How do Baha’is see atheists?

[CG Didymus]

Since no one ever in all history has shown any evidence of God, soul, heaven, hell. end of days, prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, Mahdis; so your belief is very much subjective. Not just subjective, but superstitious as well. You have yourself accepted there is no way to prove existence og God and the truth of the claim that a person is a messenger of any God.
In that case, my belief is more objective. I do not believe in existence of a pink unicorn or that there is an elephant in my cup-board.

Yeah, easy for a Baha'i to say that they "see truth" in all religions. But what about the false beliefs? Baha'is do see things wrong with the beliefs in all religions too. And I agree with them.

But I also see things I think are wrong with their religion too. And that's something they don't see, or that they don't want to admit. And I can understand that. Who in any religion wants to admit that their religion isn't perfect? That would be being too "objective" and too honest.

 

[Kfox]

You would have to know more than God to know that the messenger is foolish, but that is logically impossible since you cannot be more than all-knowing.

No; all it takes is simple logic, to be all knowing is not necessary

They don't make sense to you and the others like you, but that does not mean they don't actually make sense...
All human minds work differently so what you think makes sense, God speaking from the clouds, seems foolish to me.

IOW when preaching to the Choir, the message only makes sense to the choir members; but for everybody else, it makes no sense at all. I guess it all boils down to who you trying to convince; those who already believe or those who don’t.

 

[Kfox]

Strange stuff, a Baha'i denying that this God of theirs can speak from the clouds or sky or even speak at all. Yet the NT in the gospel of Luke said that God did speak from a cloud.​

Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)​

​

34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”​

By today's standards that's an empty claim because there is no record outside of the bible of that actually happening. If God were to do this TODAY with today's technology, such an event would be undeniable for years to come.

 

[lukethethird]

Yeah, easy for a Baha'i to say that they "see truth" in all religions. But what about the false beliefs? Baha'is do see things wrong with the beliefs in all religions too. And I agree with them.

But I also see things I think are wrong with their religion too. And that's something they don't see, or that they don't want to admit. And I can understand that. Who in any religion wants to admit that their religion isn't perfect? That would be being too "objective" and too honest.

All people see the BS in religions, atheists see it in just one more religion than believers do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Science works in thousands of fields, and evaluation requires specialization and special equipment. That is not like the writing or saying of a 19th Century uneducated self-seeking Iranian.

No, it's not like the writing of a Prophet. Religion is not science. Since it falls under a different purview the evaluation requires different methods.

 

[Trailblazer]

For a Baha'i, if they can't get along with other Baha'is, then what's all this talk about unity and that all people are one? And the Baha'is I knew all had problems with other Baha'is. But they had to find ways to overcome those problems and learn to get along and work with each other.

The reason I do not participate in the Baha'i community has nothing to do with whether I can get along with other Baha'is. That is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions. I get along fine with all the Baha'is but I choose not to participate for personal reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it isn't. When Baha'u'llah writes that he is a messenger of God that is not objective evidence. It is a claim.

Who ever said that the claim is Baha'u'llah is evidence? Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have said that a claim is not evidence of any kind. Anyone can make a claim. Evidence is what supports the claim.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

Messengers are objective evidence since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who in any religion wants to admit that their religion isn't perfect? That would be being too "objective" and too honest.

Of course the Baha'i Faith is not perfect. Whenever humans are involved in anything it becomes less than perfect. Only God is perfect.
If you are waiting till the Baha'i Faith 'looks' perfect to you you will be waiting until hell freezes over.

 

[F1fan]

Who ever said that the claim is Baha'u'llah is evidence?

You/ You go on about why you believe Baha'u'llah's writings, and that they are evidence for your belief.

Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have said that a claim is not evidence of any kind. Anyone can make a claim. Evidence is what supports the claim.

Yet you treat claims as if they are true, thus evidence. That is your bad habit that you think is a clear conclusion.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

Messengers are objective evidence since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

See, here you are treating their claims of being a messenger as valid, and thus evidence. No, their claim of being a messenger is still just a claim, it's not evidence that they are a messenger.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

Notice critical thinkers, and other theists, are not convinced. Only critical thinkers explain why they aren't convinced. You don't like these explanations so reject them. You don;t reject the explanations because critical thinkers are making errors, only because you are a believer and have decided you are correct, and thus critical thinkers are wrong by default (since to your mind you are correct).

