective opinion or an objective fact.

Beliefs are not objective facts because they cannot be proven to be true.

When I say I have verified that my belief is true I mean I went through the ‘process’ of independent investigation and determined that my religion is the truth.

But how do you know that you aren't being influenced by your emotional mind, you just THINK it's your rational mind?

You can never know for sure and peer review won’t help because nobody knows person better than they know themselves, unless the person is mentally ill, in which case a psychiatrist or a psychologist would know them better. A counselor would never claim to know a client better than they know themselves; I know because I am trained as a counselor so I know it is unethical for a counselor to say they know more about a client than they know about themselves.

That further drives my point home that everyone has to come to their own conclusions about what they believe and it has to be totally separate from what other people believe. If we have good personal boundaries it won’t matter to us what other people believe because we will be firm in our own faith.

But it's a terrible way to get an objective truth about the universe, isn't it?

That is not the goal of religion. If you want to get objective facts about the physical universe you need to consult science.

That sounds incredibly unreliable.

It is reliable if you know how to do the research on a religion..

I can't say much, as I'm not very familiar with this religion, but it seems a little circular. And in any case, no different to anything else lots of other religions have said.

I do not know any other religions that have said this. It is not circular at all.

When it comes to understanding what is FACT, I don't want belief.

It is the facts about the Messenger and everything that surrounds His Revelation that leads one to the belief that He was a Messenger of God thus that the religion is true.

Religion can never be proven as a fact since it cannot be proven that a Messenger got a message from God. That has to be accepted on faith given the evidence I listed in my previous post.

Logically speaking, a religion can be either be wholly true or false, or partially true or false. This has nothing to do with whether it can be proven. Reality simply exists.

But if it is YOUR religion, then you are going to be biased by the fact that you are already invested in it.

We do not investigate it AFTER we join the religion; we investigate it BEFORE we decide to join the religion.

As the video says, "A truth is a truth is a truth."

If you genuinely believed that, I don't see why you would be against peer review. Objective facts have nothing to fear from investigation.

I have nothing to fear from peer review, but that is not the proper way to determine the truth, notice that the video says nothing about peer review. After I have completed my own investigation, then anyone is free to question what I determined and challenge my findings, and I am more than willing to look at anything they have to say. I do that all the time even though I have been a Baha’i for 50 years.

That just reminded me of something I read and often cite regarding the Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This is the closing thought:

“The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died."
Beliefs of progressive Christians, secularists, etc. about Jesus' resurrection

One reason I am on this forum so much us because I learn about the spiritual truths of other religions. Also, when people question me about MY religion I thereby I learn a lot more about my own religion because I have to look things up when I am questioned. I am sure I can continue to learn new spiritual truths until the end of my life. That is what Baha’is refer to as a true seeker. A true seeker never arrives, they just keep seeking truth.

 

[Tiberius]

Peer review is useless for determination of the nature of spiritual reality (thus what religious beliefs are true) because the nature of spiritual reality cannot be proven thus religious beliefs cannot be proven true. As such what we end up believing is a matter of opinion and no other opinions are any better than our own opinions. In fact, other opinions would create an unwanted bias. Say for example we are investigating the Baha’i Faith and we ask a Christian and an atheist to peer review our opinions on the religion. All we will get from that is their personal bias towards the Baha’i Faith; we will not get information about the Baha’i Faith.

And if we ask a Baha’i we might get some information, but since they are already a Baha’i they would have a personal bias so whatever they told us would probably bias our own opinion of the religion. We would never want to because a Baha’i just because of what other Baha’is told us about the religion and Baha’is would never tell us to do that since the first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth

The following is from “The Light Shineth in Darkness” by Udo Schaefer. What is cited here is from the introduction, p. 2.

“Whoever wants to be properly informed about a religion would first do well to get hold of literature which is both self-descriptive and self interpretive which shows what the religion in question is and what its claims are according to its own teachings and history. This is a matter of course. He who really wants to know whether a retailer’s merchandise is good and worth the money will buy from him before he criticizes; he will not be satisfied merely with information given him by competitors. He who would like to know what Catholicism is, and how it sees itself, should not seek information from its declared enemies before he is familiar with its followers. Otherwise his research is unscientific; he bars himself from the way to a personal evaluation and a proper understanding.”

