What .. just for your benefit, you mean?
Does this god want to be known? If so, for its benefit. Is this god benevolent, and do good things from knowing that it exists? Then the benefit is to those who need a sound reason to believe before believing.
You can just as easily choose to believe like we do.. ..but no, we are apparently gullible fools
No believing by faith is no longer possible for me. As a child unable to think critically, it was a necessity, but once I learned critical thinking, there was no turning back. I simply cannot make myself believe anything by willing belief.
And what makes a person worthy of being called gullible? "Gullible - easily persuaded to believe something; credulous." The critical thinker is not easily convinced of anything untrue, but his definition of truth (or knowledge) likely isn't yours.
That's just a load of drivel. You'd be much better off studying Divinity than being negative
To the critical thinker, theology is drivel. By theology, I don't include secular studies such as comparative religions or the influence of religions on human history - just the things that only believers believe and assumes the existence of a god. Nothing of value to the critical thinker comes from such study, because sound conclusions are ruled out as soon as one accepts an unproven premise as fact.
Sure, Baha'u'llah had a fair number of followers, but that was not because He was trying to convince anyone of who He was. They followed Him because they recognized who He was.
You remind me of a scene from the Life of Brian. Brian had followers he didn't want, like Forrest Gump. Let's think about what constitutes knowledge and what is gullibility while watching
The fact that the Messengers have no effect upon you and other atheists who disbelieve in them has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether God is weak and ineffectual.
So what would a weak and effectual god look like?
the all-knowing God knows that Messengers are the *best way* to communicate to humans.
And people aware of more effective ways to reach people know that it is not. Manipulating matter in a super-human way sends a clearer message, one that more people will respond to than messengers. Also, through a conscience or other intuitions is a better way to communicate - directly to the mind without mediation (messengers) - assuming a god has the power to do so and wants to communicate to humanity. What Baha'u'llah chose was the only means available to him - pretty good indication that no superhuman agent was involved.
Use the word Educators then. They proved they are the greatest Educators of Humanity.
They are not among the greatest thinkers. Prophets and messengers say things anybody who want to be one can say, and their words can always be improved upon. Their messages might be known by large numbers of people, but not because they are good ideas. Originally, the words of Jesus and Mohammed were spread at the point of a sword, without which their names would be unknown today. Geater thinkers and educators include Aristotle, Euclid, and Buddha, whose words spread without force and shaped thought for millennia because they resonated with thinking minds and still do even today.
The point being made was as to the amount of times a few people on RF keep saying a thiest has no evidence, when in reality there is a truckload of evidence.
I keep seeing the same error over and again. Conflating evidence with its proper interpretation, or "evidence of." No progress will be made by anybody not making this distinction. It is a simple fact that what you offer as evidence is that by virtue of being evident to the senses - we can see it or hear it read to us - but it is not "
evidence of" a deity. Like all prose, it's evidence that somebody wrote the words down, but not evidence that they are correct. That requires other evidence than the words.
I will give only one quick example as to prove a simple fact of character based on the evidence of a person. It is evident that Baha'u'llah was a Kind and Generous Person, he was known as the "Father of the poor". This fact was evident to all those that knew Baha'u'llah, before he accepted the Bab and later gave a Message. I am able to offer this as proof to you of the character of Baha’u’llah, as this statement is made by pursuing the Evidence available of the records of His life and one is able to offer facts and proofs from those records.
His character isn't meaningful to an assessment of his claims. They would mean no less to me if he were known to be a scoundrel.
The evidence is provided so people can Judge and that is exactly what the OP is saying.
The Messenger
The Revelation
The Word
Are all submitted as Evidence so we can judge the Claim.
You already know the verdict of those who are trained to judge the significance of evidence. Why continue?
What other humans have attracted Billions of followers? To negate this is really not reasonable and not logical.
Billions of believers don't mean much of anything to the empiricist. Most (all) believe without sufficient evidentiary support, and so their beliefs aren't meaningful to those who require that for themselves before belief. Consensus is only meaningful in a population of qualified judges, like climate scientists and evolutionary scienctists
