How do Baha’is see atheists?

[Trailblazer]

It's not a religious choice. It's a personal spiritual choice regardless of what religion one is, or if they are any religion at all. Good and evil (love and selfishness) are apparent to anyone with eyes willing to see it. We can act for our mutual benefit, or we can act for our own benefit at the expense of others. The choice has always been ours.

I agree.

No messages are needed. The choice is obvious and it always has been. It's fine that some of us have pointed it out poetically, for others to better recognize, but it was never hidden from us. If we are not seeing it it's because we have closed our eyes, hearts, and minds to love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity. As sadly, many of us have.

I did not say that messages are needed to know about the choice between good and evil. "I believe" that the messages are needed for other reasons.

I don't think the message ever comes from anyone else. I think what happens is that sometimes the words of others helps us recognize the truth that is already within ourselves. It's like reading a book. There's no information contained in the paper or the ink, or in the ink splotches on the pages. The information is ALL in our minds. And the printed text is just a mechanism to help us organize it, there. So that we can recognize and make sense of it.

The Truth is not in the minds of everyone and that is why humanity needs Messengers from God who come to reveal the Truth for everyone.

There are no divine messengers or divine messages. There is only the divine truth within us. And that can be illuminated for us by anyone at any time. Even unintentionally; when we become ready and willing to recognize it.

You do not KNOW that there are no divine messengers or divine messages, not any more than I KNOW there are divine messengers and divine messages. I can only believe that, yet you state it as a fact. It is not a fact unless you can prove it, and you cannot prove it.

I wonder what you have invested in your adamant position. I know what my investment is.
I hope you realize this is only a forum. It is not reality and you do not create reality by posting your position over and over and over again.
Reality is whatever it is. If God sent Messengers there is isn't anything you can do about it but balk at them but that will not change reality.

I don't care what he was. I don't care what Jesus was. Those truths aren't the truth that matters. Absolutely nothing changes in the world or in my life by Baha'u'llah being a divine messenger, or not, or by Jesus being a god or not. The revelation and the promise is already here for me to recognize, and to choose. That's what matters to us, and to the world. The rest is just religion. And we all know that religion is used to resist spiritual change more often than it's used to actually change us for the better.

I don't care if you care who Jesus or Baha'u'llah were, but I wonder why it bothers you so much who other people believe they were.

No matter whether they were divine or not, the revelation and the promise is only here for you to recognize and choose because Jesus and Baha'u'llah brought it.

Oh I see, your beef is against religion. You think humanity doesn't need religion. I adamantly disagree. Maybe we do not need the old decaying religions of the past but we do need religion. I fully agree with what Baha'u'llah wrote below.

“Religion is, verily, the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples. The weakening of the pillars of religion hath strengthened the foolish, and emboldened them, and made them more arrogant. Verily I say: The greater the decline of religion, the more grievous the waywardness of the ungodly. This cannot but lead in the end to chaos and confusion. .”​

Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 28​

I don't "believe" things that I can't possibly know to be so. That would be foolish (and dishonest). All I can do is trust in the hope that they are so, if I do hope that they are so. But in the case of Jesus I have no need to hope that the story is historically accurate. Because that's not the point nor the value if the story.

In the case of Jesus I have no need to hope that the story is historically accurate because that's not the point nor the value if the story for me.
However, it is important to other people who Jesus was and what Jesus did on earth.

The point and value of the story is in it's ability to help me recognize that truth within. And I feel that it has done it's job. Now it's up to me.

That is the point and value of the story for you. It has done its job for you, but what about everyone else in the world? What if they have different needs?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is just such a ridiculous statement. The choice, so you seem to think, is "be religious" or "be selfish." Got news for you -- I've known some very, very selfish religious types, and I've known a lot of generous and loving atheists. Religion has ZERO to do with it.

I don't know how some religious people live with themselves -- you know the ones, those who suppose, "gosh, if I didn't believe in God, I'd be out there killing and raping." That tells me everything I'd ever want to know about that person. It's only terror for himself that prevents him from doing harm to others.

Do you know why I don't harm anyone? Because I don't want to -- God or no God.

