Atheists: If God existed would God……

[muhammad_isa]

Now, if I ever read something that was totally contradictory, that was certainly it!

..depends on what one considers the meaning of life to be.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is it then if not imaginary?

Real.

 

[CG Didymus]

Still hammering away with mostly atheists I see, @Trailblazer. You know this is not good for your spirits. How about finding people with whom you have more common ground? Though maybe your background gives you something in common with them, and you see believers as illogical. Restless Soul is someone you would have more common ground, and there are others.

But Baha'is do have things in common with Atheists. Maybe more things than they would with conservative/fundamentalists believers in the other religions.

 

[CG Didymus]

The more you find common ground, the more you make friends, and can have some influence on their ideas in a positive way, and even if you don't have any effect on their ideas you develop friendship which is helpful to you and them. Are atheists the ones you have the most common ground? It looks like you argue with them a lot, so the common ground doesn't seem to be found very much.

Yes, where is the common ground? I think it is there. But God and messengers of God is not one of them.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bahai prophet is completely confused if he thinks he is speaking for Hinduism or Buddhism? They do not have personal deities who speak to people? In Hinduism people do not have souls. He's trying to say all Hinduism is wrong and his new version of Islam light is now the actual religion. So disrespectful to Eastern religion. The Vedantic philosophy is very deep and covers many aspects of life, and different paths to knowledge.

What is sad is that so many of the people here have so much knowledge and insight to share, but Baha'is would rather argue their beliefs. It's so counterproductive to their claims of being the religion destined to unite all the people of the world and establishing peace and harmony.

 

[CG Didymus]

It would be trivially easy for a god to give everyone evidence of His existence and give clear instructions and knowledge. If God likes to pretend He's not around and stay out of things, than it's analogous to not being there at all. If God likes to be vague, play tricks, be selective with who has privileges, and allow needless suffering caused by these actions, than what does that say about God? He either can't change this or doesn't care to; so He's either evil or incompetent.

Or does not exist.

But other religions make it sound like if you pray and meditate a person will hear from God. And I wouldn't be surprised if most Baha'is feel that God is speaking to them when they pray and meditate. And in some religions people can become "one" with God by doing those things. Or course, since all the religions believe in different Gods, the problem is, who's voice is it that they are hearing?

 

[CG Didymus]

How do you think theism changes people's lives for the better?

Yes, it changes some lives for the better. Makes some lives worse. Makes some people basket-cases trying to live up to the moral laws of some religions. It makes some people go to war in support of their God and beliefs. And considering that one religion thinks some or all of the others are false, it is just an illusion that those people in the wrong religions believe their lives are better.

 

[CG Didymus]

Cancer and disease existed WAY before industrial pollution.
It existed WAY before humans even existed.

So once again, you are wrong.

It's almost like God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that people needed things to fight against to make them stronger. He gave them an immune system to fight all the things trying to get them sick. The stronger ones survived. Almost like God wanted to weed out the weaker ones.

 

[CG Didymus]

So, do we still need, say, Christianity and Islam, today?

Ciao

- viole

The claim of the Baha'i Faith is that they are the fulfillment of all the other religions. Their teachings have replaced the teachings in all the other religions. The prophet has brought the teachings that will, one day, bring about peace and unity. Oh, and not to mention that Baha'is believe all the other religions has gotten off track in some ways.

 

[CG Didymus]

Catch up! Not even Usain Bolt could catch up. I gave up.
Yup. You are definitely one busy girl. Enjoy.

Do you believe Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God?

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently you think that everything can be proven, but if something cannot be proven there can be no burden of proof. That is what I was saying.

And I would disagree. If something cannot be proven, then it will never meet the burden of proof, but that burden is still there and unmet.

I know what the burden of proof is, but nobody has the burden of proof to prove that God exists except people who want to believe in God. It is our own burden and we can prove that God exists to ourselves.

In that case, you cannot expect your beliefs to be taken seriously by others. if you don't care about that, then why enter into such discussions?

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is absolutely false. The evidence is not that they claimed to be Messengers, the evidence is what backs up their claims to be Messengers, as I just explained to @Polymath257.
#1395 Trailblazer, 38 minutes ago

And what, precisely, in these writings, do you find convincing? In particular, what convinces you that these are the writings of a messenger of God?

If you cannot see the difference between Baha'u'llah, Jesus, and Muhammad and all these false prophets such as Marshall Applewhite and David Koresh then you have not really looked at the evidence.

Some seem more popular than others. That seems to be the only real difference.

