Fooling atheists

[QuestioningMind]

Why can't we all be right?

That is also a possibility, since nobody can prove that God exists.

Why can't you all be right? Let's see... because according to the bible there is but a SINGLE God, yet the Hindu Vedas indicates that there are NUMEROUS gods. Either the Christian bible is WRONG or the Hindu Vedas are WRONG, which means that they BOTH can't be right.

Yes, and without any verifiable evidence that any god(s) exist, why would anyone actually believe that they do?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree.......the theists could be the ones fooling themselves.
No one has evidence for God,
So it could go either way.
And we may never be any wiser.

That's a rather silly statement. There is no evidence for magical unicorns... so it could go either way. There's no evidence that Martians are disguising themselves as humans and are slowly taking over the Earth... so it could go either way. By this inane logic we should believe in every ridiculous claim ever made just because 'it could go either way'.

FAR better to reserve your belief for claims that actually CAN be demonstrated with verifiable EVIDENCE.

 

[Dantedeven]

Google Translate

Use google translate - to english.







Atheïsten zijn gebonden aan de materiële wereld. Spiritueel zijn zij niet actief, maar worden zij wel beïnvloedt door dezen spirituele wereld, maar dit hebben zij niet door. En zo geschiedde het en niet anders. Zij hebben de laaste jaren veel moreel verloren, en dit is jammer. Want atheïsten hadden vroeger een gerespecteerde status, omdat zij klasse hadden. Maar hedendaags, dragen zij geen klasse, maar haat. De meesten onder hen dan, in mijn opinie. En de oorzaak weten zij niet, en ik ook niet. Want zijt gij atheïst, bent gij verheven, ik oordeelt u niet. Want dat doet gij wel voor mij. Tot ziens.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why can't you all be right? Let's see... because according to the bible there is but a SINGLE God, yet the Hindu Vedas indicates that there are NUMEROUS gods. Either the Christian bible is WRONG or the Hindu Vedas are WRONG, which means that they BOTH can't be right.

Either that or those scriptures are not the original scriptures revealed by God and/or they have been misinterpreted by the adherents to those religions.
That has all been cleared up now though, by a new revelation from God through Baha'u'llah. We now know there is only One God. Why would we ever need more than One God?

Yes, and without any verifiable evidence that any god(s) exist, why would anyone actually believe that they do?

They wouldn't, not unless they believed that the messenger of God represented and revealed God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Either that or those scriptures are not the original scriptures revealed by God and/or they have been misinterpreted by the adherents to those religions.
That has all been cleared up now though, by a new revelation from God through Baha'u'llah. We now know there is only One God. Why would we ever need more than One God?

They wouldn't, not unless they believed that the messenger of God represented and revealed God.

Well, if the 'messenger of God represented and revealed God' without any verifiable evidence, then it's worthless.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, if the 'messenger of God represented and revealed God' without any verifiable evidence, then it's worthless.

Speak for yourself. I do not need verification of what is obvious to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For those who still have questions about what atheism and agnosticism are I would suggest going over the to American Atheist site. They have a pretty well written essay that explains what atheists mean when they describe themselves as atheists:

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

That's actually pretty good. Have to admit, I wasn't expecting it to be.
I'd quibble that using a term like 'Bright' is absolutely NOT fine, but still, their reasoning and mine match (even if they were more inclusive).

Nice link!

 

[Trailblazer]

We have no basis for such a conclusion, do we? Perhaps for the very reason that God (for some deeply obscure reason) conceals [him]self, but more likely, more consistently, for a God said to want us to acknowledge [him], because [he] exists only in the imagination of individual people.

The basis for the conclusion is what the messenger of God reveals about God. God does not conceal everything, only His Essence (intrinsic nature). We can know of God’s Attributes and God’s Will by what the messenger reveals.

We don't even have a satisfactory definition of a real god such that we could tell whether any candidate were a god or not, only a range of 'definitions' of imaginary ones ─ please correct me if that's wrong.

We do have a lot of descriptors of God from the messenger Baha’u’llah so we can know what God IS and what God IS NOT.

Does that equate to God not wanting anyone's belief?

No, that does not equate. We can presume that God wants our belief; otherwise he would not repeatedly send messengers to represent Him and declare His existence.

I do, and the more I do, the less [he] does. I'm not a non-believer because I don't want God / a god / gods to exist. I'm a non-believer for a variety of reasons, but foremost because I think the concept of a real god is incoherent without that satisfactory definition.

Hmmmm... That makes sense.

The Bahá'í view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3] Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation. The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator.[4] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

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.[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God in the Bahá'í Faith

 

[blü 2]

The basis for the conclusion is what the messenger of God reveals about God. God does not conceal everything, only His Essence (intrinsic nature). We can know of God’s Attributes and God’s Will by what the messenger reveals.