I did not say the choice is to "be religious" or "be selfish."
I asked how he thought the divine spirit within us is going to be manifested without religion, one by one?
And how well is that working so far?

Apparently your definition of religion and religious people differs widely from my definition.
Being religious is not just about believing in God, it is about living the life that the Prophets taught, but that does not mean that non-religious people and atheists cannot also live that kind of life.

"Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!"

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)​

Lights of Guidance (second part)​

​

 

[Trailblazer]

IOW Atheism is not about denying the existence of God, it's about not calling something God.

I don't see the difference between the two. You cannot call anything God if you deny the existence of God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I did not say the choice is to "be religious" or "be selfish."
I asked how he thought the divine spirit within us is going to be manifested without religion, one by one?
And how well is that working so far?

Apparently your definition of religion and religious people differs widely from my definition.
Being religious is not just about believing in God, it is about living the life that the Prophets taught, but that does not mean that non-religious people and atheists cannot also live that kind of life.

"Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!"​

​

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)​

Lights of Guidance (second part)​

​

Sorry, but I want no "prophes" deciding what kind of life I should be living. The only person fit to make such prescriptions for me is myself.

And I cannot believe in any "god" (and therefore in any "prophet") because they evidence against is at 100 decibels, and against is quieter than a mouse's fart in a vacuum. And therefore I must grow in my own way, and at my own pace, and for my own reasons. I call this "freedom."

 

[Trailblazer]

What's the worse that could happen if God himself addressed the entire world at once, in a language each of us could understand, and cleared up all the misunderstandings we have of him, rather than depending on some flawed human who lacks credibility? IOW why not give his message himself?

Why should God do that, just because a small minority of the human population who are atheists don't like the idea of Messengers?

Does everyone in the world have 40 years to receive God's messages, as Baha'u'llah did?
How are they going to do anything else if they take 40 years off from work and put everything else in life on hold?

Get real. There is nothing more absurd than God communicating directly to everyone. I guess that is one reason why God doesn't do it.
God did give the message Himself, He gave it to a Messenger, and that Messenger gave it to everyone in the world. If some people don't like the Messenger, that's not God's problem. It's their problem, if they want to know what God's message is.

 

[Kfox]

I don't see the difference between the two. You cannot call anything God if you deny the existence of God.

Do I deny the existence of Jesus, Kumara of Nepal, or Hali Selassie? No. But do I call them God? No, I call them people just like you or I.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but I want no "prophes" deciding what kind of life I should be living. The only person fit to make such prescriptions for me is myself.

And I cannot believe in any "god" (and therefore in any "prophet") because they evidence against is at 100 decibels, and against is quieter than a mouse's fart in a vacuum. And therefore I must grow in my own way, and at my own pace, and for my own reasons. I call this "freedom."

That's fine for you, but I do believe in God and Prophets since I see evidence for them, so I must grow in my own way, and at my own pace, and for my own reasons. I call this "freedom" since I have freedom to choose and I made my choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do I deny the existence of Jesus, Kumara of Nepal, or Hali Selassie? No. But do I call them God? No, I call them people just like you or I.

I do not call them God either. I call them people.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's too late for damage control. Gays are still prejudiced against by Baha'i'llah even though gays can marry, so it's more than "sex out of wedlock". And why is sex out of wedlock an issue at all for a revelation by God that is concerned about bigger issues, like world unity?

Gays can marry wherever gay marriage is allowed by the government, but they cannot have a Baha'i wedding, since marriage is only between a man and a woman.

The prohibition of sex out of wedlock is an issue for Baha'is because it is a Baha'i Law but it only applies to Baha'is.

And that is another layer of prejudice against gays that makes no sense. Secular law values equality and has legalizes gay marriage, so what's the problem with God, assuming Baha'u'llah isn't a fraud and isn't his idea? The ban on gay marriage is bigotry, as it targets this category of human in a way that harms them. And them being gay, and being married hurts no one else.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and raising a family.
What reason do you think God would change that now?

