Default position

[Exaltist Ethan]

Well he established a religion. That's nothing too major.

You really think that? I spent year after year crafting Exaltism and I ended up with no followers (including myself), and ended up with just what became a bunch of outdated theology and websites I had no use for anymore. In fact, I don't even say that I was creating a NRM or religion, I was creating a cult, because of how new and small of a concept I thought it originally was. Not only did Baha'u'llah create a religion, he created one with over five million followers, making it a small but effective world religion. Being a Baha'i isn't exactly like other religions either. Obligatory prayers, 19-day fast, dozens of scriptural books accounting for the divine, and the ecumenical nature of the religion makes it not only work with other religions, but Baha'is, Trailblazer included, quote scripture from the Christian Bible.

Calling yourself a Baha'i is easy, being a Baha'i is hard, and being Baha'u'llah was only a task that he could do, especially after the protestant and scientific awakenings in Europe and North America back then, when it seemed to most people, that you can only either be a Christian or an atheist, something he effectively proved them wrong about. In all reality, the only person who can pull off a feat like that is someone who had the intelligence and charisma of a prophet, a messenger, to lead civilization to its next phase: world unity. Please, do not underestimate how important Baha'u'llah really was. I honestly don't believe but to reach over five million followers in just about every country in the world is no minor accomplishment.

By this standard here, I'd say that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great had way more significant accomplishments that effect us more to this day that the Bahai faith ever will. So are they gods? They certainly claimed to be. I intend on worshipping them one day.

They were certainly people who changed and shaped the world to make it more suitable for their ideas. But Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great have no contemporary religion, virtually nobody prays, worships or otherwise venerates either because of their faults. Feel free to worship whomever you desire, but the way I understand God is that divinity should have no focal point like so many people make it out to be. Billions of Christians make Jesus the focal point, Trailblazer makes Baha'u'llah her focal point, but when you widen the lens and start to realize that even ordinary people are unique, interesting and even extraordinary when it comes to the complexity and diversity in their lives, you start to understand that the divine needs no focal point and we need to treat others the way Christians treat Jesus, the way Baha'is treat Baha'u'llah, and so on.

The focal point of our divine nature rests in our ability to develop and create human extropy, something unparalleled so far from any other species on Earth, or even the planets we have discovered so far. Humans and the way they are, especially in the modern sense, needs that itself to be recognized and cherished more than anything else for what it is. I hope you understand this.

 

[SDavis]

Calling something a unicorn doesn't make it one. In the same way, a Komodo dragon is not categorized as a dragon

If you had read the very first line in the link, it says this:
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.

I know what it says I posted it.
Unicorns walk the earth like it or not and it the Siberian unicorn looked more like a horse with a horn than it does the modern day rhinoceros.

Rhinoceros (genus) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Calling something a unicorn doesn't make it one. In the same way, a Komodo dragon is not categorized as a dragon

If you had read the very first line in the link, it says this:
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.

I posted it - I read it.
Not only that article but I've read many articles about the Siberian unicorn for at least the past 5 years and have had discussions about it telling me if I had read.

Siberian unicorn - the word unicorn makes it an ancient animal. And the fact that it walked with humans means it wasn't a myth human saw it and it looked like a horse with a horn.

And if you look at a picture it looked more like a horse with a horn more than the modern day rhinoceros.

So that is where a horse with a horn came from.

Modern day people took the word unicorn to Fantasyland.



And the word unicorn has been around hundreds of years before the word rhinoceros was coined.

Unicorns – a brief history - St Neots Museum

From ferocious beasts to rainbow ponies, unicorns have been around for centuries. April 9th is National Unicorn Day, so here's a little on their history..

www.stneotsmuseum.org.uk

Rhinoceros (genus) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[an anarchist]

You really think that?

Well, a part of me is playing devil's advocate with @Trailblazer here. I've always liked debating for fun at times. But I do have a disdain for the Bahai religion, namely Baha'u'llah himself. He claimed to bring "heaven on earth", no? The completion of all the major religions eschatologies he said he did. Yet this life is hell. So I have a disdain for what Baha'u'llah claimed of himself and his self perceived importance in the world.

I spent year after year crafting Exaltism and I ended up with no followers (including myself), and ended up with just what became a bunch of outdated theology and websites I had no use for anymore. In fact, I don't even say that I was creating a NRM or religion, I was creating a cult, because of how new and small of a concept I thought it originally was. Not only did Baha'u'llah create a religion, he created one with over five million followers, making it a small but effective world religion.