So what we need to do is not gather opinions of others but rather gather as much information as we can find to determine which religion is true.

Again, you make a claim but offer no support. All you can do is offer up other opinions that agree with you.

If something is an objective fact about the universe, then peer review will show that everyone who studies it agrees.

I do not know ‘what you mean’ by the true nature of the universe.

The way the universe really is.

Honestly, I don't see it as a difficult idea to grasp.

The purpose of religious beliefs is not to uncover the true nature of the universe but rather to understand the purpose of physical and spiritual reality.

The purpose of this physical reality is to learn the lessons we need to learn in preparation for the life beyond in the next world, which is where we will spend all of eternity.

“Why do spiritual beings--human souls--begin their lives in the physical world? According to well-known Baha'i author, scholar, and educator John Hatcher, the world is a classroom designed by God to instigate and nurture mental and spiritual growth. The Purpose of Physical Reality examines the components of this classroom to show how everyday experience leads to spiritual insight. Viewing life in this way, we can learn to appreciate the overall justice of God's plan and the subtle interplay between human free will and divine assistance in unleashing human potential. The idea of physical reality as a divine teaching device not only prepares us for further progress in the life beyond, it also provides practical advice about how to attain spiritual and intellectual understanding while we are living on earth.”

The Purpose of Physical Reality, by John S. Hatcher

Again, unsupported claim. Quoting people who share the same opinion is not supporting the claim.

Religious beliefs do not constitute a description about the way the universe really is. They might have within them some beliefs about the way the universe really is, but these are not scientific facts, they are religious beliefs, none of which can ever be proven.

If religious beliefs tell us anything true about some God, then they are indeed telling us some fact about the universe. And thus we should be able to check them.

Religious beliefs are not revealed by God to describe the universe. See above.

If a religious belief does not tell us anything about the universe, then what good is it?

No, the spiritual world cannot be tested and verified because it is not the physical world.

If it is not testable in any way then it can't influence us in any way and is thus irrelevant.

No, I did not just decide I want it to be true, I believe it is true based upon ‘what I consider’ evidence.

Sounds like opinion to me...

Beliefs are not objective facts because they cannot be proven to be true.

When I say I have verified that my belief is true I mean I went through the ‘process’ of independent investigation and determined that my religion is the truth.

So you are open to the idea that you are wrong?

You can never know for sure and peer review won’t help because nobody knows person better than they know themselves, unless the person is mentally ill, in which case a psychiatrist or a psychologist would know them better. A counselor would never claim to know a client better than they know themselves; I know because I am trained as a counselor so I know it is unethical for a counselor to say they know more about a client than they know about themselves.

That further drives my point home that everyone has to come to their own conclusions about what they believe and it has to be totally separate from what other people believe. If we have good personal boundaries it won’t matter to us what other people believe because we will be firm in our own faith.

So you don't think that a person can be influenced by opinions and beliefs without being aware of that influence?

That is not the goal of religion. If you want to get objective facts about the physical universe you need to consult science.

So religion is just opinion and you can't say it is factually true.

It is reliable if you know how to do the research on a religion..

The fact that people disagree on religion makes me doubt this claim.

I do not know any other religions that have said this. It is not circular at all.

Lots of religions have people who claim to have received revelations from God. Lots of religions have people who claim to be messengers for God.

And it is circular because the reasoning goes like this:

• I received a revelation from God.
• Therefore I am God's messenger.
• I can prove I am God's messenger because I received a revelation from God.
• Since I received a revelation from God, I am God's messenger.
• Repeat ad nauseum.

It is the facts about the Messenger and everything that surrounds His Revelation that leads one to the belief that He was a Messenger of God thus that the religion is true.

Facts which you have admitted can't be verified.

Religion can never be proven as a fact since it cannot be proven that a Messenger got a message from God. That has to be accepted on faith given the evidence I listed in my previous post.

If you can't prove it as a fact, then there is nothing that can't be explained in any other way. If everything has an alternative explanation, then why believe?

