How do Baha’is see atheists?

[Aupmanyav]

I can deduce what God can do if He exists by looking at the evidence.
A belief is not a guess, since it is based upon something concrete, scriptures revealed by a Messenger.
Because Baha'u'llah wrote that God could prove He exists, and that also makes sense to me that an omnipotent God could do that.

Why would God make such a thing up? Why would I make it up?
It makes sense that an omnipotent God could prove that He exists to everyone if He wanted to.

What evidence are you talking about?
And why it is concrete if your messenger has not given any evidence?
How does what Bahaollah (or any other so-called messenger) wrote or said is evidence of an omni-potent God? IMHO, they were fooling people.

First you have to prove the existence of God before we can discuss what what he can make up and what he cannot.
No God has ever done that. That is why there are people who term it as hog-wash.

 

[lukethethird]

I am a Baha’i, and I have posted to a lot of atheists over the last 10 years on various forums so I am well aware of their position about God’s existence.

As I see it, regarding God’s existence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities, given the evidence we have.

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate to humans (theist), or​

2. God exists and doesn’t communicate to humans (deist), or​

3. God does not exist (atheist)​

Atheists hold the third logical position, that God doesn’t exist. I consider that to be a logical position since there is no proof that God exists.

I know what I think about atheists, but I never knew what other Baha’is think, so I was happy to see this thread posted on a Baha'i Forum.
For any Baha’is or atheists who are curious what Baha’is think about atheists you can read on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/13vz3t2

You have to give examples of how Baha's think and if they are in any meaningful way able to think because this atheist hasn't seen an original thought from a Bahai' to date. Arguing over evidence as it regards to superstitious beliefs is a past time of the religious, and Baha'is are no exception, so convince us that Baha's are capable of thought and please provide examples.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqals of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat the offence. Such is the penalty which He Who is the Lord of Names hath assigned them in this world; and in the world to come He hath ordained for them a humiliating torment. Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 37

38.25 grams of gold for first offense - USD 2407.44 (current rate in India)
Is that how Bahai House of Justice became rich?

 

[lukethethird]

What evidence are you talking about?
And why it is concrete if your messenger has not given any evidence?
How does what Bahaollah (or any other so-called messenger) wrote or said is evidence of an omni-potent God? IMHO, they were fooling people.

First you have to prove the existence of God before we can discuss what what he can make up and what he cannot.
No God has ever done that. That is why there are people who term it as hog-wash.

My invisible god messenger is better than your invisible god messenger, this is the level of intelligence we have come to expect from these devout believers.

 

[lukethethird]

38.25 grams of gold for first offense - USD 2407.44 (current rate in India)
Is that how Bahai House of Justice became rich?

Believers are required to have more money than brains in order to be fleeced.

 

[F1fan]

I can deduce what God can do if He exists by looking at the evidence.

Right, IF a God exists. That is a guess. There is no evidence that offers us any details of a God that isn't known as existing. What you mean by "evidence" is what other people guess. There are no observed facts that you call evidence.

If an omnipotent God exists and has a need to come to earth we would see God here.

That is you guessing. When you write "if" that means you aren't relying on facts.

We can have a belief about all that based on scriptures, even though it cannot be proven.
A belief is not a guess, since it is based upon something concrete, scriptures revealed by a Messenger.

Why would any rational person have beliefs that assume these supernatural claims are true? Taking the word of people who wrote the Bible or your messenger without adequate facts only tells us that some are desperate to believe in something.

Because Baha'u'llah wrote that God could prove He exists, and that also makes sense to me that an omnipotent God could do that.

And why take his word for it when he doesn't offer facts? Atheists don't take the word of anyone just because they make comforting claims, they demand evidence sufficient for reasoning.

Why would God make such a thing up? Why would I make it up?

Because many people want to believe in a God, or be important, or be an influence, or get attention. Many motives at play. And it makes us wonder because there is no religious framework based on facts, infcluding yours. Your belief is based on claims made some dead guy we can't question. He offers no facts. You make up deatils yourself on these threads and them claim it is only your opinion after you get called out that you aren't stating facts.

