Atheists: If God existed would God… (Continued)

[ChristineM]

You've never come across an atheist who is hypocritical?
You've never come across an atheist who loves to talk about religion?

I have never come across an atheist who is hypocritical about religion or god belief. Have you?

Ans what has taking about religion got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Sheldon]

I said: Atheists like to apply logic to God but logic cannot be applied to God. I believe the reason logic cannot be applied to God is as follows: Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic

This isn't true, logic is a human creation, it is simply a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. Anything that does not do this is irrational, by definition.

but the rules of logic do not apply to God.

Well no one can accurately define a deity, or demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, but the claims theists make are of course subject to the principle of logic.

God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

This is a begging the question fallacy, ironically. Your claims don't place your belief beyond the scope logic, but the claim itself is demonstrably irrational.

Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

Another begging the question fallacy, you do this a lot, create arguments for a deity that use endless unevidenced assumptions about that deity.

Why do you think that would make the existence of God logically impossible?

Any concept of a deity that violated any principle of logic would be irrational, if one cares that one what believes is true, one would be unwise to hold irrational beliefs. Like the existence of an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, and a world with ubiquitous suffering.

 

[samtonga43]

Then God is logically impossible and, thus, we can safely say that we know God does not exist, under epistemic logic.

As physicist Neil Bohr said to a student “No, no, you are not thinking; you’re just being logical.”
If we fail to open ourselves to ways of experiencing reality that are beyond logic, all we do is narrow our vision.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are contradictions between each gospel, which leads me to personally believe, this is only my opinion, that the accounts in some cases are incorrect, especially in Luke. Luke is where Christ said this:
24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(King James Bible, Luke)

Also in Luke:
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

This last could be symbolic and not incorrect: A fish in the early church was a symbol of Christ. Just a guess.

Yes, I agree. I think the gospel writers and the book of Acts, where it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive by many proofs, are claiming Jesus was dead and came back to life. But does that mean it's true? Since the gospels were written years later and do contradict each other, I think there is a very good possibility that the resurrection is built on legends and traditions that had spread after the crucifixion. Things like people coming out of their graves and Jesus appearing and disappearing and then floating off into the sky, make it hard to believe literally. Yet, that is what is expected of believers in some Christian sects.

But now... is the explanation that the writers wrote a symbolic story about the symbolic body of Jesus coming back to life? Or, like some Muslims believe, that Jesus didn't die on the cross? One way or another any new religion has to find an explanation or interpretation that does away with the resurrection and that Jesus is the only way... that salvation only comes through faith and belief in him. Which also means getting rid of the idea that Adam and Eve literally fell from grace, got cursed and because of their disobedience sin entered the world. As we all know, that is supposedly why Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, had to die... to pay the penalty for those sins.

Probably most of us that don't believe all of that would just say, "Yeah, it made up. None of it is true." But is it "symbolically" true? And who cares? What's so great about a "symbolic" resurrection? Or that Jesus "symbolically" paid the price of the sins that we all "symbolically" inherited by Adam's fall? For me, the Baha'i Faith would be much more believable if it just said that the older religions were just man's guesses and interpretations about God. Those older religions had useful spiritual truths in them, but the stories are nothing but myth and legend.

But, instead, Jesus has to be dead. Krishna can't be an incarnation, and he didn't teach reincarnation as believed by many Hindus. And Buddha taught about the one true God. The same God of the Abrahamic religions. Why is all that necessary? Why can't those people that wrote the stories that became Scriptures of these older religions just be wrong? And as you've shown the gospel stories do contradict each other.

So, I have no problem believing the stories were myth and legend and were embellished. Then later Christian leaders picked which stories were going to be canonized, and then on top of that... they added things in and misinterpreted the stories. Making their "truth" that Jesus was God, Satan was a fallen archangel, and, if a person doesn't confess their sins and trust in Jesus, they were going to be sent to hell, and, of course, Jesus was coming back.

