Is atheism a religion?

[Trailblazer]

That is no reason to reference a person from another forum. There are plenty of atheists right here. The difference is that we can rebut your assertions. Someone in another forum cannot and we just have to take your word for what he did or didn't say.

I should probably not have said anything about him but I was simply giving an example of how illogical an atheist can be. I have not seen any atheists like that here.

Then why are you posting? Why, when challenged, do you go to great lengths to defend your position?

Do you assume people only post to debate and win arguments? I did that years ago but those days are long gone. Winning is all about ego and through posting a lot I learned a lot about myself and the way I do not want to be. I defend Baha'u'llah and my beliefs because that is what Baha'u'llah has commanded us to do when our beliefs are attacked or misrepresented. But He said it is okay of people just disagree with us, that is no cause to worry. In that case, I just correct what I know is wrong with correct information.

You use phrases like: "how illogical atheists can be". but you don't consider yourself to be arrogant or superior. Sadly, you don't even see how contradictory those two things are.

All that indicates is that I can recognize what is clearly illogical. That does not make me superior.

Let me give you some simple examples which are all too common. When atheists assume that the Baha'i Faith is just like all the other religions or when they say most prophets have been false so Baha'u'llah must be false those statements are both clearly illogical. Do you understand why?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, you neither questioned nor explained how the grandfather could have heard and recorded the conversations.

It's clear for everyone to see that you explained nothing.

You accept things in your religion which are demonstrably false and you accuse atheists of being illogical.

And you act like a child in a schoolyard striking out at me because I said atheists are illogical.
No, nothing is demonstrably false in my religion.

You just misrepresented what happened. I came back and explained to you how he could have known word for word what the conversation consisted of, from researching what Nabil and others who were there had chronicled of the conversations. I do not care if that is good enough for you.

The Baha'i Faith has more verifiable evidence of its history than any religion that has ever existed throughout all of time. It also has original scriptures penned by the Prophet, and no other religion has that. No, Joseph Smith was not a Messenger of God so you cannot count him, as he never even claimed to be a Messenger of God.

Do you really think what the other atheists on this forum think of me? Think again. I do not care because I know the truth. That is not arrogant because it is not about ME. It is about my certitude that the Baha'i Faith is the truth. You cannot take that away from me, nobody can.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course a long term Bahai like yourself is far more qualified than I to judge a Manifestation of God.
Of course a long term Bahai like yourself is far more qualified than I to understand a Manifestation of God.

NOBODY is qualified to judge a Manifestation of God because He is infallible.
I never said or implied that I am more qualified to understand Him. Those are your words.

Is that why you haven't read it? Did you even know of its existence?

Of course I knew of its existence. Why should I answer to you as to why I have not read it? There are a lot of Baha'i Writings I have not read. What I do is my own business. It certainly does not prove anything about the Writings.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have never asked for proof of a religion. Why do you make a comment about proof?

Why can't I make a comment without your permission?

Trailblazer: I am saying I KNOW it is the truth
Trailblazer: Only God and His Messengers know if it is the truth.

Both statements can not be true.

Oh yes they can both be the truth because there are different ways of knowing and God and Baha'u'llah know in a different way than I can ever know. Please do not rip my statements out of context.

I do not know from having heard from God as Baha'u'llah did, and I do not know from being All-Knowing as God is, but I know because I believe in Baha'u'llah with absolute certitude, given all the evidence I have that supports His claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

ecco said: I understand that over the course of thousands of years man and created gods in his own image.

I understand that most religions borrow from other religions while, at the same time, they try to present themselves as something new and different.

Trailblazer said: Then you understand wrong because this is not what happened.

ecco said: Do you deny that Thor, Atlas, Athena, Efik, Bambara, Kanati, et al were gods created by man?

If you do not know that there are multiple stories of virgin births predating Jesus, you do not know history.

If you do not know that there are multiple stories of global floods predating Genesis, you do not know history.

If you do not know history, you don't have the knowledge to assert that I am wrong.

You are right, humans created those things, but what humans did with religion is the corruption of the originally revealed religions of God. Baha'u'llah addressed that as follows:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

God's religions do not borrow from other religions, that is what I meant when I said you are wrong. God's religions are Revelations from God and so they are all new and fresh as they are renewed in every age. Baha'u'llah addressed that as follows:

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81​

 

[Trailblazer]

I think we have shown that you are no expert in logic.

