That can be a positive character trait because it can cause you to stick to your guns. lol
True lol
I kind of sense that but of course I could be wrong. I asked me the other day why he talked so much about a god he does not believe exists and he asked me if I wanted him to leave my forum. I said he had better not leave because it took an act of congress to get him there, and it did. I had been posting to him on other forums in that group for years but I decided I was no longer posting on those forums because of the treatment I was getting from the owners. It was my friends that got him to come to my forum but he never came when I asked. Now I guess he is there to stay, speak about tenacious, we are two peas in a pod. We have a long history. I found him on a Christian forum given the Christians what for.
Well it sounds like you have a worthy "opponent."
The irony of that is that I never cared if God existed but God just dropped into my lap and now I cannot shake him off... God is very high maintenance, and I am not sure it is worth the maintenance, lol. He keeps me busy all day and up till all hours
That can happen for some believers.
I do not know much about Hinduism except what I read on forums. There was a Hindu poster I was engaged with on a Baha’i forum for some time but we really knocked heads. He thought he could incorporate my religion into Hinduism but that is not really possible, because there are some big differences, such as reincarnation to name one.
Some Hindus are very universal minded. They see religions as more of a buffet than separate meals. So when they see a new religion they assume they can just take a bite, so to speak.
I largely sympathize with universalism, only because that's the sect I grew up in.
Empathy is a good thing to have. For me that developed over time, after I finally decided other people mattered more than myself. Now it’s hard to tend to myself if there are other people I feel responsible for.
Empathy is a good trait. But like all things, it should be a balance.
It is probably true that Abrahamics don’t tolerate atheism as well as Dharmics as a general rule, but I tend to gravitate towards atheists since I have an atheistic bent. It is not that I have any question as to whether God exists; it is that I am not always that fond of Him and I have a lot of questions, as atheists do. That is probably owing to all the suffering I have endured in life.
I'm the same. I tend to pal around with atheists far more than my Hindu cohorts. Question everything, that's my motto. Suffering has a tendency to shape us, perhaps more than we would like to admit.
I guess we all have baggage.
I can understand how atheists are tired of that but us Baha’is are tired of being lumped together with Christianity because we do not even believe in original sin or hell the way Christians do. Atheists assume Baha’i is just like all the other Abrahamic religions and in the spiritual teachings it is, but in that way it is also like all the other religions, since all religions share those in common. But the Baha’i Faith is completely different from all the older religions in fundamental ways..
Mate you're talking to a Western born Hindu. I have all sorts of sloppy even insulting labels thrown at me all the time. It's honestly not worth the trouble to be bothered by it. Causes too much anger and detrimentally affects one's mental wellbeing. The older Hindus (at least the ones I know) have this sort of aloof nature when it comes to their beliefs. They simply don't care what other people think or say to them. They just do what makes them happy.
I like that approach. I try to apply it in my day to day life.
When I say logical I do not mean formal logic, I mean something just makes sense.
Well in a debate setting, usually formal logic will apply by default. That's just how debates are.
But I have learned some of the logical fallacies over time and I can see how some atheists commit them.
So have I and I can say the same about some theists. Especially creationists. Oof. Hitchslapped indeed.
That is true, our evidence standards differ markedly, but I consider it ludicrous to expect to have forensic evidence for an immaterial God. The best evidence is the footprints God has left in the sand when he sent Messengers..
I think you're putting up a wall. You say it's ludicrous to expect forensic evidence for an ethereal being (God.) And I personally agree with you. But if one is coming from the position of an atheist, that is the evidence that will often satisfy the criteria they're using. It does not matter what we personally think. That's what's being asked. And though I doubt a God would care, it's not that unreasonable to ask a deity for forensic evidence of it's existence in exchange for belief. It just happens to be a strictly human one.
I guess Creation is also evidence but since it can be explained in other ways, it is not the best evidence. I challenge atheists to explain how Jesus did what He did if He was not more than an ordinary human being.