Logically speaking, a religion can be either be wholly true or false, or partially true or false. This has nothing to do with whether it can be proven. Reality simply exists.

Reality can be tested. Reality can be verified. And reality has nothing to fear from peer reviewed investigation.

We do not investigate it AFTER we join the religion; we investigate it BEFORE we decide to join the religion.

So why do some people who investigate it not decide to join it?

I have nothing to fear from peer review, but that is not the proper way to determine the truth, notice that the video says nothing about peer review. After I have completed my own investigation, then anyone is free to question what I determined and challenge my findings, and I am more than willing to look at anything they have to say. I do that all the time even though I have been a Baha’i for 50 years.

And yet you are not able to explain how peer review is incapable of producing a proper determination of truth.

That just reminded me of something I read and often cite regarding the Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This is the closing thought:

“The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died."
Beliefs of progressive Christians, secularists, etc. about Jesus' resurrection

One reason I am on this forum so much us because I learn about the spiritual truths of other religions. Also, when people question me about MY religion I thereby I learn a lot more about my own religion because I have to look things up when I am questioned. I am sure I can continue to learn new spiritual truths until the end of my life. That is what Baha’is refer to as a true seeker. A true seeker never arrives, they just keep seeking truth.

The inability to subject your beliefs to peer review reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, you make a claim but offer no support. All you can do is offer up other opinions that agree with you.

I supported my claims. If I was trying to support claims I make why would I offer contrary opinions? That would be completely illogical. That would be like trying to support claims for the Baha’i Faith with opinions from Christians. Would a Christian support their claims about Christianity with opinions from Baha’is?.

Explain why whoever wants to be properly informed about a religion would not get hold of literature which is both self-descriptive and self interpretive which shows what the religion in question is and what its claims are according to its own teachings and history.

Should I ask Christians or Muslims about the Baha’i Faith and hope to get accurate information? Where would they get accurate information? Why would they give me accurate information?

If something is an objective fact about the universe, then peer review will show that everyone who studies it agrees.

That’s true, but I am not offering objective facts about the universe.

The way the universe really is.

Honestly, I don't see it as a difficult idea to grasp.

I already told you that the purpose of religious beliefs is not to uncover the true nature of the universe but rather to understand the purpose of physical and spiritual reality.

The purpose of this physical reality is to learn the lessons we need to learn in preparation for the life beyond in the next world, which is where we will spend all of eternity.

Again, unsupported claim. Quoting people who share the same opinion is not supporting the claim.

Quoting people who share the same opinion is supporting the claim. Is something wrong with your logical abilities? If you disagree with the claim I made, you can try to refute it with your own opinion and your own references to support it. That is how these discussions work.

If religious beliefs tell us anything true about some God, then they are indeed telling us some fact about the universe. And thus we should be able to check them.

Religious beliefs do not tell us about God, as God is unknowable. All we can know about God are some of God’s Attributes and God’s Will for every age and the only reason we can know those is because it is revealed by the Messengers of God. The Essence of God (intrinsic nature) is completely unknowable and as such we cannot know about God by looking at the universe.

If a religious belief does not tell us anything about the universe, then what good is it?

The value of religion is the teachings that come through the Prophets (Messengers).

"Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!"
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)
Lights of Guidance (second part)

Sounds like opinion to me...

An evidence-based opinion.

So you are open to the idea that you are wrong?

Yes, if anyone can come up with any evidence that refutes my evidence.

So you don't think that a person can be influenced by opinions and beliefs without being aware of that influence?

A person is not influenced by their own opinions and beliefs, they hold their own opinions and beliefs.

A person can be influenced by the opinions and beliefs of other people without being aware of that influence.

So religion is just opinion and you can't say it is factually true.

There are facts surrounding religion that can be proven factually true (such as when Baha’u’llah was born, where He was born, where He lived, what He did on His Mission, where He was banished and exiled to, what He wrote, etc.) but whether He received a message from God cannot be proven factually true.

It is because the claim to have heard from God cannot be proven true that people have opinions and beliefs as to whether the religion is true.

The fact that people disagree on religion makes me doubt this claim.