Yet you cannot demonstrate how you have shown that. This is the same ploy the atheist on that other forum used. He said I was illogical but when I challenged him to prove why I was illogical with evidence of what I had said he could never produce any evidence. He just kept saying I was illogical hoping that others would believe him. Believing him with no evidence that I am illogical would be as stupid as believing Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God with no evidence, just because He said so.

Do you understand why what religious people believe has NOTHING to do with what is actually the Truth from God? Religious people are fallible so they can be wrong but God is infallible so God can never be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you have posted a lot of stuff. None of which was worthy of the term evidence.

I did not post evidence. I posted a bulleted list of the categories of evidence.
If you want the evidence you have to do your own research.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To some degree, belief is under your control. You can choose to believe in God or a religion.

I just explained to you that I can't, in the very post you are replying to......

Why not? Why are they different?

Because one is an actual choice and the other is a compulsion.

The analogy does not apply because God is not Santa Claus.

/facepalm

Everyone knows that Santa is made up but 93% of people in the world believe God is real. That does not prove God exists but it certainly is an indicator.

The only thing this statement indicates is that you don't understand that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

So, could choose here and now that your religion is false and that hinduism is true?

If god beliefs are the result of arbitrary choices, then that is just more evidence that religion has no bearing on actual reality.

No, belief is not compulsion, at least not for every believer. It can be and should be carefully thought out and researched.

It is a compulsion based on trust, reason, evidence, experience, etc.

To believe means to be convinced. To be convinced of something is not an arbitrary choice.

You have chosen to believe there is no God with no evidence

No. Instead, I remain unvonvinced of god claims because those claims aren't supported by evidence.
I don't require evidence to dissmiss bare assertions.

As the Hitch so famously said: Assertions without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

, just as you say that believers are compelled to believe with no evidence, but the joke is on you, because there is evidence.

So you keep saying. But whenever you are asked to share that evidence, all we get are logical fallacies and the piling on of even more bare claims and assertions....

The fact that atheists do not LIKE the evidence He provides is not going to cut it

Indeed, I don't like evidence that is rooted in logical fallacies. Like this one right here - you are assuming your conclusion. You said that god provided the evidence. So it assumes god exists and did things - while that is precisely the things that is supposed to be supported by evidence.

When you start with your conclusion as a hidden premise, then your argument is fallacious.

You are still responsible, at least to LOOK at the evidence

What evidence?
I can't look at what isn't provided.

If you toss it in the trash

I can't toss in the trash what I don't even have...

That responsibility is to yourself, not to God

False on both accounts. The responsability to come up with the evidence, is on the one that makes the claim. In this case: you.

God does need you to believe in Him.

Neither does gravity.

Oh yes, belief is subject to free will. That does not mean everyone can choose to believe , it means that they potentially can because they have the capacity.

Disagree.
One can say / pretend to do so, sure.
But it wouldn't be honest. I could say that I believe an undetectable 7-headed dragon is about to eat you. I could claim that I believe that with all my heart.

But I wouldn't really believe it.

That is not what anyone is suggesting you believe.

That doesn't matter.
Either belief is a choice or it isn't.
If it is, then people should be able to CHOOSE to believe things. Like 2+2 equaling 5.


I smell another fallacy coming up: special pleading.
"ow, but belief in GOD is special and doesn't follow the same rules as belief in anything else...."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger from God (Prophet) is as follows:

1. What He was like as a person (His character);
2. What He did during His mission on earth;
3. The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward
4. The scriptures that were attributed to Him or scriptures that He wrote;
5. What others have written about Him;
6. ·The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
7. The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming
8. The predictions He made that have come to pass;
9. The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

There is verifiable evidence of everything I listed above and there is a way to research it.

All of those points deal with just belief.
None of them demonstrate a god. None of them demonstrate a causal link between his (believed) behaviour / beliefs and a god.

You are just asserting the causal chain of events. You need to demonstrate it instead.

In other words: you are trying to support your religious beliefs with more religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not making any claims, I just have beliefs.

/facepalm

You can't express belief of something, without claiming that something............................

"I believe a god exists" includes the claim that a god exists.
When one asks "what is your justification for that belief", it is synonymous with "what is your evidence for that claim".

