Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because since we were not the ones who got the message, it cannot be proven that He got a message from God.

So it’s doubtful that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God?

There were witnesses to Him receiving His revelation, but still, they were not the ones who heard from God. That is the part we have to take on faith, after we have verified all of the above.

Verified what? The things you just said can’t be verified?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take a less biased approach and consider the claims equally, and to any further need to present extraordinary evidence to back up their claims.

The claim of agnosticism would not require extraordinary evidence.

The claim of agnosticism (that the existence of gods is unprovable) requires knowledge beyond the len of humanity and an ability to tell the future. It requires much more extraordinary evidence than atheism (“I see no reason to believe that gods exist”) or theism (“I’m convinced that a god or gods exist”).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what? That does not mean God is going to. God is omnipotent so God only does what God wants to do. Since there is no evidence that God ever communicated without Messengers, we can conclude that God wants to communicate with Messengers.

A god would presumably do what he wants, but we can infer the intent of a god from its supposed actions. We can infer that god that is able to communicate clearly with humanity but doesn’t do so isn’t interested in communicating clearly with humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What good would a wimpy God like that be? God would then not be set apart from humans.

You’re the one proposing a God so irrelevant that its existence would be unverifiable and you ask “what’s good” some other “wimpy” God would be? Physician, heal thyself.

 

[shunyadragon]

The claim of agnosticism (that the existence of gods is unprovable) requires knowledge beyond the len of humanity and an ability to tell the future. It requires much more extraordinary evidence than atheism (“I see no reason to believe that gods exist”) or theism (“I’m convinced that a god or gods exist”).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Left you speechless, I see.

 

[shunyadragon]

The claim of agnosticism (that the existence of gods is unprovable) requires knowledge beyond the len of humanity and an ability to tell the future. It requires much more extraordinary evidence than atheism (“I see no reason to believe that gods exist”) or theism (“I’m convinced that a god or gods exist”).

I found different definitions (like Wiki) for agnosticism were confusing and too much overlap with the definition of atheism. Many atheists claim that existence of God cannot be proved, which is a stronger statement than most agnostics will make..

In Merriam Webster the definition make a clearer distinction.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Atheism

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Basically, an agnostic will not commit to the existence nor non-existence of God without objective extraordinary evidence, which requires no evidence to believe this, The key is atheists have a specific disbelief or 'strong disbelief,' while agnostics will not commit due to a lack of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I found different definitions (like Wiki) for agnosticism were confusing and too much overlap with the definition of atheism.

So you made up your own?

Many atheists claim that existence of God cannot be proved, which is a stronger statement than most agnostics will make..

Whatever specious ideas you have of what “many atheists” do is irrelevant to what the term “atheist” means. The vast majority of Americans don’t live in Montana; this doesn’t mean that Montanans aren’t American.

All a person has to do to be an atheist is to not be a theist. That’s it. Yes, this overlaps with agnosticism.

In Merriam Webster the definition make a clearer distinction.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

The term “agnosticism” is rather unique in that:

- it was coined relatively recently
- we know who coined it (T.H. Huxley)
- he defined it when he coined it

So I think I’ll go with his definition (which is generally in line with the first half of the definition you gave without the “probably”).

And I note that even “the existence of God is probably unknowable” is a pretty astounding statement that either has an extreme burden of proof or assumes quite a bit about God.

Atheism

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Did you read that definition when you copy-pasted it?

Basically, an agnostic will not commit to the existence nor non-existence of God without objective extraordinary evidence, which requires no evidence to believe this, The key is atheists have a specific disbelief or 'strong disbelief,' while agnostics will not commit due to a lack of evidence.

Agnosticism is a position not about the existence or non-existence of gods directly, but about a question that’s one step further back: whether the evidence supports a firm conclusion on whether the existence of God can be conclusively settled. The agnostic’s position is a firm “no” (and in the normal, original definition, “not ever”).

As the definition even you quoted points out, all that’s needed to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Fundamentally, agnosticism is a much more extreme position.

