• 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!

Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Oooh! I missed this line. This may be the root of your problem. People should not "want to believe in God". And also people should not "want to not believe in God". What people should be doing is searching for the truth whatever it is. If one cannot find reliable evidence for the existence of God that is not make it okay to accept poor quality evidence because one wants a specific belief.
You are absolutely right about that. People should not "want to believe in God" and people should not "want to not believe in God". What people should be doing is searching for the truth whatever it is. That is actually a teaching of my religion.

The CONTEXT of what I said is that people do have to want to believe in God because otherwise they will not look at the evidence. If I do not want to go to college I am not going to put in an application and do all the work necessary to obtain a college degree. In other words, people have to be motivated or they are not going to bother.
When it comes to religion there are two main ways that we seem to become religions. I am sure that there are more. The first , by a longshot, is that we are born into the religion that we follow. If it was good enough for dear old Mom and Dad it is good enough for me. The second occurs to some when they leave their religion. They find a religion that appeals to them. personally. They will often be very forgiving to the errors of that religion as a result.
That is an astute observation. That is exactly what most people do. If they were born into a religion they usually stay with that religion but if they leave the religion they were born into and go looking for another religion what they usually do is look for a religion that suits their personal needs, a religion that FITS their personality and lifestyle. It is as if they are looking for a new pair of shoes. For example a person might become a Christian because they want to be saved or because they want to be loved by Jesus. It does not even occur to them that what they should be searching for is the religion that is actually true even if that religion is not what they want.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
That's right..... My mistake, I was on the run when I wrote that.

I said: It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

What I should have said is "It was evidence, the only evidence available, if people really want to believe in God."

The Surgeon's Photograph is evidence, the only evidence available, if people really want to believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

The problem is that what people want should never play any part in what they believe. Otherwise, they'll just see which belief they like the most, decide they want to believe in that, then go and find whatever they can use to justify that belief and discard anything else as "wrong."
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The Surgeon's Photograph is evidence, the only evidence available, if people really want to believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

The problem is that what people want should never play any part in what they believe. Otherwise, they'll just see which belief they like the most, decide they want to believe in that, then go and find whatever they can use to justify that belief and discard anything else as "wrong."
You are absolutely right about that, what people want should never play any part in what they believe.

That is exactly what most people do, they just see which belief they like the most, decide they want to believe in that, then go and find whatever they can use to justify that belief and discard anything else as "wrong. I know you think that is what I did, but that is not what I did. Only I know what I did because I am the one who did it.

As I just said in the post above:

Subduction Zone said:
Oooh! I missed this line. This may be the root of your problem. People should not "want to believe in God". And also people should not "want to not believe in God". What people should be doing is searching for the truth whatever it is. If one cannot find reliable evidence for the existence of God that is not make it okay to accept poor quality evidence because one wants a specific belief.

Trailblazer said: You are absolutely right about that. People should not "want to believe in God" and people should not "want to not believe in God". What people should be doing is searching for the truth whatever it is. That is actually a teaching of my religion.

The CONTEXT of what I said is that people do have to want to believe in God because otherwise they will not look at the evidence. If I do not want to go to college I am not going to put in an application and do all the work necessary to obtain a college degree. In other words, people have to be motivated or they are not going to bother.

Subduction Zone said:
When it comes to religion there are two main ways that we seem to become religions. I am sure that there are more. The first , by a longshot, is that we are born into the religion that we follow. If it was good enough for dear old Mom and Dad it is good enough for me. The second occurs to some when they leave their religion. They find a religion that appeals to them. personally. They will often be very forgiving to the errors of that religion as a result.


Trailblazer said: That is an astute observation. That is exactly what most people do. If they were born into a religion they usually stay with that religion but if they leave the religion they were born into and go looking for another religion what they usually do is look for a religion that suits their personal needs, a religion that FITS their personality and lifestyle. It is as if they are looking for a new pair of shoes. For example a person might become a Christian because they want to be saved or because they want to be loved by Jesus. It does not even occur to them that what they should be searching for is the religion that is actually true even if that religion is not what they want.

#3301 Trailblazer, 47 minutes ago
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You are absolutely right about that, what people want should never play any part in what they believe.

That is exactly what most people do, they just see which belief they like the most, decide they want to believe in that, then go and find whatever they can use to justify that belief and discard anything else as "wrong. I know you think that is what I did, but that is not what I did. Only I know what I did because I am the one who did it.

