Does it really matter if we believe in God?

[Altfish]

The evidence is the Messengers of God and the scriptures they revealed.

So, similar evidence as there is to the existence of Harry Potter or The flying Spaghetti Monster?

I realise scriptures mean a lot to believers but they mean nothing to sceptics.

 

[Trailblazer]

“It would only really matter if God has a purpose to exist.”
Who knows?

Nobody really knows what God does, but there are certain indications that God has as one purpose to aid humans... For example...

“Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless.” Some Answered Questions, p. 249​

There is no way to know how God aids humans or what it even means to be aided. I suppose there are scriptures that refer to that.

“So, you think it is okay to believe in a God that does not exist because it can provide an motivational and inspirational focus. I suppose there could be value in that.”

I am glad that you seem to be following me so accurately.

Admittedly, it has been a bit of a struggle to follow you, but I tend to persevere until I can understand.

Perhaps. To their credit, the Bahai that I once knew in person did not give many if any signs of holding a belief in a particularly humanlike God. On the other hand, there are significant indications online pointing to the other direction.

But I think that it is fair to say that Bahais do not all think exactly the same.

It is generally not a good idea to believe what one or another Baha’i believes, because we are all so different. Rather it is best to go to the authoritative Baha’i sources. I usually post this because it is comprehensive and well written and what Shohji Effendi writes is considered authoritative:

While the Bahá'í writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2]Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[17][18] nn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God in the Baha'i Faith​

“I have trouble relating to expression of the Sacred, understanding what that is.”
Sorry, I should have made an attempt to point out that this usage is personal terminology of mine. I use it in many stances where others would speak of a deity, because I want to emphasize that I do not perceive worth as arising from divine origins nor divine will.

So when you say “expression of the Sacred” you mean exactly what? I am still struggling with this.

Thanks. I must say that I am really encouraged by the apparent improvement in our mutual understanding and common ground.

It has been a bit of a struggle but anything worthwhile is a struggle, and mutual understanding is worthwhile.

“I guess you mean no afterlife, as in a spiritual world to which our souls ascend after death of the body.”

Correct. I do not believe in souls as such, not even in the sense that some Buddhist schools hope for. I guess that you could say that I hold an extreme reading of Anatta.

So you believe that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. That is probably the most opposite to Baha’i beliefs as one can get, since we believe that the soul is the real person and the body is just the outer shell. The soul comes into being at the moment of conception and it is responsible for the life of the body while we are alive on earth. After the body dies, the soul continues to exist in the spiritual world and takes on another form, a spiritual body. Some Christians believe that the soul of nonbelievers is destroyed upon death of the body but Baha’is believe that the human soul is indestructible, and it has nothing to do with belief in God. All souls continue to exist for eternity.

I believe in death as a true end, a supreme forgiver of sorts even. It seems to me that such a view is at once better supported by discernible facts; more hopeful and desirable than the alternatives; and easier to reconcile with the practical need for morality in this world.

Certainly there is no actual proof that the soul lives in after the death of the body, but there is evidence by way of NDEs and spirit communications.

Why do you think that death as the true end is hopeful and desirable and easier to reconcile with the practical need for morality in this world? I have never thought of death as the end since I have thought about death. I became a Baha’i when I was 17 and ever since then I have known that death is not the end, but rather just the beginning of life in another realm of existence.

My father, who was an atheist, died suddenly of a heart attack when I was 12 years old and I did not think of him living on because I had no religious beliefs at that time. I was devastated but I repressed my feelings since I got no counseling and neither my mother nor any family members talked about what had happened. I have had PTSD as the result of that shock for my entire life but it has gotten better in recent years.

For personal reasons I find myself wondering often in recently weeks on how children feel about the diversity of beliefs. I know of a seven years old child that is being raised in Catholicism yet was made aware of the existence of other religions. Not too long ago I told her about a Shiva song and she asked me point blank if Shiva was a God - in front of her parents, no less. I would have loved to speak at length on the matter, but I have little idea of how comfortable her parents would be with that, so I decided to simply say that there are people who think of him as a God, while other people do not.