So I’m not sure why you’re so invested in supporting agnosticism, since it necessarily implies that you’re wrong in your theism. Atheism covers a wide range of positions - anything from “what’s a god?” to “I haven’t seen what convinced you” to “I’m convinced that you’re utterly wrong” - but agnostics would all be opposed to your position: the agnostic position says that you are wrong - that you’ve made a mistake of logic - by asserting that God exists. Why do you want to support that?

 

[Sir Doom]

It was not intended to be a definitive list of possibilities regarding God's communication. How could I know what it is possible for a God to do? All I know is what the empirical evidence indicates, that God has used Messengers to communicate.

You presented it as a list of the only logical possibilities and even rejected my addition to the list. By the way, logic is not empirical.

I believe that Messengers was that way because that is the only method of communication that God has ever used and it has been effective, since 93% of people in the world believe in God and 84% of people have a religion that was established by a Messenger...

You are drawing a lofty conclusion from that data. Do you think there may be more factors weighing on this issue than these two quoted statistics? I do. Do you think the conclusion you are drawing is the only one that could be drawn? I do not. Empirical evidence is gathered through the senses, not through statistics. You don't know the population well enough to say this data is empirical. No one could.

I do not think that #2 and #3 are the reasons not to believe in messengers. #2 and #3 are the conclusions come to as a result of people not beleiveing in messengers.

This is exactly why you don't understand why people disbelieve. You refuse to acknowledge their reasoning as reasoning. The cart pulling the horse.

I still do not have any answer to this question: Why do some people question God's use of Messengers?
In other words, why do people want God to communicate in some way other than Messengers?

You don't seem willing to acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't communicate AT ALL. You put it on your list but then simply refuse to talk about it as a possibility including this feigned ignorance you are displaying here. As if people come to these conclusions out of whim and will and are simply ignorant to 'empirical' data. That isn't the case (at least, not often). They are examining the same evidence and arriving at #2 and #3 (and many more) because those are also logical conclusions.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think Jesus used the sheep analogy because sheep follow the shepherd. The characteristics of sheep as animals did not enter into the analogy.

I think the fishers of men analogy was also very simple. All it meant was that his disciples were fishing for the individual souls of men.

Yes, as I said, I don't believe Jesus intended those analogies the way I described them. I was qualifying what a bad analogy is by comparison to my own.

So would I. I do not tend to be a follower; I think for myself and blaze new trails. I am a trailblazer. If I was a follower, I would have a religion that has a lot of followers.

You do.

I am certainly not the evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be, not at all. I am just a follower of Baha’u’llah. You should never take my word for it. Baha’u’llah said we all have the capacity to recognize the Beauty of God in the Person of his Messenger:

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

Granted, taking your word for it will not be happening. But you are still evidence.

I understand that you just won’t trust anyone speaking for God, in which case you will never know anything about God.

So be it. If I am required to rewire my brain such that it is no longer skeptical and cynical in order to learn about God then I guess I'll just wallow in ignorance.

You are dead wrong if you think any real Messengers of God were attempting to get something for themselves. There is absolutely no evidence to support this in the history of their missions on earth. All the Messengers suffered at the hands of their enemies and those who were in power (government and clergy) persecuted them when they appeared on earth and made their claims. Some were even put to death (Jesus and the Bab). No real Messenger of God had anything to gain for Himself.

Except the validation and justification of their peers, of course. You may be surprised to find how valuable that can be to some of us. Worth more than gold, I assure you.

How could we know it is true (that God only communicates using Messengers) if that someone did not know anything about God? How could they know anything about God if they never heard from God?

They dont know anything about God.

How could you come to a conclusion about someone if you do not even know anything about him? I only came to a conclusion after I read a lot about him and about the religion he established, because it is all related.

Granted, but some things are easy to dismiss. Speaking on God's behalf is one of those things in my book.

I learned by reading what he wrote. If I explained that to you, I would just be paraphrasing what he wrote, and he wrote 15,000 Tablets, so how would I be able to tell you all of that? If you had a specific question I could answer it though.

That last bit is why you are better than any messenger.

