Isn't it better to be atheists?

[shmogie]

Yes, we do differ in our beliefs.

I do not believe in the battle of Armageddon. There is an indication that a major calamity might occur in the future but there is no way to know what will happen or when it will happen. Keep in mind that this excerpt from a longer Tablet was written in the latter half of the 19th century.

“The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 118-119

I believe that when scriptures say dead they are referring to spiritually dead and when they say alive or born again, they are referring to spiritual life. I believe that all souls will continue to exist in the spiritual realm after the physical body dies, where they will take on a spiritual body comprised of spiritual elements that exist in the spiritual realm.

Souls will be at different levels depending upon the spiritual growth they achieved in this world. Heaven and hell are just metaphors for nearness to and distance from God, spiritual life and spiritual death. After death, all souls can continue to progress, not by virtue of their own free will as they were able to progress here, but by the prayers of others and the mercy of God.

Responsible to God for reasonably evil actions, even by those who have not heard of the Prophet

"But the theologians think that the good and evil of things depend upon both reason and law. The chief foundation of the prohibition of murder, theft, treachery, falsehood, hypocrisy and cruelty, is reason. Every intelligent man comprehends that murder, theft, treachery, falsehood, hypocrisy and cruelty are evil and reprehensible; for if you prick a man with a thorn, he will cry out, complain and groan; so it is evident that he will understand that murder according to reason is evil and reprehensible. If he commits a murder, he will be responsible, whether the renown of the Prophet has reached him or not; for it is reason that formulates the reprehensible character of the action. When a man commits this bad action, he will surely be responsible."
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 266-267)

Pilgrim's note re: all souls eventually progress

Question was asked Abdul Baha if any soul was annihilated/ He answered “No, it will be placed in different conditions by God’s Mercy, and will eventually progress.”
(Pilgrim's note?, attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, at barstow ; cf. Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 550)

Man is Destined by God to Develop Spiritually Through Eternity

"With regard to the soul of man. According to the Bahá'í Teachings the human soul starts with the formation of the human embryo, and continues to develop and pass through endless stages of existence after its separation from the body. Its progress is thus infinite."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 31, 1937, in Lights of Guidance, no. 680)

We Can Help Every Soul Attain High Station

"Concerning your question whether a soul can receive knowledge of the Truth in the world beyond. Such a knowledge is surely possible, and is but a sign of the loving mercy of the Almighty. We can, through our prayers, help every soul to gradually attain this high station, even if it has failed to reach it in this world. The progress of the soul does not come to an end with death. It rather starts along a new line. Bahá'u'lláh teaches that great and far-reaching possibilities await the soul in the other world. Spiritual progress in that realm is infinite, and no man, while on this earth, can visualize its full power and extent."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, May 22, 1935, in Lights of Guidance, no. 683)

There Are No Earth-Bound Souls

"There are no earth-bound souls. When the souls that are not good die they go entirely away from this earth and so cannot influence anyone. They are spiritually dead. Their thoughts can have influence only when they are alive on the earth... But the good souls are given eternal life and sometimes God permits their thoughts to reach the earth to help the people."
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Questions answered by 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Akka: Daily Lessons, Received at Akka, 1979 ed., pp. 35-36, in Lights of Guidance, no. 687)

There is No Power Exercised Over People by Evil Souls that Have Passed Away

"There is no power exercised over the people by those evil souls that have passed away. Good is stronger than evil and even when alive they had very little power. How much less have they after they are dead, and besides they are nowhere near this planet."
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Questions answered by Abdu'l-Bahá in Akka: Daily Lessons, Received at Akka, 1979 ed., pp. 43-44, in Lights of Guidance, no. 688)

Excerpts from: Life after death/soul - Bahai9

We can respect one another's beliefs without rancor. In the end, we will know

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, just All-Powerful.
Good thing this God exists.

All-Evil, you mean. Myth: proof? Is the existence of god-preventable evil on Earth. Only an Evil deity would permit such to happen. Free Will? Impossible anyway, with an All-Powerful god around.

Exercise of Free Will? Is an exercise of power--however modest.

If this god-beast is ALL powerful? There is none leftover for Free Will or other things.

If this god-beast "grants" us Free Will? It is no longer All Powerful.