That was a very wise way to handle that situation. I never bothered to ask about God as a child, and I do not recall either parent talking about God.

Fairly often I feel that children might see the diversity of beliefs as a matter of personal aesthetical preference, not to be given too much weight. Even more often I feel that such a view is appropriate for everyone, or should be.

I would hope that children would think that way, but I assume that if they were indoctrinated in the Abrahamic religions as a child they would simply assume their religion is the one correct religion. Religious tradition is a strong force and it passes from generation to generation. That did not happen to me because both my parents left Christianity long before I was born. Had that not happened, I might not have become a Baha’i. My father never heard of the Baha’i Faith, but not long after he died, everyone in my nuclear family became a Baha’i.

 

[Trailblazer]

I realise scriptures mean a lot to believers but they mean nothing to sceptics.

I know that, like the back of my own hand.
The question is why they mean nothing to skeptics, or should I ask -- why are skeptics so certain that God cannot and does not communicate to a Messenger/Prophet who reveals scriptures?

 

[Altfish]

I know that, like the back of my own hand.
The question is why they mean nothing to skeptics, or should I ask -- why are skeptics so certain that God cannot and does not communicate to a Messenger/Prophet who reveals scriptures?

I think it is because they are obviously man written documents. Documents that reflect the knowledge of the times, documents with mistakes and contradictions.

They'd be a lot more classy, better written with less errors and some useful stuff in there if they'd been written by gods.

 

[Shad]

I can agree that is what generally happens in society because believers are in the majority and they tend to feel superior even if is unspoken.

That is part a problem of theology for those religions which place a heavy emphasis on belief. Although I do agree that it can be a social and cultural factor such as in the nation-state.

But I do not think it should be the case because I know too many atheists who are good people and live very moral lives, and they care about other people and the environment. “Belief does not make you a good person” is one of the first threads I posted on a primarily atheist religious forum I joined about five years ago. I had not previously even thought of belief and non-belief as I lived socially isolated life and did not talk to many people, and certainly not about religion or God... Now look at me.

Did your isolation include that from a religious community. I do not mean to pry but I was talking about the echo chamber of religious communities which reinforce a view point. If you were not part of such a community you were not exposed to the same type of conduct I am talking about. Although I would add I do not think Baha'i is the type of religion which has created communities on the scale of Christianity or Islam.

I appreciate your pointing that out. I had never really thought of it that way.

Yah it was a common point when I was religious.

But still, I do not think most people realize that they do not have to live for the things of the world; they do it because it is what they enjoy doing. That is what I observe about people I know; maybe things are going on that I am unaware of but I can only see what I see. I cannot read peoples’ minds.

A problem is a lot of our society has changed to revolve around those things as a necessity of life. Many of us no longer create our own products nor food. This changes the wealth dynamic into one of wealth displays rather than production. Wealth displays became a selling point even if the choice of a purchase was due to practical purposes. For example a family have a large vehicle due to a large family. Often those vehicles being larger than a standard model include frills anyways. So it become easily to mistake a piece of property as a simple material possession instead of having to life in the world as it is.

I would call people that buy items for the sake of having it are frivolous. For example people that buy the new version of phone X every new model.

In a sense I do assume, not intent, but I assume that most people live for the material world, at least in the Western world. If that was not true then capitalism would not survive and thrive.

Do not confuse profit for greed.

I would not know what they do privately, only publicly. What is somewhat disconcerting is what I see publicly, actions that contradict words.

Depends on who you are talking about. Some people claim to be religious but are not. Politicians for example.

Yes, I have a certain bias, but I do know religious people who live for the things of the world, even by their own admission. That does not mean they do not have a relationship with their God but it makes me wonder how important it could be when they are so focused on their physical body and material world enjoyments. I would expect that more of an atheist, but I do not know many atheists who say that, although I do know some. But there would be no reason why an atheist would not think that way, since they believe this is our one and only life. A believer by contrast..... I hope you get my point

Depends on what the enjoyment is and what their theology teaches. For example there is a Christian group that believes in the Prosperity Gospel. To keep it simple one's success or failure is a sign of God's Will and blessing, or lack of. So if one believes their success is God's Will they are not going to shun what they see as blessing.