He wrote what God told Him and His Revelation is not private:
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh is online and fully downloadable:

I don't get to know that's why it is private. I must take his word for it.

That does not make sense. If you do not care what I have to say, why would you discuss anything with me?

I meant that I don't put him above you. Tricky wording I used there, my apologies.

I have no idea what you mean by good act and bad act.

I mean that good people do bad things and vice versa. Telling me someone is honest doesn't mean they can't lie. Your messenger may have great things to say about how one should live, etc. The doesn't add any strength to his claim of divine communication.

I beg to differ with you. The Bible is evidence. The Qur’an is evidence. All scriptures are evidence. Moreover, the religions that were established by the Prophets are clear evidence that they were more than just ordinary men.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation’s life,—even as it is recorded in the Torah and confirmed in history that when the Jews became fettered by empty forms and imitations the wrath of God became manifest.......

What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272, 273

Evidence, yes. Empirical, no.

You are projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto Baha’u’llah and getting them all mixed up with who He was, attributing motives to him that were not there based upon your own thoughts and feelings. You also have a clear bias, a prejudice.

I did warn you about that.

What really matters is the content of what He wrote and its usefulness for humanity. Some of it is mystical, and some of it is practical and both have their place. To uplift the souls of humanity a revelation has to have a mystical component. But what differs about the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is that it has new social teachings and laws that are needed in this new age, and it has a practical component in that it has a clearly laid out plan for the building of a new world order, the kingdom of God on earth.

And all of that would have mattered just as much as it matters now without divine revelation. But since it began there (with something I can't accept as true) then the rest becomes suspect very easily. Your messenger would like divine authority to come before intelligence.

That is a possibility but the evidence does not support that. I mean if you read about the Life of Bahaullah it would become apparent that there would be no reason for Him to lie and there is no evidence that he was insane. An insane person could not do what He did or write what He wrote.

No reason at all for him to lie? You don't see an inherent gain in speaking with divine authority?

I did not say I thought you would be convinced. I was just explaining how we go about gathering information about a man who claims to be God’s Messenger. Some people are convinced by it and others are not. But if you are already convinced that no man can speak for God then there is no way you are going to be open to that possibility. I had no preconceptions before discovered the Baha’i Faith, no confirmation bias, so I had no issue with a man speaking for God. It just made sense to me that is how God communicates because there really is no other logical way.

There are uncountable logical ways. You are most certainly falling victim to confirmation bias in this case.

Why do you think they fought? They wanted to be famous and important. That is what arrogant ungodly people do, especially when they are jealous. That has nothing to do with Baha’u’llah.

One of them won and 'took over' after the messenger's death. He was called Abdul baha. Do you not consider this man to be Bahaullahs successor?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you made up your own?

No I referred to Merriam Webster.

All a person has to do to be an atheist is to not be a theist. That’s it. Yes, this overlaps with agnosticism.

No

Did you read that definition when you copy-pasted it? [/quote]

Yes, I read the definition, and you are trying to parse it to suit yourself.

[/quote]
Agnosticism is a position not about the existence or non-existence of gods directly, but about a question that’s one step further back: whether the evidence supports a firm conclusion on whether the existence of God can be conclusively settled. The agnostic’s position is a firm “no” (and in the normal, original definition, “not ever”).

As the definition even you quoted points out, all that’s needed to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Fundamentally, agnosticism is a much more extreme position.

False, agnosticism is skepticism concerning the belief in Gods as the definition indicated, and NOT the disbelief in Gods as atheism is defined in the provided definition. Atheism is clearly the extreme position,

So I’m not sure why you’re so invested in supporting agnosticism,

I do not propose that I am vested in agnosticism.

. . . since it necessarily implies that you’re wrong in your theism.

Does not apply to my worldview which is at a theist.

Atheism covers a wide range of positions - anything from “what’s a god?” to “I haven’t seen what convinced you” to “I’m convinced that you’re utterly wrong” - but agnostics would all be opposed to your position: the agnostic position says that you are wrong - that you’ve made a mistake of logic - by asserting that God exists. Why do you want to support that?

