• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is Faith?

F1fan

Veteran Member
Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation. One theory explains that thoughts are generated when neurons fire.Mar 18, 2019

I'm saying there's probably more to it than this because there is an abstract quality to thoughts.
And this is why we don’t form opinions beyond what experts report.

That is all we have to do, learn about the brain and cognition from experts and leave it at that. Religious views? Irrelevant.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
So do you treat all religions as the same? Well, they are not. In effect a secular modern religion like UU is the same all other religions as a tribal stone age society is exactly the same as a welfare state as they are both societies, right?
I treat religious claims as they are presented, and that is with normal scrutiny and questioning. If there are unsatisfactory answers then thats how it is. I give believers the chance to explain their beliefs and thinking. If they dislike my skepticism then that is something they need to ponder.
So you can't find non-religious people where you can observe the same as with religious people. according to you. Further your example is maybe skewed by what is consider religion and what questions were asked?
Religious claims tend to have a consistent flaw. That is assuming a supernatural.
The problem is that non-religious people are as a statical measurement more intelligent than the religious one, so therefore all non-religious people are highly intelligent and and all religious people are stupid, right?
I never said any such thing. This strikes me as a comment that reveals insecurities. I suggest you consider why you asked this.
In effect for some one as me, I use religion as me to cope with the existential absurdity of being a human in the (post-)modern tradition.
What is absurd? Could it be inner conflict with cultural and social norms that don’t resonate with facts and knowledge? People want to belong but it comes with having to accept irrational norms.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I treat religious claims as they are presented, and that is with normal scrutiny and questioning. If there are unsatisfactory answers then thats how it is. I give believers the chance to explain their beliefs and thinking. If they dislike my skepticism then that is something they need to ponder.

Religious claims tend to have a consistent flaw. That is assuming a supernatural.

I never said any such thing. This strikes me as a comment that reveals insecurities. I suggest you consider why you asked this.

What is absurd? Could it be inner conflict with cultural and social norms that don’t resonate with facts and knowledge? People want to belong but it comes with having to accept irrational norms.

Those are good answers.
The problem is the following. Not all claims without evidence are religious.
In short and since we play brain scans. There is to my knowledge no scans, that show any people only using their frontal lobes. when it comes to morality. In other words, you idea is that you can use science to show how you manage your life is correct for an universal standard of being utilitarian.

If you can that, doing the following. Show me a link to an actual theory that is universal as for all humans for doing the same as how they all ought to cope.

So just to be clear you have solved something that is an over 2000 years old problem in the Western culture. If we can make an rational and objective system to do morality.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
When religions preach "belief" they are preaching surety. They are preaching the expectation that their version of truth is THE truth. That there is no reason or place for doubt.
Whether they say they have "faith", "belief" or they claim it, I agree, a religious person is saying that what they believe is The Truth. No matter what word they use, they should be able to give reasons to support why they believe it is The Truth. For a Christian, they might say it is because they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. For a Baha'i they might say that it is because their prophet's writings make sense and therefore they believe he is speaking The Truth. But, since most all religions believe their version of truth is The Truth, how do people decide which one really is The Truth? Which then leads to the problem that if one of them is The Truth, then what are the others?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Whether they say they have "faith", "belief" or they claim it, I agree, a religious person is saying that what they believe is The Truth. No matter what word they use, they should be able to give reasons to support why they believe it is The Truth. For a Christian, they might say it is because they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. For a Baha'i they might say that it is because their prophet's writings make sense and therefore they believe he is speaking The Truth. But, since most all religions believe their version of truth is The Truth, how do people decide which one really is The Truth? Which then leads to the problem that if one of them is The Truth, then what are the others?
Sorry, I can't do that. I have faith that the universe is real, but no evidence/truth/proof.
And since I claim something about the universe which is not natural and claim a human property "real" about the universe I consider it a religious claim. Indeed it is a fact about the universe that is beyond the observable universe, yet still a fact, right?
So to me it is not The Truth that the universe is real. That is why I use faith.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
First we'd have to show that such a thing had objective existence.
How could we first show that an entity that resided in another dimension far beyond our reach had objective existence?
Do you understand the problem? The GPS tracker does not extend that far.
You've no doubt read Flatland ? Written some decades after Riemann's writings on the maths of n-spaces and n-dimensional objects, when the implications from those were becoming better known ─ and the idea that God was a being existing in 4 or more spatial dimensions was popular. Spiritualists also located the Astral Plane / heaven there.