Why would people ever agree about any one religion being true? The main reason people disagree is because most people are steeped in their own religious tradition thus they are attached to what they already believe, so they have confirmation bias. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe, so they have confirmation bias. Almost all people follow their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

Lots of religions have people who claim to have received revelations from God. Lots of religions have people who claim to be messengers for God.
And it is circular because the reasoning goes like this:

· I received a revelation from God.
· Therefore I am God's messenger.
· I can prove I am God's messenger because I received a revelation from God.
· Since I received a revelation from God, I am God's messenger.
· Repeat ad nauseum.

No, it does not go that way at all. That is such a gross misrepresentation of what really happens when Messengers of God appear, but it you think you are right now is the time to produce the evidence that backs your claim with some scriptures; otherwise it is just a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

No Messenger of God ever said ANY SUCH THING as you claim.

It would be circular reasoning to believe someone was a Messenger of God just because He said so, but it is not circular reasoning because there is evidence that can be used to support His claim. Anyone can say that they are a Messenger of God but why would anyone but a fool believe them without a lot of evidence to back up that claim?

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

Facts which you have admitted can't be verified.

I never said the “facts about the Messenger and everything that surrounds His Revelation that leads one to the belief that He was a Messenger of God thus that the religion is true” cannot be verified.

Everything on my bulleted list above can be verified. The only thing that cannot be verifies is that he heard the Voice of God. I already told you that more than once.

If you can't prove it as a fact, then there is nothing that can't be explained in any other way. If everything has an alternative explanation, then why believe? [/quote]
Because you did your independent investigation and you do not accept any alternative explanations. It is at that point you come to believe that the religion is true.

Reality can be tested. Reality can be verified. And reality has nothing to fear from peer reviewed investigation.

No, spiritual reality cannot tested or verified. If it could be, it would not be a belief, it would be a fact.

So why do some people who investigate it not decide to join it?

Because they did not come to believe it is true. Why would everyone who investigated a religion come to believe it was true? It all goes back to our desires and preferences. Humans have the will/ability to make choices based upon their desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints. However, we have the ability to make choices. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity.

Not only might they decide it is not true, but even if they believed it was true, they might not like something about the religion such as the Baha'i:Laws they would have to follow were they a member.

And yet you are not able to explain how peer review is incapable of producing a proper determination of truth.

I have explained it at least five times, but you do not hear a thing I have said because your bias is so enormous. Your bias regarding the absolute necessity of peer review is a wall in your mind that nobody can ever penetrate.

AGAIN, what I said is we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say, think or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

Yet you have not explained how peer review is capable of producing a proper determination of religious truth.

The inability to subject your beliefs to peer review reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died.

Why did you cut out the most important part of what I said? Unlucky for you, I have an eidetic memory so I never forget anything I say, and besides that I have it all my longer posts saved in Word documents so I can easily go back and see what I said, grab it and post it. If you try to win an argument by cheating you have not won anything.

For the record, I said: I have nothing to fear from peer review, but that is not the proper way to determine the truth, notice that the video says nothing about peer review. After I have completed my own investigation, then anyone is free to question what I determined and challenge my findings, and I am more than willing to look at anything they have to say. I do that all the time even though I have been a Baha’i for 50 years.

 

[Tiberius]

I supported my claims. If I was trying to support claims I make why would I offer contrary opinions? That would be completely illogical. That would be like trying to support claims for the Baha’i Faith with opinions from Christians. Would a Christian support their claims about Christianity with opinions from Baha’is?.

You do not understand what support is.

Supporting your claims means you provide actual evidence that your claim is true.

If I want make the claim that light can function both as a wave and as a particle, I would not just quote someone else who said that light can function both as a wave and as a particle. I would show you the many experiments that have been done which show that light can function both as a wave and as a particle.

Explain why whoever wants to be properly informed about a religion would not get hold of literature which is both self-descriptive and self interpretive which shows what the religion in question is and what its claims are according to its own teachings and history.

A person should certainly do that.

But if a person ONLY looks at sources that tell them that, then they are not getting a full view. A person must also examine the sources that say why a religion is wrong.

Should I ask Christians or Muslims about the Baha’i Faith and hope to get accurate information? Where would they get accurate information? Why would they give me accurate information?

