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

[Truthseeker]

No abiding soul and no creator deity.

Is that what is really important in our lives?

I have a partial agreement with no abiding soul. We do have a soul but we are never the same day-to-day. What I am today is not the same as tomorrow. What's important, the agreement that we are changing all the time and we should adjust to that, or the disagreement that we have a soul? What is the practical ramifications of our disagreement? I also agree that we are inseparable from our environment. I learned those from Buddhism, I am indebted to that.

Did the Buddha say there was no creator diety? I know he never said there was a God directly, as far as I know. How important is that again, it does not affect our spiritual lives as far as I know, it does not affect our actions if we follow the teachings of our respective faiths. What is important is not believing in God or believing in a creator god but following teachings that develop us in a certain way. Merely believing in God never has done anyone any good as far as I know. It's the teachings that are the crux of the matter.

 

[Truthseeker]

What do you think is SO different?

Nice question.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is that what is really important in our lives?

My point was simply to answer the question posed. It underpins Buddhist metaphysics.

 

[Trailblazer]

No abiding soul and no creator deity.

I suppose that depends upon which version of Buddhism one ascribes to. I know Buddhists who believe in God and a soul.

 

[Secret Chief]

I suppose that depends upon which version of Buddhism one ascribes to. I know Buddhists who believe in God and a soul.

I think we've done this one before.

Anatta and anicca underlie ALL traditions and schools of Buddhism and preclude God and soul. If one rejects anatta and anicca one is not a Buddhist.


"All schools of Buddhism based on Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings accept these concepts as the core of their beliefs thus distinguishing true Buddhism from other religions that might look like Buddhism. It follows then that any teaching that contradicts these concepts is not a true Buddhist teaching."
- Three marks of existence - Encyclopedia of Buddhism

 

[samtonga43]

Christians do not have any facts, all they have are beliefs, but Baha'is have facts.

Are your facts true?

 

[Trailblazer]

We're going round in circles, either it could communicate with everybody (in some way) or it isn't omnipotent.

It is a completely moot point whether God is capable of communicating directly to everyone or not because no ordinary human could understand God if God communicated directly to them. God created humans a certain way so humans are incapable of understanding communication from God directly.

Please do not bother to say that God could MAKE humans understand Him because God is omnipotent, since that is not logical. Human brains were created with a certain capacity so God would have to recreate humans with a different capacity (the capacity the Messengers have) in order for humans to understand direct communication from God.

Why didn't god make everybody with that ability?

Because God never intended to communicate directly to ordinary humans, only to His Messengers. The Messengers of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly, and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Since there is no rational reason, that I'm aware of, to take the notion of these messengers seriously, your god seems to dislike rational people.

Perhaps there is no reason for YOU to take them seriously, but plenty of rational people take them very seriously.

You did: "so if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, it only hurts those people." (#806).

It hurts them because they don't get the message from God or know that God exists or anything about God.
I did not say anything about danger or harm.

We're going round in circles again, I see no reason to even think there is a reward, so why would I work towards it? If god gave a clear message that set out some work for us to do to get a reward, this may make some sense, but there simply isn't (and please don't say again that I can read about the Baha'i faith online because that's just another religion to me, with no reason given to take it seriously). Hiding it's actual existence and the fact that we're supposed to look is just daft, as well as unfair.

God did give a clear message that set out some work for us to do to get a reward in the only way God ever sends messages, through His Messengers. God cannot 'show up' and prove He exists because the Essence of God is spirit, so God shows up the only way He can show up, as a Person who is both human and divine.

God is not hiding His existence since God manifested Himself in the Person of the Messenger who is also referred to as a Manifestation of God.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[Trailblazer]

Anatta and anicca underlie ALL traditions and schools of Buddhism and preclude God and soul. If one rejects anatta and anicca one is not a Buddhist.

Now you are beginning to sound like a Christian or a Hindu arguing about which version of their religion is the correct one; e.g. if you reject the Trinity belief you are not really a Christian.

But what you have in common with Christians and Hindus is that your scriptures came to you by way of oral tradition. All you have are what men wrote about what the Buddha taught, so what reason is there to believe that is what the Buddha actually taught?