But there are so many messengers, and no test for which ones got it right and which didn't. This is underlined by the way they disagree with each other.

We do have a lot of descriptors of God from the messenger Baha’u’llah so we can know what God IS and what God IS NOT.

With respect, no, we don't.

Put it this way: what test should I apply to:

this keyboard I'm typing on
that woman there waiting for a bus
the sun​

to tell whether any of them is God / a god or not?

If God is real, what is godness, the real quality that makes God God / a god, even when [he] might take the form of a keyboard, that woman, the sun? What quality that exists independently of anyone's imagination is it that we're testing for?

The Bahá'í view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3] Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation.

Start with the quality 'unknowable' ─ that compels the conclusion that all claims about God's nature are imaginary, doesn't it?

And again correct me if I'm wrong, but 'eternal', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'almighty', and 'transcendent' aren't properties of anything or anyone demonstrably real that we know of, are they? They're absolutes, aspirations, and (in this context) above all abstractions, no?

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.

We won't know that till we see it, though.

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.

If [he] has no physical form then he's not real. And the only alternatives to being real are being imaginary (in which I include concepts with no real counterpart) and not existing at all, no?

To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.

I dislike the idea of blasphemy, ideas you're not allowed to think. In my view, all things are open to reasoned enquiry.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But there are so many messengers, and no test for which ones got it right and which didn't. This is underlined by the way they disagree with each other.
With respect, no, we don't.

Put it this way: what test should I apply to:

this keyboard I'm typing on
that woman there waiting for a bus
the sun​

to tell whether any of them is God / a god or not?

If God is real, what is godness, the real quality that makes God God / a god, even when [he] might take the form of a keyboard, that woman, the sun? What quality that exists independently of anyone's imagination is it that we're testing for?
Start with the quality 'unknowable' ─ that compels the conclusion that all claims about God's nature are imaginary, doesn't it?

And again correct me if I'm wrong, but 'eternal', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'almighty', and 'transcendent' aren't properties of anything or anyone demonstrably real that we know of, are they? They're absolutes, aspirations, and (in this context) above all abstractions, no?
We won't know that till we see it, though.
If [he] has no physical form then he's not real. And the only alternatives to being real are being imaginary (in which I include concepts with no real counterpart) and not existing at all, no?
I dislike the idea of blasphemy, ideas you're not allowed to think. In my view, all things are open to reasoned enquiry.

Some of the quotes aren't mine. I'll reply in a minute.

 

[John53]

It is not the universethat has fooled anyone, it is Satan. God has left much evidence of His existence but has allowed Satan to cloud people's minds so that only a few really faithful can see the truth. Atheists do not see the truth so the say God does not exist. It is not their fault but they have fallen under the influence of Satan who they also cannot see so they will of course deny that this is the way it is.

Satan has also fooled me into not believing in Vishnu, Zeus, Baiame, Baal or any of the thousands of other Gods.

 

[Trailblazer]

But there are so many messengers, and no test for which ones got it right and which didn't. This is underlined by the way they disagree with each other.

The real messengers of God who established the major religions (e.g., Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah) had different missions at different times in history, so their messages were different. However, they all brought the same spiritual truths (e.g. faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy).

Start with the quality 'unknowable' ─ that compels the conclusion that all claims about God's nature are imaginary, doesn't it?

What is unknowable is the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God. The Attributes of God such Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, All-powerful, Everywhere-present, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Immaterial Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Sovereign, Patient are knowable, because they are revealed by the messengers.

And again correct me if I'm wrong, but 'eternal', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'almighty', and 'transcendent' aren't properties of anything or anyone demonstrably real that we know of, are they? They're absolutes, aspirations, and (in this context) above all abstractions, no?

They are Attributes of God, as noted above.

If [he] has no physical form then he's not real. And the only alternatives to being real are being imaginary (in which I include concepts with no real counterpart) and not existing at all, no?

I do not believe only the physical is real. The immaterial is also real. We just cannot see it from a physical world.

I dislike the idea of blasphemy, ideas you're not allowed to think. In my view, all things are open to reasoned enquiry.

I like that way of thinking.

 

[Valjean]

Speak for yourself. I do not need verification of what is obvious to me.

ROFL!
What is "obvious" is what you're familiar with. What's obvious varies with culture and over time.
What's obvious is rather at odds with modern physics.
Your feelings will mislead you. They're not to be trusted.

The basis for the conclusion is what the messenger of God reveals about God. God does not conceal everything, only His Essence (intrinsic nature). We can know of God’s Attributes and God’s Will by what the messenger reveals.

