Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Shad]

No, that is not true.
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:

Evidence is not proof. Only of there is proof is there no need for faith.

Evidence is key to proof. If you can not proof X you lack the evidence supporting the claim.

I cannot say how God will judge nonbelievers. The Baha’i Writings are not clear on that.

Earlier you said the person judged themselves. Now you are saying God does. Which is it?

It is not dogma, it is based upon historical facts and currently observable phenomena.

It is dogma as it is confined to monotheist and a brand which has messengers which your religion happens to be part of. You ignored polytheism completely. More so it is slanted toward your religion as per blaming the lack of converts on other facts. This is treating your religion as a fact which history does not do at all. History points out people claim to be messengers

It will be too late to flip after we enter the afterlife because we will no longer have free will.

Then the person no longer exists leaving only an organic robot.

Our character goes with us. We will be whoever we were when we died. We will only be able to change if other people pray for us or by the bounty of God.

This is nonsensical as human develop as a person is in the hands of the individual not prayers.

We are not attempting to convert anyone or convince them with arguments. People are all responsible for their own beliefs.

Yet you have no issues make excuses when someone pick a religion other than your own. If you were not trying to convince anyone there would be no excuses.

The Baha’i Faith is the narrow gate and it is narrow because only a few people can get through the gate and recognize God’s new religion in the beginning. That is why the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small.

Other reasons come to mind.

I know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world right now because the Formative Age of the Baha’i Faith ended in the 20th century. From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).
Statistics from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

You are backtracking now. You claimed Baha'i was the fastest growing and cited a number within 2010 column.

"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"

"Bahá'í Faith / 225,000 / 0.0 / 7,306,000 . 0.1 / 3.54 / 1.72 "

[Widespread: existing or happening in many places and/or among many people: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/widespread

The number of followers has nothing to do with how widespread a religion is. The goal has been to spread all over the world, not to gain more followers. There is no hurry to gain more followers. The world is not ready for that yet.

Logically speaking, just because it can be self-serving does not mean it is self-serving. The life of Baha’u’llah is what can be used to determine if it was self-serving. There is no indication of that.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

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

I know of no such scripture.

Show me some actual evidence of Baha’is being self-serving.

No, it is not difficult to follow the older religions that are firmly established, large, with many followers. It is difficult to follow the new religion that nobody likes, the one that has few followers people are always trying to disprove.

Excuse for what?

You are using dogma based on the future to excuse my present criticism.

Most people are closed-minded because they won’t even look at anything other than their own religion.

Pot meet Kettle

Of course I realize people arrive at different choices but I do not have to believe in those choices nor do they have to believe in mine. The evidence indicates that all new religions are rejected because people cling to older religions.

You are dismissing genuine belief. You point can be used against your own religion. Ahmadiyya Islam could claim the same as it is a few years younger than your own.

It is human nature. People do not like the new Messenger or the new message and they do not think they need it. The same thing happened when Jesus appeared to the Jews. He brought something new and the Jewish clerics did not want something new because they were steeped in their religious traditions. History repeated itself when Baha’u’llah appeared and was rejected and persecuted by the Muslim clerics.

Self-serving and injection of dogma again. You are treating Jesus' claims as true then attempting to use Jesus as a form of credibility for Baha’u’llah. I am not a Christian. Bringing up Jesus with me does nothing to help your argument.

 

[Koldo]

That would be true if God had created us with a brain that has the capacity to know all of that, but God did not create us that way so the limitation of not God’s limitation, it is a human limitation.

Then you have to ask yourself, what purpose would that serve for God to instill everyone with knowledge about God? Why would God have given us free will and a brain if God was going to do all the heavy lifting? Why can’t we just get that knowledge ourselves, by reading what God revealed through His Messenger?

So should God just instill all the information we need to become a doctor in our brain so we won’t have to go to medical school?

It would accomplish 100% belief but that is not what God is trying to accomplish. God wants us to do our own homework and come to our own conclusions about the Messenger.