So if we do not want to let our desires affect what we believe to be true, what are we going to do? How are we going to determine if we are accepting just something because it suits what we desire to believe?

The answer is (as I've said many times before) put it to the test. If it's some bit of lousy evidence that doesn't reflect reality, then putting it to the test will reveal it, and we can discard it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But if you get a bunch of people who have different opinions about the speed of light, then some of them are just plain wrong. I don't see why religion should be seen as being different just because it's religion. The only reason religion gets away with that at all is because its unfalsifiable, and that alone makes it worthless.
You get different people with different opinions about God because different religions have been revealed in different ages, so religions are different from each other. It is as simple as that. You do not have the same situation with science. Facts came to be established at a certain point in time and people accepted them as true because they could be proven. By contrast, religions cannot be proven true or false so it is all a matter of what people believe. That does not mean they are not true or false, but that cannot be proven.
My point was that people will agree on OBJECTIVE subjects, at least, in an ideal world. We see there is a great deal of agreement about science because it is as close to purely objective as we can get. We do not see this with religion because religion is not objective. And if religion is not objective, it is worthless as an explanation for reality.
Religion is not an explanation for physical reality, it is about morality and spiritual reality. Science cannot touch those with a ten foot pole. Why compare religion to science? Clearly, religion and science fall under two completely different purviews. Both are necessary for human life and progress but neither one can replace the other.
But when you present both as the same thing - an explanation of how reality works - then you have a problem. One of them works very well to explain how reality works, the other does not. And for the one that does not, a lot of excuses need to be made to explain away the failures.
No, I never presented religion and science as the same thing, I said they are different. Science explains how the physical reality works but religion explains how morality works, how we should life to me moral and how we should treat our fellow man. Religion also deals with spiritual reality and the soul and the afterlife. Science cannot address those. Religion does not fail because it does not try to explain the physical reality.
No, the objective facts about Mr B mean the same to me as for any other person. That he existed. That he went to particular places. That he said particular things. These are objective.

But concluding that because he said a particular thing that he is a messenger from God, that is NOT an objective fact.
You are wrong about that. The objective facts about Baha'u'llah mean something different to you and other people than they mean to Baha'is. To Baha'is they mean that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. To you and to others they are of no import.

I never concluded that because Baha'u'llah said a particular thing that He is a Messenger from God.
But the reason why I think you are wrong is because you have used a logical fallacy. How am I supposed to explain that without mentioning the logical fallacy?
You can explain why you think I am wrong without labeling it as a logical fallacy. I consider that rude.
But the fact that it isn't any of those things is what makes it worthless as an explanation. But since there are lots of people who want to make it an explanation, they need to change the rules to keep it in the running. These rule changes they insist on are purely there to keep their beliefs in the running, not because it gives their explanatory method any validity.
Explanation for WHAT? Religion is clearly not an explanation for the physical reality, nor is science an explanation for the spiritual reality.
As I said before, there is objective evidence for the things that he did, but concluding from that objective evidence that he spoke to God is a subjective opinion.
That's right. I never argued anything ton the contrary.
Given that religion has resulted in many wildly different conclusions about spirituality and morality, I'd say that it can't be called "accurate."
There is a logical explanation for that, a VERY logical explanation. The reason religion leads to different conclusions about spirituality and morality is because (a) there are many different religions that have different teachings and (b) people view the teachings and interpret the scriptures differently, even within the same religions. What is the most accurate in the eyes of God is the latest religion that was revealed because it has the current/updated teachings and laws for living a moral life and the current/updated teachings about the soul and the spiritual world.
But the instant you claim that religious belief describes reality in any way, then their scopes overlap. And if they do not agree, then at least one of them must be wrong.
Their scopes DO NOT overlap, and neither one of them is wrong. The Baha'i perspective on science and religion is as follows:

Science and Religion

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.2

So far as earthly existence is concerned, many of the greatest achievements of religion have been moral in character. Through its teachings and through the examples of human lives illumined by these teachings, masses of people in all ages and lands have developed the capacity to love, to give generously, to serve others, to forgive, to trust in God, and to sacrifice for the common good. Social structures and institutional systems have been devised that translate these moral advances into the norms of social life on a vast scale. In the final analysis, the spiritual impulses set in motion by the Founders of the world’s religions—the Manifestations of God—have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society.

