Default position

[Trailblazer]

IMHO, it is great fun for atheists to show the mirror to theists. With the amount of information that we provide, we have a hope that at least we will be able to remove ignorance from some theist minds.

With the amount of information that we theists provide, we have a hope that at least we will be able to remove ignorance from some atheist minds.

 

[Ella S.]

In humans: rationality is a path to a goal, not a pure fountain of truth. Goals and desires direct our reasoning and what we cannot perceive. Any defense of rational thinking must acknowledge this flaw in humanity, or it is not rational. Minds are small not large, and to think otherwise is a mistake.

This is only if you narrowly define rationality in terms of what's called "instrumental rationality," which is studied by fields such as game theory and decision theory, but that's only one facet of rationality.

There's also value rationality, which can provide goals, and this is the subject of moral rationalism. So rationality itself can direct our reasoning.

There's also rational inference, the root of formal logic, which is a discipline that is chiefly concerned with arriving at true statements. In that sense, rationality is the purest fountain of truth that we have.

Also, minds contain everything we perceive and comprehend, so we can never experience anything larger than them. Everything contained within the mind, including concepts like gravity or galaxies, are necessarily smaller in order to fit inside. Don't underestimate the power of the mind. It's our most potent tool.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With the amount of information that we theists provide, we have a hope that at least we will be able to remove ignorance from some atheist minds.

From what you term as scriptures written by uneducated people, from 2nd Century or older, from 7th Century and two from 19th Century (Bahai and Ahmadiyya)! The world has changed much from those times. IMHO, these old books are of no use now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is only if you narrowly define rationality in terms of what's called "instrumental rationality," which is studied by fields such as game theory and decision theory, but that's only one facet of rationality.

There's also value rationality, which can provide goals, and this is the subject of moral rationalism. So rationality itself can direct our reasoning.

There's also rational inference, the root of formal logic, which is a discipline that is chiefly concerned with arriving at true statements. In that sense, rationality is the purest fountain of truth that we have.

Also, minds contain everything we perceive and comprehend, so we can never experience anything larger than them. Everything contained within the mind, including concepts like gravity or galaxies, are necessarily smaller in order to fit inside. Don't underestimate the power of the mind. It's our most potent tool.

I admit to all you have said. Formal logic is valuable, although it can be used deceptively. We can lie using Statistics while using formal logic to do it, even deceiving ourselves. Moral rationalism aims to collect agreement about morality, yet in this it fails to aggregate all opinion together. Laws are always too little or too much.

 

[Ella S.]

I admit to all you have said. Formal logic is valuable, although it can be used deceptively. We can lie using Statistics while using formal logic to do it, even deceiving ourselves. Moral rationalism aims to collect agreement about morality, yet in this it fails to aggregate all opinion together. Laws are always too little or too much.

I agree with you on the topic of statistics. I was thinking more along the lines of classical deduction, like in mathematical proofs, as the "purest fountain of truth," due to its certainty. I should have specified.

You're right that moral rationalism has failed to aggregate all opinion together, even between moral rationalists. I think I could go further and say that many people openly pursue goals that are not derived from moral rationalism, too. These are useful restrictions on the statement I made..

 

[Trailblazer]

From what you term as scriptures written by uneducated people, from 2nd Century or older, from 7th Century and two from 19th Century (Bahai and Ahmadiyya)! The world has changed much from those times. IMHO, these old books are of no use now.

Bahá’u’lláh led a princely life as a young man, receiving an education that focused largely on calligraphy, horsemanship, classic poetry, and swordsmanship.
The childhood of Bahá’u’lláh - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

According to the custom of that time, as the son of an influential government official, Bahá’u’lláh did not receive a formal education. Yet by the time He was fourteen, he became known for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to him. In large gatherings he would explain intricate religious questions to the ulama (the leading religious figures in Islam), and they listened with great interest.
Bahá’u’lláh as a youth - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bahá’u’lláh led a princely life as a young man, receiving an education that focused largely on calligraphy, horsemanship, classic poetry, and swordsmanship.

Alas! There were many other things to learn.

 

[Trailblazer]

Alas! There were many other things to learn.