But not much has happened to advance the cause in the century since. (I remember the occasional séances of my student days, when I discovered how breathtakingly simple it was to manipulate the ouija board's sliding glass.)
No, I have not read that but it sounds interesting. I don't think it is a myth. I am certain that other dimensions beyond this dimension exist.
Of course, I could never prove that but it is not based on proof.

An interesting book that talks about the spiritual world and the many spheres of existence is called The Afterlife Revealed.
This is not a Baha'i book, but it is congruent with what little has been revealed about the afterlife in the Baha'i Writings.

"At the very foundation of religious faith and hope is a belief that consciousness will survive death and that we will live on in another dimension of reality. But that foundation easily crumbles when scientific minds are unable to wrap their brains around an afterlife, when they are unable to visualize a non-material world. As the foundation gives way, the philosophy of materialism takes hold and gives rise to moral decadence, egocentricity, hypocrisy, hatred, disorder, flux, strife, chaos, and fear. Such seems to be the state of the world today. There is so much to be found outside the highly guarded boundaries of mainstream science and orthodox religion for those willing to open their minds to it, for those willing to recognize that the dissemination of Truth did not stop with the good books of organized religion and cannot always be found in the laboratory.

Beginning in 1848, a number of sensitive people began developing as mediums, bringing forth communications from the spirit world. One of the skeptics investigating the "popular madness" was Professor Robert Hare of the University of Pennsylvania. Intending to debunk it all, Hare would, after extensive research, become a believer. When he asked an apparently advanced spirit what it was all about, he was told that it was "a deliberate effort, on the part of the inhabitants of the higher spheres, to break through the partition which has interfered with the attainment, by mortals, of a correct idea of their destiny after death." Unfortunately, both orthodox religion and mainstream science, acting out of ego and fear, have rebuked the efforts of those inhabitants of the higher spheres to enlighten us, thus permitting the foundations of both faith and hope to further crumble.

In The Afterlife Revealed, Michael Tymn sets forth some of the most credible messages from the spirits relative to the nature of their world. Instead of a heaven-hell dichotomy, we are told that there are many levels, or as Jesus is quoted, "many mansions," and that we cross over to the "other side" based on what might be called a "moral specific gravity." We discover a Divine plan - one of attainment and attunement, of gradual spiritual growth, of evolution of spirit through progressively higher planes. We see how we are really souls occupying bodies rather than bodies housing souls and how our souls are progressing in finding their way back to Oneness with the Creator through the challenges, the adversities, the trials and tribulations offered us in a particular lifetime."

 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I treat religious claims as they are presented, and that is with normal scrutiny and questioning. If there are unsatisfactory answers then thats how it is. I give believers the chance to explain their beliefs and thinking. If they dislike my skepticism then that is something they need to ponder.
That's where things get all boggled down. The religious person thinks that their answer is satisfactory. How many times have we heard something to the effect that God is real because our prophet said so and he was sent by God. Any version of that has been rejected as being circular reasoning.

Most any religion, when believed and applied, I think will work... Christianity, Baha'i, whatever... But are the supernatural, unprovable claims made by that religion true? To the believer, I'm sure they seem to be true, and that gives them assurance that what they believe is true.

But for the Christian it could be that Jesus is God and that they have had their sins forgiven. For the Baha'i it could be that they believe their prophet is the return of Christ and that we are in a new age. But those beliefs are based on things that might only be true in the mind of the believer. And since the beliefs of one person in one religion can and often do contradict the beliefs of a person in another religion, then at least one of them is wrong and is believing a lie.

For the Atheist, it could be both. Since neither of them can prove what they believe is really true. Why then do they believe it? Because, as strange as it is, all these different religions, do work. But how well? Especially for those that haven't committed themselves 100% to their religion.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That's where things get all boggled down. The religious person thinks that their answer is satisfactory. How many times have we heard something to the effect that God is real because our prophet said so and he was sent by God. Any version of that has been rejected as being circular reasoning.
I cannot speak for other religious people, I only speak for myself. Two things.

1. I do not think that my answer will be satisfactory for other people, it is only satisfactory for me.
There is no logical reason to think that everyone would view the same evidence the same way.