Nobody has to be a Baha'i unless they choose to.
Nobody is harmed by Baha'i laws, as nobody even pays any attention to them unless they are Baha'is.
If gays are Baha'is they understand the Baha'i laws and why they exist.

Do you? Based on what?

Based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys."

I don't see any clear language against pedophilia.

"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys."
Clearly it means men having sex with boys, which is pedophilia.

Baha'u'llah seems to think there was a problem with sons marrying their moms? How big a problem was this in his era?

Baha'u'llah wrote:
"It is forbidden you to wed your fathers’ wives." That was written when two wives were allowed, so it would not be marrying their own mother.
It must have been a problem as otherwise it would not have been in the Book of Laws.

 

[Kfox]

Why should God do that, just because a small minority of the human population who are atheists don't like the idea of Messengers?

The vast majority of people who reject your idea of God are not Atheists. If your God is real and spoke from the clouds, all of those misguided theists who worship the wrong God will know who the real God is.

Does everyone in the world have 40 years to receive God's messages, as Baha'u'llah did?
How are they going to do anything else if they take 40 years off from work and put everything else in life on hold?

40 years is not necessary. If God spoke from the clouds in an audible voice, in a language everybody can understand, the entire event will be confirmed by today’s technology; the US military will send up F-16’s and they will verify it is not a hoax, and the entire event will be covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and every recording devise world wide. This will be much more believable than some guy standing on a soap box claiming to be the messenger of God, and expecting everybody to just take his word for it.

 

[F1fan]

Gays can marry wherever gay marriage is allowed by the government, but they cannot have a Baha'i wedding, since marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Right, that is due to the bigotry of Baha'i rules. The progress of the 21st century has left Baha'i behind.

The prohibition of sex out of wedlock is an issue for Baha'is because it is a Baha'i Law but it only applies to Baha'is.

But as you noted the rules in Baha'i are supposed to apply to all humans, yet they are behind the times of the 21st century. If Baha'i rules the world who knows what they would do to gays and anyone who has sex while not be married. The history of theocratic rule shows us rampant human rights violations.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and raising a family.

Only due to old traditions. Humanity in many nations are progressing past old biases and prejudices, like those in your religion.

What reason do you think God would change that now?

I don't think any of the bigotry was from any God, I think all religions are created by humans, including yours. Why? Because of the many inconsistencies, and the lack of evidence for any of the many versions of God. Your religion has no crdinity or authority until you produce an actual God, and by definition of your messenger that can't happen.

Nobody has to be a Baha'i unless they choose to.

Right, it's not truth unless the fallible mortal decides it is, and in those cases it only applies to themselves. There is no authority in Baha'i over anyone else.

Nobody is harmed by Baha'i laws, as nobody even pays any attention to them unless they are Baha'is.

The bigotry is harmful. True believers always justify the immorality of their chosen religions. Why? Because it makes them look bad to align to a religion that harms people.

If gays are Baha'is they understand the Baha'i laws and why they exist.

I would question the self-respect of those gay people. Many marginalized groups who suffer prejudice have members that suffer from low self-esteem and will actually agree with the ideologies that condemn them.

Based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys."

Who cares, he's a bigot.

"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys."
Clearly it means men having sex with boys, which is pedophilia.

What about boys? What's the subject, how they get into mischief? It doesn't say.

Baha'u'llah wrote:
"It is forbidden you to wed your fathers’ wives." That was written when two wives were allowed, so it would not be marrying their own mother.

You already posted this, did the boys around Baha'u'llah have a problem with marrying their moms? Who were these guys? What happened to all the women? Stoned to death?

It must have been a problem as otherwise it would not have been in the Book of Laws.

And you think that was a good social environment for Baha'u'llah to grow up in, and you follow him as direction for your life?

 

[Kfox]

I do not call them God either. I call them people.

Of course! That's because you are atheist towards all Gods except for your own. My point was, atheist don't necessarily claim whatever it is you choose to call God does not exist, they just don't call anything God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The only person who know the purpose of this thread was the person who started it.
There was no goal. I just wanted to share something I saw on a Baha'i forum. It was purely informational.
Then I shared my opinion, as was posted in the OP.

