Are Religions and Gods manmade?

[Trailblazer]

What is it going to take Trailblazer?

I have no idea, only God knows, and it might not be pretty.

“We have a fixed time for you, O peoples. If ye fail, at the appointed hour, to turn towards God, He, verily, will lay violent hold on you, and will cause grievous afflictions to assail you from every direction. How severe, indeed, is the chastisement with which your Lord will then chastise you!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 214

 

[Trailblazer]

So how do you propose we all start working together?

Of everyone followed the same religion that would be a big step in the right direction.

You can't propose your impossibility by discounting mine.

Not can you propose yours by discounting mine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do we need to adopt any of these measures?

They're solutions to the problem, not the problem.

That is why we need to adopt them.

Also, Did Bahaullah think everyone will fall in line with his religion or is he proposing any religion. Like Atheism?

Baha'u'llah predicted that eventually God will exalt His Cause to everyone on earth and in heaven.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248[/QUOTE]

 

[Trailblazer]

My quote:That the Messengers truly got a message from God is not something that can be proven as a fact.
Your Answer: First you say messengers getting messages can not be proven as fact, then you say if you investigate it can. You can't have it both ways. Something is either a fact or it isn't.

I said that if you investigate you can prove to yourself that the Messengers truly got messages from God, but that is not the same thing as proving that as a fact that everyone will agree upon so it might be a fact to you, but not an established fact.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

FACT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

My quote:So now you have the Truth from God and you know that the messages from Messengers are not true?
Your Answer: I Discovered that answer before God came to visit. God just confirmed what I Discovered. Messengers value some of those petty things mankind holds so dear. That is not God.

As I said before, I do not believe that God goes visiting and I do not believe God holds any petty things dear and I do not believe Messengers reveal petty things.

My quote:I am confronting you and asking you for proof to support your claims.
Your Answer: I have pointed you in a direction by which you can Discover the answers for yourself, yet you want everything served up on a silver platter so you can accept and believe. Haven't you got it by now? I don't want anybody accepting and believing. I want Discovery of facts never beliefs.

How would anyone know that what they Discovered are facts and not beliefs?

My quote:You still have not explained to me or anyone else on this forum how they can Discover God for themselves.
Your Answer: That is all that I have been doing. Clearly, you just do not understand.

All you ever said is that we can Discover God through His actions and I told you I do not believe that what we SEE in the world represents God's actions but rather it represents the actions of man.

My quote: But you expect me to blindly accept that you had interaction with the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth?
Your Answer:I simply place truth in the world. What you do with truth is entirely up to you. I have no expectations or demands of you.

You did not answer my question. I asked: "But you expect me to blindly accept that you had interaction with the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth?"

My quote:However, in case you have not noticed there is a pandemic affecting the entire world, so going out to Discover things is not what we are supposed to be doing right now.
Your Answer:Excuses,excuses, they are a dime a dozen. One who seeks will always have a million questions: Why did God allow the pandemic? Why does God allow people to Die? Why do people go hungry? Why does God allow religions that are not true? WHY?WHY?WHY??? I think you have accepted way too long. You have no drive to KNOW.

Pandemics are caused by a virus and death is just part of life. God does not stop these things but God does not cause them either.
People go hungry because of humans who do not care enough about other people.
God allows some religions to exist that are not true because God honors free will.

My quote:You still have not explained to me or anyone else on this forum how they can Discover God for themselves. To say we can see God's actions is not an answer because what we see in this world are not God's actions, they are the actions of humans.
Your Answer:When one has discovered enough and really understand God and what God is doing with this world, God will visit you. First, you must already know, then you get your visit. To do things differently would be to intimidate your choices and actions. God isn't going to do that. If I am capable of finding God, everyone is. On the other hand, it does take a lot of work getting there.

I already told you I do not believe God visits anyone, so we are going on circles.

If you can not see any of God's actions then your view is too narrow. So much knowledge exists beyond the surface. Start with those millions of questions that one who seeks will have. Put the puzzle together. Everything about God will add up. That is something no one can say about their religion.

You mean everything you believe about God, nothing that can ever be proven as a fact.