It makes sense that an omnipotent God could prove that He exists to everyone if He wanted to.

And it makes sense that the Tooth Fairy could wake up every child as she exchanges money for teeth.

It goes without saying that everything I write about God or Messengers is what I believe since I have said repeatedly that it is not a proven fact.

Sure, knock yourself out. But realize what you believe is no more credible or true than what Mormons or Hindus believe. Just because you believe in Santa Claus doesn't make it significant to anyone else in a religious discussion.

My evidence appears weak to you, but my evidence appears strong to be. That is why it is not like guessing.

Your evidence is little more than hearsay. You believe what others claim, then you base you beliefs on what they believe. belief built on more belief, and that means all you are doing is guessing they are correct, and then that your guesses are true. It's all questionable. Your evidence isn't factual.

It has been well thought out by me. I can only explain how I thought it out but that won't be satisfactory for people who think differently.

I'm sure you have spent time thinking, but your conclusions and guesses are not reasoned conclusions based on factual evidence.

Remember all sorts of religious people think about what they believe, and justify their beliefs. Heck, the 9-11 hijackers spent years thinking about their duty to God and their plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Thinking is not the same as reasoning. Reasoning is SKILLED thinking. It follows facts and a set of rules that allow otherwise flawed humans to make sound conclusions. Your conclusions are not sound, and we explain why.

 

[F1fan]

The claim is that God doesn't want people to be homosexuals. To God it is an abomination. God tried his hardest to get rid of them by having them stoned to death. That didn't work. His new plan, that is sure to work, is to have them get therapy. But, if they don't change their ways, then God is prepared to take extreme measures against them and take their voting rights away.

And shaming gays has always been the solution by God (religious-based bigots, middlemen for an absent God).

But when have any of these religious moral laws ever worked? Gay sex, straight sex outside of marriage, sex with oneself, it's gonna happen. And it's gonna happen even with people that belong to some religion that says they believe in God. It's gonna happen with the leaders of those religions. God's supposed laws against sexual practices are not followed. With the Baha'i Faith, the good news, for people with a little money, they can fornicate all they want and just pay a fine. I guess it gets doubled, though. And then there's some humiliating torment in the world to come. But that still beats getting stoned to death.

These religious laws work until humanists come forth, and then humanists are targeted by God (middlemen for a absent God) until they too go underground. Shame and violence is the method by religious extremists.

God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqals of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat the offence. Such is the penalty which He Who is the Lord of Names hath assigned them in this world; and in the world to come He hath ordained for them a humiliating torment.​

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 37​

Yup, humiliate any group that an arrogant religious leader claims he can do because he represents an absent God.

 

[Trailblazer]

God appears and speaks in both the Hebrew Bible and the NT. So, fictional characters can do most anything.

Now how does a Baha'i interpret that story? As fictional? If so, that makes the "proof" of God sending fire is fictional and not real but made-up.

Who cares. The Bible is ancient history.

Yes, God could do anything he wanted to... like speak and appear to everybody, but he chooses not to. Almost as if he's not real.

It is as if God is real since a real God would never speak and appear to everybody.

 

[Trailblazer]

What evidence are you talking about?
And why it is concrete if your messenger has not given any evidence?

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

First you have to prove the existence of God before we can discuss what what he can make up and what he cannot.

Nobody can prove that God exists.

No God has ever done that.

And I highly doubt He ever will, not in your lifetime anyway. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.

 

[lukethethird]

Who cares. The Bible is ancient history.

It is as if God is real since a real God would never speak and appear to everybody.

The queen of superstition has spoken. Tell it like it is o' wise one.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have to give examples of how Baha's think and if they are in any meaningful way able to think because this atheist hasn't seen an original thought from a Bahai' to date. Arguing over evidence as it regards to superstitious beliefs is a past time of the religious, and Baha'is are no exception, so convince us that Baha's are capable of thought and please provide examples.

My OP is an example and it is original from me. No other Baha'i ever thought it up.

 

[Trailblazer]

The queen of superstition has spoken. Tell it like it is o' wise one.

There is no superstition in the Baha'i Faith. That is all in the Bible, which is fit for nothing except a book shelf gathering dust.