I doubt you have looked at all the evidence for Baha'u'llah that I just posted to Polymath257.

I just looked at it and found nothing particularly interesting. What is the part that you find the most compelling?

Call it whatever you want to call it, Messengers are the only way anyone ever hears from God.

And yet, all those 'false prophets' also talk extensively about God. Why should I trust them less than the others?

That is your choice because you have free will to choose. Nobody is twisting your arm.

Fair enough. The evidence seems incredibly weak and I see no reason to think it even suggests the claims you are making of it.

 

[Polymath257]

I never said the deity is supported by objective evidence, but that does not mean it is imaginary.

And how can the 'imaginary' be distinguished from the 'not supported by objective evidence'?

They seem to be the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, it changes some lives for the better.

How so? Any examples?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And how can the 'imaginary' be distinguished from the 'not supported by objective evidence'?

They seem to be the same.

I won't be disappointed if you make the same post every other week until the end of time (or for as long as you've got, whichever comes first).

 

[lukethethird]

Real.

In your mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I would disagree. If something cannot be proven, then it will never meet the burden of proof, but that burden is still there and unmet.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It is not on me because I am making no claims. Baha'u'llah made the claims so the burden was on Him. In a court of law the burden of proof only has to be met beyond a reasonable doubt.

In that case, you cannot expect your beliefs to be taken seriously by others. if you don't care about that, then why enter into such discussions?

As I just said above, I have no burden to prove anything to anyone because I am not making any claims. Nobody has the burden of proof to prove to other people that God exists or to prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. ONLY if I was trying to convince you, as a prosecutor is trying to convince a jury, would I have the burden of proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It is not on me because I am making no claims. Baha'u'llah made the claims so the burden was on Him. In a court of law the burden of proof only has to be met beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a court of law, hearsay and spectral evidence are inadmissible.

 

[Polymath257]

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It is not on me because I am making no claims. Baha'u'llah made the claims so the burden was on Him. In a court of law the burden of proof only has to be met beyond a reasonable doubt'.

And even that low standard has not been met. But this is not a court of law. it is much more important.And so it requires a higher standard of evidence.

Baha'u'llah is not the only one making claims. There are also those making claims that what Baha'u'llah said is reliable. There are also those making claims that Baha'u'llah was a messenger from God. And not only Baha'u'llah makes those claims.

As I just said above, I have no burden to proveanything to anyone because I am not making any claims. Nobody has the burden of proof to prove to other people that God exists or to prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. ONLY if I was trying to convince you, as a prosecutor is trying to convince a jury, would I have the burden of proof.

OK, so you are not trying to convince me. So what are you trying to do? Are you trying to convince me that this message deserves a hearing? because even that has not been done. I see a bunch of statements that you say you believe. I see others that you say you know. I see no evidence that either are actually correct. You say the messengers are the evidence, but they seem like very flimsy evidence for a very bold position.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what, precisely, in these writings, do you find convincing? In particular, what convinces you that these are the writings of a messenger of God?

As I think I told you before, it was not the Writings of Baha'u'llah that convinced me of who He was, it was the Baha'i Faith in its entirety -- the primary message and the teachings of the religion. Only much later did I connect the dots and realize that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God.

That reminds me of what I posted last April on a thread about facts within religious beliefs:
How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

Some seem more popular than others. That seems to be the only real difference.

That indicates that you have not really looked at them, what kind of people they were and what they actually taught.

I just looked at it and found nothing particularly interesting. What is the part that you find the most compelling?

I don't see how you could have done any real research in such a short period of time.
What is most compelling to me is the Writings of Baha'u'llah but also the history of the Baha'i Faith. It is also very compelling to me that He fulfilled all the Bible prophecies.

And yet, all those 'false prophets' also talk extensively about God. Why should I trust them less than the others?

I think you would have to know something about these men in order to know why their claims are false. I wrote up a list of minimum criteria a true Messenger of God would have to meet and these men do not meet those criteria. Do you want to see the list?

Fair enough. The evidence seems incredibly weak and I see no reason to think it even suggests the claims you are making of it.

I think you would have to dig a whole lot deeper in order to know that. Many religious people studied the Baha'i Faith for years before converting from their religion to the Baha'i Faith and you have a bigger hurdle to cross since you do not even believe that God exists.

There are atheists who have become Baha'is though, a couple of them are on this forum. I would not say that I was an atheist before I became a Baha'i, all I can remember is that I never thought about God and I had no belief in God.