Baha'u'llah did not need to 'learn' anything because He learned what the All-Knowing God had taught Him, which is all knowledge.
However, Baha'u'llah did not reveal everything He knew since people were not ready to hear and understand it.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded. ​

​

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.​

​

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176​

In His day, Jesus said the same thing as Baha'u'llah. Jesus said He had many things to say, but the people could not bear them back then.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.​

Baha'u'llah, who was the Spirit of truth, taught the 'many things' that Jesus said people could not bear 2000 years ago. In the future, another Messenger of God will reveal the 'many things' that Baha'u'llah had held back.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah did not need to 'learn' anything ..

Yeah, Bahaollah did not need to learn anything other than Bible and Quran, and the rest he made up on his own. That was enough for him to impress a few uneducated Shiite Muslim Iranians waiting for the reappearance of the Imam.

 

[Trailblazer]

This really doesn't explain how radically different the various faiths are that arose from the supposed messengers.

Why wouldn't the various religions be different? In other words, why would you expect them to be the same? Why would a Messenger of God come and reveal a new religion that was a carbon copy of the other religions? What would be the purpose for doing that?

In the following passage, the Law of God refers to the divinely revealed religion of God. The spiritual message (spiritual virtues and divine qualities) are the same in all the great world religions:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......​

​

These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.​

​

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”​

Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48​

In addition to these two parts of the Religion of God, we have the primary mission of each Messenger, which is correlated to His message. THis message changes from age to age; and it is progressive, each mission building upon the previous one. Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man as an individual, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time. That is called Progressive Revelation.

For example Christians thinking that Jesus was God incarnate, not a prophet or messenger, and that he was literally raised from the dead. And this seems reflected in relatively early writings. This is a direct contradiction with other faiths. So why? Were the messengers incompetent or was it God? Of course this is all simply explained by no God and no messengers of God.

This is easily explained. Christianity is contradicted by other faiths since Christian beliefs are based upon a misinterpretation of the Bible. These misinterpretations became Christian doctrines and are far from what Jesus taught. As such, it is the religious leaders who created these doctrines who were incompetent, not the Messengers and not God. The spiritual teachings of Jesus are fully consistent with the spiritual teachings of other great world faiths, including the Baha'i Faith.

Just how many times do I have to say that I'm not looking for proof. The problem is that there is no evidence. None, zero, zilch...

Nothing that you recognize as evidence.

Exactly. There are no such facts or information.

There certainly is an available body of facts and information that indicates that the Baha'i Faith is true, but since you interpret those facts and information differently than I do you come to a different conclusion.

Singularly unimpressive. The original quote is vague and then somebody far closer to the actual events read the situation and related it to the vague original.

I have no idea what you mean.

And yet you can't produce any that isn't worthless circular reasoning.

I have produced the evidence over and over and over again, and it is not circular.

So back to God being an idiot, a bad communicator, a player of silly games, or non-existent.

I guess you did not understand what I presented or else you understood it and blew it off. Ask me if I am surprised.
If God does not function the way you want Him to you call God an idiot, a bad communicator, a player of silly games, or non-existent.
You talk about logic, but you cannot see how illogical that is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, Bahaollah did not need to learn anything other than Bible and Quran, and the rest he made up on his own. That was enough for him to impress a few uneducated Shiite Muslim Iranians waiting for the reappearance of the Imam.

Baha'u'llah did not need to learn the Bible or the Qur'an because He already knew what was contained in them.
Baha'u'llah did not make anything up, He revealed what God told Him.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah did not need to learn the Bible or the Qur'an because He already knew what was contained in them.
Baha'u'llah did not make anything up, He revealed what God told Him.

Did he know or learn anything about religion before the "heavenly maiden" appeared to him?
Bahaollah was 35 year old when the "heavenly maiden" appeared to him.
Do you mean that till that age he was a dumb-head? Not knowing about religion and not knowing any other thing else too?

 

[Trailblazer]

Did he know or learn anything about religion before the "heavenly maiden" appeared to him?
Bahaollah was 35 year old when the "heavenly maiden" appeared to him.
Do you mean that till that age he was a dumb-head? Not knowing about religion and not knowing any other thing else too?

Baha'u'llah had innate knowledge so He knew things as a child even with no religious education.

Bahá’u’lláh led a princely life as a young man, receiving an education that focused largely on calligraphy, horsemanship, classic poetry, and swordsmanship.​

The childhood of Bahá’u’lláh - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh​

He had this innate knowledge long before He got His revelation from God in the Black Pit prison at age 35.