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh, I totally agree. There is so much hypocrisy around this idea that what the Bible says can be interpreted in a way that makes MrB’s words true. If one can do this, then of course the authors of the many books of the Bible can be seen to REALLY say what MrB says.

It’s just that the Bahai’s have to do an awful lot of jiggery-pokery to get to this point. Cherry-picking and eisegesis are just two examples.

Actually, Fundy Christians display the same narrow mindset, albeit in the opposite direction.. Many of these folk read the 66 books of the Bible and fail to understand that they contain different types and styles of writing. For example:

Laws and Rules
Historical narrative
Historical dramaPoetry & Songs
Prophecy
Wisdom Sayings & Proverbs
Gospels
Letters

I was first taught about the Bible by Fundy Christians. It sounded so right and true. But I had been taught about the Baha'i Faith first. So, one week I was arguing with my Christian friends about how the Baha'i interpretation is correct. Then the next week, I was telling the Baha'is the "Truth"... that Jesus died for ours sins and is the only way. Then a year later is when I asked Jews, "The Baha'is and the Christians say they came from you... But you don't believe them and stay with your beliefs. Why?" And they told me. And from each of the different pov's and interpretations, I could see why people in each believe theirs to be true. So, is taking any of them too seriously and too literally a mistake? And missing the point?

 

[CG Didymus]

I am glad you agree with me after all rhe crap.

And isn't that what's happening here? Religious people believing their "crap" is the absolute truth? And atheists asking, "How do you know that? It seems like something stinks?"

 

[CG Didymus]

A box called "the actual world" that leaves out what isn't true, yes. That's the whole point.

And that's not just snark, "actual world" is the technical term in modal logic.

And why did some people have to strip away things that couldn't be proven? It's not like there was just one religion and one concept of God. And people in some religions don't have a problem calling the Gods of other religions false. But why is their unprovable God real and those others not?

 

[ChristineM]

And isn't that what's happening here? Religious people believing their "crap" is the absolute truth? And atheists asking, "How do you know that? It seems like something stinks?"

Truth is a funny word. I understand the definition of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" to be meaningful to me, its how I've always considered truth.

There is however another definition "a fact or belief that is accepted as true.". I have no problem accepting a fact as truth, where things fall down is the word "belief". Some people believe some very strange things and accept them as true.

 

[ChristineM]

And why did some people have to strip away things that couldn't be proven? It's not like there was just one religion and one concept of God. And people in some religions don't have a problem calling the Gods of other religions false. But why is their unprovable God real and those others not?

There have been approximately 4200 gods worshiped through time (excluding Hindu gods). A monotheist does not believe in 4199 of them making them roughly 99.9995% atheist

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course it's not rational, because it is a straw man fallacy you have created, no atheist BY DEFINITION blames any deity for anything. As others have tried to explain, you are misunderstanding a rational extrapolation by atheists of the consequences of certain theistic beliefs, as if atheists themselves believe the result, when they quite obviously don't.

Yeah, the Baha'i claim is that God is all-loving and all-knowing and all those other goody, goody things. Then if asked, "If God is real, why all the pain and suffering? Why all the natural disasters and disease? It's almost like there is no God. But for sure, not an all-loving one." And then Baha'is have to explain why their God allows the world to be like it is. Do any of their explanations make sense?

Maybe freewill? He gave people freewill to make stupid choices that cause pain and suffering for themselves and others. Then God gave freewill to the animals and once in a while they go kill a human. Then God gave freewill to the weather and the weather goes crazy sometimes and kills a bunch of people. Then God gave free will to asteroids and meteors and sometimes they decide to crash into the Earth. And God knew all this? But the best way to achieve his ultimate goal of bringing people together in peace and harmony, was to allow all these things just to do whatever they felt like doing? But, of course, God didn't "cause" all this bad stuff to happen. He just knew it and allowed it.

Dumb explanation. To me, it seems like God made everything in a way that they would do exactly what they do... Which is exactly what he wanted them to do. But that's assuming there is such a creator God. But, seeing how the world and the universe are, why assume that?

