Atheists have faith.

[ChristineM]

I see that they are attributes of religion, but as already noted, many power hungry, foul and unjust men have not made that clear.

Regards Tony

Not what the holy books say and religions are taught from those books

 

[ChristineM]

It has been demonstrated how they were the aims of faiths past, but the capacity of men has veiled those intents.

That may be another topic to explore.

Regards Tony

No such thing has been demonstrated, on the contrary, when you proposed those attributes they can be demonstrated not to be religious

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No such thing has been demonstrated, on the contrary, when you proposed those attributes they can be demonstrated not to be religious

I do not think that is up to me to demonstrate, only offer a view.

I know what I believe and I see it is based in sound logic, that all attributes will be traced back to our previous connections to faith.

Our earliest records are faith based and they are imparting attributes to us.

That many now choose to practice these attributes, in hope/optimisim/faith that they are our best way forward, without a religion, well that is what is being explored in this OP.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not what the holy books say and religions are taught from those books

I see that all the attributes are taught in those books, which also record what happens when we do not practice them.

So we can see that truth is subjective to our nature, nurture and chosen frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course you do. You don't have to know what he means by a creator, necessarily, but you certainly know what the word means in and of itself, even if you don't know it beyond it being the creative source.

For example, we might come across an ancient sculpture in a jungle, and know nothing at all about it's origin. But we can still perceive that it was created by some mysterious force or forces external to itself. We wouldn't assume that it spontaneously popped into existence, accidentally.

That doesn't work out well since there is no such thing as a creator but the idea of using things already into existence to "create" new recycled ideas. All authors have taken to some existent ideas that preexist and made their art unique to where that expression becomes their creation not the words and pens they use.

It doesn't work for people because we were created into being by sperm and egg not out of thin air.

The universe existence doesn't work because like everything else the universe formed "itself" into being.

Also, how you are approaching it as a fallacy. You're applying human ideas to describe an abstract concept.

Experiences are the result of ones belief not the definition of it. You can't prove a creator by spiritual awakening. Many have these awakenings and because they were already familiar with their belief system the cause is correlated to that system.

....

 

[ChristineM]

I do not think that is up to me to demonstrate, only offer a view.

I know what I believe and I see it is based in sound logic, that all attributes will be traced back to our previous connections to faith.

Our earliest records are faith based and they are imparting attributes to us.

That many now choose to practice these attributes, in hope/optimisim/faith that they are our best way forward, without a religion, well that is what is being explored in this OP.

Regards Tony

I think you said its been demonstrated, it clearly hasn't.

In fact just the opposite, religion tends to promote misogy, prejudice and hatred.
.

 

[ChristineM]

I see that all the attributes are taught in those books, which also record what happens when we do not practice them.

So we can see that truth is subjective to our nature, nurture and chosen frames of references.

Regards Tony

Well in my opinion you see wrongly. The misogyny and prejudice and hatred are glaring to anyone not of q particularly religion, and that applies to all religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

agree. And just to start off with, let's say it "exists in the world around us" AS the world around us. Or more precisely, as the creative force/forces that are manifesting as the world around us. Not just the 'source-code', but also the 'source-energy'. I realize that we can't know what that source is, exactly, but we can logically presume it to exist: in much the same way as we would logically presume a source of some kind for that ancient sculpture we found in the jungle (reasoning that it did not just spontaneously pop into existence, as is, by accident).

Positing a existential/universal "creator" of some kind is not illogical, nor completely incomprehensible.

In scientific terms that force is energy. How you concluded that this force had meaning and interpretation is from what you believe even experience but nothing that can be proven beyond that just the effects thereof.

How do you logically presume?

That's jumping to conclusions but if I asked How you came to your answered it's a guess.

There's no intention or accident in this. Accident assumes someone involved made a mistake. Wanting it not to be an accident doesn't mean it's not. Everything is spontaneous. Even our neurons that we think have perfect patterns break the "design" fallacy by causing seizures. Cancers grow. People drop dead.

Logic based on facts aren't validated by positing anything. Can you imagine medical scientist use Intelligent guesses to diagnose?

Experiencing a profound awakening and attributing it to a religious source(s) is fine but when you're asked how you logically came to that conclusion saying I don't know or saying this is your subjective experience is better than stating creator exist as fact and assuming what you posit and human explanations are sound evidence to prove a "God" no religious person has yet to define.