According to the custom of that time, as the son of an influential government official, Bahá’u’lláh did not receive a formal education. Yet by the time He was fourteen, he became known for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to him. In large gatherings he would explain intricate religious questions to the ulama (the leading religious figures in Islam), and they listened with great interest.​

Bahá’u’lláh as a youth - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh​

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

A "default" is something to fall back on.

Presented with evidence of a god, one might fall back on a time when one lacked any information about that god.

However, "atheism" is literally disbelief in god or gods.

That implies that one has been presented with information about god or gods.

In that case, there is no "falling back" on that idyllic time. It's too late. You've already been presented with information about "a god or gods," and chose to disbelieve it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why wouldn't the various religions be different? In other words, why would you expect them to be the same? Why would a Messenger of God come and reveal a new religion that was a carbon copy of the other religions? What would be the purpose for doing that?

There is a difference between a different message and flat out contradiction.

This is easily explained. Christianity is contradicted by other faiths since Christian beliefs are based upon a misinterpretation of the Bible.

More bumbling incompetence, then. Jesus failed as a messenger.

As such, it is the religious leaders who created these doctrines who were incompetent, not the Messengers and not God.

If somebody comes to deliver a message and the people who receive get a different message than was intended, that's a communication problem. One would expect a tri-omni God to do much better.

There certainly is an available body of facts and information that indicates that the Baha'i Faith is true, but since you interpret those facts and information differently than I do you come to a different conclusion.

But you haven't been able to point to even one, single, solitary fact that indicates, in any sort of objective way, that Baha'i beliefs are true. It's all been circular (worthless).

I have produced the evidence over and over and over again, and it is not circular.

Where? I keep asking and everything you've given fails as any sort of objective test. In fact you keep telling me that I can't get the sort of evidence I'm looking for. I'm only using the normal standard of evidence used in science or law. You have provided nothing that even meets the most basic level in law (on the balance of probabilities).

If God does not function the way you want Him to you call God an idiot, a bad communicator, a player of silly games, or non-existent.
You talk about logic, but you cannot see how illogical that is.

If a God exists, I am just using the intellect that it gave me to make an assessment. Your 'logic' is again circular. If we start by assuming that a God exists and isn't an idiot, a bad communicator, or a player of silly games, then it follows that what I said was illogical. But that's just another worthless circular argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is a difference between a different message and flat out contradiction.

There are no contradictions between what the Messengers of God revealed.
The 'apparent' contradictions are owing to what the followers of the religions did to distort the original messages.

More bumbling incompetence, then. Jesus failed as a messenger.

Why would the Christian misinterpretation of the Bible mean that Jesus failed as a Messenger?
The incompetence is on the part of the Christians, Jesus had nothing to do with it. Jesus was long gone by the time the Bible was written and canonized.

If somebody comes to deliver a message and the people who receive get a different message than was intended, that's a communication problem. One would expect a tri-omni God to do much better.

That is not what happened. The intended message was delivered but after it was delivered it was misinterpreted by the recipients. Then later the original message became completely corrupted by the religious leaders. This was all human error, it had nothing to do with God or the Messenger.

Baha'u'llah explained exactly what happened to the older religions and where they stand now.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

But you haven't been able to point to even one, single, solitary fact that indicates, in any sort of objective way, that Baha'i beliefs are true. It's all been circular (worthless).

The available body of facts and information do not indicate *to you* that the Baha'i Faith is true because of how you interpret the facts and information. The facts are objective but the interpretation of the facts, i.e., deciding whether or not they indicate that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, is subjective. That means not everyone will view the facts and information the same way.

Where? I keep asking and everything you've given fails as any sort of objective test. In fact you keep telling me that I can't get the sort of evidence I'm looking for. I'm only using the normal standard of evidence used in science or law. You have provided nothing that even meets the most basic level in law (on the balance of probabilities).

There is no objective test. There is only only evidence, but how you interpret that evidence is going to be subjective.
The standards of evidence for a Messenger of God are not the same standards of evidence used in science and law for obvious logical reasons.

If a God exists, I am just using the intellect that it gave me to make an assessment. Your 'logic' is again circular. If we start by assuming that a God exists and isn't an idiot, a bad communicator, or a player of silly games, then it follows that what I said was illogical. But that's just another worthless circular argument.