Creation, as you call it, is simply proof that life exists. Anything else is our own supposition. I know that seems like I'm bashing theism, but I'm not. I'm just saying, for theists, there's a lot of interpretation going on. I tend to run in a lot of pretentious artsy/philosophical circles, so I like that about theism. I'm just saying, at the end of the day, when everything is said and done, it really does come down to a personal faith, rather than hard scientific evidence. I don't think that's an unfair statement.
The evidence is also the religion of Christianity and how it has withstood the test of time. This is empirical evidence.
Oh, buddy. Devil's advocate. It's easy to disprove Jesus. Just point to David Copperfield and ask if you really think he can actually fly. Parlor tricks, easy to pass off as miracles to people of the era. Either you were a messenger of God or burned at the stake for witchcraft. Water to wine, slight of hand.
Resurrection, hearsay by the devastated grieving. Making the blind see and the invalid walk, crowd plants in on the scheme. I'm not suggesting that you should not view Jesus as a messenger of God. We have always incorporated Lord Jesus into our religious rituals. In fact, most of my family are Christian here. (Albeit very liberal.) Most of my family in the UK are Catholic. Rest are of course Hindu of some flavour. I'm just saying, don't be too cocky. One person's miracle is another's scam.
Scientific evidence is not something a rational person should expect for God, then again if atheists do not understand what God is, I can understand why they might expect that.
I don't think that's fair. Some people just have different ways of thinking. Some favour philosophy, others hard logic and math. If we are created, then that's the way God wants it, I guess.
Science has rationally explained our world since it's inception. It has taught us more than any religion about the world around us and indeed even our cosmos. When you hear a scientist talk about us in scientific terms, it can often be spectacular. I mean De Grasse Tyson once spoke about how we are literally made of stardust, if one understands chemistry soundly enough. How is that not absolutely mind blowing?
I'll agree that science can sometimes be a bit "cold." It's literally just hard data, really. But it's reasonable for a human, who has used science to teach them about literally the world around them, to ask a God for some scientific evidence of its existence. Because that's how they think. That's how their brain works, again presuming we are made, that's how God created them. Not saying a God will oblige or care. But again, we're talking in terms of human expectations. Expectations that humans are presumably created with. I mean if you look at it from a neutral perspective, it does paint God as either aloof or just kind of ****ing with people for its own amusement.
Of course, this brings us back to the whole "agree to disagree" being the only outcome of it all. I mean, if God doesn't care to show us scientific evidence, then I doubt people demanding it will ever be truly satisfied.
In a sense religions are man-made because Prophets (what I call Messengers) are men, but it is the Baha’i belief that they are also divine and that is what makes them different. I believe that the true religions were revealed by God to these Messengers. Of course this cannot be proven, it is a belief.
Well your belief is your belief. I won't begrudge you.
But how do you explain why only religions have withstood the test of time, if a God had nothing to do with them? Just look at how long Hinduism has lasted.
Occam's razor, my friend. Humans are often stubborn creatures, especially about something they consider to be sacred. I mean if you truly believe you have divine truth, more likely than not you will be willing to die for it. And indeed history is replete with examples. Crusades, the Holy wars, religious minorities enduring oppression never once losing their faith etc. The human mind is a powerful thing and having a strong belief in something often ensures that belief will endure. Regardless of any obstacle in it's path. The "Truth" is a very powerful drug. It has caused some very interesting outcomes.
You assume that religions stand the test of time due to an influence by God. Perhaps you're right. But I contend that religion endures because humans are very tenacious creatures who will protect their belief in sacredness to the bitter end.
Not everyone will necessarily agree with the religious. Like I said, some people are just not wired to think that way, I think.
But it is what it is.
That is true, and I just try to understand, not win arguments. I consider that childish and arrogant. Baha’is believe we are all one people, fruits of one tree and leaves of one branch, and God loves us equally. There is no reason to argue but we can share views and learn from each other.
A wise approach, I think.