Taken together, science and religion provide the fundamental organizing principles by which individuals, communities, and institutions function and evolve. When the material and spiritual dimensions of the life of a community are kept in mind and due attention is given to both scientific and spiritual knowledge, the tendency to reduce human progress to the consumption of goods, services and technological packages is avoided. Scientific knowledge, to take but one simple example, helps the members of a community to analyse the physical and social implications of a given technological proposal—say, its environmental impact—and spiritual insight gives rise to moral imperatives that uphold social harmony and that ensure technology serves the common good. Together, these two sources of knowledge are essential to the liberation of individuals and communities from the traps of ignorance and passivity. They are vital to the advancement of civilization.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/science-religion
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I will stop accusing you of committing logical fallacies when I see that you have stopped using them. If I see you use one, I will point it out.
When you have to cite a logical fallacy all that shows is that you are too weak to rely upon your own words. Only arrogant people cite logical fallacies constantly because what they are doing is putting other people down to raise themselves up - I am right and you are wrong. Also, it is rude to keep doing it when I asked you to stop.
So it's an assumption on your part. You have no idea if your assumption reflects reality in any way.
But I do know it reflects people on this forum and they are part of reality.
And my point was that most people who drop out of a religion are those who are born into it and later become fall out of it because they start thinking about it and decide it's not for them.

When it comes to Baha'i, there are few people who are born into it, so the number of people who drop out of it is of course going to be very low. And any people who join it are likely to be those who have studied various different religions to try to find one that fits them well. They're not likely to be people who just try a bunch of different religions hoping to stumble across one that suits them, since Baha'i isn't that well know compared to other religions like Buddhism, or Islam.
You are right. Most people who join the Baha'i Faith in adulthood are likely to be those who have studied various different religions to try to find one that fits them well, one that makes sense to them. They're not likely to be people who just try a bunch of different religions hoping to stumble across one that suits them.
There are plenty of Christians who hold those things to be non-literal. It's not, as you seem to be suggesting here, a case of, "Either you believe it literally or get out of Christianity."
That's true, there are other reasons people leave Christianity, not just because they reject fundamentalist Christian beliefs. They might just lose their faith in God and maybe they never really believed in God.
I once asked you to provide the solutions that Baha'i offers for the problems and issues that are facing humanity today, such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation of unborn children, etc, and you were unable to show that Baha'i had such solutions.
And I told you that the Baha'i Faith does not have solutions for human problems that fall under the purview of science, that is what we have science for. There are many problems facing humanity today and if you want to understand what the Baha'i Faith is addressing you should read this short blog.

Toward a New World Order?

Common Questions June 5, 2014 Matt Giani 10 Comments

If you have spent a considerable amount of time reading the Writings of the Baha’i Faith, it is likely that you have come across language regarding the relationship between the Faith and a new “World Order.” One of the passages that is most frequently quoted in relation to this theme is this poignant statement by Baha’u’llah:

The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System–the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.1

Those who came across such language early in their investigation of the Faith may have been surprised, or even taken aback, at the use of this terminology in the context of religious scripture. Indeed, while some derivative of this phrase is found in countless passages in the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, the Baha’i community is not the only one that uses this terminology. The term was frequently used by governmental leaders in public discourse during the post-WWI period in their arguments for greater international cooperation and support of the fledgling League of Nations (now the United Nations).

However, more recently it has become the language of conspiracy theory, evidence of a secret plot for world domination being orchestrated by a handful of nefarious individuals who wield undue influence on global affairs.2 (In my research on the subject, I even stumbled across websites pondering whether Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is the Antichrist because of his use of “world order” language).

It seems prudent, therefore, to distinguish the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the Baha’i Faith from other, possibly less savory connotations. I’ll attempt to do this by discussing the “World Order” that Baha’is envision as it pertains to a number of subjects: politics and governance, economics, society, and religion.

Politics and Governance

One of the lenses through which Baha’is view the progress and evolution of humanity is the lens of unity. From this perspective, we understand mankind as progressing successively through various stages of affiliation and cooperation. Although the specific stages and their order may have varied from culture to culture, we can generally say that peoples around the world have traversed, or are in the process of traversing, the unities of the family, the tribe, the town/city-state, the empire (a loose conglomeration of city-states), and the nation-state. Each stage brings new challenges of coordination, but also unleashes humankind’s potential to a greater degree. There are surely a number of examples of governmental instability around the world, but the majority of nation-states are now fairly well established. Baha’is therefore view the final and inevitable stage of humanity’s evolution as the achievement of global unity. This is why Baha’is support efforts such as the United Nations (although not necessarily all of its policies and practices, a full discussion of which is outside the scope of this post) which attempt to achieve political and governmental unity on a global scale.