I found it interesting and thought there were some decent points raised in it.

 

[Trailblazer]

The vast majority of people who reject your idea of God are not Atheists. If your God is real and spoke from the clouds, all of those misguided theists who worship the wrong God will know who the real God is.

So God should speak from the clouds:
"I am God and Baha'u'llah is my Messenger for this age"?

I guess you never heard of free will. God wants those theists and atheists to search and discover truth for themselves.
That is aside from the fact that most people would not believe it was God speaking from the clouds, and from which clouds will God speak so that everyone in the world will hear Him?

40 years is not necessary. If God spoke from the clouds in an audible voice, in a language everybody can understand, the entire event will be confirmed by today’s technology; the US military will send up F-16’s and they will verify it is not a hoax, and the entire event will be covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and every recording devise world wide. This will be much more believable than some guy standing on a soap box claiming to be the messenger of God, and expecting everybody to just take his word for it.

Whether or not it would be more believable is a moot point, since God does not need anyone's belief.... It is the believers who need to believe, and God set it up so they would have to come to that belief using God's method, not some other method they have devised.

Even if God spoke from the clouds in an audible voice, in a language everybody can understand, and the entire event was confirmed by today’s technology, the US military could not verify that it was God speaking. It could just as well be an alien from outer space speaking.

You might as well face the music. IF God is to be believed, God must believed on faith and evidence, and the Messengers are the evidence.
If God has wanted to garner belief in another way He could have done so, but He didn't. God has always used Messengers, Prophets, or whatever you choose to call them, to communicate to humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course! That's because you are atheist towards all Gods except for your own.

People believe differently about God and some people believe there are many gods but that does not mean there is actually more than one God.
If God is All-Powerful and All-Knowing, how much sesne does that make to have more than one God? Think about it.

My point was, atheist don't necessarily claim whatever it is you choose to call God does not exist, they just don't call anything God.

Why would atheists call anything God, given they do not believe God exists?

 

[Kfox]

So God should speak from the clouds:

Yes!

"I am God and Baha'u'llah is my Messenger for this age"?

No! If God spoke from the clouds, he wouldn’t need Baha’u’llah or any other messenger.

I guess you never heard of free will.

If you have all the needed information, you have free will. If God spoke from the clouds, you would have all the needed information

God wants those theists and atheists to search and discover truth for themselves.

They already do this, but because not everybody gets the right information, they sometimes get it wrong and are deceived into believing a lie as truth.

That is aside from the fact that most people would not believe it was God speaking from the clouds, and from which clouds will God speak so that everyone in the world will hear Him?

All of them; and where there are no clouds, speak from the sky. We have satellites, and all types of modern technology that could easily confirm it as not some human hoax

Even if God spoke from the clouds in an audible voice, in a language everybody can understand, and the entire event was confirmed by today’s technology, the US military could not verify that it was God speaking. It could just as well be an alien from outer space speaking.

They could confirm the voice is alien to Planet Earth. People can decide if the Alien voice is Creator of the Universe, or just another evolved being capable of tricking us; either way at least they will have more information than we have now.

You might as well face the music. IF God is to be believed, God must believed on faith and evidence, and the Messengers are the evidence.
If God has wanted to garner belief in another way He could have done so, but He didn't. God has always used Messengers, Prophets, or whatever you choose to call them, to communicate to humans.

Do you agree at least 99.9% of people who ever claimed to be messengers of God were deceptive liars? Can we at least agree on that?

People believe differently about God and some people believe there are many gods but that does not mean there is actually more than one God.
If God is All-Powerful and All-Knowing, how much sesne does that make to have more than one God? Think about it.

I’m not talking about people believing in multiple Gods, I’m talking about people who believe in a God different than your own.

Why would atheists call anything God, given they do not believe God exists?

I did not claim atheists call anything God, I said whatever it is you call God, atheists may acknowledge it exists because there is no limit on what theists like you may choose to call God

 

[Trailblazer]

No! If God spoke from the clouds, he wouldn’t need Baha’u’llah or any other messenger.

