God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

[ppp]

I was only referring to religious/God beliefs.

Not even for those. I don't do special pleading for god beliefs. No special criteria.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not even for those. I don't do special pleading for god beliefs. No special criteria.

Fine.

 

[ppp]

Fine.

Yep. Intellectual integrity is a fine thing, indeed.

 

[Trailblazer]

This will never be good enough for me, and I am of the opinion that it should not be good enough for you either. You can do as you wish, but I believe you to be living under erroneous assumptions. You cling to what you admit you cannot know, and even assert that it represents some fundamental truth about the universe. It will never make any sense to me.

Likewise, it will never make any sense to me that there is no God.
Just because I cannot know it as a proven fact, that does not mean I cannot know it. I do know it.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

Are all the other 93% of people in the world deluded? That does not make sense to me.
Clearly, the majority of people in the world believe in a God they cannot see, feel, touch or measure. That does not prove God exists, but it means something. Why would that many people believe in a God for which there was no evidence? It makes no sense to say that many people are irrational because if they were the world could not function at all. It makes no sense to say that all those people believe in God just because they want to, because it gives them some kind of emotional comfort. The material world gives atheists emotional comfort, but I don't say they believe in it for that reason.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are all the other 93% of people in the world deluded?

Well they sure as hell aren't all telling the same story! Hahahahahaha...

 

[Trailblazer]

Well they sure as hell aren't all telling the same story! Hahahahahaha...

But there is a logical explanation for that.

 

[ppp]

But there is a logical explanation for that.

That humans feel profoundly uncomfortable with not knowing. So uncomfortable that we construct narratives to explain the unknown. We also assign agency to the inanimate. We will believe anything that we what to believe is true, or that we are afraid might be true. We believe our own marketing. Children are born with a tendency to trust their parents. People are very attached to tradition. So attached, that even rebellion from tradition tends to only mildly distort or mirror that tradition. These are all evolutionary advantages.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I listened, I just disagreed. Happens all the time to many people on this forum.

You disagree with the idea that a con artist would try to get away with his scam?

Put yourself in the shoes of a con artist. You've created a false religion that says that there's a god that answers prayers. Knowing that your made-up god won't actually answer any prayers at all, which would you do?

1. Tell your followers that God answers prayers consistently.
2. Tell your followers that God does what he wants, so he sometimes doesn't answer prayers (or "answers them with 'not yet,'" or "answers them in unexpected ways").

Which option would be best to avoid your scam being discovered?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But there is a logical explanation for that.

Yes, and it goes something along the lines of: "One day, several people on different sides of the Earth realized that a whole lot of people around them wondered the 'why' of it all - and then, in order to appease people, become popular, or realize their dreams of opening a coffee shop inside a 'church' (whatever that is), these pioneering individuals MADE A BUNCH OF STUFF UP."

 

[Trailblazer]

That humans feel profoundly uncomfortable with not knowing. So uncomfortable that we construct narratives to explain the unknown. We also assign agency to the inanimate. We will believe anything that we what to believe is true, or that we are afraid might be true.

That atheists feel profoundly uncomfortable with what they do not know. So uncomfortable that they construct narratives to explain how there could be so many believers and so many religions if God does not exist. Atheists will believe anything that they want to believe is true, never afraid of what might be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

You disagree with the idea that a con artist would try to get away with his scam?

No, I do not disagree with that.

Put yourself in the shoes of a con artist. You've created a false religion that says that there's a god that answers prayers. Knowing that your made-up god won't actually answer any prayers at all, which would you do?

1. Tell your followers that God answers prayers consistently.
2. Tell your followers that God does what he wants, so he sometimes doesn't answer prayers (or "answers them with 'not yet,'" or "answers them in unexpected ways").

Which option would be best to avoid your scam being discovered?

Option #2.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I do not disagree with that.

Option #2.

Right: and that's why that passage you quoted is consistent with Baha'u'llah being a con artist.

Was he one? I don't know. But for me to take any purported "prophet of God" seriously, I need more from "I can't say for sure that he isn't a con artist;" I would need "he definitely isn't a con artist."

... and when someone uses tactics like this, it generally suggests to me that investing a lot of time or effort into trying to figure out whether they really are a con artist or not is likely not a good way to use my finite resources.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and it goes something along the lines of: "One day, several people on different sides of the Earth realized that a whole lot of people around them wondered the 'why' of it all - and then, in order to appease people, become popular, or realize their dreams of opening a coffee shop inside a 'church' (whatever that is), these pioneering individuals MADE A BUNCH OF STUFF UP."

I believe it goes more like this:

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1 ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

 

[ppp]

That atheists feel profoundly uncomfortable with what they do not know. So uncomfortable that they construct narratives to explain how there could be so many believers and so many religions if God does not exist. Atheists will believe anything that they want to believe is true, never afraid of what might be true.

I don't know why you think the fields of cultural anthropology and human behavioral psychology are "atheist" narratives.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right: and that's why that passage you quoted is consistent with Baha'u'llah being a con artist.

Which passage? I posted more than one. Do you mean this one?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

I cannot respond until I know what passage you are referring to.

Was he one? I don't know. But for me to take any purported "prophet of God" seriously, I need more from "I can't say for sure that he isn't a con artist;" I would need "he definitely isn't a con artist."

... and when someone uses tactics like this, it generally suggests to me that investing a lot of time or effort into trying to figure out whether they really are a con artist or not is likely not a good way to use my finite resources.

What tactics? When did I ever say that is all I have?
I can say definitely He was not a con artist and I could explain why, but that would take some time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe it goes more like this:

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1 ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

View attachment 43109

Those things do not just "build" on one another. They are, in some cases, so different that it should boggle the mind if what you're saying it accepted as "true." Just because your graphic is made from nice colors doesn't make it magically explain a darn thing.

The other problem - things like the greek (and then roman) pantheon of gods, and norse understanding of who and what the gods were does not appear in your timeline. Why is that, do you think?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know why you think the fields of cultural anthropology and human behavioral psychology are "atheist" narratives.

Why switch gears? I was not referring to those fields. I was talking about God and religion...
Atheists feel profoundly uncomfortable with what they do not know about God and religion.

 

[Jos]

How could I ever prove that my interpretation is correct?
How could the Jews ever prove that their interpretation is correct?

Yes interpretation is subjective but I would think that the author of something would at least have some sort of authority on how to interpret what they've written and thus, I think the Jewish interpretation would be the correct one

One reason people come to different conclusions is because of a lack of specificity, but what makes you think that God would want everyone to come to the same conclusions?

Why would He want that? Doesn't he want everyone to believe in Him and have a relationship with Him?

 

[Jos]

Yes, and there is always something about Hebrew words that get twisted around when translated. As I recall I think one Jewish interpretation had "They" instead of "He" shall come from all those places. So it is the Jewish exiles returning and not a prophecy about the Jewish Messiah coming from Assyria. And I don't know if the Assyrian Empire extended all the way over to Teheran.

Interesting, that's why prophecy is so messy and something that's so divisive. It doesn't make sense why an all powerful being would use something so problematic

But how close do vague prophecies have to be to be totally accurate?

If it's vague that means that it can be interpreted a million different ways and be used to verify anything and so it would be very easy for a vague prophecy to be accurate thus not making it convincing to me.

 

[ppp]

Why switch gears? I was not referring to those fields.

No gear switching needed. You were referring to my statements about why so many people believe that there are gods.