That is kind of how it works.

Good thing there are no such god-beasts around. Proof? The existence of god-preventable good on Earth.

The only thing left? Is an entirely indifferent deity. And who cares about such indifference? (which is actually worse evil than direct action anyway)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There is evidence, just no proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

LMAO! Oh. My. Your "evidence" isn't actually... evidence! It's not even as valid as opinion....!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We can respect one another's beliefs without rancor. In the end, we will know

Doubtful.

And I do appreciate your passive-aggressive implied threat at the end.

The problem is? I could not possibly respect anyone who believes in a god who uses torture, and is content with such a monster.

Because I do not think that anyone deserves such a fate-- no matter what. A finite life against an infinite torment? Immoral.

 

[shmogie]

Doubtful.

And I do appreciate your passive-aggressive implied threat at the end.

The problem is? I could not possibly respect anyone who believes in a god who uses torture, and is content with such a monster.

Because I do not think that anyone deserves such a fate-- no matter what. A finite life against an infinite torment? Immoral.

Please. your entire argument is flawed and fraught with ignorance. Remain in ignorance, if you choose. I no longer attempt to discuss the existence or attributes of God with raving atheists. They demand evidence for God, and one can produce a plethora of it, but is never enough, never. They abuse the truth, they never want evidence, they want proof. They arrogantly demand that God appear before them at their summons.

Of course, when you ask for proof, or even evidence that God DOES NOT exist, even when they have broken in to an unrelated discussion with their demands, they smile and say " I don';t have to, the burden is on you" as if they somehow are the de facto authority of who must prove what to whom. No thanks, I have been down this road many times. You don't want proof or evidence of God, you have no desire to even learn why your erroneous conclusions are wrong. You want to validate them by repeated utterances, like a parrot, who truly has no idea what it is talking about. You are perfectly free to remain so, but you will without the pleasure of bantering with me. Learn some humility, develop an open mind, be willing to consider why your opinions might be wrong, then get back to me. I don't think I will hold my breath in waiting.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please. your entire argument is flawed and fraught with ignorance.

Yet...you have had multiple chances to set me "straight" -- but instead you insult me, personally.

"fraught with ignorance"...... right. How, exactly? My argument is the logical conclusion of any sort of Hell Theology.

Yet the only "proof" offered is the same book that teaches of a god who has to use torture to get and keep followers....

.... and you call ME ignorant?

 

[sealchan]

So. If god is all-knowing? Does god know the outcome of the throw in advance?

If so-- why bother to toss it in the first place-- the "result" would not be random anyway--it'd be pre-determined by what god already knows.

If not? Then god loses it's "all knowing" attribute, and is diminished a little more, falling neatly into yet another crack of things we do not know...

.... yet.

God of the Gaps isn't sustainable in the long run, as Dr Tyson observed on more than one occasion.

One of the things that people who like to think about what God must be like should always bare in mind is that it is likely that God can understand things that we mere humans cannot. For such a thinker one can say it is as possible God knows the outcome of the dice He/She/It throws as it is possible that God exists at all. We have here the freedom of pure speculation.

Of course, such speculation does not help us to explain anything scientific about God's creation. But that is not why a belief in God should be cultivated...in order to provide answers to our questions about the nature of the physical Universe. The reason to speculate or even believe in a God is for the purpose of obtaining a personal, psychological adaptation to the Universe (that God created) by relating to a being (unproven to exist) with whom one may ask questions and receive personal, psychological answers.

The God of the Gaps is, in this sense, very useful for humans to digest and accept their experience of a Universe that simultaneously gives rise to us and also threatens uncaringly to utter destroy us. This condition of our existence is as true for the atheist as it is for the theist. Theists of the personal God and creator persuasion make use of a power to imaginally engage their fullest social psyches at why the Universe is the way it is and what that means to them personally. If they keep reasonably up-to-date with their science then their efforts are rewarded with meaningful results...that is the ideal IMO.

What often happens is that theists/believers adopt a less creative view, read old writings literally and find themselves having to find the good in life in a way at odds with some of the greatest gains in knowledge in human history. In fact over the centuries, political powers (in the form of churches and nations) have bought into this strategy because of a mistaken association between political power and belief and truth, an association that Jesus directly resisted in his storied confrontation with Satan in the Gospel of Matthew.