 

[CG Didymus]

Truth is a funny word. I understand the definition of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" to be meaningful to me, its how I've always considered truth.

There is however another definition "a fact or belief that is accepted as true.". I have no problem accepting a fact as truth, where things fall down is the word "belief". Some people believe some very strange things and accept them as true.

And how many times have you heard a religious person use that word, "Truth"? Again, to pick on the Fundy Christians, they are taught to believe the Bible is the Truth. What can they do but believe that about 6000 years ago, God created the universe? That about 4000 years ago, God flooded the whole Earth.

But now we are dealing with the Baha'i Faith. They have a different "Truth". Their God is different than some of the other Gods of some of the other religions. Yet, Baha'is say all religions came from the one true God... the one they believe in. That God sent "manifestations" to teach us the truth about God and to give us rules and laws that we need to live by. And now, God has sent the most important manifestation to date, Baha'u'llah. What he says is "The Truth". They believe.

 

[ChristineM]

And how many times have you heard a religious person use that word, "Truth"? Again, to pick on the Fundy Christians, they are taught to believe the Bible is the Truth. What can they do but believe that about 6000 years ago, God created the universe? That about 4000 years ago, God flooded the whole Earth.

But now we are dealing with the Baha'i Faith. They have a different "Truth". Their God is different than some of the other Gods of some of the other religions. Yet, Baha'is say all religions came from the one true God... the one they believe in. That God sent "manifestations" to teach us the truth about God and to give us rules and laws that we need to live by. And now, God has sent the most important manifestation to date, Baha'u'llah. What he says is "The Truth". They believe.

They can believe whatever they want. It makes no difference to fact or reality

 

[CG Didymus]

There have been approximately 4200 gods worshiped through time (excluding Hindu gods). A monotheist does not believe in 4199 of them making them roughly 99.9995% atheist

Well, Baha'is like to call a lot of religious stories "symbolic". What is "God" is symbolic? Is God just a way to explain how the universe came to be until we learn more? That's what I like about atheists. They are open to non-God explanations for the world we see around us. What's wrong with that?

 

[CG Didymus]

They can believe whatever they want. It makes no difference to fact or reality

That is what we're doing here. Fact checking the Baha'i Faith. How is it holding up?

 

[ChristineM]

That is what we're doing here. Fact checking the Baha'i Faith. How is it holding up?

For me it never held up in the first place.

 

[Truthseeker]

A box called "the actual world" that leaves out what isn't true, yes. That's the whole point.

And that's not just snark, "actual world" is the technical term in modal logic.

It seems that some atheists think of a god like Odin when we say God. I don't know if that's true of you, but that is common. God is not limited by anything, in my understanding. If that seems irrational to you, I can accept that.

 

[Truthseeker]

But, instead, Jesus has to be dead.

His spirit isn't dead. But I get your point. Since we believe in Baha'u'llah, and the interpreters of Baha'u'llah, and the message is that certain People in the past also taught true messages, we have to believe that to be Baha'is. I don't want to cherry pick, I try to be as scrupulous as possible, taking all of it into account, but in the end I believe in Baha'u'llah for reasons that are beyond the scope of a post.

Krishna can't be an incarnation, and he didn't teach reincarnation as believed by many Hindus.

Well, that is all easy for a Baha'i to dismiss since Krishna for many secular scholars didn't even exist. the only reason I believe that Krishna even existed is on faith.

And Buddha taught about the one true God.

He didn't want to get into theology in India. That had been abased long enough. He just wanted to help people deal with suffering and use that as a platform.

Unborn and Unoriginated: Buddhism and the Creator

Several scholars and historians believe that the Buddha, recognizing Vedic Hindu society’s super abundance of gods, decided that any further discussion of God could only lead to dogmatic distraction. They conclude that the Buddha’s elegant solution simply involved talking about the reality of the human condition, the best way to live to avoid suffering, and how to move toward a spiritual state of nirvana.