But they CAN give you accurate information about their own faith. If you were really trying to get a full understanding of different religions, wouldn't you be doing this anyway?

That’s true, but I am not offering objective facts about the universe.

Then you can't claim that your faith is a correct explanation, and if something can't be shown to be correct, there's no way you could possibly have verified anything about it.

I already told you that the purpose of religious beliefs is not to uncover the true nature of the universe but rather to understand the purpose of physical and spiritual reality.

There's no evidence to show that religious beliefs provide any accurate insight into the nature of physical reality, and there's no evidence whatsoever that there's any kind of spiritual nature to reality at all.

The purpose of this physical reality is to learn the lessons we need to learn in preparation for the life beyond in the next world, which is where we will spend all of eternity.

There's no verifiable evidence of an afterlife.

Quoting people who share the same opinion is supporting the claim. Is something wrong with your logical abilities? If you disagree with the claim I made, you can try to refute it with your own opinion and your own references to support it. That is how these discussions work.

No it's not. Quoting other people that share your opinions only means that other people have those opinions. I'm not interested in how many people have that particular opinion. I'm only interested in whether that opinion is an accurate description of reality.

I want more than, "This guy agrees with me, and that other guy agrees with me, and that guy over there agrees with me too, and so does that guy, and that guy, and that guy, and that guy, and that guy, etc."

I want you to say, "Here's the evidence that I am correct. Please examine the evidence for yourself. If you can see any place where I have made a mistake, please show me so I can correct it. If you can see where my own personal biases have influenced my conclusion, please show me that as well."

People saying the same thing as you is not evidence. If you think it is, then you are committing a logical fallacy; namely, argument from popularity.

Religious beliefs do not tell us about God, as God is unknowable. All we can know about God are some of God’s Attributes and God’s Will for every age and the only reason we can know those is because it is revealed by the Messengers of God. The Essence of God (intrinsic nature) is completely unknowable and as such we cannot know about God by looking at the universe.

And if people really are getting messages from God, don't you think that tells something about the God sending the message?

The value of religion is the teachings that come through the Prophets (Messengers).

"Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!"
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)
Lights of Guidance (second part)

There's no evidence that this is anything more than, "Be nice to others and live a good life" - and we hardly need a religion for that. Anything more than that, and there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

An evidence-based opinion.

Assuming that what you consider evidence is actually valid evidence. Since you have not only refused to demonstrate that this evidence can be checked by others, but in fact admitted that it can't ever be checked by others, it's not really evidence.

Yes, if anyone can come up with any evidence that refutes my evidence.

All you've done is create an unfalsifiable position and then shifted the burden of proof onto others and claimed you've found the truth.

A person is not influenced by their own opinions and beliefs, they hold their own opinions and beliefs.

This could not be more wrong. 3 Ways Your Beliefs Can Shape Your Reality

A person can be influenced by the opinions and beliefs of other people without being aware of that influence.

That is true. Which is why we need to be able to subject beliefs to peer review so we can be sure that what we base our viewpoints on is not just the whim of someone's beliefs, but accurate fact.

To be continued...

 

[Tiberius]

There are facts surrounding religion that can be proven factually true (such as when Baha’u’llah was born, where He was born, where He lived, what He did on His Mission, where He was banished and exiled to, what He wrote, etc.) but whether He received a message from God cannot be proven factually true.

It is because the claim to have heard from God cannot be proven true that people have opinions and beliefs as to whether the religion is true.

So why have you repeatedly said you'd verified your belief that he did speak to God?

Why would people ever agree about any one religion being true? The main reason people disagree is because most people are steeped in their own religious tradition thus they are attached to what they already believe, so they have confirmation bias. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe, so they have confirmation bias. Almost all people follow their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

So now you say people CAN be influenced by their own personal biases? You've sure changed your tune!

No, it does not go that way at all. That is such a gross misrepresentation of what really happens when Messengers of God appear, but it you think you are right now is the time to produce the evidence that backs your claim with some scriptures; otherwise it is just a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

No Messenger of God ever said ANY SUCH THING as you claim.

