An
opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. ... Unlike an
opinion, a
belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
Distinguishing Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice
Except the example that site uses proves that an opinion is a belief.
Their example of an opinion: "For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars."
Now, WHY would a person hold that opinion that the country should institute national health care? Perhaps because people have a right to be treated for illness, regardless of their financial situation? The right to be healthy is a human right? No one should be forced to suffer through an illness if it can be avoided?
I'm sure you'd probably agree with that, or at least hold a similar viewpoint. In any case, I doubt you will say, "No, people should be made to suffer if they can't pay for healthcare, because it's their own fault for being poor!" Of course not.
Yet, doesn't this fall under the umbrella of a conviction based on morality or personal values? Sure seems like it to me! And that's the very definition that website uses for a belief! So don't tell me that opinion and belief aren't the same thing.
You are correct, one of us has to be wrong if we have different interpretations of the same historical events. The question is who is wrong. That might require digging deeper.
So you are open to the possibility that you could be wrong?
God needs no yardsticks because God knows everything by virtue of being God. After all, one of God’s attributes is all-knowing.
Then it's an arbitrary choice on his part.
If there's no yardstick, God can't say that it's good because it meets certain criteria. All he can say is, "It's good because I say so," and that's the very definition of arbitrary.
You do not have the right but you can choose to if you are evil. God cannot be evil because benevolence is one of God’s attributes, so God will never torture anyone.
Benevolence is one of my attributes as well, so if I clone an animal and then torture it, that means torturing cloned animals is benevolent.
Seriously, that's about the level of your arguments here.
Why is that, because God is not accountable to humans? Is a painter lacking empathy for his painting because he is not accountable to it? But if the painter values the painting that he created it he will care for it and protect it from being damaged after he has finished painting it. That is what God does, cares for us and protects us by sending Messengers.
Paintings are not living, breathing, self aware beings, are they? The painting does not suffer if I throw it into the fire.
How would that be possible if I did not decide it was true before I looked at the evidence? Of course I looked at the evidence before I decided the Baha’i Faith was true.
And it seems that now you have made your decision, you accept or dismiss evidence based solely on whether it fits with that decision, rather than being judged on it's own merits.
Why do you think I only looked at certain pieces of evidence?
They way you phrased it gave that impression.
But I did not point to individual cases or data that confirm my position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that contradict my position. I looked at all the data that is available, and when more data became available I looked at that too. I am always learning new things about the Baha’i Faith as there is so much to learn.
Eventually a person has to draw a conclusion as to whether a religion is true or false, unless they want to remain on the fence like one poster on this forum who has been comparing the Baha’i Faith to Christianity for over 50 years. He is in his 70s so if he continues to be undecided he might and die before he decides and that would be sad for him because the consequences could be huge.
But there should never be a point at which someone refuses to look at new evidence. So tell me, are you prepared to accept your beliefs are wrong if provided with such evidence?
What are we using? All religious scriptures predict what will happen in the future so all we are doing is pointing out that Baha’u’llah did what was predicted by in previous scriptures. That is no different from what Christian do what they refer to the Old Testament to try to prove that Jesus was the one predicted by the prophets in the Old Testament.
How can you say that ALL religious texts predict the future? What about if they're just retelling old stories that were fictitious to begin with?
Okay, I already know where to find them so below are the names of those who witnessed Baha’u’llah reciting and writing His scriptures after His return from Sulaymáníyyih, which was the period under review.
Mírzá Áqá Ján, Bahá’u’lláh’s secretary
Muhammad Karím, a native of Shíráz, Persia
I'll have to take more time to look properly into this. Can you tell me where in their works they made the claim?
