What's up with the Baha'i communities?

I don't normally ask for help from anyone but I could use some advice.

I don't really have any connection to my community. I Declared I guess it was now 4 or 5 years ago. The community has always been friendly at an arms-length sort of way, but I never seemed to find my foot in the door. I never got invited to a feast and honestly I don't really know how they work after all this time or what is involved. They wanted me to take the Ruhi course. I had already studied many of the texts and I did not really care for how the first few weeks of it was done so I dropped out of that.

Later on when I changed my email address it somehow did not get updated with their mailing list. I tried to have it updated but that did not happen. My Baha'i community life consists of monthly requests for donation letters from the national committee. I used to be a Buddhist. I was part of a small but active community. We meditated together, we went palces, socialized, went out for dinner, even went to movies. I don't have any of that. I sometimes feel like I've given up a great deal and I have no idea what on earth I got in return. I can't go back. I do believe in Baha'u'llah and the teachings. It would be far easier if I did not.

I thought that the Baha'i community would be involved in acts to start to improve the world on some level. Obviously that doesn't happen, at least on any organized level ive ever seen, but even the community is just not there.

Maybe it's because I'm not old enough to know the folks who joined in the 1960's and I'm not Iranian-American. Is there anyone in a situation like this? How do you manage or do you? I can't be the only one.

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/7ldtfh/i_love_you_but_im_lost/

See also this video which I think can be related to the above post.

Elderly Baha'i left to die, appeals for help from Baha'is.


  1. Good day,
    I just published a book titled “An Independent Investigation of the Bahá'í Faith” and in case it might be of interest, it can be found here: https://www.createspace.com/pub/simplesitesearch.search.do?sitesearch_query=ken+ammi&sitesearch_type=STORE and here: https://www.amazon.com/Ken-Ammi/e/B071NW4F4W

  2. Hey, Ken, that book of yours should be titled, "Attacks on the Baha'i Faith to Promote my Brand of Christianity." You are no more credible than most Baha'is and I'm on to you!

    1. Good day Dale. Is that really your conclusion after having read it? I am certainly aware that you consider me amongst the “Enemies of Truth and Justice” because I do not accept your assertions. However, you may be aware that Baha'ism invited people to conduct an independent investigation of their claims, I did just that, and the book records my results.

    2. First, I do not need to read your book on the Baha'i Faith to know your agenda, because I have already seen enough of your writings on your laughable "freethinker" blog to know how utterly bogus it is.

      Thanks for attacking me here, hypocrite:

      And you do not allow comments on your own blog! How pathetic.

      Actually I do not expect you to accept anyone else's assertions, liar. I expect honest and courageous people to accept only FACTS, nothing more or less. It's bad enough you live in a fantasy world, but to demand everyone else share it with you is despicable. I will fight ANYONE who does that, whether Christian or Baha'i.

    3. Sir, may I correct you? When you are in a good mood you complimented my work on Baha’ism. But when I publish the results of my independent investigation you suddenly sour.

      Of course, you have just admitted that you are willing to, in a manner of speaking, negatively review a book without having read it so that you have discredited yourself.

      Also, a hypocrite is someone who condemns that which they themselves do so that in this case, your charge of hypocrisy is erroneous. Also, upon what premise do you condemn hypocrisy?

      Then you imply some sort of absolute ethic about comments on blogs but that is another of your mere assertions. Well, that post states, “Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.” Thus, you can post on more than one social networking site just not on my blog because I received gigs worth of robo-spam that were causing my server service to intermittently shut my site down.

      You also call me a liar but am unsure how you know that I am lying? Also, upon what premise do you condemn lying?

      You imply that you have some sort of special status whereby you base your worldview on only FACTS which is a clear indication that you are not aware of or are ignoring the fact of properly basic beliefs and that, of course, you personally believe many things without a single fact as a basis: as do we all because we are such very limited beings.

      Lastly, the fact that you refer to my replies to you are “attacking” denotes that you are handling this issue emotionally rather than rationally: please reconsider your approach.

    4. "you have discredited yourself."
      That is itself a baseless assertion. The only way you can really discredit me is with either superior logic or with empirical data that clearly refutes my claims. Neither of which you have.

      I call you a hypocrite because of your obvious double standards, criticizing the Baha'i Faith for its dishonesty and hypocrisies while defending the equally flawed Christian faith. If you were truly objective and fair you would not defend any dogmatic system of thought. I don't and I never will.

      If your blog is that vulnerable to "robo-spamming" then it is worthless. I don't have that problem on MY blog. Naturally, I do not believe you. And why should anyone go to another place to comment on your issues?