Many view this new “World Order” of international governance as a threat to national sovereignty. This fear appears to be driven by a paradigm of political competition and a “zero sum game” mentality, whereby the victory of one group (such as a political party, nation, etc.) is necessarily a loss for another. Sadly, this paradigm, even in democratic societies, is far too common given the widespread influence of partisanship, which necessarily pits different groups against each other.3

But the existence of a global system of government by no means necessitates the elimination of national autonomy, just as the establishment of states and provinces did not eliminate local control, nor did the creation of nations eliminate states’ rights. On the contrary, Baha’is believe the establishment of international governance is necessary to ensure that the rights of all individuals and communities are fully safeguarded against tyranny, despotism, and political repression.

Economics

Much of humanity has experienced tremendous growth in its material prosperity over the last two centuries, and Baha’is fully believe that both spiritual and material development are noble goals for humanity to pursue. However, this prosperity has not been enjoyed equally, and the disparities between the wealthy and the destitute are tremendous and growing; the top 0.5% of the population controls more than a third of the world’s wealth, while the bottom two-thirds of the population (roughly four billion people) control less than one-twentieth.4

One of the foundational principles of the Faith is the elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty, so we view this growing inequality as something that must be combated. This does not mean we support measures to artificially equate the incomes of all people or promote economic systems such as communism which attempt to do so, but nor do we believe that the “unbridled capitalism” which has come to dominate the world economy is achieving a just distribution of resources.5

In the World Order Baha’is are hoping to build, all peoples of the world will have the ability and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the world’s economy, abject poverty will be eliminated, and the extremes of wealth and poverty will be greatly reduced.

Society

Although we believe that international political unity is necessary to achieve world peace, Baha’is also believe it is insufficient. A necessary precondition of true unity and prosperity is the recognition by all people of the fundamental oneness of humanity. This consists of an elimination of all forms of prejudice, be they racial, ethnic, national, or of any other type, an appreciation for the incredible diversity of humankind, and a respect and protection of the freedoms which all individuals must be granted. This interpersonal and spiritual unity, rather than international political cooperation, is the true bedrock and foundation of the World Order Baha’is hope to achieve.

Religion

Although the implications of a new World Order for the three themes discussed above may seem innocuous, some may wonder what role the Baha’i Faith itself wishes to play in the unfoldment of this new age. Are Baha’is set on world domination? Do they want the whole world to become Baha’i? The short answer is: it depends what you mean by Baha’i. Just as it has become commonplace to view politics through the lens of competition and dichotomies, so do we often think about religion. You are either a Christian or a Buddhist, a Muslim or a Jew, a Zoroastrian or a Hindu, as if an acceptance of one faith necessarily entails the rejection of all others.

From the Baha’i perspective, this is one of the most destructive paradigms of present-day society. Instead, Baha’is view all of the major world religions as chapters of an ever-unfolding book which is the revelation of God. While social teachings may differ between religious traditions, at the foundation of all religions is a common set of spiritual principles: be kind, be just, be truthful, be generous, be compassionate, and the like. To Baha’is, what matters not is the religion by which one identifies himself or herself, but the degree to which one reflects these spiritual principles.

So do Baha’is want everyone to call themselves a Baha’i? It doesn’t matter to us at all. What matters is that we all strive to embody these spiritual principles, recognize the commonalities in our respective Faith traditions, and use those commonalities as the foundation for a world civilization built on respect, collaboration, and unity.

Toward a New World Order?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So if we do not want to let our desires affect what we believe to be true, what are we going to do? How are we going to determine if we are accepting just something because it suits what we desire to believe?
Our desires will play a part in what we choose to believe and there is nothing wrong with that because what we choose will be based upon our desires and preferences. People make choices based upon their desires and preferences. People do not choose things they do not desire, not unless they have to do them, such as job one does not like they have to go to because it puts food on the table. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. What we don't want to do is choose a belief based on our emotions but rather we should use our intellect to determine if a religion is true, but having a desire does not have to interfere with our intellect.
The answer is (as I've said many times before) put it to the test. If it's some bit of lousy evidence that doesn't reflect reality, then putting it to the test will reveal it, and we can discard it.
Then find a test and we will put it to the test.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
According to my beliefs the Messengers of God are the evidence of God's existence because that is what God provides as evidence. The way we can determine if a man was a Messenger of God or not is by looking to see if He fulfilled the minimum criteria. That is a starting point in our investigation. A false messenger will not be able to meet the minimum criteria.