Buddhist texts are those religious texts which are part of the Buddhist tradition. The first Buddhist texts were initially passed on orally by Buddhist monastics, but were later written down and composed as manuscripts in various Indo-Aryan languages (such as Pali, Gāndhārī and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) and collected into various Buddhist canons. These were then translated into other languages such as Buddhist Chinese (fójiào hànyǔ 佛教漢語) and Classical Tibetan as Buddhism spread outside of India.
Buddhist texts - Wikipedia

Indeed, traditions are what you have. You do not have any original scriptures written by the Buddha so how can you know the oral traditions accurately represent what the Buddha taught? You cannot know so what you have is faith that they are accurate, the same as Christians have regarding the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are your facts true?

They would not be facts unless they were true.

fact

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

fact

 

[Truthseeker]

My point was simply to answer the question posed. It underpins Buddhist metaphysics.

Metaphysics is everything?

My answer was insufficient to one question, that of the soul or self, I realize now. When you realize there is no set self, the purpose of that teaching, in my view, guilt for the past disappears, for you didn't do that, a past self did that. The same is true for past accomplishments of your former self, pride doesn't result if you realize that this was done by a past self that no longer exists. There is no ego anymore, in short, if you follow this teaching.

In the Baha'i Faith, it's not quite the same, though the goal is the same. If you repent, as from the time of Jesus, and change your behavior, there need be no guilt and God will not punish you for that. If you accomplish a lot, you should realize that it is not really you are responsible for that, but God placed those good attributes in you. If you realize that, you will be humble.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, that would be like you claiming that you'd left a car in my garage, but then me saying that there was no car.

Do you mean it would be like I left the Messenger in your garage and you cannot see the Messenger in your garage?

So you are using your capacity for other things and thus can't use that capacity for running the marathon. So you don't have any capacity for running the marathon.

No, I have the capacity to run a marathon but I am not motivated to run a marathon nor do I have time because I have other things I want to do more. I could use my capacity to run a marathon if I had time.

I have the capacity to do many things but I have to choose what to do because there is only so much time. Every day presents more choices and it's hard because I have to give up some activities for other activities. I just have to hope I am making the right choices and not wasting my time.

Then they don't have everything they need, despite your claims that they did. They don't have the motivation they need. They don't have the time they need.

You are right, atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time. Everyone has time but we each have only have so much time and depending upon our life situation we might have more or less free time. However, if people are motivated enough they can make some time, but if they have no interest for example in a alleged Messenger or if they feel it would be a waste of time because it would be hopeless to find God that way, then they won't even bother to make the time.

It is like I feel hopeless that what used to be a yard can ever be restored to what it once was so I feel it would be a waste of time to even try. Besides that, I am not motivated because it is just a yard, and people are more important to me than property, so I would rather be here posting to people. Besides that I have a lot of money so I could hire a landscaper if it really mattered that much to me. It does bother me though, and the inside of the house bothers me too; in fact my whole lifestyle bothers me, but if I decided to change my lifestyle that would take a lot of time and effort so I would not have time for anything else. I think we all make these sorts of decisions every day even if we are unaware if it.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is cherry picking because you are literally telling us that you decide if the evidence is correct based on what it says. If it says what you want it to say, then it is true. If it says what you Don't want it to say, then it is not true.

I have no idea what you mean, if the evidence says what I want it to say, then it is true but if it says what I don't want it to say, then it is not true. The evidence does not SAY anything, nor does the Bible. The Bible has to be read and interpreted and we all assign different meanings to what we read. We assign meanings to everything we read as we read it. For example, I have to read your posts and figure out what you meant, and I might misinterpret what you wrote. Only you know what you meant by what you wrote because you wrote it. The same would hold true of the Bible authors, they know what they intended for the Bible to mean. Christians who say "the Bible says" are really just saying what they believe the Bible means, but they are no more qualified than I am to interpret the Bible and assign meanings to verses.