Because of those teachings and the practical way the Buddha transmitted them to his followers, many still make the mistake of thinking that the Buddha did not believe in God. The Buddha, however, clearly proclaimed in Udana 8:3 of the Khuddaka Nikaya:

There is an Unborn, an Unoriginated, an Unmade, an Uncompounded; were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the made, and the compounded.

That fits well with a Baha'i description of God. Buddhists will interpret that in a different way, of course. That doesn't matter to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

But I get your point.

Just to make sure... My point is, other than the Baha'i writings and maybe the Quran, we don't know how authentic any of the other Scriptures are. So, to say that all the religions are one, doesn't mean much. The religions we have today are based on what those religions decided was going to be their Scriptures. And they decided what the interpretation of those Scriptures should be... until another sect came along with a competing interpretation. So, it's not possible to show that all religions ever were consistent enough in their beliefs to ever be thought of as being from the one God and revealed by manifestations of that one God.

Other than "progressive" revelation, why do Baha'i even need a connection to most all of those other religions? After all, there's so many religions that Baha'is don't want any part of and just write off as man-made. But how many sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and probably all the other major religions have sects that are just as false sounding or maybe even more false sounding than those religions that get rejected? And I really don't think there is any sect of any of the other religions today that fits in with Baha'i beliefs.... except very liberal forms of those religions.

But like with Christianity, according to Baha'i beliefs, the Catholics and lots of the Protestants that believe in the Trinity are believing in a false God. Is that God any more or less false than the Gods of the Egyptian or Greek religions? Yet Baha'is aren't trying to the Egyptian and Greek religions fit into the progression. But you could. Baha'is could still say that some of the things were symbolic and that the religious leaders misinterpreted the Scriptures and added in their own traditions.

But I know you can't. Baha'is have to accept all the major religions, because the belief in progressive revelation. I just think it causes nothing but problems for the Baha'is. Because how you going to prove it's true?

 

[rational experiences]

Human family were forced to try to defend human rights by a condition.

It became the religious sciences as o logy and o pophy.

Medical treatment of our consciousness was of utmost importance.

Brain entrainment as quantified medically. Known loss of self presence in self image heavens change real.

As proven by alien imagery. Ours gone.

Since that established legal position the human brain has been attacked since by star fall heavens change.

So predictive warnings said the human future around 2012 would bring to mind new teachings. And it has.

Which is the approach. Next step beyond historic reasoning human meaning and self purpose.

God was that basic teaching to reverence family and life on earth under terms of defiance constants. Gods presence taught the teacher all highest greatest positions in natural presence by laws. Cosmic.

Today Nasty minded humans just want to attack the need of maintaining humans best behaviour. Proven very successful by fact. Religious practices.

Some of course controlled by cult conditioning vary.

Today you're not as nasty a human mind as what you were during the dark ages. Named as it was real.

To allow humanity to be successful is by gradual change and to allow family to emerge into their greatest truth.

Father mother came direct out of the eternal spirit. Hence we are all holy mutual equal. As human family status mutual equal first.

And it's difficult to accept that teaching when so many human minds are still cruel.

So we taught that some humans had been chosen. To compensate those still harmed. To understand that those humans DNA cause has not yet been removed by the act humans sin sex.

Was the healers teaching. Just because you are chosen are you more harmed or better than? By the term chosen. Status chosen by the self.

You chose what you wanted to believe. Which depicted your own current spiritual wisdom.

I didn't believe in either. I only wanted my family to be returned.

Therefore you don't attack what has been successful. You nurture it into its greatest truth. We are all holy mutual special to our parents.

Therefore allow that truth to become your new being.

 

[Nakosis]

The reason I believe this is what God would do is because there is evidence that God did do it.

The difference is that there is no evidence for what some atheists believe God would do.

Ok but there are dozens of people about claiming they speak for God. Is a person claiming to speak for God evidence of God?