Spurious reason? There can never be objective evidence for God because God can never be known except through His Messengers. The ONLY objective evidence for God are the Messengers of God. The only way we can ever know that God exists is through the Messengers of God who come to represent God in this world.

None of this is anything but your own, unjustified faith. There is no objective evidence for any part of it. Just to be clear, the statement "the Messengers of God are the evidence of God's existence because that is what God provides as evidence" is just baseless faith. You have no objective evidence that it is true.

Evidence about the people you think are messengers is not evidence for any god, no matter how many times you claim it is and no matter how strong your personal faith is that tells you that it is. Those of us who don't already share your faith have no reason at all to see it that way.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
None of this is anything but your own, unjustified faith. There is no objective evidence for any part of it. Just to be clear, the statement "the Messengers of God are the evidence of God's existence because that is what God provides as evidence" is just baseless faith. You have no objective evidence that it is true.
Just because I have faith that does not mean my faith is unjustified or baseless, because I have evidence upon which my faith is based. The fact that you do not think it is evidence does not make it non-evidence.

There is no objective evidence for God and there never will be any, so it would be illogical, irrational, and idiotic for me to expect to ever have any such evidence.
Evidence about the people you think are messengers is not evidence for any god, no matter how many times you claim it is and no matter how strong your personal faith is that tells you that it is. Those of us who don't already share your faith have no reason at all to see it that way.
Messengers of God are the only evidence for God that has ever existed and no matter how many times you claim it is not evidence that won't make it non-evidence.

Of course atheists don't see it that way, that is why they are atheists, but most of the people in the world see it that way because almost everyone who believes in God, 93% of the world population, believes that God communicates using Messengers, holy men, or some kind of intermediary.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172
A saying is not vain if is true.
Jesus said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the LIfe".
Read (past tense) in context, and looking at the original Greek (Ego eimi), the personal pronoun is emphasized.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Just because I have faith that does not mean my faith is unjustified or baseless, because I have evidence upon which my faith is based. The fact that you do not think it is evidence does not make it non-evidence.
The fact that you do not think it is non-evidence does not make it evidence.
(Can you not see how ridiculous your continual use of this type of 'argument' is, Tb?)
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Just because I have faith that does not mean my faith is unjustified or baseless, because I have evidence upon which my faith is based.

Where is it then? Where is the objective evidence that the so called "messengers of god" are evidence for god? Unless you have evidence for the connection, you have no evidence for god.
The fact that you do not think it is evidence does not make it non-evidence.

This isn't a subjective matter. Unless you can objectively connect the evidence you have to the conclusion (that your god is real) then you have no evidence. End of story.
There is no objective evidence for God and there never will be any, so it would be illogical, irrational, and idiotic for me to expect to ever have any such evidence.

Now you're directly contradicting yourself. This seems to be Schrödinger's evidence that somehow both exists and doesn't exist at the same time!

Your accusations of irrationality are, yet again, based entirely on your own, personal, evidenced-free faith. It's not illogical or irrational to expect direct evidence for a god that wants to communicate with us, unless I accept your faith - which I don't. In fact, it seems to make even less sense than most others I've talked about with people.

You seem completely unable to intellectually detach yourself from your faith and even imagine what it looks like from outside.
Messengers of God are the only evidence for God that has ever existed and no matter how many times you claim it is not evidence that won't make it non-evidence.

Stamping your foot will not turn a bunch of significant people in the history of religion into actual evidence for a god, and such evidence is something you've already said doesn't exist. At least make up your own mind whether there can be evidence for god or not!
Of course atheists don't see it that way, that is why they are atheists, but most of the people in the world see it that way because almost everyone who believes in God, 93% of the world population, believes that God communicates using Messengers, holy men, or some kind of intermediary.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. What's more, of course, they believe in different and contradictory gods (and many in more than one god) and many would also claim a direct, personal relationship with god.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
A saying is not vain if is true.
Jesus said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the LIfe".
Read (past tense) in context, and looking at the original Greek (Ego eimi), the personal pronoun is emphasized.

So who was Jesus, who was the "I" that Jesus talked about, remember Peter gave an answer to just that Question.

Regards Tony
 
Top