And how can we know which 'messenger' to follow?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Speak for yourself. I do not need verification of what is obvious to me.

Sadly there are far too many people who don't need verification for what is 'obvious' to them. That's how you get morons who can convince themselves that God wants them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people. They didn't require any silly verification, because it was 'obvious' to them that this is what God wanted from them. If ONLY they'd been skeptical of what seemed 'obvious' to them and had instead sought out actual reliable verification for their groundless beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

ROFL!
What is "obvious" is what you're familiar with. What's obvious varies with culture and over time.
What's obvious is rather at odds with modern physics.
Your feelings will mislead you. They're not to be trusted.

When I said I do not need verification of what is obvious to me, I meant I do not need verification that God exists.

You are correct, feelings can and often do mislead and we cannot trust them. That is why we have a rational mind. We can use that to reason things out.

My certainty regarding the existence if God has nothing to do with my feelings. I came to that conclusion with my mind after I evaluated the evidence.

Modern physics cannot prove God does not exist so God is not at odds with physics. God is outside the purview of science since God is not physical.

And how can we know which 'messenger' to follow?

Once we have a "reason" to believe that a messenger might actually be from God, then we research His character, His life, His mission, His teachings, and His religion, in order to determine if His claim is legitimate. That is called independent investigation of truth.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But there are so many messengers, and no test for which ones got it right and which didn't. This is underlined by the way they disagree with each other.
With respect, no, we don't.

Put it this way: what test should I apply to:

this keyboard I'm typing on
that woman there waiting for a bus
the sun​

to tell whether any of them is God / a god or not?

If God is real, what is godness, the real quality that makes God God / a god, even when [he] might take the form of a keyboard, that woman, the sun? What quality that exists independently of anyone's imagination is it that we're testing for?
Start with the quality 'unknowable' ─ that compels the conclusion that all claims about God's nature are imaginary, doesn't it?

And again correct me if I'm wrong, but 'eternal', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'almighty', and 'transcendent' aren't properties of anything or anyone demonstrably real that we know of, are they? They're absolutes, aspirations, and (in this context) above all abstractions, no?
We won't know that till we see it, though.
If [he] has no physical form then he's not real. And the only alternatives to being real are being imaginary (in which I include concepts with no real counterpart) and not existing at all, no?
I dislike the idea of blasphemy, ideas you're not allowed to think. In my view, all things are open to reasoned enquiry.

Actually, none are addressed to me but to @Trailblazer. Did you intend to comment on one of my posts?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sadly there are far too many people who don't need verification for what is 'obvious' to them. That's how you get morons who can convince themselves that God wants them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people. They didn't require any silly verification, because it was 'obvious' to them that this is what God wanted from them. If ONLY they'd been skeptical of what seemed 'obvious' to them and had instead sought out actual reliable verification for their groundless beliefs.

I understand what you mean but belief in God is a personal thing and it is not harming anyone. It is the beliefs about God that can be harmful to others. Any religious belief that is not the cause of good actions did not come from any God. It was a distortion of scriptures.

But my main point is that God Himself cannot be verified to exist and I do not need that verification to know God exists.

 

[Bird123]

Has the universe fooled atheists into thinking there is no God?
Or can’t atheists be fooled?

It has never been about beliefs or fooling. God places knowledge all around us. It's about what one can Discover and Learn.

Everyone learns different things and at different rates. God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Perhaps, the best choice would be to Discover everything about the views we have not seen or do not understand. The end result can only be Wisdom.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand what you mean but belief in God is a personal thing and it is not harming anyone. It is the beliefs about God that can be harmful to others. Any religious belief that is not the cause of good actions did not come from any God. It was a distortion of scriptures.

But my main point is that God Himself cannot be verified to exist and I do not need that verification to know God exists.

Unfortunately when people delude themselves into believing in a god without verification it leads them into deluding themselves into believing what god wants them to do, without verification, just like the terrorists on 9/11 did. Sadly the 9/11 terrorist also didn't need verification that their god existed or that their god wanted them to kill people. In my opinion they should have. I think it's foolish for anyone to believe in anything without reliable verification.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately when people delude themselves into believing in a god without verification it leads them into deluding themselves into believing what god wants them to do, without verification, just like the terrorists on 9/11 did. Sadly the 9/11 terrorist also didn't need verification that their god existed or that their god wanted them to kill people. In my opinion they should have. I think it's foolish for anyone to believe in anything without reliable verification.

God cannot be verified.... 93% of the world population believe in a God.... I cannot believe that many people are all foolish just because they believe in God, although some of their beliefs about God are foolish.

I believe that people should definitely investigate their religious beliefs before they accept them as true. There are always going to be people who believe falsehoods, but that does not mean all religions are false. To say that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.