 

[CG Didymus]

All people see the BS in religions, atheists see it in just one more religion than believers do.

Yeah, Baha'is make it sound like people should have seen the "truth" in the next religion that came along. But, looking back at the different religions, there's not one that Baha'is can say have the right beliefs and practices. And looking from any one religion, all the others have important differences that make them incompatible with theirs. Some do allow for those others just to be different "paths", but that's not what the Baha'is believe. With them it is that the others were "originally" true but then got offtrack and added in some false beliefs and practices. Here's what Abdul Baha had to say about Buddhism and Confucianism...

Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images . . . So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul. That is why it is renewed. The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances.​

​

I guess Buddha didn't establish the "oneness" of God very well. Or... Abdul Baha' is just making things up. Like if Buddha never claimed to be a manifestation/messenger of the supposed one true God, then why do Baha'is make him one? Only because it fits their beliefs. They need a progression of messengers sent by their God. But then they have to show how the messages from all those "divine" teachers got messed up... leaving theirs the only pure, undiluted and untainted message left.

 

[F1fan]

Of course the Baha'i Faith is not perfect. Whenever humans are involved in anything it becomes less than perfect.

That's why humans developed the rules of the scientific method and the rules of logic, and many other forms of rules in various organizations like cities and companies. It helps eliminate certain biases. Religions are an exception, as they can build bias right into their rules, like assuming a God exists, and doubt is shunned.

Only God is perfect.

How do you know? Another guess by you that you write as if it is a fact?

Your claim here is an example of how religions are not perfect because they encourage believers to make flawed assumptions, and reinforce bad thinking habits.

If you are waiting till the Baha'i Faith 'looks' perfect to you you will be waiting until hell freezes over.

Critical thinkers are waiting for it to have factual evidence. Until then it is no more valid than any other outrageous religious claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

No; all it takes is simple logic, to be all knowing is not necessary

Simple logic tells us that God sending Messengers is not foolish, since most people in the world believe in God because of one of those Messengers. Do you think God should change His method of communication just because a small percentage of the population who are atheists don't like God using Messengers to communicate? That would be foolish and God is not foolish. God uses a method that works.

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​

IOW when preaching to the Choir, the message only makes sense to the choir members; but for everybody else, it makes no sense at all. I guess it all boils down to who you trying to convince; those who already believe or those who don’t.

I am not trying to convince anyone, I am just answering posts on a forum. I cannot make something make sense to other people, not any more than they can make something that makes no sense to me make sense to me. All humans reason differently because what is in their minds is different. The only way people can change their minds is if they allow new information into their minds. That is called being open-minded. If people are closed-minded and insist their position is correct they will stay with their position.

 

[CG Didymus]

Notice critical thinkers, and other theists, are not convinced. Only critical thinkers explain why they aren't convinced. You don't like these explanations so reject them. You don;t reject the explanations because critical thinkers are making errors, only because you are a believer and have decided you are correct, and thus critical thinkers are wrong by default (since to your mind you are correct).

TB said, "Whenever humans are involved in anything it becomes less than perfect." That's all Baha'is have is people... imperfect people and they are running the Baha'i Faith. I've asked the Baha'is several times about their plan for world peace that calls for all nations to disarm. Well, if Baha'is aren't perfect, then what about the military and political leaders of the nations? They are going to trust the leaders of the other nations to disarm? Like I've said, in the U.S., we can't even get our citizens to give up their AR-15's.

 

[CG Didymus]

No; all it takes is simple logic, to be all knowing is not necessary

Do a lot of people believe in a God or Gods? Yes. Are they the same concept of God? No. There could have been a time when most all people believed in some God. But most of those Gods weren't real. Same today. Do Baha'is believe the God of the Trinitarian Christians? No. Do they believe in the multiple Gods of some Hindus? No. Because Baha'is say there is only one God and he has sent several manifestations/messengers, does that make it true? No. That is what we are debating... Is the stuff the Baha'i preach true? Is there flaws in some of the things they claim? I think so. So, I question them and challenge them to defend their beliefs and give evidence for what they claim. Their evidence and defense? "Our prophet said so, and he speaks the truth, because he is a messenger of God."