Atheism does not cover a wide range of position, The possible range all include the disbelief in Gods as defined, Agnosticism does not go that far, as defined.it is skeptical of the existence of God(s}, The agnostic does not take a stand one way or the other concerning whether God(s) exist or not.

This is not about what I believe, nor what I support concerning beliefs. Your actually trying a dodge here as usual, and misrepresenting the posts you respond to,

 

[shunyadragon]

Left you speechless, I see.

How egocentric of you.

 

[Shad]

I believe something is true only because of the evidence that indicates it is true, not because I want to believe it is true. As I just posted to Christine:

Faith is to believe in something without evidence. If there is evidence than it is not longer faith.

Maybe it would be more convincing, but God’s intention is not to be convincing. That is what humans want, not what God wants.

Then as I said earlier as long as God is not using criteria from text and/or belief to judge that isn't a big issue. However it does not help with it's claims.

Indeed, religions have had one Messenger per religion for centuries and it has always been successful after that religion was accepted by many people. The problem is that once the followers of any religion accept their religion and the Messenger who revealed it, they are unable to recognize any Messenger or religion that came after it. This happens because of emotional attachment and arrogance. For example, Christians believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so there is no way they are going to relinquish that belief because they are emotionally attached to Jesus and they want Him to return. Hell could freeze over and most Christians would still be waiting for Jesus to return. It is the same with the Jews and the Muslims, they are waiting for their Messiah, but since they have made the Messiah in their own image by misconstruing their scriptures, they did not recognize Baha’u’llah, who was the Messiah, and also the return of Christ.

This is your dogma again.

I do not know what you mean by that. Of course the same person still exists after they die.

If a person commits evil acts according to your view but not their own view our idea of judgement has a major issue. After all judgement become subjective. If those people believe they are good and moral they are free to enter the afterlife in direct conflict to the morals your religion puts forward. If such people flip then I question if it is the same person.

I never claimed that. It is true to me because I believe it Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. It cannot be proven true or false, although some people believe it is true and some people believe it is false.

No your scripture claimed it not you.

It has been successful for those who have become Baha’is. The low numbers are meaningless because how many people believe in a religion does not prove anything. The Baha’i Faith has met with many obstacles ever since its inception, those who sought to bring it down. There is a long history of the opposition and the detractors, but in spite of that the Baha’i Faith was the fastest growing religion in the world from 1910-2010. Statistics show that from 1910-2010, the Baha’i Faith grew at a rate of 3.54%, whereas during that time Islam grew at a rate of 1.97% and Christianity grew at a rate of 1.32%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

I was pointing out the success rate of conversion and numbers of follower, rather lack of, to point out the arguments are not convincing.

You have major issues with math. Compare the numbers of followers and growth percentage not only the percentage. Islam is still growing faster than your religion.

All the goals of the Baha’i Faith have been met to date. The goal of the Baha’i Faith administration has never been to increase numbers of adherents but rather to expand to as many locations as possible around the world. These goals have been met. The Baha’i Faith has spread to over 250 countries and territories and is almost as widespread as Christianity. Most of this happened during the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944) FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944

Having a location in a nation does not make your religion wide spread. The number of followers do.

Straw man. I never said the suffering proves the religion is true. I am not illogical. I said the suffering, imprisonment and banishment from place to place indicates Baha’u’llah was not self-serving. The family of Baha’u’llah was from nobility and could have been very wealthy. He was offered a post as a minister in the government which He declined, because He was a follower of the Bab. The Life of Baha'u'llah is a photographic narrative which briefly explains the chronology.

Victim status brings it own rewards and can be self-serving. It can be used to reinforce truth claims. Hence my KSA example.

There is no evidence that Baha’u’llah had any selfish motives and all the evidence is to the contrary.

Your scripture cited earlier showed otherwise.

The number of followers is totally irrelevant... Actually, it is not totally irrelevant because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning, and that is why the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small.

Numbers matter when your own cited scripture uses generalized "people" not converting for X, Y, Z reasons while omitting the possibility it could be their own arguments which are lacking.