My quote:God rules and sustains the universe but He does not act or interact in this world. God gave man free will so man could manage this world. We are like chess pieces on a chess board that God created, moving around at will.
Your Answer: You really have no clue at all. Remember, any Being capable of creating the universe has to be very very smart. You are going to have to Stretch into Advanced Thinking with a Wide view if you are ever a hope of understanding. Knowledge exists beyond your feeling and believing.

I do not think you have a clue at all. Knowledge exists beyond your feeling and believing.

I do not see any point going round and round on the same points we have covered in the past as well as recently. We are not going anywhere except in circles.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes you think because the article doesn't say flood they don't think a flood was possible. It's because there is no evidence of a flood during that extinction period. It has been studied many times.
They also don't say Shiva might have been the cause of an extinction (she likes destruction) or Zeus killed everything with lightning. Things in stories are not considered as science explanations unless there is evidence.

ok, I guess you didn’t read my post, #422. Here’s the link I posted there...

Flood Evidences — revised

(Regarding the 1st one....how did those Mammoths get preserved, in the permafrost?)

There are 7 other, different evidences supporting the Global Flood.

 

[joelr]

That will always be your choice. I see the evidence is more than sound.

Regards Tony

And the Scientologists see their evidence as more than sound, and the Mormons see their evidence as more than sound, and Roswell believers see the alien-crash evidence to be more than sound.
Cool, feel free to demonstrate some sound evidence instead of scientific mistakes, vague predictions and circular self proclamations that this person is a god-messenger. Or evidence that one can see "when they become a believer" and will then see.

 

[joelr]

Actually, I have now decided to get away from toxic world destroying atheist views. As such I wish you always well and happy a leave it at that.

Regards Tony

The irony is that an "atheist" view is simply asking for evidence that this isn't just some prolific writer claiming to be something he's not.
Now, all the evidence actually does look exactly like that.
Of course you would poison the well by calling it "toxic" and even "world destroying" as if someone dares to not follow a complete liar then their views are automatically toxic and world destroying.
Congrats, you have just demonstrated that this is a cult who tries to manipulate and bully anyone who dares question the awful evidence.
It's this kind of manipulation that needs to be brought into light.

There you go. I take time to look through an entire book of evidence that THEY WERE POSTING should be read as evidence. Then I point out that the evidence is circular, demonstrably incorrect in several ways and in other ways pure confirmation bias.
This is then called "toxic" and "world destroying".

Besides confirmation that they do not really care about evidence and have made their minds up on emotional attachment it shows rather than defend any notion of evidence they switch to name calling and character attacks. Proof it's just another cult.

I asked for evidence, I was given all available evidence. I took several main parts and demonstrated why it was bad evidence, bad science, and did not remotely meet the requirements that the author claimed was needed for one to be a "god-messenger". It was a complete and utter fail.
All prophecies from biblical to Bab'i.
Not one single point was addressed. This is because it's not a logical belief but belief for other reasons.

 

[joelr]

ok, I guess you didn’t read my post, #422. Here’s the link I posted there...

Flood Evidences — revised

(Regarding the 1st one....how did those Mammoths get preserved, in the permafrost?)

There are 7 other, different evidences supporting the Global Flood.

Sourcing myths is not science.
Sourcing one apologist site is not peer-reviewed science.
An assumption that a "kernal" of myths are true is not science. Yes myths are used to express laws and wisdom. Not gods and demi-gods.

Actual science:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf California State University's list of 38 reasons why mainstream science knows there was no worldwide flood.

Flood theories can account for none of these:
"Modern geology,
its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.

Geochronology
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

Paleontology
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[84] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[114][115] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.

Geochemistry
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic.

Sedimentary rock features
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." TUsing their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval


I am not interested in arguing endlessly on fiction that came from myths. The story is a myth that came from the Epic of Gilamesh an older Mesopotamian myth.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That is patently absurd. Baha'u'llah could not write about everything He knew was going to happen even if He knew, and did not make predictions in order to prove who He was. Mostly His predictions were given as warnings of what would happen if people did not heed His call.