If it is better to be an atheist it is mainly because theists have lost the art of spiritual truths and the stories that embody them. This is, perhaps, the greatest failure in human history. But, humanities' need for filling in the gaps in our knowledge with beliefs that drive innovation, raise human hope and inspire personal moral and intellectual excellence will never get old. This latter is what theists should be doing...

Fortunately we have our professional story-tellers doing this work anyway, with or without the blessings of the old political power structures and against the simplistic over-extension of literalism into fields of human knowledge which are far beyond such naive child's play. We have our major motion picture epics and the broader field of novels out of which these movies arise as an oftentimes more sophisticated means for communicating spiritual truths about human experience than the dead and dying institutions that are tasked with that work.

 

[shmogie]

Yet...you have had multiple chances to set me "straight" -- but instead you insult me, personally.

"fraught with ignorance"...... right. How, exactly? My argument is the logical conclusion of any sort of Hell Theology.

Yet the only "proof" offered is the same book that teaches of a god who has to use torture to get and keep followers....

.... and you call ME ignorant?

You are ignorant, you refuse to become unignorant. It isn´t an insult, I am ignorant of how to fly a plane. If I refuse to learn to fly, but say I have all the information required to do so, I am stupid as well.

You howl about idea´s that have been rebutted in this thread, by various people, but you just keep on keeping on in your ignorance. You say your position is ¨logical¨, meaning you like your opinion. Have you studied logic at all, do you even know what it means ? How many logic syllogismś have you constructed regarding your ideaś ?

You know what you think you know. Because you know you couldn´t care less about what anyone else knows. You know why ? Because you know.

Thatś why I won´t waste time on you.

 

[1213]

...You'll get "don't know"; many will qualify that with "very unlikely". ...

And that has been called agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

Susan B. Anthony

• "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."- Anne Lamott

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

However, it is much easier to determine if the Messenger is real than if the God is real. You do not have to guess if the Baha’u’llah existed, since He is verifiable by recent historical records, and we know a lot about his life. But the further you go back into history the less you can know about the previous Messengers of God. Some people even question if Moses or Jesus existed, for example.

I have no issue with whether a self-professed messenger actually existed. The issue is whether he was what he claims to be.

By looking at all the evidence surrounding Baha’u’llah you can try to determine if He was God’s Representative or not. If you read what He said about God you can use your reasoning to decide if it makes sense or not.

I have found no reason to believe that a human being couldn't have written the words from Baha'u'llah that I've read to date.

Creation alone is not enough evidence because there are other logical possibilities for Creation. It is indirect evidence at best. The Messenger of God is the most direct evidence of God if God actually sent Him

Words alone cannot be evidence of a god. What words could I write here to convince you that leprechauns exist without showing you one?

I know, that is what all the atheists on the other forums I have posted on say. They cannot be angry at a god that they do not believe exists... But they are angry at the image of God that is depicted in the Bible or the imaginary god they have created in their mind, the evil god that does not stop all suffering, for example.

Sorry, but I feel no anger at all when considering God or His image.

I think that is what happened to most nonbelievers who were formerly Christians; they just stopped believing because Christianity or/and the Bible no longer made any sense to them. At a certain point, they rethought what they believed and realized it was not real.

That's my story as well.

It is difficult for me to understand how they could go from belief to non-belief, so it seems to me that they must have never really believed in God.

It's very easy to go from belief to unbelief. All you need is additional evidence.

I am rather describing some of the Attributes of God, saying that God is both good and just.

But you have to make a moral judgment of God to do so if you believe what you are saying.

 

[shmogie]

One of the things that people who like to think about what God must be like should always bare in mind is that it is likely that God can understand things that we mere humans cannot. For such a thinker one can say it is as possible God knows the outcome of the dice He/She/It throws as it is possible that God exists at all. We have here the freedom of pure speculation.

Of course, such speculation does not help us to explain anything scientific about God's creation. But that is not why a belief in God should be cultivated...in order to provide answers to our questions about the nature of the physical Universe. The reason to speculate or even believe in a God is for the purpose of obtaining a personal, psychological adaptation to the Universe (that God created) by relating to a being (unproven to exist) with whom one may ask questions and receive personal, psychological answers.