No, I do not decide if the evidence is correct based upon what it says. Evidence is evidence, but we won't all look at the evidence with the same set of eyes. We will all think differently about the SAME evidence because we all process incoming information differently. For example, I see the successful missions of Jesus and Baha'u'llah as part of the evidence that indicates they were Messengers of God (Criterion # 2) but you probably don't think the mission is that important because it has no real significance to you, so you would not consider the successful completion of a mission to be evidence. The same applies to the scriptures (Criterion #3). I see the Writings of Baha'u'llah as part of the evidence that indicates that He was a Messenger of God but you probably don't think the scriptures are important because they have no real significance to you, so you would not consider scriptures as evidence.

How any rational person can think this is even a remotely valid way of finding the truth is beyond me.

Looking at all the evidence is the only way to find the truth which is why criminal investigators look at al the evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you mean it would be like I left the Messenger in your garage and you cannot see the Messenger in your garage?

*Sigh*

We were clearly talking about the capacity to believe, not messengers. Please try to actually follow the conversation.

No, I have the capacity to run a marathon but I am not motivated to run a marathon nor do I have time because I have other things I want to do more. I could use my capacity to run a marathon if I had time.

I have the capacity to do many things but I have to choose what to do because there is only so much time. Every day presents more choices and it's hard because I have to give up some activities for other activities. I just have to hope I am making the right choices and not wasting my time.

Then, despite having the capacity to run a marathon, you DON'T have everything you need. You need motivation, which you do not have. You need TIME, which you do not have.

So don't say that everyone has everything they need to believe and then expect me to believe that the capacity to believe is all they need. Your own arguments show that the capacity to do something by itself is not sufficient to actually do it.

You are right, atheists don't have the motivation they need to search for God. They may or may not have the time. Everyone has time but we each have only have so much time and depending upon our life situation we might have more or less free time. However, if people are motivated enough they can make some time, but if they have no interest for example in a alleged Messenger or if they feel it would be a waste of time because it would be hopeless to find God that way, then they won't even bother to make the time.

So again, we are agree that the capacity to do something is not sufficient to make sure that thing is done. So shall I take it that you withdraw your claim from post 772 where you said that everyone has been given what they need to be a believer, and all that they need is the capacity to believe?

Now, I'm still waiting for you to address my other question.

This person I have mentioned, does he count as a messenger of God? He's met your first five criteria, and as for your "Can't contradict any other religion," that's a standard that not even your faith can meet, so I think my individual meets it just as much as Mr B does, unless you want to count him out as well.

So, does my individual meet the criteria for being a messenger from God, or are there some other criteria he needs to meet first?

 

[Tiberius]

I have no idea what you mean, if the evidence says what I want it to say, then it is true but if it says what I don't want it to say, then it is not true. The evidence does not SAY anything, nor does the Bible. The Bible has to be read and interpreted and we all assign different meanings to what we read. We assign meanings to everything we read as we read it. For example, I have to read your posts and figure out what you meant, and I might misinterpret what you wrote. Only you know what you meant by what you wrote because you wrote it. The same would hold true of the Bible authors, they know what they intended for the Bible to mean. Christians who say "the Bible says" are really just saying what they believe the Bible means, but they are no more qualified than I am to interpret the Bible and assign meanings to verses.

No, I do not decide if the evidence is correct based upon what it says. Evidence is evidence, but we won't all look at the evidence with the same set of eyes. We will all think differently about the SAME evidence because we all process incoming information differently. For example, I see the successful missions of Jesus and Baha'u'llah as part of the evidence that indicates they were Messengers of God (Criterion # 2) but you probably don't think the mission is that important because it has no real significance to you, so you would not consider the successful completion of a mission to be evidence. The same applies to the scriptures (Criterion #3). I see the Writings of Baha'u'llah as part of the evidence that indicates that He was a Messenger of God but you probably don't think the scriptures are important because they have no real significance to you, so you would not consider scriptures as evidence.

You literally said, "The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

Which means that if the facts about a religion say that the religion is false, then the facts are incorrect. And if they are incorrect (by your logic) you can discard them.

So all you have is an easy way to justify you ignoring any fact about a religion that says the religion is wrong.

That is NOT how you find the actual truth about anything.

I can use your exact same logic to say that the facts about Superman are evidence for the truth of Superman if those facts indicate that Superman is real.

Behold, evidence that Superman is real!

Looking at all the evidence is the only way to find the truth which is why criminal investigators look at al the evidence.