When you make a claim, belief of said claim is implied.
Otherwise, you'ld be saying something like "God exists, but I don't believe it". Which makes obivously no sense at all on the count that it is self-contradictory.

The burden is on you to do the necessary research if you want to believe in God...

I don't "want" to believe anything in particular.
What a strange thing to say.

I want to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things as possible.
I don't care about particular beliefs. I care about what is actually true - no matter if I like that truth or not.

There is no reason to look at all the older religions because those religious dispensations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. That means that they have been superseded and they are no longer relevant to the modern age.

That is your religious belief. Belief, that are in need of justification. Evidence.

There is valid evidence but there is no proof that God exists, so we have to have some faith, but it can be a reason-based faith.

So you keep claiming.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me where I ever said that anyone should believe my religion....

Why are you here defending your religion otherwise?

Show me where I ever said it did

in the very quote I was responding to.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do know it but you will never understand how I know it.

Arrogant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because one is an actual choice and the other is a compulsion.

Everything is a choice, unless someone is mentally ill.
The entire court system is based upon free will.

If god beliefs are the result of arbitrary choices, then that is just more evidence that religion has no bearing on actual reality.

No, they should be based upon independent investigation of truth.

To believe means to be convinced. To be convinced of something is not an arbitrary choice.

One can only convince themselves, and if they are convinced they choose to believe.

No. Instead, I remain unvonvinced of god claims because those claims aren't supported by evidence.

Not by evidence that YOU LIKE.

As the Hitch so famously said: Assertions without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And assertions with evidence should be looked at carefully if someone is interested in what the evidence if for.

So you keep saying. But whenever you are asked to share that evidence, all we get are logical fallacies and the piling on of even more bare claims and assertions....

It is not my job to present evidence to anyone, because they can go find it themselves.

Indeed, I don't like evidence that is rooted in logical fallacies. Like this one right here - you are assuming your conclusion. You said that god provided the evidence. So it assumes god exists and did things - while that is precisely the things that is supposed to be supported by evidence.

When you start with your conclusion as a hidden premise, then your argument is fallacious.

I did not assume God exists BEFORE looking at the evidence. The evidence indicated that God exists and then I believed that God exists.

What evidence?
I can't look at what isn't provided.
I can't toss in the trash what I don't even have...

I will post the categories of evidence one more time but I will not post the evidence that is contained in those categories since that is not my job.
The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger from God (Prophet) is as follows:

1. What He was like as a person (His character);
2. What He did during His mission on earth;
3. The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward
4. The scriptures that were attributed to Him or scriptures that He wrote;
5. What others have written about Him;
6. ·The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
7. The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming
8. The predictions He made that have come to pass;
9. The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

There is verifiable evidence of everything I listed above.

False on both accounts. The responsibility to come up with the evidence, is on the one that makes the claim. In this case: you.

I did not make the claim, Baha'u'llah made the claim. I just told you what that claim was.

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

Either belief is a choice or it isn't.
If it is, then people should be able to CHOOSE to believe things. Like 2+2 equaling 5.

They can choose to believe that if they want to, but it is not supported by any evidence.
I can believe there is a pink unicorn in my garage if I want to, even though there is no evidence to support that.

 

[Trailblazer]

All of those points deal with just belief.
None of them demonstrate a god. None of them demonstrate a causal link between his (believed) behaviour / beliefs and a god.

You are just asserting the causal chain of events. You need to demonstrate it instead.

In other words: you are trying to support your religious beliefs with more religious beliefs.

There is no way anyone can prove a Messenger got messages from God, so all we can do is look at the evidence that indicates their claim was valid. The evidence we look at is their early life, their character, what they did on their mission, and what they wrote in scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't express belief of something, without claiming that something............................

That is what I do, express belief..

"I believe a god exists" includes the claim that a god exists.
When one asks "what is your justification for that belief", it is synonymous with "what is your evidence for that claim".

I do not claim things I cannot prove, so it is just a belief. I believe and actually know it is true but I cannot claim it because it is not provable as a fact.

When you make a claim, belief of said claim is implied.
Otherwise, you'ld be saying something like "God exists, but I don't believe it". Which makes obivously no sense at all on the count that it is self-contradictory.

But I did not make a claim, I just have a belief.

