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

[ratiocinator]

I mean we cannot assert that God exists is true just because it has not been proven false, but we also cannot assert that God exists is false just because it has not been proven that God exists is true.

I know. Most atheists I know of, myself included, are agnostic atheists. Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. We don't have a belief in any god because we see no reason to accept any of the claims about gods, but (at least for most versions of god) we cannot know that no god or gods exist, so we have to remain (technically at least) agnostic. However, the same can be said of multi-dimensional pixies that pull at the fabric of space-time to make gravity work - which is why we also have to bring in the burden of proof. Those that propose gods or gravity pixies, need to support their claims. It's not up to the rest of us to prove each and every claim untrue.

 

[ratiocinator]

According to their followers the Messengers contradicted each other but the followers only believe that because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. You will not find any contradictions in the scriptures although you will find differences.

There is self-contradiction within the scriptures (at least there are in the bible), let alone with other scriptures.

No, the evidence is not missing because we can well see that the older religions have been corrupted by man, if we look.

Look where?

No, the rational thing to do is not to first accept my conclusions: that there is a God, there are Messengers, and that the old religions have been corrupted. The rational thing to do is investigate for yourself before you accept anything.

Not if nobody can give the slightest hint of a rational reason to take any religion seriously in the first place.

Words mean different things to different people. You need to explain what you mean by ‘objective path’ before I can answer your question.

I mean something that connects the two that isn't purely your own opinion or subjective judgement.

I already told you that God could provide evidence that would constitute proof to everyone, and I explained why God did not do that. Did you understand what I said in that post?

Perfectly, and no matter how often you deny it, it makes your god unjust and unfair (and not because I want some god to do something).

That is just your personal opinion which is derived from to what you think God would do if God was not an evil, trickster, unjust, uncaring monster. That is so obvious. However if you state a personal opinion as an assertion then you need to prove your assertion as otherwise it is a bald assertion.

It's not my personal opinion, it's blindingly obvious. If god has a message that it is important for humans to recognise, then handing it out to human 'messengers', letting it get corrupted by people, so many people didn't have access to it, no matter how much they may have wanted it, letting people kill each other over different versions, and providing no objective evidence that there is any message at all to look for, hence excluding anybody rational, is obviously unjust.

Just think how you'd judge a human that did something similar. Say I had a cure for cancer and hid it away, gave out obscure messages, was indifferent to people needlessly dying in horrible ways, and made all the clues look like superstition.

This appears to be a feature of some religions, that people seem to be totally blind to even the most obvious injustice in what they believe. Most versions of Christianity are even worse that what you are telling us.

There is nothing superstitious about Messengers of God being evidence for God’s existence and in fact it is completely logical, since only a man could communicate to humans and since the Messengers also have a divine nature they can understand communication from God. It is drop dead logical why God sends Messengers who have a twofold nature, both human and divine, to communicate with humans

Your entire 'argument' is built on the assumptions of your faith, i.e. it's circular. There is no logic for a god to make the world that way, unless it liked to watch suffering and confusion.

The reason that people have suffered and died is because they did not even follow the scriptures they had. Another reason they have suffered is because they misinterpreted their scriptures, so they have never recognized the Messenger who came after their Messenger of their religion, which has led to division and strife among the religious believers.

I'm sure many of them thought they were doing the right thing according to their best efforts to understand. That's why the messenger system would be so cruel and unjust. Also, getting it right, would not stop other people (who got it wrong) from torturing and killing you because you have the 'wrong god'.

There is no hide-and-seek because God is not hiding.

False. It's not in plain view, so it's hiding.

God has clearly revealed Himself in the Peron of the Messengers.

False. It is not at all clear that there is anything genuine in the world's religions.

God is not blameworthy in any way.

As I said, religionists will excuse their gods of even the most blatant and obvious injustice.

 

[ratiocinator]

So whats your argument that there is no Divinity or God? Argument from ignorance or do you have any evidence? Or are you agnostic which means your constancy should be based upon "I dont know"?