2. I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because 'Baha'u'llah said so.'
'Baha'u'llah said so' is only His claim. I believe His claim because of the evidence that supports His claim.
Since neither of them can prove what they believe is really true. Why then do they believe it?
I believe based upon the evidence, what I interpret it to mean.
I have faith that God exists and Baha'u'llah is His latest Messenger, knowing that I can never prove that is true to anyone except myself.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Existence is neither contained within or defined by it's physicality. Everything that exists, exists as interdependent and interactive phenomena, from whatever can be called the sub-quantum level to whatever can exists beyond the expanse of our universe. It's ALL phenomena. The brain and the mind both exist together as a collection of complex interdependent, interactive phenomena. And so does everything else. The brain can't exist without the mind, and the mind can't exist without the brain. A lump of dead brain tissue that used to be a mind-brain is not a brain anymore. it's just a lump of dead brain tissue.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If they do not, then they are deluding themselves. Because as human beings, we do not possess the capacity to logically or honestly know 'God' with that kind of surety.
No, we do not possess the capacity to logically know 'God.' Nobody knows God with logic since God can never be proven with logic.

You are saying that if a believer does not have doubts that believer is deluding him or herself.
That is as much as saying everyone should have doubts, or else they are deluding themselves.

If we don't have doubts we don't ave doubts. Should we say we have doubts when we have no doubts? That would be dishonest.
Certainty does not come from the ability to prove something with a logical argument or with objective evidence, it is an inner sense based upon everything we know.
Nevertheless, don't you think honesty and logic are important to maintain? I do.
I think we need to be honest with ourselves and others. I think we should think logically, but what is logical to one person is not necessarily logical to another person, and therein lies the problem with theist-atheist debates. What a theist considers logical a atheist thinks is illogical and vice versa. When an atheist insists that a theist is illogical they are attacking the reasoning of the theist, but what the atheist thinks is logical is only their personal opinion, based upon how they think. I understand how atheists think and I do not attack their reasoning, I only explain mine.

logical

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. Using a fire extinguisher to put it out a fire is a logical step. Trying to put it out with gasoline is not.

The adjective logical is rooted in the Greek word logos, which means "reason, idea, or word." So calling something logical means it's based on reason and sound ideas — in other words, thought out with mathematical precision and removed from emotion. Sounds strict and boring, but it's the orderliness and consistency of logic that helps you write a great argument or figure out how to solve a problem.

Logical - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms
When you claim your knowledge to others, they expect that you are claiming that they should also 'know', as you do. I get that your knowledge is the result of your personal experience. But unless you say so, people assume you to be referring to common knowledge that we can all ascertain. But it's not.
I am not claiming knowledge, I am stating a belief. I always explain why I believe what I believe when the subject comes up in a discussion.
I do not expect other people should also 'know', as I do. What I refer to as 'evidence' for Bahaullah being a Messenger of God is available for everyone to look at but everyone will not interpret that evidence as I did. Individuals will interpret that evidence differently and come to different conclusions.
I said: There is nothing illogical if a believer says they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures. It is completely logical, since the only way to know anything about God is through scriptures.

Such a claim is not logical. You can believe it all you like, but you can't expect others to buy into that belief with you. So why proclaim it? What do you hope to gain from doing that? As you can see for yourself, all it gets you is the logical rejection of others.
I am not proclaiming it, I am only sharing what I believe, and I have no expectations of others buying into what I believe.

Why isn't it logical, according to the definition of logical I posted above?
'Logical' rejection of others? Why is their rejection logical?
Atheists 'believe' that their rejection of scriptures is logical but I disagree. I believe their rejection of all scriptures is illogical.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That's where things get all boggled down. The religious person thinks that their answer is satisfactory. How many times have we heard something to the effect that God is real because our prophet said so and he was sent by God. Any version of that has been rejected as being circular reasoning.
Yea, one of my aunts converted from presbyterian to Catholic because she was marrying a Catholic guy. They then raised 9 Cathgolic kids and they did all the Catholic rituals. Even my cousins felt reluctant obligation to do all the rituals. Why? That's the tribal mind. It is an evolutionay impulse.