The God of the Gaps is, in this sense, very useful for humans to digest and accept their experience of a Universe that simultaneously gives rise to us and also threatens uncaringly to utter destroy us. This condition of our existence is as true for the atheist as it is for the theist. Theists of the personal God and creator persuasion make use of a power to imaginally engage their fullest social psyches at why the Universe is the way it is and what that means to them personally. If they keep reasonably up-to-date with their science then their efforts are rewarded with meaningful results...that is the ideal IMO.

What often happens is that theists/believers adopt a less creative view, read old writings literally and find themselves having to find the good in life in a way at odds with some of the greatest gains in knowledge in human history. In fact over the centuries, political powers (in the form of churches and nations) have bought into this strategy because of a mistaken association between political power and belief and truth, an association that Jesus directly resisted in his storied confrontation with Satan in the Gospel of Matthew.

If it is better to be an atheist it is mainly because theists have lost the art of spiritual truths and the stories that embody them. This is, perhaps, the greatest failure in human history. But, humanities' need for filling in the gaps in our knowledge with beliefs that drive innovation, raise human hope and inspire personal moral and intellectual excellence will never get old. This latter is what theists should be doing...

Fortunately we have our professional story-tellers doing this work anyway, with or without the blessings of the old political power structures and against the simplistic over-extension of literalism into fields of human knowledge which are far beyond such naive child's play. We have our major motion picture epics and the broader field of novels out of which these movies arise as an oftentimes more sophisticated means for communicating spiritual truths about human experience than the dead and dying institutions that are tasked with that work.

I have no issue with whether a self-professed messenger actually existed. The issue is whether he was what he claims to be.



I have found no reason to believe that a human being couldn't have written the words from Baha'u'llah that I've read to date.



Words alone cannot be evidence of a god. What words could I write here to convince you that leprechauns exist without showing you one?



Sorry, but I feel no anger at all when considering God or His image.



That's my story as well.



It's very easy to go from belief to unbelief. All you need is additional evidence.



But you have to make a moral judgment of God to do so if you believe what you are saying.

One of the things that people who like to think about what God must be like should always bare in mind is that it is likely that God can understand things that we mere humans cannot. For such a thinker one can say it is as possible God knows the outcome of the dice He/She/It throws as it is possible that God exists at all. We have here the freedom of pure speculation.

Of course, such speculation does not help us to explain anything scientific about God's creation. But that is not why a belief in God should be cultivated...in order to provide answers to our questions about the nature of the physical Universe. The reason to speculate or even believe in a God is for the purpose of obtaining a personal, psychological adaptation to the Universe (that God created) by relating to a being (unproven to exist) with whom one may ask questions and receive personal, psychological answers.

The God of the Gaps is, in this sense, very useful for humans to digest and accept their experience of a Universe that simultaneously gives rise to us and also threatens uncaringly to utter destroy us. This condition of our existence is as true for the atheist as it is for the theist. Theists of the personal God and creator persuasion make use of a power to imaginally engage their fullest social psyches at why the Universe is the way it is and what that means to them personally. If they keep reasonably up-to-date with their science then their efforts are rewarded with meaningful results...that is the ideal IMO.

What often happens is that theists/believers adopt a less creative view, read old writings literally and find themselves having to find the good in life in a way at odds with some of the greatest gains in knowledge in human history. In fact over the centuries, political powers (in the form of churches and nations) have bought into this strategy because of a mistaken association between political power and belief and truth, an association that Jesus directly resisted in his storied confrontation with Satan in the Gospel of Matthew.

If it is better to be an atheist it is mainly because theists have lost the art of spiritual truths and the stories that embody them. This is, perhaps, the greatest failure in human history. But, humanities' need for filling in the gaps in our knowledge with beliefs that drive innovation, raise human hope and inspire personal moral and intellectual excellence will never get old. This latter is what theists should be doing...

Fortunately we have our professional story-tellers doing this work anyway, with or without the blessings of the old political power structures and against the simplistic over-extension of literalism into fields of human knowledge which are far beyond such naive child's play. We have our major motion picture epics and the broader field of novels out of which these movies arise as an oftentimes more sophisticated means for communicating spiritual truths about human experience than the dead and dying institutions that are tasked with that work.