See: #3721.

 

[firedragon]

I know. Most atheists I know of, myself included, are agnostic atheists. Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. We don't have a belief in any god because we see no reason to accept any of the claims about gods, but (at least for most versions of god) we cannot know that no god or gods exist, so we have to remain (technically at least) agnostic. However, the same can be said of multi-dimensional pixies that pull at the fabric of space-time to make gravity work - which is why we also have to bring in the burden of proof. Those that propose gods or gravity pixies, need to support their claims. It's not up to the rest of us to prove each and every claim untrue.

Thats a pretty good summation of your epistemology. You dont believe anything negative or positive about theism. And only when someone comes and proposes the God hypothesis you need evidence to prove it. So consistently you will never ever claim that God doesnt exist because by your own definition of yourself you simply dont know. Bottomline is, you are not a hard atheist.

Great.

 

[ratiocinator]

So consistently you will never ever claim that God doesnt...

If somebody just claims 'God' without further definition, then I'd be ignostic. If somebody has a specific claim about some defined version of god(s), then they can either give a reason to take it seriously or not. If not, it's out there with gravity pixies: yes, it's not impossible, but do I believe it? No. Of course some versions of god are actually falsifiable by evidence - notably the ones who created the universe 6000 years ago and aren't liars.

 

[firedragon]

If somebody just claims 'God' without further definition, then I'd be ignostic. If somebody has a specific claim about some defined version of god(s), then they can either give a reason to take it seriously or not. If not, it's out there with gravity pixies: yes, it's not impossible, but do I believe it? No. Of course some versions of god are actually falsifiable by evidence - notably the ones who created the universe 6000 years ago and aren't liars.

So what you are saying is that your agnostic consistency is only existing based on the other persons definition of God? If their definition changes, you change from agnostic to a hard atheist? Or something else?

So your personal epistemology by itself relies upon other peoples standard about themselves. that's being inconsistent and incoherent. For example, if one type of God is proven false by evidence, and another persons God is not proven false, you should still be agnostic because at least one idea is still not proven false. Maybe you have not understood what an atheist or/and an agnostic is, along with falsification.

 

[ratiocinator]

So what you are saying is that your agnostic consistency is only existing based on the other persons definition of God? If their definition changes, you change from agnostic to a hard atheist? Or something else?

Surely this isn't too complicated. People mean different things when they say "god(s)", so I have different reactions.

• If somebody just claims 'god' (without further clarification), I don't know what they are talking about.
• If somebody defines an unfalsifiable god (or gods) but can give no reason to take them seriously, then it's like a claim of gravity pixies; not impossible by I'm not about to believe it.
• If somebody claims a god that is falsified by evidence (e.g. one that created the universe 6000ya and isn't a liar), then I believe it doesn't exist.
• If somebody ever defines a god or gods and gives a rational reason to believe that it/they exist, then I'm going to have to rethink things.

 

[firedragon]

Surely this isn't too complicated. People mean different things when they say "god(s)",

Of course its not too complicated. Its not even relevant to someones ontology.

I opine that you wish to argue ardently about other peoples different beliefs about God that you are missing the whole point about your personal ontology. That is why in my opinion you have been finding it hard to even come to some standard in your own personal epistemology. I understand now.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Dropship]

..if everything is unreasonable to you, that means you are being just bias and dismissive.

The founders of all other religions are in graves but Jesus is not, spot the difference?..

 

[firedragon]

The founders of all other religions are in graves but Jesus is not, spot the difference?..

So, whats your point Dropship?

 

[firedragon]

The founders of all other religions are in graves but Jesus is not, spot the difference?..

Christians believe Jesus is alive, so do most Muslims, and Bahai's believe he already came back, so do Ahmadis.

So who is correct? See, this is the problem with justifying someones faith simply by such a common factor, and one of the reasons atheists dismiss everything because of such shallow propositions. If you can prove Jesus is still alive by some method, or prove that the Bible that speaks about Jesus is valid and true due to this, that and the other evidences or proofs etc etc.