I found it odd that it was easy to go from one truth to another, and treat the new version seriously, as if absolute. It's all subjective, and eye of the beholder. I still don;t understand the apveal to adopt a framework that is clearly not factual.
Most any religion, when believed and applied, I think will work... Christianity, Baha'i, whatever... But are the supernatural, unprovable claims made by that religion true? To the believer, I'm sure they seem to be true, and that gives them assurance that what they believe is true.
If a state government suddenly announced the arrest of all Muslims there would be many willing to abandon Islam. There is already hostility against atheists, and for many years I would not admit I was atheist. So what "works" as a religion depends on the reward and how little resistance there is. But that said there are unusual people who choose fringe religions, so they can fit is as a "believer" but have a fringe and exclusive framework. That exclusivity works for that personality. As for them beliving it true, no theists comes to a rational conclusion that their religious belief is true, they inevitably rely on faith, which is belief for the sake of believing.
But for the Christian it could be that Jesus is God and that they have had their sins forgiven. For the Baha'i it could be that they believe their prophet is the return of Christ and that we are in a new age. But those beliefs are based on things that might only be true in the mind of the believer. And since the beliefs of one person in one religion can and often do contradict the beliefs of a person in another religion, then at least one of them is wrong and is believing a lie.
This is one advantage of fringe religions as they offer an exclusive "truth" and from that position of course the believer is correct and others wrong or decieved. As we see the fringe believers offer no more evidence than the traditional religions. They are all products that appeal to the variety of religious customers. We see a believer say "It's true for me" which in essence admits it isn't truth at all. Yet they still believe for some non-rational reason.
For the Atheist, it could be both. Since neither of them can prove what they believe is really true. Why then do they believe it? Because, as strange as it is, all these different religions, do work. But how well? Especially for those that haven't committed themselves 100% to their religion.
This is why I suggest everyone is agnostic where it comes to religious concepts. Since they are so popular they carry weight and significance, but they can't be shwon to be true objectively. I suggest the atheist is more honest since they won't assume any religious tradition as true regardless of its popularity and social pressure to conform. It's easy to give in to biological and social pressure and allow the impulse to believe hapven witout consideration by the self. Oddly I think theists engaging in open dabate strengthens their committment because with any adversarial situation the pride wants to be a winner. The more the argument goes against the believer the more defensive they tend to be. We even see more absurd claims being made as they resist questions.

Despite everyone being agnostic over religious claims there is science and history that explains how humans evolved to beleive in tribal norms, and how religions were created for the sake of social management. The lores have a historic lineage that shows no sudden revelations, rather cultural evolution to new norms. Facts offer us a very good set of reasons to understand religion as a natural, human phenomenon, not acts of divinity.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
No, we do not possess the capacity to logically know 'God.' Nobody knows God with logic since God can never be proven with logic.

You are saying that if a believer does not have doubts that believer is deluding him or herself.
That is as much as saying everyone should have doubts, or else they are deluding themselves.

If we don't have doubts we don't ave doubts. Should we say we have doubts when we have no doubts? That would be dishonest.
Certainty does not come from the ability to prove something with a logical argument or with objective evidence, it is an inner sense based upon everything we know.

I think we need to be honest with ourselves and others. I think we should think logically, but what is logical to one person is not necessarily logical to another person, and therein lies the problem with theist-atheist debates. What a theist considers logical a atheist thinks is illogical and vice versa. When an atheist insists that a theist is illogical they are attacking the reasoning of the theist, but what the atheist thinks is logical is only their personal opinion, based upon how they think. I understand how atheists think and I do not attack their reasoning, I only explain mine.

logical

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. Using a fire extinguisher to put it out a fire is a logical step. Trying to put it out with gasoline is not.

The adjective logical is rooted in the Greek word logos, which means "reason, idea, or word." So calling something logical means it's based on reason and sound ideas — in other words, thought out with mathematical precision and removed from emotion. Sounds strict and boring, but it's the orderliness and consistency of logic that helps you write a great argument or figure out how to solve a problem.

Logical - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

I am not claiming knowledge, I am stating a belief. I always explain why I believe what I believe when the subject comes up in a discussion.
I do not expect other people should also 'know', as I do. What I refer to as 'evidence' for Bahaullah being a Messenger of God is available for everyone to look at but everyone will not interpret that evidence as I did. Individuals will interpret that evidence differently and come to different conclusions.

I am not proclaiming it, I am only sharing what I believe, and I have no expectations of others buying into what I believe.

Why isn't it logical, according to the definition of logical I posted above?
'Logical' rejection of others? Why is their rejection logical?
Atheists 'believe' that their rejection of scriptures is logical but I disagree. I believe their rejection of all scriptures is illogical.