      You lied when you said I made assertions that you reject. I have already seen what you call assertions of mine. Maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary?

      I do NOT have a "worldview". That term is useless to me. The idea that non-believers in religion have an opposing worldview is itself an assertion to justify smearing the opposition to religious dogmatism. Shame on you!

      Finally, we are not Vulcans of Star Trek, so shut up about people like me having emotions. That's another fallacy know as ad hominem.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. "When you are in a good mood you complimented my work on Baha’ism. But when I publish the results of my independent investigation you suddenly sour."

    When I first noticed you years ago, Ken Ammi, I didn't know you were a Christian apologist. Your attacks on the Baha'i Faith were accepted at first because of my ignorance. Once I realized your true motives, I became your opponent. Attacking one dogmatic and irrational religion to promote another is like warning people not to drink cyanide and then offering them arsenic!

    1. Fiend, again I discern your emotiveness which keeps you from engaging in reasoned discourse. For example I note that “you have discredited yourself” and you reply with “The only way you can really discredit me” but I said that you had done it to yourself and not that I had done it to you.
      Then, you demand that I could only do so “with either superior logic or with empirical data that clearly refutes my claims” but you seem unwilling to read the book so you will never know whether I present superior logic or with empirical data.

      So yes, you call me a hypocrite but do so as a mere assertion as I asked “upon what premise do you condemn hypocrisy?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it.
      Also, double standard does not necessarily mean hypocrisy. And just so that you are aware, via superior logic or with empirical data, I wrote an entire book criticizing Catholicism for its dishonesty and hypocrisies and you will surely categorize Catholicism as an aspect of Christianity. And, by the way, by definition your worldview is premised upon dogma and “I don't and I never will” is itself a dogmatic statement.

      I also asked you “upon what premise do you condemn lying?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it.
      Well, the fact is that my blog is vulnerable to “robo-spamming” and so you conclude that it is therefore worthless which is a classic example of the logical genetic fallacy. The reason that someone should go to another place to comment on my issues is that well, I already explained that. My simple invitation is to go to the various networking sites where that particular post is shared and comment as they please.
      You then claim to know that I lied but I am unsure how you could know that: as an FYI there is a difference between merely being wrong and lying. As it is, you could only claim that I am wrong since you would have to read my mind in order to know whether I was actually lying—wrong due to lying, due to purposefully and knowingly making an inaccurate statement rather than simply being wrong.
      Moreover, what I stated is that “you consider me amongst the ‘Enemies of Truth and Justice’ because I do not accept your assertions.” The context in which you called me that denotes that you did so because just that: I do not accept your assertions, your worldview, your dogma.
      And yes, of course you have a worldview, everyone does as our worldview is just that: our view of the world (anything and everything). But I see that you are getting emotional again since you appeal to “smearing” and “Shame” but then you even take appeals to have you focus on logic and data rather than feelings in an emotional manner. In fact, concluding that I was referring to “having emotions” is fallacious on its face as I was clearly begging you to engage in reasoned discourse rather than reacting emotionally since doing so clearly causing you to overreact and make blunders. Also, please understand that ad hominem is not mentioning that your opponent is emotional and then going on to deal with your opponent’s arguments. Rather, ad hominem would be if my only reply was noting that you are being emotive—period, and leaving it at that.

      Lastly, you employ another genetic logical fallacy by claiming that my “attacks”—actually, independent investigation—on the Baha'i Faith were accepted but then discredited because I am a Christian. This is utter illogic: if my criticisms of Baha'ism are sound then they are sound regardless of who I am, what I am, what you feel about me, etc.

      I appreciate the interaction, friend.

    2. Note to Naser Emtesali: You can learn a lot more about Ken Ammi and his lies by reading what I wrote about him.


      If Ken Ammi is indeed a defender of Christianity, then I have to wonder why he does such terrible job of it. Oh, because his Christian readers are even more ignorant than he is and blindly believe him because he is a fellow Christian, obviously. The incredible arrogance he has displayed here alone should be enough to see what he is like and why I will never trust him, even as a critic of the Baha'i Faith.

      For your amusement, I offer you this too:

      I can only go so far with someone who simply never tells the truth and denies the statements of those who do.

  5. Dale, your comment is a classic textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy.
    Anyone can read the comments above and see that you are quick to make unfounded assertions but when asked to back them up you reply with school yard bully level childish taunts.
    You learn a lot more about Dale's fallacious worldview by reading what I wrote in reply to him:

  6. "your comment is a classic textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy."