I suppose that would depend on the individual atheist.

Since there is no "atheist handbook" or "atheist bible" or even "supreme atheist leader"... you may get different answers.

But all the atheists I speak with, on a regular basis? You'll get "don't know"; many will qualify that with "very unlikely".

Others will add, "no evidence that is convincing to a rational adult" (or similar).

That's the way it's been since religion was invented.

No religion can survive two words: "prove it".

LOL, no atheist argument can survive two words ¨prove it¨. Thatś the way it has been since the first unbeliever existed.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are ignorant, you refuse to become unignorant. It isn´t an insult, I am ignorant of how to fly a plane. If I refuse to learn to fly, but say I have all the information required to do so, I am stupid as well.

You howl about idea´s that have been rebutted in this thread, by various people, but you just keep on keeping on in your ignorance. You say your position is ¨logical¨, meaning you like your opinion. Have you studied logic at all, do you even know what it means ? How many logic syllogismś have you constructed regarding your ideaś ?

You know what you think you know. Because you know you couldn´t care less about what anyone else knows. You know why ? Because you know.

Thatś why I won´t waste time on you.

unfriendly . . .

 

[shmogie]

unfriendly . . .

Frank and honest.

 

[shmogie]

You are ignorant, you refuse to become unignorant. It isn´t an insult, I am ignorant of how to fly a plane. If I refuse to learn to fly, but say I have all the information required to do so, I am stupid as well.

You howl about idea´s that have been rebutted in this thread, by various people, but you just keep on keeping on in your ignorance. You say your position is ¨logical¨, meaning you like your opinion. Have you studied logic at all, do you even know what it means ? How many logic syllogismś have you constructed regarding your ideaś ?

You know what you think you know. Because you know you couldn´t care less about what anyone else knows. You know why ? Because you know.

Thatś why I won´t waste time on you.

BTW, go back through our exchanges and determine who used insults

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And that has been called agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia

Po-tay-toe, pah-tah-toe.

Do you ask a dog catcher to explain brain surgery? Or do you ask a brain surgeon?

You as an atheist what "atheism" means-- not a theist.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

LOL, no atheist argument can survive two words ¨prove it¨. Thatś the way it has been since the first unbeliever existed.

Prove....... WHAT, exactly?

Seriously-- being an atheist is not a positive claim. There is nothing to prove.

In direct contrast to theism.....

 

[shunyadragon]

Frank and honest.

Frank and honest in a very very unfriendly way. No room here for a dialogue and understanding of those who believe differently. As well as poor understanding of evidence and science.

 

[Trailblazer]

All-Evil, you mean. Myth: proof? Is the existence of god-preventable evil on Earth. Only an Evil deity would permit such to happen. Free Will? Impossible anyway, with an All-Powerful god around.

You cannot say WHY God should prevent evil….
All you have is a personal opinion, that God should prevent all evil, otherwise God is evil…

You can give no reason why God should prevent all evil except that you do not like evil. So God should just prevent all evil because you do not like evil…

God is not responsible for the free will choices humans make.

Exercise of Free Will? Is an exercise of power--however modest.

If this god-beast is ALL powerful? There is none leftover for Free Will or other things.

If this god-beast "grants" us Free Will? It is no longer All Powerful.

That is kind of how it works.

No, that is not how it works. God is All-Powerful, so God has the power to grant humans free will, but God can override our free will decisions at any time because God is All-Powerful.

Good thing there are no such god-beasts around. Proof? The existence of god-preventable good on Earth.

That is not proof of anything because there is no reason to think that God should prevent all the evil on Earth, and just because you do not like it is not a reason.

The only thing left? Is an entirely indifferent deity. And who cares about such indifference? (which is actually worse evil than direct action anyway)

No, the only thing left is a deity that wants humans to be responsible for their own actions and be punished for evil actions and rewarded for good actions. That is called justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: However, it is much easier to determine if the Messenger is real than if the God is real. You do not have to guess if the Baha’u’llah existed, since He is verifiable by recent historical records, and we know a lot about his life. But the further you go back into history the less you can know about the previous Messengers of God. Some people even question if Moses or Jesus existed, for example.