God would still need a Messenger to write scriptures in order to communicate all God had to say.

If you have all the needed information, you have free will. If God spoke from the clouds, you would have all the needed information

Are you saying that you would have the free will to decide whether to believe it, once you had the needed information?

They already do this, but because not everybody gets the right information, they sometimes get it wrong and are deceived into believing a lie as truth.

The right information is out there, they just have to find it. Not everyone is going to find it, and of those who find it, not everyone is going to believe it. It would be the same if God spoke from the clouds. Not everyone would believe it was actually God speaking.

All of them; and where there are no clouds, speak from the sky. We have satellites, and all types of modern technology that could easily confirm it as not some human hoax

Even it could be confirmed to be not a human hoax, it could never be confirmed that it was God.

They could confirm the voice is alien to Planet Earth. People can decide if the Alien voice is Creator of the Universe, or just another evolved being capable of tricking us; either way at least they will have more information than we have now.

I agree, they could confirm the voice is alien to Earth and then people could decide if the Alien voice was God or just another evolved being capable of tricking us.

I disagree that we would have more information than we have now. Even if it was God speaking, we would have less information, because God would have to speak for 40 years to reveal what Baha'u'llah wrote.

Do you agree at least 99.9% of people who ever claimed to be messengers of God were deceptive liars? Can we at least agree on that?

Yes, I can agree that at least that many people who claimed to be messengers of God are deceptive liars or they are just deluded, but that does not mean that there are no true Messengers of God.

The fact that most messengers were false does not prove all messengers were false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

Therefore, messenger e (in this case Baha’u’llah) was not a true messenger of God.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

I’m not talking about people believing in multiple Gods, I’m talking about people who believe in a God different than your own.

They believe that God is different from what I believe God is since they have a different religion. There are many religions but that doesn't mean there is a different God for each religion, it only means that God was described differently in different religions.

I did not claim atheists call anything God, I said whatever it is you call God, atheists may acknowledge it exists because there is no limit on what theists like you may choose to call God

Okay, fair enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God would still need a Messenger to write scriptures in order to communicate all God had to say.

...

Then God is not all powerful.

 

[Trailblazer]

The progress of the 21st century has left Baha'i behind.

That is not what has happened because it is not progress.

But as you noted the rules in Baha'i are supposed to apply to all humans, yet they are behind the times of the 21st century. If Baha'i rules the world who knows what they would do to gays and anyone who has sex while not be married. The history of theocratic rule shows us rampant human rights violations.

There is going to be no theocratic rule by the Baha'i Faith.
You might want to check out this thread on Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/142ae60
From one of the posts:
"An important principle is that we cannot impose the Baha'i Faith on others or compel belief. Therefore, even in a majority Baha'is society, some laws of the Faith that are not civil laws would not be applied and the application of any civil laws would have to respect the culture of the place. The Universal of House of Justice has said this multiple times."

The Baha'i institutions do not 'do anything' to gays or anyone who has sex while not married. Whether or not individual Baha'is follow those laws or not is between them and God.

Only due to old traditions. Humanity in many nations are progressing past old biases and prejudices, like those in your religion.

Wherever any sex laws are concerned, the present state of society is not progress, it is retrogression. The Baha'i sex laws are progress.

Right, it's not truth unless the fallible mortal decides it is, and in those cases it only applies to themselves. There is no authority in Baha'i over anyone else.

The Baha'i Faith does not claim to have authority over anyone.

What about boys? What's the subject, how they get into mischief? It doesn't say.

I already told you what it means, it means men having sex with boys.

You already posted this, did the boys around Baha'u'llah have a problem with marrying their moms? Who were these guys? What happened to all the women? Stoned to death?

I do not know who they were but nobody was stoned to death. That's biblical, and those days are over.

And you think that was a good social environment for Baha'u'llah to grow up in, and you follow him as direction for your life?

The social environment that Baha'u'llah grew up in has nothing to do with His revelation. Baha'u'llah came to challenge and change the societal standards and practices of Islam and that is why He was persecuted by the Muslims in power.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God is not all powerful.

That is so illogical I can barely breathe.