Atheists: If God existed would God……

[lukethethird]

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions to say that ALL religions are primitive and tribal just because SOME religions are primitive and tribal.

They are all primitive and tribal, and all you have to do is provide a religion that is not primitive and tribal to prove me wrong, good luck with that.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are all primitive and tribal, and all you have to do is provide a religion that is not primitive and tribal to prove me wrong, good luck with that.

The Baháʼí Faith - Home

 

[lukethethird]

The Baháʼí Faith - Home

The Baha i faith and its messenger from God couln't be more primitive and tribal.

 

[CG Didymus]

But other theists do. I agree with you, by the way. But I also would say the same about any other religious texts.

Laughing at the Scriptures of another religion? Here's some Baha'i quotes about the Bible...

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.

When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.

In studying the Bible Bahá’ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
​

So, we can't really trust the Bible is the message of the Baha'i Faith. Yet, they quote verses all the time. Of course, those verses that support the Baha'i Faith are true and accurate. Like the Church Lady said, "Isn't that special."

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha i faith and its messanger from God couln't be more primitive and tribal.

Explain why.

 

[F1fan]

Then you may as well quit asking, because you clearly are not capable of understanding the answer.

This is evasive. You claims the rock represented something real, and then that what was real is mysteries. None of this is coherent. And then you accuse me of not being capable of understanding.

What am I not understanding, you aren't even willing to offer coherent explanations about what you mean?

Is it fair to say that you are confused about what you believe and you pretend to have some sort of understanding here in these discussions?

 

[CG Didymus]

You missed the point. Please reread.

You can't just tell me what your point was? There are so many things going on in this thread and so many pages of posts. Don't make me go back.

 

[F1fan]

You clearly have no idea what theism even is. You don't really even understand religion. And you never will as long as you keep nursing that idiotic bias.

Do you think you understand theism? I'm asking questions that you refuse to answer, so perhaps none of us know what theism is?

 

[CG Didymus]

You missed the point too. Is this what happens when you reject the wisdom from above? Yup. Mental blindness blocks clear understanding.
I'm sure @Trailblazer understood clearly.

Again, do you believe that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ? Unless you're a very liberal Christian, the Baha'i Faith doesn't see things the way you do. Assuming that either Christianity or the Baha'i Faith is true, then one of you is very blind to the truth about God.

 

[lukethethird]

Explain why.

Belief in prescribed sets of faith based beliefs is primitive and tribal, your religion is no different than any other.

 

[ppp]

Here on the forum, they have a problem. They're not supposed to proselytize. So, they have to be creative on how to teach the word without sounding like they are preaching. But I don't think they are fooling anybody. They believe they are right and everybody else is wrong and needs to be "educated" as to what is the truth...

Ahhhh. I was not catching the coded language. But in retrospect it is plain as day. I was assuming that there were simply several bad actors representing the religion. But what you say better fits the pattern. I should have recognized it from 7 or 8 times when I was in my twenties that I was invited to a party that turned out to be a stealth proselytizing gathering where people would mingle and "casually" ask me questions about my view on a subject in order to obligate me to listen to their scripted pitch. It is such a sleazy practice

If one is going to try to sway someone to their point of view, be candid. One should be upfront and clear about ones goal Be sure that they have easy avenues of escape. Talk to them when they are well-fed, well-rested, in good health, under no serious psychological distress, and in no way dependent or obligated to you. If one's position has any value, then there is no need to use guile, or to wait until one's interlocutor is vulnerable.

I know that you know this, @CG Didymus. I wish more did.

 

[CG Didymus]

No. I'm sure there is a reason you asked.
Is this where the argument about different beliefs comes in?
In which field of study do all 'scholars' agree? I know of none.
Yet, no one says, "Because there is disagreement, that renders the study false". True?

Yeah, if he is who he says he is, he is the return of Christ. Do you think he is?

 

[Yerda]

I did not say that shows God's love, I said that God created us out of His love for us. What happened after that is another matter.

So what would constitute love for you? What would a loving God do?

Not ignore "His children".

Why are you waiting for the proof? Why not go looking for it?

Nah, I'm good. If there's a God and He wants me to find Him I'm sure it'll happen. For now I'm just going to run with the assumption that there isn't.

 

[F1fan]

Why do atheists have to insult believers all the time? Do you see believers insulting atheists? No, we are constantly defending ourselves from their insults.

Then you may as well quit asking, because you clearly are not capable of understanding the answer. -PureX, post 1568​

PureX refused to answer my question and accused me of not being capable of understanding. That that is an insult of me to invalidate me, and excuse not answering. I asked a series of hard questions.

Well clearly... You are wrong. So you have run off track, once again, because you "know so much".

People who think they know everything, are not willing to accept that they may be wrong, or that they make mistakes.

That's the sad reality of pride... and then the next best thing you do, is start making false accusations of the person's character - personal attacks.

I won't report you though. I let people of your type carry on thinking they are right... and continue looking down their nose. -nPeace, post 1572​

People of your type? Tailgate Monster didn't make any personal attack or insult, but asked some hard questions. We see defensive behavior when believers feel pressured to answer hard questions, and the natural emotional response is to attack. This is the fight or flight response mechanism.