It would be circular reasoning to believe someone was a Messenger of God just because He said so, but it is not circular reasoning because there is evidence that can be used to support His claim. Anyone can say that they are a Messenger of God but why would anyone but a fool believe them without a lot of evidence to back up that claim?

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

So now you say there IS evidence, yet earlier you said, "the claim to have heard from God cannot be proven true."

I never said the “facts about the Messenger and everything that surrounds His Revelation that leads one to the belief that He was a Messenger of God thus that the religion is true” cannot be verified.

Okay.

Then I'll point out that the facts don't serve as evidence he actually spoke to God, and you've repeatedly stated that the evidence that he did speak to God can't be verified.

That position is not a very strong one.

Everything on my bulleted list above can be verified. The only thing that cannot be verifies is that he heard the Voice of God. I already told you that more than once.

I have serious doubts about the validity of anything that uses Biblical prophecy. It's too vague. Can you show that there is a clear and unambiguous prophecy that he fulfilled in a way that is more than, "There's a prophecy that says some guy will do X, so I'm gonna do X so I can say it's about me"?

Because you did your independent investigation and you do not accept any alternative explanations. It is at that point you come to believe that the religion is true.

And you have no way to be sure that your own personal biases aren't leading you to discount valid evidence against the belief.

No, spiritual reality cannot tested or verified. If it could be, it would not be a belief, it would be a fact.

There are plenty of facts that one can believe.

And if it isn't a fact, then it's false.

Because they did not come to believe it is true. Why would everyone who investigated a religion come to believe it was true? It all goes back to our desires and preferences. Humans have the will/ability to make choices based upon their desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints. However, we have the ability to make choices. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity.

Of course, if there really was a true religion, and people could investigate it without their biases influencing them, this just shouldn't happen, should it?

I have explained it at least five times, but you do not hear a thing I have said because your bias is so enormous. Your bias regarding the absolute necessity of peer review is a wall in your mind that nobody can ever penetrate.

AGAIN, what I said is we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say, think or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

Yet you have not explained how peer review is capable of producing a proper determination of religious truth.

And I have explained countless times that if something can't be checked and verified by others, then we should not believe it. That's because it's unfalsifiable. That's my whole point! If it can't be verified, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and I want no part in believing a fantasy.

Why did you cut out the most important part of what I said? Unlucky for you, I have an eidetic memory so I never forget anything I say, and besides that I have it all my longer posts saved in Word documents so I can easily go back and see what I said, grab it and post it. If you try to win an argument by cheating you have not won anything.

For the record, I said: I have nothing to fear from peer review, but that is not the proper way to determine the truth, notice that the video says nothing about peer review. After I have completed my own investigation, then anyone is free to question what I determined and challenge my findings, and I am more than willing to look at anything they have to say. I do that all the time even though I have been a Baha’i for 50 years.

And this is not proving that religion should not be peer reviewed, it's just claiming that religion should not be peer reviewed.

 

[Trailblazer]

A person should certainly do that.
But if a person ONLY looks at sources that tell them that, then they are not getting a full view. A person must also examine the sources that say why a religion is wrong.

I agree with Udo Schaefer that “Whoever wants to be properly informed about a religion would first do well to get hold of literature which is both self-descriptive and self interpretive which shows what the religion in question is and what its claims are according to its own teachings and history. This is a matter of course.” (Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, p. 2). They should also look at other sources that describe the religion in order to get a balanced view.

But they CAN give you accurate information about their own faith. If you were really trying to get a full understanding of different religions, wouldn't you be doing this anyway?

Likewise I can give them accurate information about my religion. I am not trying to get a full understanding of different religions; I do not have the time or the interest. I know enough about other religions to know I would not join them even though I believe parts of all religions contain truths.

Then you can't claim that your faith is a correct explanation, and if something can't be shown to be correct, there's no way you could possibly have verified anything about it.

No, I never claimed that my faith offered objective facts about the universe, and I never claimed I verified any objective facts about the universe.

There's no evidence to show that religious beliefs provide any accurate insight into the nature of physical reality, and there's no evidence whatsoever that there's any kind of spiritual nature to reality at all.