 

[lukethethird]

My OP is an example and it is original from me. No other Baha'i ever thought it up.

There is nothing original about your superstitions.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is nothing original about your superstitions.

That's because I don't have any.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Meanwhile the clock is ticking.

Clocks are illusions, 'maya'. I am eternal.
You have yourself said that existence of God and the truth of a claim to be a messenger can never be proved.

That's because I don't have any.

Is it good to have superstitions? Is it good to believe what has no evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

Clocks are illusions, 'maya'. I am eternal.

I thought you didn't believe in life after death.

Is it good to have superstitions?

I don't have superstitions.

What is the true meaning of superstition?​

​

Britannica Dictionary definition of SUPERSTITION. : a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.​

Superstition Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary​

Is it good to believe what has no evidence?

I don't believe in what has no evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why I don't reply directly to TB. She said....

"A better question is how this thread got to be all about what the Baha'is do and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.​

It happened because @CG Didymus showed up and did what he always does to threads I start."​

​

Then I asked Truthseeker...

Why does your friend accuse me? There were eight non-Baha'is responding on the first page. I didn't post anything until page six and that was to this post...

To which TB responded with...

"Nobody accused you of anything but if you choose not to believe that nobody can make you believe it."​

​

I guess that was not an "accusation" but a "belief". Good luck to all of you that try and debate with her.

 

[lukethethird]

Why I don't reply directly to TB. She said....

"A better question is how this thread got to be all about what the Baha'is do and what the Baha'i Faith teaches.​

It happened because @CG Didymus showed up and did what he always does to threads I start."​

​

Then I asked Truthseeker...

To which TB responded with...

"Nobody accused you of anything but if you choose not to believe that nobody can make you believe it."​

​

I guess that was not an "accusation" but a "belief". Good luck to all of you that try and debate with her.

There really is no debate to be had anyways, the interchanging of words like superstition with evidence renders debate meaningless, which in turn leads to blaming others for a crappy thread.

 

[CG Didymus]

And why it is concrete

As we all know, Baha'is don't believe any of the Scriptures of the other religions, except maybe the Quran and their own, are concrete.

Like the Baha'i claim that their prophet has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the major religions. And then they usually only talk about a few things from the Bible that they make into prophecies. There's nothing "concrete" about any of the so-called prophecies... especially when they try and fit the prophecies about Kalki and Maitreya into being about their prophet.

Prophecies point forward. They create expectations. But they are circumscribed by their historical and cultural and religious time and place.​

Given these limitations, which are rather profound, the claim that Baha’u’llah is the fulfillment of the Kalki prophecies must be qualified and nuanced. The fact that Baha’u’llah did not literally fulfill the Kalki prophecies is actually for the better​

The Baha’i teachings maintain that Baha’u’llah, the prophet and founder of the Baha’i Faith, has fulfilled the prophecies of the Buddha’s return – as well as the prophecies of the revered founders of the world’s religions​

Baha'i scholars have demonstrated that the prophecies in the Manu Srmiti and other books indicate the exact date of the end of the kalki Yuga and the coming of the Kalki Avatar. This date, 1844, is also the year of the beginning of the Baha'i Faith.​

​

Strange that Baha'is use the year 1844 as the return of Christ and Kalki. But that's when the forerunner to their prophet declared himself something special. How many prophecies do Baha'i have when their main prophet actually declared himself? But... doesn't it matter to them? No, it all makes perfect, rational sense. Yet, the greatest prophecy, that the world will be united as one, has not been fulfilled. When that happens, and it's not by force, and the Baha'is administration and Baha'i laws actually work, and the nations of the world disarm themselves, then I'll be impressed.

 

[CG Didymus]

There really is no debate to be had anyways, the interchanging of words like superstition with evidence renders debate meaningless, which in turn leads to blaming others for a crappy thread.

Well, it's gotta be tough for Baha'is to "teach" their faith without looking like they are trying to teach and promote it. And it's gotta be tough to promote peace and unity when they are also saying that the teachings and laws of their prophet and religion are the only way to bring about peace and unity.