 

[ecco]

Yes that's great, and it might even get them to the pearlies, but whether they get let through is another matter.
The bouncer will ask them ONE question- "Are you a Christian?" and if they say "No", he's bound to tell them-

"Oppit"

Unless the bouncer is a Muslim working for Allah.
Unless the bouncer is a Hindu working for Shiva.
Unless the bouncer is a Sikh working for Waheguru.

All might throw out Christians for worshipping a false god. All might allow an atheist to enter because he was smart enough to not get sucked in to believing a false god/religion.

 

[ecco]

JC's execution took place in front of the whole of Jerusalem, that's a lot of eyeballs so no wonder the priests and Romans never dared to say later that it was all baloney and never happened..

"The whole of Jerusalem". WOW! Yet not one single person wrote about it - not one.

Perhaps the Romans didn't bother to deny it or affirm it because no one asked them about a mythical execution. Just like no one bothered to ask the Governor of NY about the beheading of Ichabod Crane's nemesis - the horseman.

 

[ecco]

Whoa, 58 other gospels and writings never made it into the NT, how many more do you want?..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels


Gospel of Marcion

Why are you citing the Gospel of Marcion. Have you read it? Do you know the contents and purpose? Do you realize that if Marcion had his way you would be believing in Evolution instead of a six day spoofing?

Also please show which of all the "books" are written by eyewitnesses.

 

[ecco]

Christians love to build strawmen because that's all they have. Sad.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whereas they may be attribute of your faith, I don't see how you can sustain them as attributes of religion in general without a glaring no true Scotsman fallacy.

They are the teachings of our faith, but they were not taught in the faiths of the past. I don't see how you can say that the Baha'i Faith is the same as other faiths that did not have these teachings without committing the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

Religion a did not teach x, y and z
Religion b did not teach x, y and z
Religion c did not teach x, y and z
Religion d did not teach x, y and z
Religion e did not teach x, y and z
Religion f did not teach x, y and z
Religion g did not teach x, y and z

Therefore, Religion h (in this case the Baha’i Faith) did not teach x, y and z

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure but not attributes of religion which was what we were discussing

Not attributes of the religions of the past, but I don't think that matters because the past is gone and now we have a new religion. If people keep following those older religions those attributes will not be reflected in society.

 

[ChristineM]

Not attributes of the religions of the past, but I don't think that matters because the past is gone and now we have a new religion. If people keep following those older religions those attributes will not be reflected in society.

New religions or new takes on old religions appear ever few weeks. And what's to say any of them are correct?

Certainly the Baha'i faith continues with some of the problems of older religions, the premarital or homosexual sex prohibition, the exclusion of women from serving the house of justice

So it seems those attributes are not reflected by most religious groups

 

[Dropship]

"The whole of Jerusalem". WOW! Yet not one single person wrote about it - not one..

Mate, the snooty priests and dumb romans were going around arresting anybody who dared whisper the word "Jesus", so no wonder most people kept their heads down!
Nevertheless, 27 books (the New T) did slip through the net and get published..

 

[Dropship]

..Also please show which of all the "books" are written by eyewitnesses.

I never saw Elvis but I know enough about his life to be able to write a book about him if I wanted, as could many people, right Elv?

 

[Trailblazer]

New religions or new takes on old religions appear ever few weeks. And what's to say any of them are correct?

What you refer to as 'new religions' are not religions according to my beliefs regarding the nature of religion

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

New revelations from God only appear every 500-1000 years.

Certainly the Baha'i faith continues with some of the problems of older religions, the premarital or homosexual sex prohibition, the exclusion of women from serving the house of justice.

So it seems those attributes are not reflected by most religious groups

You might consider these problems but I don't. Whether they are problems or not is only a matter of personal opinion.
Moreover there are reasons for all of those, and they seem like problems because those reasons are not understood.

 

[F1fan]

What evidence do you have that God didn't create the universe? Note: I am not saying I can prove to you that God created the universe. Proving the existence of God by science is unreliable. The opposite is also true.

Then why bring up a God at all?

Why should anyone have to prove elves didn't create the universe? Or a god. Or some other idea that isn't known to exist?

 

[F1fan]

You might consider these problems but I don't. Whether they are problems or not is only a matter of personal opinion.
Moreover there are reasons for all of those, and they seem like problems because those reasons are not understood.

Bigotry isn't just a personal problem if a religious ideology is bigoted. That means the dogma is pressuring the adherents to adopt the prejudice.