I do not know everyone, but I do know some people. See above.

Sure but these people may not represent nor hold more standard version of a religion.

That’s true, it is my bias and I readily admit it. I can only know what I see or what I am told by people. Perhaps I jump to conclusions. Perhaps I am just too austere so anything less that than I consider self-indulgent.

I can understand that. I do hold similar views myself regarding spending habits of many people and governments. Although that is more about being raised by an accountant than a religion.

But I have a right to my personal opinion as long as I do not inflict it upon anyone directly by offering my judgment thus offending them. I cannot help what I think; I can only help what I say.

Sure I agree.

All that said, I realize that those worldly believers might be better people than I am, I just cannot approve of that lifestyle because it goes against everything I have ever believed in, even before I was a Baha’i, but especially after.

Better is one of those values that is hard to judge with data let alone without any. Also consider some people may only be seen as better due to circumstances out of their control, conditioning and life experiences. For example it is far easier for one to be generous when they are rich then when one is poor. They may not be as generous as it appears when money is worth far less due to a high net worth. 10k USD to one is like 5 dollars to another.

I am constantly being asked by believers and my atheist friends why I do not enjoy life more than I do, live life to its fullest, but there is no real way for me to explain why enjoying life simply does not matter to me. I could be enjoying life in a material sense given my financial status; I just have no interest in such a life. I don’t know if I ever did, but the interest becomes less and less every year that passes by. I sometimes think about it momentarily and then the thought dissipates.

Honestly this seems more like a social problem. Often people find a lot of joy in family and friends regardless of religious belief. In a way I can understand. When I stopped drinking a lot of activities I found enjoyable were no longer so. It changes my own social dynamic especially for friends that were alcoholics. I had to look for new hobbies and activities as those were not flying at me as it did during my education years.

 

[LuisDantas]

Admittedly, it has been a bit of a struggle to follow you, but I tend to persevere until I can understand.

The effort is truly appreciated. I do not take it for granted. I would not dare to.

It is generally not a good idea to believe what one or another Baha’i believes, because we are all so different. Rather it is best to go to the authoritative Baha’i sources. I usually post this because it is comprehensive and well written and what Shohji Effendi writes is considered authoritative:

While the Bahá'í writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2]Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[17][18] nn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God in the Baha'i Faith​

So when you say “expression of the Sacred” you mean exactly what? I am still struggling with this.

It is perhaps best to illustrate the difference between the divine and the sacred by pointing out that sacredness as I understand it is fairly circunstantial, and has no will. To a large extent, it is because situations are not meant to be that they may become sacred. Our discussion of afterlives right below may make this a bit more clear.

It has been a bit of a struggle but anything worthwhile is a struggle, and mutual understanding is worthwhile.

So you believe that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

Correct. I advise against the use of the idea, even more than I do for that of a god.

For one thing, that emphasizes the preciousness and uniqueness of each moment of existence. For another, it does not insist on belief in unsupported concepts.

That is probably the most opposite to Baha’i beliefs as one can get, since we believe that the soul is the real person and the body is just the outer shell. The soul comes into being at the moment of conception and it is responsible for the life of the body while we are alive on earth. After the body dies, the soul continues to exist in the spiritual world and takes on another form, a spiritual body. Some Christians believe that the soul of nonbelievers is destroyed upon death of the body but Baha’is believe that the human soul is indestructible, and it has nothing to do with belief in God. All souls continue to exist for eternity.

Popular enough beliefs, but not mine.

Certainly there is no actual proof that the soul lives in after the death of the body, but there is evidence by way of NDEs and spirit communications.

I am aware of those as well. Most Brazilians are plenty aware, as a matter of fact. Kardecist Spiritism is perhaps the only belief that may rival Christianity in demographic popularity here. But I am as far away from it as it is humanly possible to be.