Only if theists act with this kind of responsibility atheistic apologetics also will take a more sophisticated approach rather than just general dismissal as shallow as can be.

Hope you understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

That is why in my opinion you have been finding it hard to even come to some standard in your own personal epistemology.

I don't find it hard at all.

I understand now.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Dropship]

Christians believe Jesus is alive, so do most Muslims, and Bahai's believe he already came back, so do Ahmadis.
So who is correct? .

It all comes down to credentials, and Jesus's streed cred is off the scale, for example his arrival was foretold multiple times in the Old T-
"All things about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

And people could see God's power flowing through him-
"..even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"Come on out of there Lazarus mate"

 

[ratiocinator]

It all comes down to credentials, and Jesus's streed cred is off the scale, for example his arrival was foretold multiple times in the Old T-
"All things about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

And people could see God's power flowing through him-
"..even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

Yet again: quotes from your favourite book of myths are not evidence, they are not going to impress people who don't accept its supposed authority or accuracy.

 

[Tiberius]

Maybe science and religion cannot both be right about the creation of the universe since religion involves a God and science does not involve a God but maybe they do not have to be as contradictory as you think. Please bear in mind that the way Baha’u’llah explains the process of creation is not the same as the explanation in Genesis. A theory such as the Big Bang is not entirely ruled out by what Baha’u’llah wrote, becaue it could be part of the process of creation.

I agree that what you posted doesn't (on the surface at least) seem incompatible with the scientific explanation, but you have to admit that your faith's explanation seems rather vague and non-specific. Virtually no details. It's easy to have an explanation that doesn't contradict science if there aren't really any details in that explanation for science to contradict. However, that also renders the religious account rather useless.

I agree that the difference here is that science can be tested by anyone in principle, and results between people can be checked but when it comes to religion, that can't be done. Such is the difference between religion and science.

Glad you agree.

It depends upon what you are checking and whether it is verifiable. How can you check the creation of the universe? All science has is theories and they cannot be proven true anymore than religious beliefs can be proven true.

You were doing so well, too.

You did, after all, just agree that science can be checked by other people. Science is the tool that allows us to get evidence from reality, examine it closely, and have others check our results. We can come up with hypotheses and then test those hypotheses to see if the predictions they make are accurate, and if so, then it supports the idea that the hypothesis is correct.

Science can get support for itself in a way that religion is utterly incapable of.

Sure, the measureable effect of X shows that X exists but just because X (souls in the spiritual world) cannot be shown to exist that does not mean they are not having an effect on this world. It is a belief but it could be true or false.

You fail to realise: Pointing out the effect they have on this world IS a way to show they exist.

True, but there are still planets that might exist that have not yet been detected. Do you understand what I am getting at?

Yes I do.

But what I am saying is that if there is such a planet that is undetected, then it by definition has no effect on us. Do you understand what I am getting at?

No, I do not buy that line of reasoning because science and religion are not the same. All bets are off when it comes to being able to show the effects God us having on Earth because God’s effects are not detectable by any instruments. If God did have a measureable effect and we could prove that God was the cause then we could prove God exists, but since we can never prove that God is the cause of anything we cannot go about proving God exists that way.

That only works if God has no measurable effect. And if that's the case, then God is not needed.

I would not be so sure. You are free to believe that if you want to but you might just be the one who is caught with your pants down and then what are you going to say? Oops. If there is nothing then I have nothing to lose by believing there is something becauwe I will never know the difference, but the same cannot be said for you.

That sounds like Pascal's wager to me.

And yeah, you are losing out on something. You're losing out on the truth of reality. You're losing out on all the time you spend following a religion that isn't true.

 

[Tiberius]

The authoritative Baha'i position is represented by this statement from the Universal House of Justice (UHJ). You can read more about it on the link below.