I too am crafting a religion. But, unlike what Baha'u'llah supposedly did, my line of thinking will steer humanity in the trajectory where heaven manifested on earth becomes a physical possibility.

Oh, did I say religion? I meant cult :^] I see no difference between the two really.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I too am crafting a religion. But, unlike what Baha'u'llah supposedly did, my line of thinking will steer humanity in the trajectory where heaven manifested on earth becomes a physical possibility.

Oh, did I say religion? I meant cult :^] I see no difference between the two really.

Interesting that you said that, @Father Heathen recently made a thread in Religions Q&A about creating a cult. I suggest that if you are interested you might reply to it and tell us more about this "cult". The thread is here.

 

[SDavis]

Calling something a unicorn doesn't make it one. In the same way, a Komodo dragon is not categorized as a dragon

If you had read the very first line in the link, it says this:
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.

Oh yes - a dragon is considered a lizard the komono dragon is considered a lizard.
A dragon is considered a reptile the Komodo dragon is considered a reptile.

Komodo Dragon

Komodo dragons are the biggest and heaviest lizards on Earth. Full-grown adults can reach 10 feet (3 meters) long and weigh more than 300 pounds (140 kilograms)! Most weigh about 150 pounds (70 kilograms). These giant reptiles have been around for millions of years, but scientists didn't study...

kids.nationalgeographic.com

Is a flying dragon a reptile or amphibian? | Homework.Study.com

Answer to: Is a flying dragon a reptile or amphibian? By signing up, you'll get thousands of step-by-step solutions to your homework questions. You...

homework.study.com

The word dragon comes from the Latin word draco a term they use for various lizards

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dragon-mythological-creature.

Did the dragons of myth which were reptilian lizards with wings and breathe fire actually exist - well they will be considered myth until evidence is found.

But we do have the smaller version

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

 

[an anarchist]

The focal point of our divine nature rests in our ability to develop and create human extropy, something unparalleled so far from any other species on Earth, or even the planets we have discovered so far. Humans and the way they are, especially in the modern sense, needs that itself to be recognized and cherished more than anything else for what it is. I hope you understand this.

I think I agree, but can you explain the concept of "extropy" a little bit more?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I think I agree, but can you explain the concept of "extropy" a little bit more?

Extropy is a natural concept that explains how chaotic, disorderly things become more orderly over time. The easiest way to understand entropy/extropy is that entropy is chaos and extropy is order. All actions are in an effort to either make more chaos or order, thus, entropy and extropy are the two fundamental forces in nature, like yin/yang in Taoism. But when combined with The Omniverse I also create a trinitarian view of panentheism as well. There's a ton of syncretism within my ideas, I borrow concepts from both science and religion to create one world view that believes that God is reality.

 

[Truthseeker]

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

Not really to me. Is that really a basis for belief?

 

[sayak83]

84 percent of the world population has a faith and because most faiths have a religious Founder (or what I call a Messenger) that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm.

The point is that with no men who act as "intermediaries" between God and man very few people would believe in God. I believe the Messengers are the evidence that God exists because God sent them as evidence.

Krishna is their holy man, their intermediary between God and themselves.

There is other evidence, since God's Creation is evidence, but it is not direct evidence of God. Moreover, it is possible for Creation to exist even if there was no God, so that is not reliable evidence.

There is a problem with your logic. If atheism is true then religions are man made. So a person or a group of persons will create it. Hence under atheism, majority of religions must necessarily have founding figures.
If theism is true, this is not necessary as God could communicate Himself through other means (direct communication, angels to earth etc). So if God exists there is no apriori reason to expect human founders of religions.
So the fact that most religions have human founders support atheism rather than theism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Us is humanity.

Yeah, but that is no the same as a social us.

 

[Nimos]

I know what it says I posted it.
Unicorns walk the earth like it or not and it the Siberian unicorn looked more like a horse with a horn than it does the modern day rhinoceros.

But you don't classify animals based on their look, except that it might give a rough estimate of where one should start. Meaning that when they found the Siberian Unicorn, they probably wouldn't start with the fish as it is clearly not a close relative to them.

And if you look at a picture it looked more like a horse with a horn more than the modern day rhinoceros.

This is a reconstruction without hair:

Are you serious? Look at the horn, the feet, the way the skin fold, the tail, the placement of the ears, the placement of the head.

Oh yes - a dragon is considered a lizard the komono dragon is considered a lizard.
A dragon is considered a reptile the Komodo dragon is considered a reptile.

But it is not classified as a dragon, but a lizard. Just like the paradise bird did not live in some sort of paradise. It is just a name!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really to me. Is that really a basis for belief?