Baha’u’llah wrote that God could have made all men one people. In the context of the passage below, it means that God could have made all people believe in His Messengers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t do that...

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

According to this passage, is that God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own free will (by virtue of their own innate powers). God only wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (wayward and perverse).

God does not owe everyone a free ride just so they won’t have to do anything. Everyone has free will so it is a level playing field and everyone can look at the Messenger if they choose to do so... However, that requires some effort, just like anything in life...

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

You have said and I quote: "Besides that, Baha’u’llah wrote 15,000 Tablets. How is all that information to be conveyed in some “other way?”". I gave you an answer on the basis of what is possible to God, in principle. An answer based on what is possible, given enough power.

But it seems like your question was more along the lines of: "How is all that information to be conveyed in some other way if we take into consideration that God didn't want to do anything else?". The answer then would be a simple: There was no other way for God to communicate with humans if God didn't want to do anything else.

 

[Sir Doom]

Of course there are more factors weighing in than two statistics. That was just a general statistic relevant to what I was saying about Messengers.

Of course other conclusions can be drawn. Data abounds and conclusions will vary.

Okay, then you should understand very well why those statistics do not cause me to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at, that God communicates through messengers. This will conclude my object lesson on confirmation bias. You (whether you admit it or not) are simply believing what you want and finding a statistic to support that as opposed to examining data to arrive at whatever logical conclusion is available. Putting the cart before the horse.

Their is their reasoning. I understand it but it is different from my reasoning. I am not trying to change their reasoning. I just explain mine.

Ok, well you just said you didn't understand.

The possibility that God does not communicate at all was on my list as one of the logical possibilities. I have no problem if people want to arrive at #2 or #3. All I asked was the following:

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?

I'm pretty sure I've answered that question numerous times. It's awfully apparent what the answer is. I will admit we've strayed from the core of your thread but, it is WE doing that, not me.

 

[Audie]

If I based everything upon how I FEEL, I would not be a believer. I would be an atheist.

The ONLY reason I believe in God or is because of the Baha’i Faith, which is a very logical religion. I tried not being a Baha’i for 42 years but I have never been able to refute the claims of Baha’u’llah, because it is impossible to disregard all the evidence. That is why I decided to give the Baha’i Faith and God a second chance about five years ago. I know it is the truth from God and it would be really stupid for me to keep ignoring it as I had been doing.

I have atheist friends on my other forum I post on who have been trying to talk me into becoming an atheist, and I want to be one, I really do, because I am really angry at God right now.... Is that an emotion? Ubetcha.

But when reason returns I know God exists in spite of all my suffering.

The ONLY reason I believe in God is because of Baha’u’llah, period.

It’s too bad that most people cannot see the evidence for Baha’u’llah staring them in the face. Not all people are meant to see it. God only guides those who He is pleased to guide.

“Great indeed is this Day! The allusions made to it in all the sacred Scriptures as the Day of God attest its greatness. The soul of every Prophet of God, of every Divine Messenger, hath thirsted for this wondrous Day. All the divers kindreds of the earth have, likewise, yearned to attain it. No sooner, however, had the Day Star of His Revelation manifested itself in the heaven of God’s Will, than all, except those whom the Almighty was pleased to guide, were found dumbfounded and heedless.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 11

In bold, is what you consider to be logic?

Sorry-ah, but I have simply not seen any trace
of logic from you.

Put some on display if ya gots. Otherwise.....

 

[Trailblazer]

So you changed your mind on what you said earlier?

No. Maybe you just misunderstood what I said.

Do you have a consistent position or not? The way you’ve described it so far is inconsistent with itself.

I have consistently said that God cannot be verified to exist (proven to exist) and that Baha'u'llah is the evidence that God exists. I have never changed my position.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Imagine that someone wanted to create a religion with themselves as the undisputed leader. What do you think they'd do?

Not what the Messengers does, as they know the Message they give is not in any way self based. In fact it leads to persecution and death at the hands of those that have self interests at heart.

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well! The on and on with bold font, the insults, all the things you make up, assertions of facts not in evidence certainly do make it clear who is illogical and raving.