Covid-19 might be part of God's Plan, but we cannot know that since there is no way to know what God is doing/does/did. It would simply be conjecture to say that God has anything to do with it and most likely not. However, it if furthering the new world order that was envisioned by Baha'u'llah by forcing people to come together in unity.

He could have written about major things that dwarf all others. If he knew anything.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

ok, I guess you didn’t read my post, #422. Here’s the link I posted there...

Flood Evidences — revised

(Regarding the 1st one....how did those Mammoths get preserved, in the permafrost?)

There are 7 other, different evidences supporting the Global Flood.

Still going on about the Flood when the evidence it's a myth is overwhelming. There is no layer of bones around the world, DNA proves there was no Flood of the entire world.

Were there floods in different areas for different reasons and at different times? YES but no biblical flood.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@PAUL MARKHAM
As per the title thread: Are Religions and Gods manmade?

Yes, it appears so. What comes next now? I mean, I admit that they even as a religious person, that they are manmade. So now what? As a premise for an argument in the following sense:
Religions and Gods are manmade, therefore... What follows next?

 

[joelr]

I tried to have respectful dialogues with you but it did not take long for me to realize that is not possible. This is not about you disagreeing with my beliefs, I do not care if people disagree with my beliefs. This is about personal insults. This week I made a decision that I will only post to people who are respectful. I will no longer post to people who speak for me as if they know me better than I know myself or call me brainwashed, dishonest, or egotistical.

I am done with people who cannot be courteous. I never had anyone on Ignore until this week but now you are poster #3. Now you will have to find some other believer to insult and use for a platform to promulgate your anti-religion beliefs. Have fun.

That's funny, I call out your best evidence and explain it's not so great and then you run away.
If someone believes an extraordinary claim it's either because of good evidence, some personal experience with a supernatural entity or some type of brainwashing/emotional attachment/confirmation bias.

You have not claimed any direct personal experience and you did claim direct logical evidence. You then provided that evidence.
Unfortunately it's extremely bad evidence, full of things that are in no way prophecies and not only bad science but actual mistakes.
There is no way around the fact that to use it to decide if one is a god-messenger is absurd.
You provided a book as evidence which CLEARLY STATED 3 things that need be true for this to be an actual God-essenger.
These things WERE NOT TRUE by any stretch of the imagination.

This only leaves belief for some emotional reason listed. People who believe things for these reasons DO NOT REALIZE this is the case. Therefore other people actually do sometimes know them better than themselves in the matter.

Notice when you accused me of "projecting" you had to assume that you knew me better than I knew myself. It's fine when you do it? Nor did I run and hide.

I can see that the evidence is poor and saying it's in any way "logical" to believe this religion has been demonstrated to be wrong. It's for another reason.

If someone said I was brainwashed or believing things on emotional attachments I would put forth evidence that I was not. If I could not I would re-consider my position. That last thing I would do is complain seeing you are on a DEBATE FORUM? Did you forget that? Were you only expecting confirmation of your beliefs?
If someone says you believe for emotional reasons on A DEBATE FORUM is this surprising? Is this not the time to DEBATE that you are not (if possible).

 

[joelr]

The 1844 second coming of Christ is the "Gate"? The forerunner to the main guy? The year Baha'u'llah declared is hardly ever talked about. Oh, and I wonder how many Scientology books there are? But, probably L. Ron didn't write them all, so I guess it doesn't matter. Baha'u'llah probably has all the books of every prophet put together beat.

Yeah the evidence is that bad. They say they believe for logical reasons but if you debunk the "logical reasons" they switch to calling you "toxic" and that you are all "ego".
It's very interesting, they are saying it isn't an emotional attachments but are acting quite emotional and the logic isn't there? The author of the "proof" book literally said one of the 3 attributes a god-messenger will have is knowledge about science above what scientists know and knowledge about future science.
Babi did not know current science, he botched almost every subject he spoke on and made zero scientific, mathematical or medical predictions. Zero. He did go off on numerology.
This is an epic fail.
Oh, pointing this out is "humanity destroying" according to one believer.
Imagine if they were the ruling party and could put people in prison for pointing this out?
Clearly they would because "humanity destroying" sounds like a capital crime.
Scary.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That's funny, I call out your best evidence and explain it's not so great and then you run away.
If someone believes an extraordinary claim it's either because of good evidence, some personal experience with a supernatural entity or some type of brainwashing/emotional attachment/confirmation bias.