Nothing specific has been found in the Bahá’í writings on genetic engineering. This is therefore a matter on which the House of Justice may have to legislate but the time has not yet come for that. The subject is quite complex, and an informed opinion can be offered only when the scientific understanding is much further advanced than at present and the social implications are clearer. With the emergence of adequate understanding, it will also be opportune to deal with the ethical issues involved. In the meantime, Bahá’ís faced with questions about genetic engineering are free to come to their own conclusions based on their knowledge of the Bahá’í teachings on nature and the purpose of life. However, they should be careful not to make dogmatic statements or offer their own understanding as the teaching of the Faith.

Universal House of Justice, Reproduction and other Biological Subjects, 20 April 1997, to an individual

The House of Justice has not found anything specific in the Bahá’í writings concerning the ethics of genetic engineering on human tissue, including foetal tissue, and on possible means of biologically creating replacement limbs and organs for human beings. It regards it as premature to give consideration to these matters and to their spiritual consequences. For the present, believers confronted with such issues are free to come to their own conclusions, based on their knowledge of the pertinent Bahá’í teachings.

Universal House of Justice, Genetic Engineering, 2000

Genetic Engineering | Bahá’í Quotes

Let's recap the discussion so far...

Trailblazer: Baha’u’llah knew what was coming, and he gave us what we'll need in order to deal with it. And if, by chance, something happens that isn't covered by what he left with, then he gave us the Universal House of Justice who can reach a determination instead.

Tiberius: Okay then. According to the Baha'i faith, what is the correct moral position on the use of genetic modification techniques on unborn Human children?

Trailblazer: The authoritative position of the Baha'i faith, as determined by the Universal House of Justice is, "I dunno."

I mean, really. The source you cited was close to a quarter century old. It says we need greater understanding if the science. Guess what? We've got it now! Our understanding of the science of genetic modification now is greatly advanced from what we understood back then. And in any case, the claim that they can't decide until they know more is a terrible position, since they are refusing to deal with the issue that is actually facing them. Even back then, genetic modification of organisms was taking place. Their refusal to make even an interim statement seems to suggest that they just don't care.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not my personal opinion, it's blindingly obvious. If god has a message that it is important for humans to recognise, then handing it out to human 'messengers', letting it get corrupted by people, so many people didn't have access to it, no matter how much they may have wanted it, letting people kill each other over different versions, and providing no objective evidence that there is any message at all to look for, hence excluding anybody rational, is obviously unjust.

In ancient times everybody had their own "Gods" but most of them are considered to be false. And every religion that Baha'is say was true has so many versions and Baha'is don't believe that any of them are right. So where is this "mysterious" true religion that was revealed by a true messenger?

The Baha'i concept of "progressive" revelation is way too general. Each civilization would have needed it's own manifestation. But lots of the great empires had some made up, mythical religion. But how different were their Gods and beliefs compared to the "true" religions? They all sounded made up and mythical.

The reason that people have suffered and died is because they did not even follow the scriptures they had. Another reason they have suffered is because they misinterpreted their scriptures, so they have never recognized the Messenger who came after their Messenger of their religion, which has led to division and strife among the religious believers.

It's you again bringing up the old religions. But, let me ask you this... Are Baha'is, for the most part, following the teaching of Baha'u'llah? It's too easy to criticize people in the other religions for not following the teaching of their religion, but who does? I'd imagine very few.

But what about those "Scriptures" of the other religions. Which ones would you follow? I mean completely? Would you follow the Hebrew Bible? the Christian New Testament? How about the Quran? Would you obey all the Islamic laws? If you were a Hindu 3000 years ago would you drop your religion and become a Jew? Would you have even known about Judaism? And how did Islam and Christianity spread? I'm not sure, but from what I remember being taught it was through conquering. And, especially with those Christian conquerors, what was their message? That Jesus was God along with his Father and the Holy Spirit? Hmmm? So people were supposed to leave their old, outdated beliefs and believe that instead?