 

[Trailblazer]

That's why humans developed the rules of the scientific method and the rules of logic, and many other forms of rules in various organizations like cities and companies.

These methods are also less than perfect because they involve imperfect humans.

It helps eliminate certain biases. Religions are an exception, as they can build bias right into their rules, like assuming a God exists, and doubt is shunned.

Do you really think you are not biased? You are just as biased as I am, only in a different direction. All humans have biases.

How do you know? Another guess by you that you write as if it is a fact?

I did not say that I know. I did not say it is a fact. I believe that God is perfect. That is a belief. Nobody can know anything about God.

If what I post sounds like a fact to you that does not mean I am stating it as a fact. I am not going to preface everything I write with "I believe." It is a given that it is a belief because I have already said many times that there are no facts about God.

Your claim here is an example of how religions are not perfect because they encourage believers to make flawed assumptions, and reinforce bad thinking habits.

It is not an assumption, it is a belief.

Critical thinkers are waiting for it to have factual evidence. Until then it is no more valid than any other outrageous religious claim.

The factual evidence is all out there so there is no need to wait for it. The factual evidence are the facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, all available on the internet. That is not proof, it is evidence. If you are waiting for proof that God exists and has Messengers you will be waiting till hell freezes over.

 

[F1fan]

TB said, "Whenever humans are involved in anything it becomes less than perfect." That's all Baha'is have is people... imperfect people and they are running the Baha'i Faith. I've asked the Baha'is several times about their plan for world peace that calls for all nations to disarm. Well, if Baha'is aren't perfect, then what about the military and political leaders of the nations? They are going to trust the leaders of the other nations to disarm? Like I've said, in the U.S., we can't even get our citizens to give up their AR-15's.

Right. This is why any idealism is doomed to fail, even if it is correct. Ideals are notoriously flawed because they don't account to those who DON'T wish to cooperate. And this puts idealists in a dubious place because the solution is to eliminate these folks. They can't be reasoned with, so what perfect solution is left? There is none.

 

[F1fan]

These methods are also less than perfect because they involve imperfect humans.

They reduce bias and assumptions, and that is why they are useful and produce valid results.

Do you really think you are not biased? You are just as biased as I am, only in a different direction. All humans have biases.

Of course I have biases, and part of critical thinking is the self-awareness of bias, and practicing setting it aside. You don't have this sort of discipline. I don;t see you even recognizing your own bias, rather you lean heavily on it.

I did not say that I know. I did not say it is a fact. I believe that God is perfect. That is a belief. Nobody can know anything about God.

Only now do you admit it is what you believe. You should have stated that before I pointed out the flawed implication in your comment.

If I wrote "I am the sexiest man alive" that is a declarative statement, and it is formed this way because it is factual. If what I really meant was "my best firned's mom says I am the sexiest man alive" it is totally different. You have a BAD habit of leaving out the conditional phrase of "I believe..." in many of your comments that you WANT to be true, but are not. You get called out, and you react as if you made no error.

If what I post sounds like a fact to you that does not mean I am stating it as a fact. I am not going to preface everything I write with "I believe." It is a given that it is a belief because I have already said many times that there are no facts about God.

It's up to you to communicate honestly, and not leave others to figure out what you mean or not. That you have these bad habits suggests a sort of deception.

It is not an assumption, it is a belief.

These are often synonymous.

The factual evidence is all out there so there is no need to wait for it.

Yet you don't post any such thing. More nonsense.

The factual evidence are the facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, all available on the internet.

None of the facts support Baha'u'llah's religious claims. His claims are not fact-based. It's a fact he existed, and that he wrote papers on religious matters, it's not a fact that his writings are true.

That is not proof, it is evidence. If you are waiting for proof that God exists and has Messengers you will be waiting till hell freezes over.

Right, that is why most critical thinkers are atheists.

 

[F1fan]

Simple logic tells us that God sending Messengers is not foolish, since most people in the world believe in God because of one of those Messengers.