Well, if you can compartmentalize your belief as a limited coping skill it can work. But in general some people don't keep it individually subjective and start claim other humans and the world as such.

 

[Quagmire]

these things are not real until proven so

So. . . microorganisms never existed until microscopes were invented?

Planets and stars light years away just popped into existence as soon as we had telescopes powerful enough to see them?

You can say things aren't proven to be real until they're proven so, but to say "things are not real until proven so" is nonsensical.

If something's there it's there whether we can perceive it or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So. . . microorganisms never existed until microscopes were invented?

Planets and stars light years away just popped into existence as soon as we had telescopes powerful enough to see them?

You can say things aren't proven to be real until they're proven so, but to say "things are not real until proven so" is nonsensical.

If something's there it's there whether we can perceive it or not.

The reverse is this one: There was a time in the past when there was no humans. That matters.

That it matters requires humans.

 

[Nimos]

So. . . microorganisms never existed until microscopes were invented?

Planets and stars light years away just popped into existence as soon as we had telescopes powerful enough to see them?

You can say things aren't proven to be real until they're proven so, but to say "things are not real until proven so" is nonsensical.

If something's there it's there whether we can perceive it or not.

As @mikkel_the_dane pointed out in another post, the word "Unknown" would have been the correct word to use So I don't disagree with what you are saying.

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe Messengers are the evidence for God because God sent them as evidence of His existence. That is the reason they are evidence.

That can't possibly be evidence because there is no way at all to tell if they were sent by a god. Do you not get that evidence has be actually something we can check, not somebody's blind faith? This claim is totally absurd.

No, just basic logic.

Nonsense. You said: "That is patently absurd. If God decided everything we would be and do we would be programmed robots." but you gave no reason whatsoever to think that we aren't "programmed robots", except, presumably, that you didn't like the idea.

Deterministic or randomness, our minds must either be deterministic or not. That sounds like the fallacy of black and white thinking.

No, it is the very definition of a deterministic system: "In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system" -- Deterministic system.

Verifiable Evidence means documented proof by means that are reasonably reliable to establish authenticity of submitted documents.

You seem to be concentrating on the legal sense of the word, i.e. 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal) or 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil). I am talking about the scientific and mathematical sense. Legal 'proof' is not absolute proof, it is just strong evidence. And yes, I want something that is at least as good as 'the balance of probabilities'. That is a minimum standard for good evidence.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

You can repeat this as much as you like, it won't make it true. I see not one shred of evidence.

He certainly did know

The passage you quoted indicates otherwise.

Baha'u'llah got His knowledge from the all-knowing God...

Baseless assertion.

Any logical person could figure out that the evidence for a Messenger of God is not going to be like evidence for other things.
The evidence is according to what we are able to examine and investigate, and what Baha'u'llah delineated in that paragraph can all be examined and investigated.

His own Self -- who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation -- what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

His Writings -- what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Sorry, but this is just pathetic. There is no evidence here at all. As I said, it doesn't look like either you or Baha'u'llah have/had any grasp of what evidence is.

 

[Truthseeker]

So the fact that most religions have human founders support atheism rather than theism.

This is a neutral thing for me, not pointing either way. True, God could be more direct if He wanted to. Good point there. People could argue for a long time of the implications of that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been thinking on this thread more.

Yesterday, I was outside looking at space, looking at all the cars and human structures, and thinking about my biological body. To think that all these complex processes came into existence and works without any source of a higher power ... It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

So I stand by my default position of magical thinking.

I don't believe in all magical thinking, but by default I believe in something greater.

Why stop there, though? Is your "higher power" no less awesome than the universe? If that's your line of thought, why wouldn't your "higher power" need an even higher power... and so on and so on forever?

 

[Quagmire]

I don't disagree with what you are saying

What fun is that?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is a problem with your logic. If atheism is true then religions are man made. So a person or a group of persons will create it. Hence under atheism, majority of religions must necessarily have founding figures.
If theism is true, this is not necessary as God could communicate Himself through other means (direct communication, angels to earth etc). So if God exists there is no apriori reason to expect human founders of religions.
So the fact that most religions have human founders support atheism rather than theism.

The problem with your logic is that you don't know that God could communicate Himself through other means (direct communication, angels to earth etc). Humans are human, so they can understand other humans, so if God exists it makes sense to expect human founders of religions.

It is also very important to note that the Messengers of God were humans, but they were not like other humans. They were both divine and human, so that is why they alone had the ability to understand communication from God and relay that information to humans, thus acting as intermediaries between God and humans.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67