 

[ppp]

They are all primitive and tribal, and all you have to do is provide a religion that is not primitive and tribal to prove me wrong, good luck with that.

Depending on how you define primitive and tribal, I would say that Unitarian Universalists are neither. Also, some forms of Quakers. There is a huge tradition of Wiccan solitary practitioners who may be primitive, are by no means tribal. I would agree with you that the structure of Baha'i is primitive, but like Christianity as Islam (but not Judaism or Sikh) I would consider it to be more of an assimilator than tribal.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ahhhh. I was not catching the coded language. But in retrospect it is plain as day. I was assuming that there were simply several bad actors representing the religion. But what you say better fits the pattern. I should have recognized it from 7 or 8 times when I was in my twenties that I was invited to a party that turned out to be a stealth proselytizing gathering where people would mingle and "casually" ask me questions about my view on a subject in order to obligate me to listen to their scripted pitch. It is such a sleazy practice

If one is going to try to sway someone to their point of view, be candid. One should be upfront and clear about ones goal Be sure that they have easy avenues of escape. Talk to them when they are well-fed, well-rested, in good health, under no serious psychological distress, and in no way dependent or obligated to you. If one's position has any value, then there is no need to use guile, or to wait until one's interlocutor is vulnerable.

I know that you know this, @CG Didymus. I wish more did.

I liked being showed with love. Baha'is have what they call "fireside". They're informal get-togethers where Baha'is bring "seekers" to learn about the Baha'i Faith. They treat you like you're the most important person in the world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your depiction of theists is insulting, and denigrating. And your reasoning is then based on it as if it were fact. If you were black, and having a conversation with someone about race that was continually talking about how blacks are lazy and stupid and criminally inclined because they are black, how would you react?

And the amazing thing is that you really don't see the comparison, here, at all. And not only that, when I bring it up, you will fight to deny it and act all butt-hurt about it. And then you'll call yourself a HUMANIST! When clearly you see yourself as being far superior to the many BILLIONS of weak-minded, irrational, fantasy-addicted theists on the planet, that you disdain.

I'm butthurt? I think you're projecting.

Sorry that you found my description of the effect I see theism having insulting and denigrating, but it's an opinion carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. Your reactions are yours to own.

I disagreed with you that theism is good for people by indicating how it hold them back from self-actualization. I made what I thought was a good counterargument, why they would be better off without it, and you called that denigrating them. And too bad you didn't want to rebut that if you thought that the argument wasn't valid. If you had had more interest in the matter apart from making a claim and then switching to everything you don't like about me rather than the answer I gave you in rebuttal, perhaps you might have explained why you disagree. At this point, your reason seems to be that you don't have a rebuttal. You can't explain why you think people are better off benefitting from religion than those who have matured without it, because there is no such argument. Needing a god belief to cope is not a benefit.

You and I have been down this road before, and the result was the same. I explained to you that you sounded like a guy with poor vision who just discovered glasses, and wants to sing their praises. I said that it is not an advantage to need glasses. It is better if one can see without them. Of course, you never responded to that, either. You never said, "you have a point," or, "no you are wrong because the guy who needs glasses has advantage [x]." So naturally, I assumed that you couldn't make such an argument. Now, I'm surprised now that you didn't depict that in terms of racism and denigration as well, or call my opinion of people needing glasses disdain for them. Or maybe you recognized in that instance that it was not that, but not in this one, because you don't see being dependent on glasses and gods less desirable than independence from them. Who knows? You flew off the handle.

 

[CG Didymus]

Depending on how you define primitive and tribal, I would say that Unitarian Universalists are neither. Also, some forms of Quakers. There is a huge tradition of Wiccan solitary practitioners who may be primitive, are by no means tribal. I would agree with you that the structure of Baha'i is primitive, but like Christianity as Islam (but not Judaism or Sikh) I would consider it to be more of an assimilator than tribal.

Yeah, the Baha'i "tribe" is all people. They have a slogan, "The Earth is but on country and mankind its citizens." There's a lot to like about the Baha'i Faith. They have people of all races and religions that have come together as Baha'is. I just don't believe everything they say. And I certainly wouldn't want them or any other religion to have enough power to force their rules and laws and moral codes on everybody.

 

[lukethethird]

Depending on how you define primitive and tribal, I would say that Unitarian Universalists are neither. Also, some forms of Quakers. There is a huge tradition of Wiccan solitary practitioners who may be primitive, are by no means tribal. I would agree with you that the structure of Baha'i is primitive, but like Christianity as Islam (but not Judaism or Sikh) I would consider it to be more of an assimilator than tribal.

Prescribed sets of belief, loyalty to a group, shared values, defines tribalism. Over the top religions offer promises of truth, world peace, and an afterlife.

 

[nPeace]

You can't just tell me what your point was? There are so many things going on in this thread and so many pages of posts. Don't make me go back.

No problem.
I used a comparison - pollution, to help you see that just as pollution is not created by any god, but rather, is caused. Disease does not have to be created by any god, but rather, is caused.
It's the effect of a cause. The cause does not have to be God. In fact, common sense reasoning will help us to see that it can't be God... and it's not.
We just have to look at the creation, to see that.
That's it in a nutshell. Let me know if you need a more thorough explanation.

Thanks for being humble enough, to ask. That's a good attitude to have.