I don't "want" to believe anything in particular.
I want to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things as possible.
I don't care about particular beliefs. I care about what is actually true - no matter if I like that truth or not.

All that sounds like you are on the right track, especially your last sentence.
We should only care about what is true, not about what we like.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why are you here defending your religion otherwise?

I am just discussing it because it came up in conversation, but I will defend it of it is attacked or misrepresented.

 

[Trailblazer]

Arrogant.

That is not arrogant at all.
I was just saying that an inner sense of knowing can only be understand by the knower. It is not something I can explain, you have to experience it yourself.
Maybe you could understand it if you came to know the way I do, that is possible.

 

[ecco]

I know because my husband told me the story. If it mattered to me and I had time I would read it.

That's really reliable. Did you ever play telephone as a child?

There is no reason for me to think they were altered. I cannot look at original scriptures because they are in a protected place where nobody can alter them. Somebody has to be in charge.

The main reason for you to realize that they were altered is to take lessons from history.

The people who "wrote" the OT took some parts of earlier writings and left other parts. The people who compiled the Christian Bible took some stories and ignored other stories. In some cases, like Marcion, they went to great lengths to destroy all evidence of his writings. Luther rewrote parts of the NT. It is the "Somebody(s) ... in charge" who do these things to further their agenda.

RE:

However, I may be wrong. Please show the writings of The Bab where he states that he is only an intermediate waiting the arrival He whom God shall make manifest.

That is what the Bab was saying in what I posted to you. It is in Selections From the Writings of the Báb and like I said the story about how Baha'u'llah was sent for and found is probably in The Dawn-breakers and/or God Passes By. My husband told me the story so I can make him go and look in the books.

If one looks at the events from the point of an outsider, it appears that The Bab tried to start a new religion. That didn't work out and Baha'u'llah tried. But two "prophets" within such a short period of time didn't fit. So Baha'u'llah needed to make it look like the only thing The Bab was doing was setting the stage for Baha'u'llah.

This is very important to the entire foundation of belief in Bahai. Yet you really don't know. You really haven't researched it for yourself.

 

[ecco]

I should probably not have said anything about him but I was simply giving an example of how illogical an atheist can be. I have not seen any atheists like that here.


All that indicates is that I can recognize what is clearly illogical. That does not make me superior.

So instead of: "how illogical atheists can be".
You meant: atheists and Bahais can be illogical.

Let me give you some simple examples which are all too common. When atheists assume that the Baha'i Faith is just like all the other religions or when they say most prophets have been false so Baha'u'llah must be false those statements are both clearly illogical. Do you understand why?

It is not about assumptions. It is about looking at and understanding history.

People of all religions believe their Messengers/Prophets are real. People of all religions believe other religion's Messengers/Prophets are false. You, and your fellow Bahai believers, do not believe all other prophets are real.

If, throughout all of history, all Messengers/Prophets are demonstrably false, it is illogical to believe that - suddenly - one is real.

 

[ecco]

And you act like a child in a schoolyard striking out at me because I said atheists are illogical.
No, nothing is demonstrably false in my religion.

You just misrepresented what happened. I came back and explained to you how he could have known word for word what the conversation consisted of, from researching what Nabil and others who were there had chronicled of the conversations. I do not care if that is good enough for you.

That is patently untrue. The best that you and your fellow Bahai's could come up with was "someone's grandfather told him". You have not mentioned "Nabil" in any post to me. You have not explained who Nabil is. You have not provided evidence to show that he was there or a rational explanation for how he could have been there.

I am not striking out you. I am pointing out the infeasibility of your arguments. The ones that change from post to post.

The Baha'i Faith has more verifiable evidence of its history than any religion that has ever existed throughout all of time.

More than none is not very much.

All the evidence you have presented to show that The Bab or Ballulah are messengers has been completely debunked. It is no more valid than the stories in the Gospels.

It also has original scriptures penned by the Prophet, and no other religion has that. No, Joseph Smith was not a Messenger of God so you cannot count him, as he never even claimed to be a Messenger of God.

Really? Then why does ids say he was a Prophet?
The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith

The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

As I said, all religion's people deny the validity of other religions. Your own comment gives lie to your idea that your religion is somehow different.

It is about my certitude that the Baha'i Faith is the truth. You cannot take that away from me, nobody can.

You have your beliefs just as the followers of Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard and David Koresh had their beliefs.