Yeah, looking at ALL the evidence. Not just the evidence that says what you want it to say. No lawyer is going to say, "I'm trying to get my client found innocent, so I'm going to ignore the evidence that says he is guilty."

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure seems like it to me. Of course, you go through all of these mental gymnastics to come up with reasons why you think they aren't contradictory.

It seems that way to you, but unless you give me some examples I cannot know what it seems that way to you.
If you give me some examples I can explain why I think they are not contradictory.

So you pick and choose the parts of the Bible you claim are valid, and then discard the parts that you think are invalid, just so you can say that Mr B wasn't contradicting any part of Christianity. After all, you have to explain why you aren't a Christian if Bahai is completely in agreement with Christianity, so you instead interpret it to be, "Bahai is in agreement with what I consider to be the valid parts of Christianity" and leave it at that.

I do not discard any of the Bible, but I don't interpret it all literally because (e.g that Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale or that God literally parted the Red Sea). There is no way anyone can know what the author's intentions were so we are all playing a guessing game.

I can explain where Christianity is contradictory to what Baha'u'llah wrote but that is not the same as saying that what Baha'u'llah wrote is contradictory to what is in the Bible. Baha'u'llah did not write that much about the Bible, except to explain what some terminology means (e.g., clouds, sun, moon , stars) and Baha'u'llah also explained the true meaning of resurrection. He also briefly wrote about the Messengers of God in the Bible who appeared in succession.

I certainly do not believe that everything that Christianity teaches is valid but that is not why I am not a Christian...
I am not a Christian because I have recognized Baha'u'llah as the Messenger of God for this age, so I am a follower of Baha'u'llah. I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah, and that is not contradictory to the Bible, it is the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies and the promises of Jesus.

How about the passages that say Jesus is God, there is original sin, or that Jesus rose from the dead? You literally just said you believe those are false doctrines. I trust you don't need me to spell out actual passages from the Bible for you.

I am sorry but I am not going down this road with you since I have been down it with Christians for so long and it leads nowhere. Please refer to my previous post where I addressed Bible interpretation and interpretation in general and try to understand what I meant.

There are no verses that SAY Jesus is God and there are no verses tat SAY there was ever any original sin. Those are Church doctrines. As for Jesus rising from the dead, those are just stories and not all Christians interpret them literally. I think you need to educate yourself if you are going to talk about the Bible.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

 

[ratiocinator]

God created humans a certain way so humans are incapable of understanding communication from God directly.

Please do not bother to say that God could MAKE humans understand Him because God is omnipotent, since that is not logical. Human brains were created with a certain capacity so God would have to recreate humans with a different capacity (the capacity the Messengers have) in order for humans to understand direct communication from God.

This really does make no sense at all to me. It looks like (assuming god exists and god knew it would have important messages to give to people) god is incompetent as well as cruel and unfair.

Because God never intended to communicate directly to ordinary humans, only to His Messengers. The Messengers of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly, and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Which is a terrible idea that obviously isn't working.

Perhaps there is no reason for YOU to take them seriously, but plenty of rational people take them very seriously.

Nobody is entirely rational. The point I was trying to make is that I've seen no rational reason in all your posts here to think that your god is real, and plenty of rational reasons to think that if it is, it is incompetent, and/or cruel and unfair.

God did give a clear message that set out some work for us to do to get a reward in the only way God ever sends messages, through His Messengers.

Which makes it entirely unclear that any of them actually had real messages from a real god.

You can't turn the discordant cacophony of different and conflicting claims coming from the religions of the world into a 'clear message' just by repeated assertion. It simply isn't.

 

[Tiberius]

It seems that way to you, but unless you give me some examples I cannot know what it seems that way to you.
If you give me some examples I can explain why I think they are not contradictory.

So you are telling me that your faith is entirely consistent with Christianity, Judaism and Islam?

REALLY?

I do not discard any of the Bible, but I don't interpret it all literally because (e.g that Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale or that God literally parted the Red Sea). There is no way anyone can know what the author's intentions were so we are all playing a guessing game.