 

[CG Didymus]

It all comes down to credentials, and Jesus's streed cred is off the scale, for example his arrival was foretold multiple times in the Old T-
"All things about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

And people could see God's power flowing through him-
"..even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"Come on out of there Lazarus mate"
View attachment 56329

Baha'is don't believe the resurrection was literal. They say his physical body died and he rose spiritually. Here's a quote...

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life...​

And about "street" cred, Baha'is have the same stuff. But they claim their guy fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions, not just the Bible. But then I question Christianity and the Baha'is. Both often take one verse or verses out of context and make them into prophecies. Like, for the Christians, "the virgin will give birth to a son" and the Baha'is, "He will come to you from Assyria". But, since Baha'u'llah means the "Glory of God", anytime the Bible says that, they say it is referring to their guy. Oh, and they use, "He will come with a new name."

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh my, are you going to be surprised when you die and realise that there's actually nothing. Oh wait, no you won't, because you won't exist to realise anything.

I would not be so sure. You are free to believe that if you want to but you might just be the one who is caught with your pants down and then what are you going to say? Oops. If there is nothing then I have nothing to lose by believing there is something becauwe I will never know the difference, but the same cannot be said for you.

And what if Christianity is true? Which I hope not, but if it is, then the NT sure seems to be saying that the only way to have your sins forgiven is to accept that Jesus paid the penalty for those sins. I know you wouldn't want to discuss that, but I think it is an important thing to take a look at and see how the Baha'is interpret those verses, since that is one of the main born-again Christian beliefs.

I think it brings in the fall of Adam. Supposedly bringing sin and death into the world. It brings in the Law of Moses. Because, supposedly, the Law was given to show that people couldn't keep the law and, therefore, never be good enough on their own. It ties in Satan. Because, supposedly, he's the one tempting people to sin and disbelieve in God. And if brings in Jesus. Why he had to be born from a virgin, so, supposedly, he didn't inherit a sin nature. Then he was obedient unto death, but then rose again, conquering sin and death.

Definitely not something for you to research. So what do you want to do? Just call it all metaphorical? Call it all BS? And let it go? Anyway, when we die we'll find out anyway. If it's true, how bad could hell be. Playing harps in heaven for eternity sounds like it would be a living hell too.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's you again bringing up the old religions.

Nope. @ratiocinator brought up the older religions, I simply responded to what he said.

But, let me ask you this... Are Baha'is, for the most part, following the teaching of Baha'u'llah? It's too easy to criticize people in the other religions for not following the teaching of their religion, but who does? I'd imagine very few.

What does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? I have no idea what other Baha'is are doing, I only know what I am doing, and I know what my bff @Truthseeker9 is doing because he tells me, and I know what my husband is doing.

I am not criticizing 'people' of other religions. I was only saying what happened to their religions, they became corrupted.

But what about those "Scriptures" of the other religions. Which ones would you follow? I mean completely? Would you follow the Hebrew Bible? the Christian New Testament? How about the Quran? Would you obey all the Islamic laws?

I would not follow any of their scriptures since they were not written for this age, and I live in this age, not hundreds or thousands of years ago.

If you were a Hindu 3000 years ago would you drop your religion and become a Jew? Would you have even known about Judaism? And how did Islam and Christianity spread? I'm not sure, but from what I remember being taught it was through conquering. And, especially with those Christian conquerors, what was their message? That Jesus was God along with his Father and the Holy Spirit? Hmmm? So people were supposed to leave their old, outdated beliefs and believe that instead?

No, back in those days people would not have known about the 'other' religions and I do not believe that God expected them to drop out of their religions and join a new religion, but this is a new age, a new Day of God, and God does want (even though He probably dos not expect) people to recognize Baha'u'llah and join the Baha'i Faith. Otherwise, why would God have sent Baha'u'llah? God sent Him for all of humanity.

In this passage, His Manifestation refers to Baha'u'llah, who is God's Manifestation fro this age. In the following passage, I do not think that Baha'u'llah was only addressing those who were already Baha'is, I think He was addressing everyone in the world.

“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.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171