I never said that religious beliefs provide any accurate insight into the nature of physical reality. Science informs us of physical reality.

What is written about spiritual reality in scriptures and other books is evidence of spiritual reality to me. It is not proof, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable. The spiritual reality (spiritual world) cannot be verified because it is not physical.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

There's no verifiable evidence of an afterlife.

I don’t care if it is verifiable because I know it exists without verification. You have a right to your own views because you are a different person.

I'm not interested in how many people have that particular opinion. I'm only interested in whether that opinion is an accurate description of reality.

Opinions are not an accurate description of reality.

I want you to say, "Here's the evidence that I am correct. Please examine the evidence for yourself. If you can see any place where I have made a mistake, please show me so I can correct it. If you can see where my own personal biases have influenced my conclusion, please show me that as well."

People saying the same thing as you is not evidence. If you think it is, then you are committing a logical fallacy; namely, argument from popularity.

I have no idea where you ever got the idea that I think that people saying the same thing as me is evidence. I certainly do not think that is evidence. Opinions are not evidence.

And if people really are getting messages from God, don't you think that tells something about the God sending the message?

Yes, it does because God reveals some of His Attributes in the messages, but God revealed that His Essence (intrinsic nature) is completely unknowable.

There's no evidence that this is anything more than, "Be nice to others and live a good life" - and we hardly need a religion for that. Anything more than that, and there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

There is no need for evidence because I was not trying to prove anything. I was just describing the value of religion. It is more than “Be nice to others and live a good life" because it tells us specifically how to do that.

Assuming that what you consider evidence is actually valid evidence. Since you have not only refused to demonstrate that this evidence can be checked by others, but in fact admitted that it can't ever be checked by others, it's not really evidence.

I never said that the evidence cannot be checked by others. Anything on this list can be checked by others. It might not be valid evidence to you, but I consider it evidence. If you do not consider it evidence, then regarding evidence, there is nothing more to discuss.

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

o What He was like as a person (His character);
o What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
o The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
o The scriptures that He wrote;
o The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
o The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
o The predictions He made that have come to pass;
o The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

ll you've done is create an unfalsifiable position and then shifted the burden of proof onto others and claimed you've found the truth.

I have found the truth for myself by doing my own research. It is not my job to prove anything to anyone else. The information is all freely available on the internet.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

 

[Trailblazer]

So why have you repeatedly said you'd verified your belief that he did speak to God?

I never said that. I said that we could never know if Baha’u’llah got messages from God, that we could never verify that. I said that only Baha’u’llah knew what happened to Him, so we have to look at the other evidence I listed above and determined if we are going to believe He was telling the truth.

So now you say there IS evidence, yet earlier you said, "the claim to have heard from God cannot be proven true."

I have always maintained that "the claim to have heard from God cannot be proven true." Evidence can never prove that He heard from God; that has to be believed on faith, if we decided – after looking at all the evidence -- to believe He was telling the truth.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

The evidence indicates if He was telling the truth about hearing from God, it does not prove that He heard from God because that can never be proven. If it could be proven it would be a fact, not a belief.

I have serious doubts about the validity of anything that uses Biblical prophecy. It's too vague. Can you show that there is a clear and unambiguous prophecy that he fulfilled in a way that is more than, "There's a prophecy that says some guy will do X, so I'm gonna do X so I can say it's about me"?

I will refer you to the posts I posted to QuestioningMind:

#180 Trailblazer, Tuesday at 8:28 PM

#189 Trailblazer, Wednesday at 6:24 PM

And if it isn't a fact, then it's false.

No, that is illogical. Beliefs cannot be proven true or false, but they can be true or false.

I cannot prove my religion is true as a fact, but it could still be a true revelation from God – the truth from God.

Of course, if there really was a true religion, and people could investigate it without their biases influencing them, this just shouldn't happen, should it?

Do you mean if they could investigate a religion without their childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances influencing them everyone would come to the same conclusion about the one true religion? If you believe that is possible you are completely illogical.

And I have explained countless times that if something can't be checked and verified by others, then we should not believe it.

And I have explained countless times that if something is checked and verified by others, then we should not believe it because it is not our own belief if we have to have it checked and verified by other people.