I can explain where Christianity is contradictory to what Baha'u'llah wrote but that is not the same as saying that what Baha'u'llah wrote is contradictory to what is in the Bible. Baha'u'llah did not write that much about the Bible, except to explain what some terminology means (e.g., clouds, sun, moon , stars) and Baha'u'llah also explained the true meaning of resurrection. He also briefly wrote about the Messengers of God in the Bible who appeared in succession.

I certainly do not believe that everything that Christianity teaches is valid but that is not why I am not a Christian...
I am not a Christian because I have recognized Baha'u'llah as the Messenger of God for this age, so I am a follower of Baha'u'llah. I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah, and that is not contradictory to the Bible, it is the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies and the promises of Jesus.

Same difference. If you don't want something in Christianity to be true because it would contradict your own faith, then you just claim it isn't literaly and thus you can ignore it.

I am sorry but I am not going down this road with you since I have been down it with Christians for so long and it leads nowhere. Please refer to my previous post where I addressed Bible interpretation and interpretation in general and try to understand what I meant.

There are no verses that SAY Jesus is God and there are no verses tat SAY there was ever any original sin. Those are Church doctrines. As for Jesus rising from the dead, those are just stories and not all Christians interpret them literally. I think you need to educate yourself if you are going to talk about the Bible.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Jesus never claimed to be God? John 10:30 I and my Father are one. The Jewish people stoning him certainly took this to be Jesus saying he was God, as evidenced by John 10:33.

And you think that the general agreement among Christians is that Jesus' resurrection is "just a story"? HA! The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus literally did come back from the dead. Are you going to dismiss anything you don't want to agree with as "just a story"? And then, no doubt, you'll say that all the bits that aren't "just a story" support your beliefs. Of course they do, because you've conveniently found a way to say, "Oh, but those don't count" when faced with any passages that wouldn't fit your beliefs well.

 

[Secret Chief]

Now you are beginning to sound like a Christian or a Hindu arguing about which version of their religion is the correct one; e.g. if you reject the Trinity belief you are not really a Christian.

No, I am not talking about versions. I am distinguishing between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teaching.

But what you have in common with Christians and Hindus is that your scriptures came to you by way of oral tradition. All you have are what men wrote about what the Buddha taught, so what reason is there to believe that is what the Buddha actually taught?

In summary then, Buddhists are wrong about Buddhism, but Bahai's have got it right.

 

[Secret Chief]

Metaphysics is everything?

My answer was insufficient to one question, that of the soul or self, I realize now. When you realize there is no set self, the purpose of that teaching, in my view, guilt for the past disappears, for you didn't do that, a past self did that. The same is true for past accomplishments of your former self, pride doesn't result if you realize that this was done by a past self that no longer exists. There is no ego anymore, in short, if you follow this teaching.

In the Baha'i Faith, it's not quite the same, though the goal is the same. If you repent, as from the time of Jesus, and change your behavior, there need be no guilt and God will not punish you for that. If you accomplish a lot, you should realize that it is not really you are responsible for that, but God placed those good attributes in you. If you realize that, you will be humble.

Metaphysics is of course not everything, but it underlies the whole basis of Buddhism.

 

[Secret Chief]

There are golf fans. They think golf is the best sport in the world. They watch it, play it, read about it, buy the dreadful jumpers, the lot.
There are soccer fans. They think nothing beats a good game of soccer - play it, watch it, talk about it, punch other people about it. Golf is boring, but hey ho, each to their own.
There are baseball fans. They love to get a game together, read about their team and watch a game on the TV and as for the world series eh, played all over...America. Why would you care about golf or soccer when you've got baseball? It's the best.
There are volleyball fans. It's the only sport for them - playing it, sharing news about it on social media or going down to the beach to watch it - whether or not the participants have much in the way of clothing on. Now here's the thing. Golf, football and baseball are all simply earlier forms of volleyball. You want proof? They all involve the use of a spherical object. Obvious when you think about it. The fact that the golf fans, the football fans and the baseball fans all totally disagree with the notion that their chosen sports are all just forms of volleyball is due to the fact that their understanding of these volleyball variations is faulty - in respect of its rules and origins. Such fans are well meaning, but misled. Ultimately it's all just volleyball, only with different kinds of balls.