That problem is as follows.
Let assume that a person is actually illogical or thinking illogically. Now that means unless you go for the claim that it is not really happening in the world as a part of the world, then it is a fact about the world that at least in some sense the illogical happens.
It goes back to the negative and positives.
The problem is for the logical crowd of people, that if something is a part of the world, it is real and a fact.
But they usually do the world as if it is logical, because that makes sense to them in a positive sense.

But I am a skeptic, so I test even that which apparently doesn't make sense.
So here is what happens.
Remember for something to be true as by proof, it must be known that it is so.
So if I claim that another person is thinking in an illogical manner, I must know that and for another person I can only know through observation, but I can't observe the illogical. It is a first person experience of a negative in my mind and not a property of the other person.

So here is what is happen. We think differently and then the rationalist declares that her/his/their thinking is logical and my thinking is illogical.
But that is not a fact as per observation. It is a norm of thinking that is treated like a fact.
The problem is not so much that you can learn the norm of thinking logically. It is that it is a norm, but some people treat as more. They use it to judge other people, who think differently.

In common folk language and you can observe her on this forum, the illogical is bad. Bad is a negative and not an observable fact.
That is part of what always happens in the "atheist/theist" debate. I am good and you are bad. Well, I am a skeptic, so I always ask for proof of that, as how that is known.
And yes, good and bad are positives and negatives in the mind of the person claiming them.

So I have learned that both sides, and there are more sides than these 2 ,in the end fight about who is the positive and it is the other one, who is the negative and they always claim they all know.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yea, one of my aunts converted from presbyterian to Catholic because she was marrying a Catholic guy. They then raised 9 Cathgolic kids and they did all the Catholic rituals. Even my cousins felt reluctant obligation to do all the rituals. Why? That's the tribal mind. It is an evolutionay impulse.

I found it odd that it was easy to go from one truth to another, and treat the new version seriously, as if absolute. It's all subjective, and eye of the beholder. I still don;t understand the apveal to adopt a framework that is clearly not factual.

If a state government suddenly announced the arrest of all Muslims there would be many willing to abandon Islam. There is already hostility against atheists, and for many years I would not admit I was atheist. So what "works" as a religion depends on the reward and how little resistance there is. But that said there are unusual people who choose fringe religions, so they can fit is as a "believer" but have a fringe and exclusive framework. That exclusivity works for that personality. As for them beliving it true, no theists comes to a rational conclusion that their religious belief is true, they inevitably rely on faith, which is belief for the sake of believing.

This is one advantage of fringe religions as they offer an exclusive "truth" and from that position of course the believer is correct and others wrong or decieved. As we see the fringe believers offer no more evidence than the traditional religions. They are all products that appeal to the variety of religious customers. We see a believer say "It's true for me" which in essence admits it isn't truth at all. Yet they still believe for some non-rational reason.

This is why I suggest everyone is agnostic where it comes to religious concepts. Since they are so popular they carry weight and significance, but they can't be shwon to be true objectively. I suggest the atheist is more honest since they won't assume any religious tradition as true regardless of its popularity and social pressure to conform. It's easy to give in to biological and social pressure and allow the impulse to believe hapven witout consideration by the self. Oddly I think theists engaging in open dabate strengthens their committment because with any adversarial situation the pride wants to be a winner. The more the argument goes against the believer the more defensive they tend to be. We even see more absurd claims being made as they resist questions.

Despite everyone being agnostic over religious claims there is science and history that explains how humans evolved to beleive in tribal norms, and how religions were created for the sake of social management. The lores have a historic lineage that shows no sudden revelations, rather cultural evolution to new norms. Facts offer us a very good set of reasons to understand religion as a natural, human phenomenon, not acts of divinity.

Do you know the history of the concept of rational in the Western culture?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Im not sure what you are asking.

Where did it originate, when and is there only one version of it? Or rather one application of it or have humans tried to use in on different human behavior?
In other words are there different claims of what you can do radiationally and even worse? Does it have a limit or is it objectively universal?
Such question is a part of critical thinking as I have learned it.
You are critical of critical thinking and check if it has a limit.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Premium Member
Not just Bahais but Christians and Islam too. It is mandatory to spread the good news (Dawah). "Get your nose cut and see the Emperors new clothes". As for their Gods prophets and theory, one has to take it on their word, no other evidence.
Well, I suppose you are correct about that. Most Abrahamics in that regard do seem to want to spread their wisdom about how they all have THE TRUTH. Seems kind of ridiculous in my view. Not a one of them agrees on anything. What a waste of time.