I have no issue with whether a self-professed messenger actually existed. The issue is whether he was what he claims to be.

Well, obviously that is the primary issue at hand.

Trailblazer said: By looking at all the evidence surrounding Baha’u’llah you can try to determine if He was God’s Representative or not. If you read what He said about God you can use your reasoning to decide if it makes sense or not.

I have found no reason to believe that a human being couldn't have written the words from Baha'u'llah that I've read to date.

First, the Writings of Baha’u’llah are not the only evidence, and not the first evidence one should look at…

Second, He was a human being, as well as a Messenger of God. All Messengers have two natures; the physical and the spiritual. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather pre-existent in the spiritual realm. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself................ The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Trailblazer said: Creation alone is not enough evidence because there are other logical possibilities for Creation. It is indirect evidence at best. The Messenger of God is the most direct evidence of God if God actually sent Him

Words alone cannot be evidence of a god. What words could I write here to convince you that leprechauns exist without showing you one?

Of course words alone are not evidence of a God, but the problem is that God cannot be shown in so we have to accept that God manifests Himself as a man. Then we have to check that man out and determine for ourselves if He might have manifested God.

On another note, I have told many nonbelievers who accused me of circular reasoning that my reasoning is not circular because I did not use the Writings of Baha’u’llah as evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. I first had to look at all the other evidence, even before I read His Writings. There are certain important criteria that must be met and there are ways to rule out a false prophet. Mainly that is done by looking at their fruits as Jesus said in Matthew 7:16-20.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is not that Baha’u’llah claimed to receive a message from God because that would be circular.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His authorized interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.

Trailblazer said: I know, that is what all the atheists on the other forums I have posted on say. They cannot be angry at a god that they do not believe exists... But they are angry at the image of God that is depicted in the Bible or the imaginary god they have created in their mind, the evil god that does not stop all suffering, for example.

Sorry, but I feel no anger at all when considering God or His image.

That is good…

Trailblazer said: I think that is what happened to most nonbelievers who were formerly Christians; they just stopped believing because Christianity or/and the Bible no longer made any sense to them. At a certain point, they rethought what they believed and realized it was not real.

That's my story as well.

Like I said, that is pretty common….

Trailblazer said: It is difficult for me to understand how they could go from belief to non-belief, so it seems to me that they must have never really believed in God.

It's very easy to go from belief to unbelief. All you need is additional evidence.

I guess you mean evidence that your religious belief was wrong… That makes sense. I have never been able to find any evidence that my belief is wrong, nothing that would hold up in court.

Trailblazer said: I am rather describing some of the Attributes of God, saying that God is both good and just.

But you have to make a moral judgment of God to do so if you believe what you are saying.

I do not have to make a moral judgment and here is why. The reason I believe God is good and just is because that is what Baha’u’llah (and other scriptures such as the Bible) revealed about God. In Baha’i theology, to question Baha’u’llah is to question God, since whatever He wrote is identical with the Will of God. Baha’is usually refer to Messengers and Manifestations of God because they manifest God.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 167

Think about it. How else can we know if God is good and just? God is completely unknowable other than what the Messengers reveal about God. Logically speaking, we cannot look at the world and see evil and attribute that to God because there is no evidence that God had anything to do with evil, nor can we look at the world and see good, and attribute that to God. We have no idea what God is doing or not doing, period. Anyone who says we can know is simply misinterpreting scriptures; some believers do that because they like to think they know God is doing good stuff for them. This is a common Christian misconception. God is unknowable, except for His Attributes and His Will, which are revealed by the Messengers in every age.

The logical reason we cannot make moral judgments on God is because there are other possible reasons for good and evil, namely human free will choices and actions. To say that God is evil because an omnipotent God could stop all evil but doesn’t does not make God evil, logically speaking, because there are good reasons God does not stop evil. The only reason for God to stop evil is because some people do not like evil and they think an omnipotent God should stop evil because they don’t like it. That is like a small child saying to mommy that she is evil because she won’t give me a cookie. Moreover, to say that God should stop all evil is akin to saying we know more than God, which is logically impossible, since no human is omniscient. How that flies over some peoples’ heads is beyond me. I have to think it is just an emotional reaction.