Sure does not take much to smoke you out for what you are.

Then why can’t you come back with a logical reason-based argument?

Couldn’t answer my questions, could you?

Anyone can see that there was no raving and no insults in my post, just facts and a reason-based argument and some questions.

To say that someone is illogical and demonstrating the reasons why is not an insult.

Predictably, when some atheists cannot respond to the facts and arguments I present and cannot answer my questions they just hurl insults at me. To accuse me of being insulting when you are the one who us insulting me (“Sure does not take much to smoke you out for what you are”) is called Psychological projection.

 

[Sir Doom]

Only in the sense that I am a member of my religion and I represent my religion.

Yes, in that sense exactly. That happens to be the topic if discussion in case you hadn't noticed.

I guess so. We were not all meant to believe in God, at least not at this time in history. We can try but not everyone will succeed.

Eloi and Morlocks. I'd rather be the Morlocks. Color me horrible for that, if you must. Ref: Time Machine

Do you have any idea what their peers did to them? Baha’u’llah was betrayed by almost all the members of His family and they gathered followers to try to bring Him down so they could take over the religion.

You are his peer. Is that what you did? Besides, failure doesn't indicate intention. Again I ask, do you honestly see no inherent gain to speaking with divine authority?

Unless He really did speak on behalf of God.

And if that were the case it wouldn't make a difference if I knew that or not. His instruction would stand on it's own merits regardless of my acceptance of him as a messenger, thus the unnecessary insistence on my acceptance of this 'fact' serves only to call his motivation for saying so into question which in turn calls everything he says into question as well.

Ask away.

That jetplane sound you heard was my point flying over your head.

By private do you mean that He was the only one who got the revelation from God, privately?

Yes. Exactly.

It is good to be skeptical, suspicious. Otherwise you could get duped by a false messenger.

Quite aware of how useful it is. My point however, is that his 'honest' life does not demonstrate that he isn't lying about this one thing (or anything else for that matter).

Why isn’t religion empirical evidence? We can observe its effects upon humanity. It is not just a theory.

Because empirical evidence is gathered by your senses, not your subjective interpretation of data. Reading a book is emperical evidence of the book, not it's contained message.

I appreciate your honesty.

So I see, the main issue you have is that divine revelation is suspect. You also take issue with someone who claimed to have divine authority; but if that if he got a divine revelation and he had innate divine intelligence, then what? But of course you would not want to believe that unless you had a lot of evidence.

The thing is that Baha’u’llah said some of us are guided by God, so we are not having to question as much as others. But even some people who were very skeptical became Baha’is, so they were also guided. Nobody can know if they were the ones who God chose to guide until they got to their destination.

I have plenty of evidence. It all tells me that people who speak for God do so to trick me into believing them. I have seen enough evidence to put your messenger (and yourself) into that same category.

No, absolutely not! It is quite the opposite. He lost everything for making this claim to Prophethood, he lost all his property and possessions, and he was thrown on prison and then exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years. I would hardly call that a personal gain.

You must be unfamiliar with the 'long con'.

I might have a bias now but I could not have fallen victim to confirmation bias before I became a Baha’i since I had nothing to confirm, no preconceptions.

Yes, well I'm not talking to past you. I'm talking to now you.

Abdu’l-Baha was Baha’u’llah’s eldest son and successor and the Centre of His Covenant. He was named in Baha’u’llah’s will and testament so he did not take over. Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant

Yes and his younger half brother fought him for succession. There was a lot of name calling and such. In the end, it splintered the Baha'i faith (albeit one is a small splinter by comparison).

Two brothers fighting for the right to speak for their dead father who spoke for God. And surprisingly enough, they both got what they wanted. I wonder how that works?

 

[Trailblazer]

The idea of "messengers" fits perfectly with man-made religion.

Imagine that someone wanted to create a religion with themselves as the undisputed leader. What do you think they'd do?

I think one obvious possibility is that they would claim that they have received special revelation from God that's inaccessible to average people. Don't you?