I think we are at the end of this road because there’s never going to be any agreement and you cannot understand why I am saying what I do. I do not just pull these things out of my hat; they come from the Writings of my religion. So I will leave you with a very important passage that says it all, and makes it perfectly clear why we would never want out beliefs checked and verified by anyone else.

“Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to believe in God... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for not believing in God. If not one single person believed in God we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to recognize God in the Person of the Messenger... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing in Him... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for our failures. If not one single person recognized the Messenger of God (which equates to recognizing God) we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.... That is why I cannot prove anything to you or to anyone else... You have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself. That is also why peer review of beliefs is completely out of the question, because then we would be involving other people and putting our eternal life in someone else’s hands.

Pay close attention to the last sentence. What Baha’u’llah is saying is that the faith of no man should be determined by anyone except himself. We are all responsible for our own belief in God, so we cannot look to other people for their opinions or blame other people for why we chose not to believe.

That's because it's unfalsifiable. That's my whole point! If it can't be verified, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and I want no part in believing a fantasy.

Fine, if that is what you think, this conversation is over. God cannot ever be verified and that is why, logically speaking, a Messenger having received a message from God can never be verified.

 

[lukethethird]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?
Who cares about God and atheists? They sound so boring.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?
Who cares about God and atheists? They sound so boring.

Are both God and atheists boring, or is it just the atheists who are boring?
Or is it the discussion about God and atheists that is boring?

 

[CG Didymus]

But if a person ONLY looks at sources that tell them that, then they are not getting a full view. A person must also examine the sources that say why a religion is wrong.

I remember Fundy Christians telling a new believer not to talk to people from different denominations or other religions, because they will only confuse them. The young Christian had to be solidly grounded in "The Word" before they should go out and engage other people with different beliefs. But, these other people are just as "grounded". But it is not called "grounded" when it comes to those other people. They are "brain-washed", or "indoctrinated". And some (or all of them) are. Some people are in cults or in extreme versions of one of the major religions.
Those Fundy Christians discouraged any questions that reflected doubt in the person's mind. They were told that "Satan" is trying to deceive them. To a greater or lessor degree, too many religions do that. Once the person has learned the basics, they go out into the world with a seemingly friendly attitude, but they only seek to push their beliefs onto the other person. Ironically, the other people are expected to doubt and question their beliefs. Love reading your posts.

 

[lukethethird]

Are both God and atheists boring, or is it just the atheists who are boring?
Or is it the discussion about God and atheists that is boring?

God is such a bore and so are atheists.

 

[night912]

Once again, personal beliefs should never be influenced by others because they have to be our beliefs and nobody else’s. That is what individual investigation of truth is all about.

That means that our beliefs should never be reviewed by others and subject to their opinions.

This contradicts what was being said in the video. If Bahai believes that the truth is the truth is the truth, then your beliefs should be reviewed by others. If not, then your personal beliefs are nothing more than you personally wanting non-truths to be truth. If you put all your knowledge(unbeknownst to yourself that they are all untrue) into the box, no matter how much you have investigated, you will never be get to or near the truth.

Due to your bias, you've missed an important factor here, which is, individual investigations. Note that it is plural. For you, the investigation stops once you have fulfill your personal wants and decided to call them "truths." When peer review is allowed, the investigator does not end there. After obtaining the recently gained new knowledge, you do more investigations in order to be closer to the truth. You are doing another filtering process for personal flaws, mistakes, bias etc, that you've previously missed. Here's something that you have left out, the results of these further investigations need not be influenced by outside opinions. If you were influenced by them, it means that you are not doing your personal investigations properly, hence you were influenced by outside opinions during your first investigation.

The point of what I'm saying is, you are only doing a personal investigation on your beliefs and not the truth is the truth is the truth. That investigation is only performed to determine whether you genuinely believe your beliefs, and nothing more.

Fear has played a part in this. Fear of knowing the truth have turned your quest for that knowledge into a quest of comfort, regardless of you actually finding the truth. The actual truth will always result in becoming your personal beliefs, but a personal truth can result in having personal beliefs consisting of nothing but non-truths.