Why do you think that death as the true end is hopeful and desirable and easier to reconcile with the practical need for morality in this world? I have never thought of death as the end since I have thought about death. I became a Baha’i when I was 17 and ever since then I have known that death is not the end, but rather just the beginning of life in another realm of existence.

Death is a forgiver. It limitates the damage that our mistakes can create. It also lends significance to finite existences that would otherwise be quite pointless.

My father, who was an atheist, died suddenly of a heart attack when I was 12 years old and I did not think of him living on because I had no religious beliefs at that time. I was devastated but I repressed my feelings since I got no counseling and neither my mother nor any family members talked about what had happened. I have had PTSD as the result of that shock for my entire life but it has gotten better in recent years.

Everyone has his or her own history, vulnerabilities and aesthetical inclinations. That would be unavoidable even if somehow not acceptable.

Suffice to say for now that it seems to me that a very large extent of the preference between afterlife expectations and the lack of same comes from factors not directly related to the evidence nor to rational arguments about those ideas.

That said, I think that some forms of those, particularly spiritist reincarnation, have very significant logical problems besides the moral ones.

That was a very wise way to handle that situation. I never bothered to ask about God as a child, and I do not recall either parent talking about God.

Thanks. Those are very dear people to me, and that probably force fed a modicum of wisdom into these tired bones of mine, against all odds.

I would hope that children would think that way, but I assume that if they were indoctrinated in the Abrahamic religions as a child they would simply assume their religion is the one correct religion. Religious tradition is a strong force and it passes from generation to generation. That did not happen to me because both my parents left Christianity long before I was born. Had that not happened, I might not have become a Baha’i. My father never heard of the Baha’i Faith, but not long after he died, everyone in my nuclear family became a Baha’i.

I think that used to be more difficult than it currently is, but generally speaking I do agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know that, like the back of my own hand.
The question is why they mean nothing to skeptics, or should I ask -- why are skeptics so certain that God cannot and does not communicate to a Messenger/Prophet who reveals scriptures?

One reason, dear Trailblazer, is because we know how sacred everything else can be.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is because they are obviously man written documents. Documents that reflect the knowledge of the times, documents with mistakes and contradictions.

Which documents are those? Are you referring to the Bible? If so, I agree. But the Bible is not the only scripture that ever existed.

They'd be a lot more classy, better written with less errors and some useful stuff in there if they'd been written by gods.

God does not write because God is not a human. Only humans can write. That is one reason God sends Messengers to do His writing.

 

[Altfish]

Which documents are those? Are you referring to the Bible? If so, I agree. But the Bible is not the only scripture that ever existed.

All religious texts.

God does not write because God is not a human. Only humans can write. That is one reason God sends Messengers to do His writing.

Cop out! Special pleading, if there were a god, I'm surprised at its inability to write.

 

[Trailblazer]

All religious texts.

So you have read all the religious texts?

Cop out! Special pleading, if there were a god, I'm surprised at its inability to write.

God is Spirit. Spirits don't write because they have no hands, sorry.

 

[Altfish]

So you have read all the religious texts?

​

Life is too precious and short​

God is Spirit. Spirits don't write because they have no hands, sorry.

Cop out - special pleading again. I thought god was omnipresent; if god can't cause a (wo)man's hand to do what he wants instead of write waffle. Then god is not very competent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Life is too precious and short​

I was not suggesting you read ALL of them. ​

Cop out - special pleading again. I thought god was omnipresent; if god can't cause a (wo)man's hand to do what he wants instead of write waffle. Then god is not very competent.

God can do whatever God wants to do but obviously God does not want to write anything Himself which is why He doesn't. Omnipotent not only implies God can do anything, it also implies God only does what God wants to do. Omnipotent means that humans cannot make God do anything.

 

[Altfish]

​

God can do whatever God wants to do but obviously God does not want to write anything Himself which is why He doesn't. Omnipotent not only implies God can do anything, it also implies God only does what God wants to do. Omnipotent means that humans cannot make God do anything.

Again, COP OUT!

Is it any wonder people struggle to believe in a god?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I will play devil's advocate (or perhaps adversary).This is why I am in opposition to "belief"-based institutions such as Islam which denigrates the women into having no divinity, but merely a thing to serve Men.