    That claim, like so many you make, is an outright lie.
    My point was always that you are a known Christian apologist and thus you attack the Baha'i Faith with ulterior motives, to entice Baha'is to convert to YOUR religion instead. That's not a fallacy at all, just a logical deduction one can get from reading your own dishonest writings about religion in general, as detailed on your own blog:

    If I'm wrong, the obvious way to discredit me would have been to say right after I attacked you, "No, I do not care if anyone that leaves the Baha'i Faith becomes Christian; you are clearly mistaken, Dale."

    At least I am honest about wanting former Baha'is to convert to Unitarian Universalism.

    You also lied here when you said this absurdity:
    "I also asked you “upon what premise do you condemn lying [or hypocrisy]?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it."
    No, unlike you, I have enough respect for REALITY to make sure my statements and my ethical behavior fit it and are consistent and not only fit my personal desires. The fact that you lay verbal traps for me and then attack me later for not falling for them shows your duplicity. Yet you claim I somehow discredited myself first? LOL!

    Your religion has no truth in it at all and even your own God is a hypocrite. And here is damning (pun intended) proof of that:

    Let's see you dare to copy and paste THAT on that blog entry of yours. I'll bet you won't!

    1. Friend, asserting that my book contra Baha'ism is invalid because I am a Christian is a textbook classic example of an ad hominem. To this fallacy you now add hypocrisy since you besmirch me for wanting them to leave the Baha'i Faith and become Christian (and such has never been in question) when you want them to leave Baha'ism and convert to Unitarian Universalism.

      Just because you finally get around to answering “upon what premise do you condemn lying [or hypocrisy]?” does not make me a liar especially since I had noted that “you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it” and your reply that it is because “I have enough respect for REALITY to…” is just as I pinpointed: it is “because you feel like it.”

      You then claim “Your religion has no truth in it at all” but when you make such sweeping claims they make it very, very easy to discredit you. For example, my religion claims that the universe had a beginning (while many others do not) and since that is true, you are mistaken. As to God being a hypocrite: you jump right into condemnation without a premise, again.

      As I already noted, you are very emotional and it keeps you from engaging in reasoned discourse. For example, I have posted every single word you have ever written to me and replied to your articles about me so why are you childishly daring me to post that? In fact, I just did so, so: how much did you bet me?

      This emotivism seems to be why when you recognize that your worldview fails you, you claim that you were trapped and attacked. In any case, here is that which I supposedly would not post: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/dale-husband-asksstates-%E2%80%9Cgod-was-hypocrite%E2%80%9D

    2. Thanks again for confirming that you are not willing to give an honest answer to me. Because of that, I will always dismiss you. You are a fraud, period.

      "...asserting that my book contra Baha'ism is invalid because I am a Christian..."

      No, you just made a strawman. I said it was because you are a Christian APOLOGIST. You defend your religion with unfounded claims even while attacking another dogmatic faith. Many Christians do not do that, because they are not bigoted like you seem to be. And BTW, UUism is not full of bigots. Not even atheist bigots, like you have implied in earlier references to me. Freeing people from dogmatism and bigotry is what I am all about. How? By telling only the truth. So who is the hypocrite? Only you.

      I answered you about the foundation of my ethics. It is not about my feelings, which are irrelevant. So you DID lie about that....again.

      ".....when you make such sweeping claims they make it very, very easy to discredit you." And then you fail to do so. SCIENCE also indicates the universe has a beginning and it was 13 or so BILLION years ago, not less than 10,000 years ago as the book of Genesis seems to indicate. So you also lied here. The specific dogmas of Christianity are indeed false. Your debating tactics do not prove them, that's for sure.

      "As to God being a hypocrite: you jump right into condemnation without a premise, again."

      Falsehood. I had a premise, which was the writings in the Bible itself. Law given supposedly by God which God himself later breaks. I suppose if God is indeed a hypocrite that explains why you are a liar, right?

      "...when you recognize that your worldview fails you, you claim that you were trapped and attacked."

      HUH? That is the rankest nonsense from you yet. Again, I have NO "worldview" and never will as long as I have no dogmas as you do. I have principles instead, which are subject to change in the light of new evidence. That's the opposite of having a dogmatic worldview.

      "you are very emotional and it keeps you from engaging in reasoned discourse."

      That's because I honestly have no desire to have a "reasoned discourse" with someone like you. It is useless and I knew that from the beginning. When you can only argue with me by misrepresenting me and what I stand for at every turn, you have nothing to offer that is genuine. So I give you all the contempt you deserve.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. And indeed, that latest blog entry you made against me is one that atheism can answer much better. Reason: If there is no God, then he cannot be blamed for the sickness and death of King David and Bathsheba's first baby; it just happened and King David could have been told after the fact that God had punished him for his adultery and he believed what he was told. Never mind the contradiction that resulted when another author of the Bible made what he thought was a good principle of justice and then put it in God's mouth. The various books of the Bible were never meant to be read as one work all together, which is why calling it the Word of God is ridiculous.