You have not claimed any direct personal experience and you did claim direct logical evidence. You then provided that evidence.
Unfortunately it's extremely bad evidence, full of things that are in no way prophecies and not only bad science but actual mistakes.
There is no way around the fact that to use it to decide if one is a god-messenger is absurd.
You provided a book as evidence which CLEARLY STATED 3 things that need be true for this to be an actual God-essenger.
These things WERE NOT TRUE by any stretch of the imagination.

This only leaves belief for some emotional reason listed. People who believe things for these reasons DO NOT REALIZE this is the case. Therefore other people actually do sometimes know them better than themselves in the matter.

Notice when you accused me of "projecting" you had to assume that you knew me better than I knew myself. It's fine when you do it? Nor did I run and hide.

I can see that the evidence is poor and saying it's in any way "logical" to believe this religion has been demonstrated to be wrong. It's for another reason.

If someone said I was brainwashed or believing things on emotional attachments I would put forth evidence that I was not. If I could not I would re-consider my position. That last thing I would do is complain seeing you are on a DEBATE FORUM? Did you forget that? Were you only expecting confirmation of your beliefs?
If someone says you believe for emotional reasons on A DEBATE FORUM is this surprising? Is this not the time to DEBATE that you are not (if possible).

Some people will expect everyone to fall in line with the "evidence" that converted them. No matter how wrong they are. Religion does that to some.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's funny, I call out your best evidence and explain it's not so great and then you run away.
...

But I will stay. From my point of view what some religious people do, is to fall for your demand of your kind of evidence. You don't need evidence to believe. You only need faith.

Your game of evidence is not your game personally and I have been playing that game for over 20 years now. And here is how the everyday world works. I can believe anything I like as long as in effect works for me in this everyday world. The same goes for you and everybody else. It doesn't mean that any belief goes nor does it mean that no belief goes. As long as I understand how beliefs/faith works, I can do it for this everyday world. That is all I need.

So not for your kind of evidence, but for another kind of evidence. Namely pragmatic evidence. If my belief/faith works for me, then it is true. What makes it true, is that it works for me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What makes it true, is that it works for me.

What makes it true is if it is a Message from.God and our willingness to submit to that wisdom. It has very little to do with self.

Faiths based is self satisfaction do not create lasting bonds that will build civilizations and result in the progress of Humanity.

When we choose self satisfaction (what works for me) over God's ways, we end up destroying creation.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Some people will expect everyone to fall in line with the "evidence" that converted them. No matter how wrong they are. Religion does that to some.

There is absolutly 100% no expectation Paul. You are perfectly free to think you have all the answers and I am happy to leave you with all of them.

If one day your answers are found to be in error, different paths have been shown to you, to which you can then consider.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes it true is if it is a Message from.God and our willingness to submit to that wisdom. It has very little to do with self.

Faiths based is self satisfaction do not create lasting bonds that will build civilizations and result in the progress of Humanity.

When we choose self satisfaction (what works for me) over God's ways, we end up destroying creation.

Regards Tony

Yeah, you have your faith and I have mine. I do believe God can accept us both.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah, you have your faith and I have mine. I do believe God can accept us both.

God indeed loves us all and that is not what is being discussed in my comment.

Acceptance is our choice. We can choose life or we can choose death in spirit.

I see when we are born from this matrix into our spiritual selves, our choices here define our spiritual state in the next life to come.

Consider if you could be a rock or an eagle in this life, what would you choose?

RegardsTony

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

There is absolutly 100% no expectation Paul. You are perfectly free to think you have all the answers and I am happy to leave you with all of them.

If one day your answers are found to be in error, different paths have been shown to you, to which you can then consider.

Regards Tony

And you are free to think you have all the answers. If one day you are found to be in error, different paths have been shown to you, to which you can then consider.

So back to my main point. What measures do Baha'is adopt with the small number of people who will not fall into line?

Ignore them?
Talk to them?
Go to war against them?