And of course, none of them have any real evidence of their divine revelations from their truthseekers and soothsayers. I just have a hard time when they argue with everyone about being knowledgeable about stuff that no one could possibly know.

And on top of that, they argue with each other and all other religions and non believers that their invisible dragon is the actual and one and only true dragon.

I don't get it.

In the meantime, I had no idea how many cult sects of religions are living and working amongst us here in the US. There is a show on Hulu about these cults. Check out "The 12 Tribes" if you want to see some crazy. The bad part is, these people have figured out how to operate and through yuppie Delis in college towns.

The Yellow Deli: Rutland's connection to a global religious community - The Middlebury Campus
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When you realise that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, is quite what it appears to be;
When you begin to recognise that there is no fixed point anywhere in this ephemeral universe, to which you may anchor your certainties;
When it dawns on you that all you see around you is but a flickering kaleidoscope of mirage and metaphor;
Then you may, without fear, relinquish the anguished grip with which you cling to the world;
You're giving life advice to strangers who you presume are all anguished and clingy? Thanks, but I've got a worldview that I has served me well.

Life is but a dream, huh? When you realize that we can actually have knowledge and make good decisions resulting in desired outcomes because of it, when you understand that people can live meaningful lives better without a groundless worldview that depicts themselves as plankton floating merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily gently down the stream, then you'll have something.
What I see is certain atheists hijacking my threads.
This is an open forum, and you do not control how it unfolds.
The thread is open to anyone who wants to contribute.
It looks like you've changed your tune already. Of course, you probably want to be the one who decides what constitutes a contribution.
I never said that scripture is evidence that its claims are correct.
Yeah, you did: "We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture." That's a belief, a claim, an implied argument, and a fallacious one at that.
I have no idea what God wants unless it is revealed in scripture
And there it is again, the claim you claim you didn't claim. Here you are using scripture as evidence and believing its claims, which you have called justified by that evidence. Sorry, but you commit logical error after logical error (fallacy).
I don't think like you because I am not you so your prediction was wrong.
You wanted fallacies pointed out to you. That was another. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
I get along with everyone except two posters who constantly talk about how they are superior to me because they are critical thinkers
Nobody has called themselves superior. They are more skilled thinkers. If you judge your worth by that, then I suppose you might feel inferior.
Why keep telling me I have a problem with debate when I do not have a problem with it?
You've told me that you hate it.
Try to think about how we could obtain evidence of an entity that resided in another dimension far beyond our reach, however slight?
If you can't obtain supporting evidence for your belief, you probably shouldn't believe it. You see this inaccessibility as justification for belief in the nonexistent, but it's how critical thinkers decide that the opposite is the preferred course. It's how they avoid all kinds of false beliefs about imagined entities lacking empirical support. But for you, it's a reason to believe. So why stop with gods? What else is out there in other dimensions generating no evidence? Whatever you wish if you have no empirical criteria for belief. Is Lex Luthor there? Let's just say yes, he is. Why not? You're not expecting evidence from another dimension, so you have all the same evidence you have for your god belief - bupkis.
 
Last edited:

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Premium Member
Not just Bahais but Christians and Islam too. It is mandatory to spread the good news (Dawah). "Get your nose cut and see the Emperors new clothes". As for their Gods prophets and theory, one has to take it on their word, no other evidence.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
If you can't obtain supporting evidence for your belief, you probably shouldn't believe it.
Other religions have already established that God does show himself and interact with his creation. So, the belief that God is real is already part of what a large percentage of people believe is true. Baha'is just come in with a different interpretation, which, of course, they say is the true one.

If the Baha'is were presenting their beliefs to people that had no beliefs in superstitious things and supernatural beings, then how would they prove it? But that is not the case. Instead, they have to get people away from what Baha'is believe are superstitious beliefs and get them to believe in what they say is true about this supposed invisible spirit world.

To me, the inconsistency of the various messages found in the different religions about that spirit world doesn't help the Baha'is. They use man-made ideas and beliefs crept into the "original" messages found in those other religions. Why not go a step further and say the whole religion was a man-made idea? But they won't go that far, because they need some of the things found in those other religions to build off of to support their beliefs.
 
Top