    "God’s laws are for us, not for Himself so as the lawgiver he does not have to follow them and can change them at will. For example, my laws for my children are not for me and change as they grow."

    How about we conclude that God does not make any laws at all for mankind? No God, no hypocrisy from him. Problem solved.

  8. Friend, one problem (for you) is that my contra Baha'i work cannot be logically dismissed due to the fact that I am a Christian apologist.
    However, you risk yours being viably dismissed due to the fact that, as you continue doing here, you show yourself to be illogical and emotive: you are demonstrating that your criticism modus operandi is invalid.

    If it is true that I defend my religion with unfounded claims even while attacking another dogmatic faith (and “attack” is one of your emotive outbursts) then you are engaging in contradiction and hypocrisy as you, yourself, defend your religion with unfounded claims even while “attacking” any dogmatic faith with which you disagree. To apply your standards to yourself as you “attack the Baha'i Faith with ulterior motives” as you put it to me.

    You cannot logically free people from dogmatism and bigotry while you adhere to dogmatism and you are a bigot.

    You again condemn me of lying (playing mind reader again as there is a logical and ethical difference between lying and simply being wrong) because you (merely) claim that the foundation of your ethics is not feelings but your actions betray you and since your stated premise is your “respect for REALITY” which is a subjective choice. In fact, how does your worldview provide you a premise to even think that you can accurately discern reality—or to even think, period?

    Do you see what I mean about your MO discrediting you? I noted the fact that the Bible and scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. You are, apparently, so unwilling to respect reality that you dismiss this fact, side step it, and decide to un-contextually raise the issue of the age of the universe. And even here you discredit yourself by admitting that the age of the Earth is something that Genesis only “seems to indicate.”

    You then opened a big window into why you are illogical since I pointed out that you condemn God for being a hypocrite without a premise and you reply that your premise is the writings in the Bible. Friend, the premise you need to establish is the one upon which you condemn hypocrisy—even if you claim to have encountered it. When you react emotionally to logical and theological issues you jump right into condemnation without first asking what logic or theology allows for doing so.

    Of course, by definition you have a worldview and, in fact, if you claim that you have “NO ‘worldview’” then that is your worldview so that you contradict yourself. If you claim that you “have no dogmas” then that is your dogma (plus the UU and Atheistic dogmas to which you adhere). You can attempt to deny facts and play semantics but even if you have no worldview and no dogmas but do “have principles” then those are what you need to demonstrate provide you a premise to condemn anyone who disagrees with you.

    You may appeal to an Atheist dogma and worldview for the issue of
    King David, etc., but I will note that by doing so you are merely affirming that as per your dogma and worldview he, like you and me, is merely a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism so what does any of it matter? “No God” and “there is no God” are textbook examples of dogma and worldview.

    Then you fail to recognize your lack of thinking within categories (logic 101) as I demonstrate that you are comparing to different scenarios: just because something is in the Bible does not mean that you can un-contextually think that it must be on the same issue (hermeneutics 101).

    Thus, as I proved, there is no contradiction. How about we conclude that God makes laws for mankind (as the ethos proves)? Since God is then there is no hypocrisy from Him, in part because there being God would provide you the prerequisites for even thinking that your thinking is sound. Problem solved.

    Rather than going round and around on various issue such as these how about we focus on your Atheistic dogma and worldview?

    1. Merely repeating the same lies over and over at me proves absolutely nothing, Barbie. The only thing I give a damn about is empirical evidence and it is clear you have none whatsoever, therefore, by default, atheism wins over Christianity, no matter what rhetorical tricks you use to defend your baseless dogmas. Far from making Christianity more credible, you show me exactly why it should not be taken seriously by real skeptics and freethinkers.

    2. Well friend, I see that once again you ignore issues by making fun, calling me a liar without evidence and without a premise, and you assert concern for things that you actually care not for which is why you avoid issues you consider troublesome by referring to them as “rhetorical tricks, etc.
      I proposed “how about we focus on your Atheistic dogma and worldview?” and you seem only willing and able to proclaim your own superiority. Now, since you claim to be interested in “empirical evidence” and assert that “atheism wins over Christianity” then what empirical evidence supports Atheism which, of course, will lead to the issue of how you subjectively define Atheism, to which Atheist denomination do you adhere, etc.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Baha'i Texts

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews


Blog Archive

About Me