Yet humans ARE easily fooled and will believe in frauds. Even Bahai don't think all gurus are messengers, so you by fedault must dismiss them as frauds. So, if God exists and wants to send messengers as a reliable form of communication there would be tests on which are authentic and which are fraud. What is the test that Baha'u'llah passed?

Do you think God should change His method of communication just because a small percentage of the population who are atheists don't like God using Messengers to communicate? That would be foolish and God is not foolish. God uses a method that works.

Yes, because it is open to misinterpretation on numerous levels. Direct communication is superior because it removes a level that could fail: humans. Let's note that the messenger is dead, so who can check humans interpreting things wrong? Bad system.

 

[Trailblazer]

They reduce bias and assumptions, and that is why they are useful and produce valid results.

Of course I have biases, and part of critical thinking is the self-awareness of bias, and practicing setting it aside. You don't have this sort of discipline. I don;t see you even recognizing your own bias, rather you lean heavily on it.

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Bias: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.
Bias Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

I am very self-aware so I know what my biases are. I am not biased against atheism, as noted in my OP, since that would be unfair, given there is no proof that God exists. I am also not biased against person or group of people compared with another. Admittedly I am biased against certain religions like Christianity since I believe that salvation for 'only' those who believe in Jesus results in treating some people unfairly. Since I know I have this bias I go out of my way to correct for it, understanding that Christians have a right to their beliefs.

You are biased against religion and particularly against the Baha'i Faith. Whenever you call it homophobic that is a bias. You have clearly demonstrated that you cannot set that bias aside and that results in treating the Baha'is unfairly simply because they have a religion with certain laws that pertain to sexual behavior. Those laws do not result in treating people unfairly since they apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Only now do you admit it is what you believe. You should have stated that before I pointed out the flawed implication in your comment.

I am not going to preface all by beliefs with "I believe." Anything I say about God is a belief, not a fact, since there are no facts about God.

These are often synonymous.

belief: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

belief

1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

assumption: something that you accept as true without question or proof:

assumption

1. something that you accept as true without question or proof: 2. the act of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

They are not synonymous even though a belief can be based upon an assumption. If I was certain that the Baha'i Faith was true and I accepted it without question, then I would be making an assumption, but I did not do that. Rather, I researched it before I came to believe it is true.

Yet you don't post any such thing. More nonsense.

I have posted the link to the post that explains the factual evidence over and over again, too many times to even count.

None of the facts support Baha'u'llah's religious claims. His claims are not fact-based. It's a fact he existed, and that he wrote papers on religious matters, it's not a fact that his writings are true.

I never said that His claims are fact-based or that His Writings are true. Rather, I have said repeatedly that there is no proof that anyone is a Messenger of God, which means there are no facts that could ever prove that claim.

All I ever said is that there are facts about Baha'u'llah and that is evidence that indicates who He was, but it is not proof. Yesterday I went to a lot of trouble to post the difference between proof and evidence, I suggest you review those definitions.

Right, that is why most critical thinkers are atheists.

Waiting for proof that God exists and has Messengers is not the product of critical thinking. It is irrational and unreasonable, given there has never been any such proof. If you want to say you cannot believe without proof that is different, and can be considered rational and reasonable.

Discounting all the evidence of God's existence is also not the product of critical thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet humans ARE easily fooled and will believe in frauds. Even Bahai don't think all gurus are messengers, so you by fedault must dismiss them as frauds. So, if God exists and wants to send messengers as a reliable form of communication there would be tests on which are authentic and which are fraud. What is the test that Baha'u'llah passed?

"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. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—​

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary."
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

Yes, because it is open to misinterpretation on numerous levels. Direct communication is superior because it removes a level that could fail: humans. Let's note that the messenger is dead, so who can check humans interpreting things wrong? Bad system.

You said: "Direct communication is superior because it removes a level that could fail: humans."
Direct communication to humans would not remove humans from the equation, it would include humans, thus it could fail.
Humans could easily misinterpret the communication just as thye have misinterpreted scriptures. That is aside from the fact that nobody could ever know it was 'actually God' speaking to them and not an auditory hallucination.

It makes absolutely no logical sense for God to communicate to each and every person on earth - all 7.8 billion people - when God can communicate to one Messenger who can disseminate that information to everyone in the world.