Yes, that is probably what a self-proclaimed false messenger would do.
However, logically speaking, that does not mean that a real Messenger of God would not do the same thing.

If a man-made religion was created, odds are it would look very much like the Baha'i faith or any of the many "revealed" religions out there that you think are false, too.

I vehemently disagree because no mere man could do what Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab or Baha’u’llah did. Here is one example:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ." Some Answered Questions, p. 101

Imagine yourself as an outsider to faith. Put yourself back in time before any "revealed" religion. You encounter someone who says that they're a messenger from God; how would you go about deciding whether they really were one or not?

Clear and simple, I would look at the evidence that supports his claim to be a Messenger of God. I would look under every rock. If I really wanted to know if he was a Messenger of God I would leave no stone unturned. I would not listen to the opinions of anyone else. I would do my own individual investigation. This is exactly what Baha’u’llah has enjoined us to do.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Do you think that a false messenger of god such as Jim Jones would make his life story available to everyone and never hide anything about himself? Do you think that Jim Jones would enjoin you to research his claim?

Edit - the short version: everything I've ever heard about every "revealed" or "messenger" religion I've ever encountered has been entirely consistent with the religion being man-made... and that's my "one good reason."

Of course that is a good reason. Because you do not believe in God, why would you believe a religion was revealed by God to a messenger?

Yet there are inconsistencies... How can you explain how Jesus was able to do what Jesus did, as noted above? How do you explain the fact that one third of the world population still follows Jesus after over 2000 years? Are there any other men that have been able to do what the Messengers I have cited have done and have a lasting impact upon civilization and the progress of mankind for hundreds or even thousands of years?

 

[Audie]

Then why can’t you come back with a logical reason-based argument?

Couldn’t answer my questions, could you?

Anyone can see that there was no raving and no insults in my post, just facts and a reason-based argument and some questions.

To say that someone is illogical and demonstrating the reasons why is not an insult.

Predictably, when some atheists cannot respond to the facts and arguments I present and cannot answer my questions they just hurl insults at me. To accuse me of being insulting when you are the one who us insulting me (“Sure does not take much to smoke you out for what you are”) is called Psychological projection.

I said nothing about raving, tho you accused me of it,
falsely.

You know the term psychological projection, but
need a mirror.

 

[Trailblazer]

In bold, is what you consider to be logic?

Sorry-ah, but I have simply not seen any trace
of logic from you.

Put some on display if ya gots. Otherwise.....

Yet you cannot tell me why it is illogical and you cannot present anything that you think is more logical...
Words are cheap... Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Trailblazer]

How confused of you.

I am not confused about anything...
I do not always like God but I know the reasons why, and I know that the only reason I believe in God is because of Baha’u’llah.

 

[Orbit]

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?

I'm a little late to the party, but why are you directing these questions to atheists, who don't believe god exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope... you've made it crystal clear that your verifiable evidence is JUST as valid as this atheist's...

He does not have any verifiable evidence so it cannot be just as valid as my verifiable evidence.

and that you are both trying to get people to believe in a god that there is no reason to believe actually exists.

I am not trying to "get" anyone to believe in my God. I just answer posts. He is not trying to get anyone to believe in god at all. He is trying to promote a theory regarding what a hypothetical god would do IF it existed.

The only thing you've failed to address is why you think accepting someone else's made up story is better than making one up yourself. But that's okay... you've wasted more than enough of my time as it is. You can go waste some else's time now.

A Revelation from God through a Messenger of God is not a made up story, it is something that really happened.
No need to respond to that. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm a little late to the party, but why are you directing these questions to atheists, who don't believe god exists?

You are really late, but no matter...

The reason I started this thread is because an atheist I have been posting to on another forum for over three years insists that if god existed god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him. So I wanted to get the opinions of other atheists. Would God want that?

This atheist on the other forum thinks that if god existed, god would not use Messengers but rather god would communicate directly to everyone. That is tied in with his opinion that god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him. So I wanted to find out what other atheists think about that.