As this relates to religion, the religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Said self-serving. Everyone else is the problem!

Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and He said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.

Yet there are billions of people follow different religions so obvious it is not that difficult. All you have done is again inject your dogma as if true.

Eventually it won’t matter how small the Baha’i Faith was in the beginning because in the distant future everyone will recognize Baha’u’llah and enter through the same gate, the gate that leads to life. However, those that enter now will have a huge reward after they die, because they made the effort to look for the narrow gate and they had the courage and common sense to walk through it, rather than following the crowd or their own ego.

Dogma as an excuse.

Straw man. I never blamed anyone. I only ever said that it is everyone’s individual responsibility to search for the Messenger of God. If they do not search they cannot blame anyone else but if they search and find it and still do not find it to their liking that is just the way it is. Not all people are going to be convinced, and the primary reasons they are not convinced I just explained above.

You, and your text, have repeatedly by assuming what billions of people think, calling them closed minded for following their religion and not your own. You seems not to consider people can arrive at different choice then the one you made. It is always something else stopping people from converting, never your message, methods, etc, etc. You have also confined God to your narrow scope based on dogma.

 

[QuestioningMind]

We can verify what Baha’u’llah did in the past. There are records.

Sorry to say, it is not made up. I accept reality, what I see in the world, not some fantasy about what god would do if god were real. God has already done it... The Baha’i Faith is a real religion that is fully functioning all over the world, in over 250 countries and territories. That hardly compares to what one atheist dreamed up in his imagination.

Gosh... we can ALSO verify what Saint Nicholas did in the past! Just not the FANTASTICAL claims about him. You know, JUST LIKE with Baha'u'llah! Thus Santa Claus and Baha'u'llah are apparently equally as real.

Sorry, but you have just as much verifiable evidence for your fantastical claims as the atheist has. The only difference is that you have more people willing to buy into your delusion that he has willing to buy into his. Again, I have to give the atheist credit for at least being original.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I referred to Merriam Webster.




No

Did you read that definition when you copy-pasted it?

Yes, I read the definition, and you are trying to parse it to suit yourself.

[/quote]
Agnosticism is a position not about the existence or non-existence of gods directly, but about a question that’s one step further back: whether the evidence supports a firm conclusion on whether the existence of God can be conclusively settled. The agnostic’s position is a firm “no” (and in the normal, original definition, “not ever”).



False, agnosticism is skepticism concerning the belief in Gods as the definition indicated, and NOT the disbelief in Gods as atheism is defined in the provided definition. Atheism is clearly the extreme position,



I do not propose that I am vested in agnosticism.



Does not apply to my worldview which is at a theist.



Atheism does not cover a wide range of position, The possible range all include the disbelief in Gods as defined, Agnosticism does not go that far, as defined.it is skeptical of the existence of God(s}, The agnostic does not take a stand one way or the other concerning whether God(s) exist or not.

This is not about what I believe, nor what I support concerning beliefs. Your actually trying a dodge here as usual, and misrepresenting the posts you respond to,[/QUOTE]
Okay - so you just don’t understand what “atheism” or “agnosticism” mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I read the definition, and you are trying to parse it to suit yourself.

This response reflects your inability to respond, and I question your reading comprehension concerning the definitions of agnosticism and atheism provided.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wonder why a god would want anyone -- let alone, everyone -- to believe in it.

I would like your input into the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I am confused by
@9-10ths_Penguin response.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This response reflects your inability to respond, and I question your reading comprehension concerning the definitions of agnosticism and atheism provided.

You realize that you quoted yourself, but attributed it to me, right?

 

[shunyadragon]

You realize that you quoted yourself, but attributed it to me, right?

Reread post #456 I WAS QUOTING YOU. It was the first line after the citation quoting me. The rest of the post you did not respond to.

Unless you simply screwed up responding.

 

[Trailblazer]

So it’s doubtful that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God?

No, not to me. I have no doubt.

Verified what? The things you just said can’t be verified?

No, after we have verified all the things that can be verified, which is everything about Him other than that He got a message from God. Nobody can verify that because nobody heard what He heard.