Unless a believer is heavily literalist, the idea that God is male is understood to be an anthropomorphism. God does not have a body and therefore has no genitalia -- since God is immortal and thus doesn't need to procreate, he has no need of sex and gender. Those things are strictly a part of the created world.

But it is difficult to speak of God without speaking of him in human terms. Thus we say "He" and "face, "arm," "hand..." We even speak of him as having emotions such as anger or jealousy or remorse, which are of course, biochemical responses in our brains. But we can't help but speak of God in terms that we can grasp.

None of this excuses any religion or religious group (or secular group either) from exploiting women or teaching that women are in any way less valuable than men.

In my own faith, we would say that the divine spark is in every human being, male and female.
"In the image of God created He them: male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27

Knowing good and evil means you can see both and how one is "feeding" (off) the other. In the example you just gave, who are these people exploiting?

Sociopaths will exploit whoever they can.

 

[ChristineM]

Unless a believer is heavily literalist, the idea that God is male is understood to be an anthropomorphism. God does not have a body and therefore has no genitalia -- since God is immortal and thus doesn't need to procreate, he has no need of sex and gender. Those things are strictly a part of the created world.

Yet without genitalia and absolutely no need to procreate he procreated. Interesting conundrum.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why does it have to be some black and white thing? You paint all those who willfully reject your god as being borderline criminals and sociopaths. Unfortunately for you, many of us are doing just fine without your deity. Not all of us view your deity in such glowing terms and it's strange that you cannot seem to fathom another viewpoint.

I in no means said that those who didn't believe in my God were borderline sociopaths. There was one last group, at the very end, a small minority of people, who use and abuse other people without conscience. I said these people were sociopaths (even if they said they believed in MY God).

Your post was so far off the mark, that it was abusive. I almost didn't replay. Shame on you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yet without genitalia and absolutely no need to procreate he procreated. Interesting conundrum.

God did not procreate. I am not a Chrisitan. I do not believe God has any children other than us figurative children.

As for the Christians, I'll let them make their own defense, but I do believe they only defend that God incarnated a pre-existing second person of the trinity, not that he procreated.

 

[ChristineM]

God did not procreate. I am not a Chrisitan. I do not believe God has any children other than us figurative children.

As for the Christians, I'll let them make their own defense, but I do believe they only defend that God incarnated a pre-existing second person of the trinity, not that he procreated.

1/3 of the worlds population would disagree with you.
But thats the thing with religion, no one agrees

 

[RESOLUTION]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because I usually post to atheists and I have a lot of atheist friends who do not think it matters if we believe in God. After all, there is no proof that God exists, so it is just as logical to say God does not exist as t is to say that God exists. There is evidence that God exists, but no proof.

So why does it matter if we believe in God? Why is it so important, or is it? This is a question I would like other Baha’is to answer, but also Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any other religious adherents.

Hi Trailblazer,

Will satanist be saved if there is a God when they have flown in the face of all that is good?
If we are rational we know that the 'creator' has a reason but if that reason is to eradicate evil so only good survives then it has to matter.
Many different faiths offer to feed just the sense of being and welfare of the person now. But if there was no God, is there is really a purpose to faith at all?

When it comes to the question: 'Does it really matter if we believe in God?' The the obvious answer has to be - "YES".

The fact is you have to take a side. No fence to sit on in between. If your choice is not the right one then all others are wrong.

Ethos of the message Christ gave was one where we love one another and especially love God in doing so.

Good and Evil mutually exist at present but the truth is that the only sane choice to survive even now is to choose good.

What I am sure about is this... we all have to make that choice for ourselves whatever the outcome if and when God the creator reveals himself.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1/3 of the worlds population would disagree with you.
But thats the thing with religion, no one agrees

The interesting thing is not what we disagree about, but what we actually agree on. It's quite amazing if you think about it. Why in the world would sentient beings come up with an idea like God on our own? I really don't buy the "because we are afraid of death" thing.

Are you familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant? There's the explanation of the differences.