This atheist also thinks that if god existed god could show up on earth. So I wanted to find out what other atheists think about that.

Don't you think it is rather odd that an atheist would know all these things about what god could do and what god should do if god existed?

 

[Trailblazer]

I said nothing about raving, tho you accused me of it,
falsely.

I did not accuse you falsely.
You said:
"Well! The on and on with bold font, the insults, all
the things you make up, assertions of facts not in
evidence certainly do make it clear who is illogical
and raving."

So were you referring to yourself as illogical and raving?
Why not just admit you accused me of raving and get it over with?
It won't kill you to admit you were wrong.

 

[Orbit]

You are really late, but no matter...

The reason I started this thread is because an atheist I have been posting to on another forum for over three years insists that if god existed god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him. So I wanted to get the opinions of other atheists. Would God want that?

This atheist on the other forum thinks that if god existed, god would not use Messengers but rather god would communicate directly to everyone. That is tied in with his opinion that god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him. So I wanted to find out what other atheists think about that.

This atheist also thinks that if god existed god could show up on earth. So I wanted to find out what other atheists think about that.

Don't you think it is rather odd that an atheist would know all these things about what god could do and what god should do if god existed?

Yes, it is odd. I think he's/she's trying to get you to see that there is no evidence for God, though, in a roundabout way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it is odd. I think he's/she's trying to get you to see that there is no evidence for God, though, in a roundabout way.

Of course he does not believe there is any evidence for god, he is an atheist....

However, his goal is and has been to get me to see that the Messengers of God I believe in would not be the best way for a god to communicate, and that only a stupid god would use messengers since not everyone believes in them.

He maintains that a smart god would communicate directly to everyone on earth, all 7.44 billion people. I consider this utterly ludicrous and I have explained the reasons why, but he just calls those excuses because he thinks that god needs excuses for not doing what he thinks god should do. He cannot understand how illogical it is to say that an omnipotent/omniscient god would need excuses for anything it does or does not do.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course he does not believe there is any evidence for god, he is an atheist....

However, his goal is and has been to get me to see that the Messengers of God I believe in would not be the best way for a god to communicate, and that only a stupid god would use messengers since not everyone believes in them.

He maintains that a smart god would communicate directly to everyone on earth, all 7.44 billion people. I consider this utterly ludicrous and I have explained the reasons why, but he just calls those excuses because he thinks that god needs excuses for not doing what he thinks god should do. He cannot understand how illogical it is to say that an omnipotent/omniscient god would need excuses for anything it does or does not do.

Atheism isn't the only place you can find that view though. In several branches of Hinduism, (including mine) God communes directly, and there is no necessity for any go-between at all. It's simply between the devotee, and God. Why use the postman to deliver a smile to your spouse?

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheism isn't the only place you can find that view though. In several branches of Hinduism, (including mine) God communes directly, and there is no necessity for any go-between at all. It's simply between the devotee, and God. Why use the postman to deliver a smile to your spouse?

But the hundred-dollar question is whether God actually communicates to anyone directly, and if so what does it mean for God to communicate directly with someone. The bigger question is how someone would know it was actually God communicating with them rather than their own imaginings... It is a nice thought but....

I think that God might communicate with people by placing ideas in their minds that act as guidance but that is not the same thing as a Manifestation of God getting a direct revelation from God that He proceeds to write down as the revelation streams forth, as Baha'is believe happened to the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Also, it is kind of a gray area which Prophets were actually Manifestations of God. I read recently that it is a Bahai belief that some of the lesser Prophets in the Bible like Isaiah got communication from God... How else could they know what was revealed in their prophecies?

Baha'u'llah wrote that "there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation" (Gleanings, p. 66) and by creation He is referring to ordinary humans. Then He goes on to explain the nature of the Manifestations of God and how they are not ordinary men but rather they have a double station; the human station and the divine station, representing the Voice of God. The Bahai belief is that they are not ordinary men, they are born of the substance of God and have a universal divine mind, and that is why they an act as Mediators between God and man.