No, you are not using your God-given intellect. You are obsessed with circular reasoning. You think it means that a Messenger cannot be from God. That is completely illogical.

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning, that is what flies right over the heads of atheists.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia​

​

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

It doesn't matter if it is circular. The only thing that matters is if there is evidence for Baha'u'llah. You are just using circularity as a smokescreen to hide behind.

 

[Ella S.]

A "default" is something to fall back on.

Presented with evidence of a god, one might fall back on a time when one lacked any information about that god.

However, "atheism" is literally disbelief in god or gods.

That implies that one has been presented with information about god or gods.

In that case, there is no "falling back" on that idyllic time. It's too late. You've already been presented with information about "a god or gods," and chose to disbelieve it.

It's interesting to me when religious people say that you can choose your beliefs. I certainly can't choose what I believe. Belief is a consequence of apprehension or misapprehension, not choice.

I can choose to suspend my disbelief in something that I know isn't really true, though, like when playing a role-playing game or immersing myself in a Star Trek episode. When you "choose" to believe something, this is what you're doing. You don't actually believe it; you're just pretending that it's true.

So any time someone says that being an atheist is a choice it often makes me think that person is probably only pretending to believe in God and are actually atheists themselves.

Which makes sense. There is a lot of social pressure to pretend to believe from a young age and I imagine many believers would feel incredibly guilty if they didn't believe in God, so they choose to ignore when their cognitive dissonance slips out like this to continue suspending disbelief in the religion they're emotionally invested in.

It's a terrible argument against atheism but unintentionally reveals a lot about the mentality of those who say it.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are no contradictions between what the Messengers of God revealed.

This seems to be a statement of blind faith.

That is not what happened. The intended message was delivered but after it was delivered it was misinterpreted by the recipients. Then later the original message became completely corrupted by the religious leaders. This was all human error, it had nothing to do with God or the Messenger.

No only do we only have the word of people with a vested interest in this interpretation, but, even if it's true, it's an object lesson in what a mind-numbingly stupid idea it is to use 'messengers' to communicate with fallible humans. Given that creator God would also be responsible for creating humans who are that fallible, the whole thing collapses into nonsense.

The facts are objective but the interpretation of the facts, i.e., deciding whether or not they indicate that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, is subjective.

The only way in which any facts indicate that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of a real God that you've presented, would rely on worthless circular reasoning.

You have presented no objective facts that are consistent with the truth you claim about God and are not at least equally consistent with the non-existence of God, or the truth of any other faith, for that matter.

None.

No evidence at all.

There is no objective test.

Objectivity is everything when it comes to evidence.

The standards of evidence for a Messenger of God are not the same standards of evidence used in science and law for obvious logical reasons.

Not obvious at all (your usual circular reasoning aside).

No, you are not using your God-given intellect. You are obsessed with circular reasoning.

It is entirely rational to dismiss all circular reasoning. It's a fallacy, so cannot be used to support any proposition. This is logic 101.

You think it means that a Messenger cannot be from God.

No, I do not. I think is means that you have provided no reason to accept the proposition that there are messengers from a real God. Do you see the difference?

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning, that is what flies right over the heads of atheists.

You're simply not paying attention. I've never seen an atheist use this 'reasoning' and if I did, I'd tell them they were wrong. A fallacious argument, such as circular reasoning, tells us exactly nothing about the truth of its conclusion. It's just so much hot air. Useless.

If we have nothing but fallacious arguments to go on, then accepting the proposition they are supposed to support would be irrational. In the case of God arguments, this leads to agnostic atheism, that is, we do not accept (believe) any of the proposed Gods or gods, but we do not claim to know that there is no God or gods.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

And if all things that are made of gold were time machines and all toasters were made of gold, then I could use my toaster to travel back through time and check out your story about the messages getting corrupted by people.

But I can't.

Your statement is logically worthless, useless, not worth the electrons used to store it. You might as well say "If God exists, then God exists." No kidding Sherlock!

 

[Audie]

With the amount of information that we theists provide, we have a hope that at least we will be able to remove ignorance from some atheist minds.

Information?
What information?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How can you have a position when you are ignorant of anything regarding the subject?
Seems to me agnostic-ignostic would be closer to a default position.
Or, given our biology and psychology religion might be the default due to internal wiring.