Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Trailblazer]

Why is this translated using a form of English not used during the time?

I have read that only 15% of the tablets of Baha’u’llah have been translated into English to date, but before he died in 1957, Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, translated the most important Tablets of Baha’u’llah and complied them into books. Not all of the books are in King James English as is Gleanings, which is the book I usually quote. I do not know what it was translated in King James English, but I could hazard a guess that it has to do with the fact that it has an effect upon the soul.

I did not used to like Gleanings or that style of language, and I found it every difficult to understand, but now find that style of language very uplifting even though it can sometimes be a bit of a challenge to understand.

The reason I came to understand about God and Baha’u’llah and how they are connected is because of Gleanings. There are so many other Baha’i books but Gleanings is kind of like a Bible for me, a source of inspiration. It covers many different aspects of the teachings of Baha’u’llah in one small book.

It is called Gleanings because it is an extraction of information from various Tablets... In the Introduction to Gleanings, which is only in the published book and not online, it explains something about Gleanings:

“Gleanings is a book for meditative study. It is not a book of history and facts, but of love and spiritual power. No one can understand the faith of the thousands of martyred followers of the Bab, unless he catches the spirit of this book. No one can appreciate why thousands of Baha’is give up the comfort of settled homes and move into strange countries to tell the people about Baha’u’llah, unless he clearly glimpses the spirit of this book.” Gleanings

 

[Sir Doom]

I am a straight shooter so I am not going to beat around the bush. I know what God wants to the extent that it was revealed to Baha’u’llah, but that is not a whole heck of a lot. With what I have I piece things together, but I certainly could be wrong, because nobody can ever know what God wants, except very generally.

Even if I did not have a religion it would be obvious to me that an omnipotent God is not going to communicate directly to you. Do you SEE the omnipotent God communicating “directly” to anyone?

My personal experience has been stated many times. Of course, I do not see God speaking to anyone. But what is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. Omnipotence by it's very nature is quite inexplicable. It is as likely to do one thing as any other. I maintain my position that if God has any of instructions for me or you or any other silly sack of meat on this planet as individuals or in groups or both, God will without a doubt convey that message successfully as failure in any task is simply off the table for God. As that is the case, I assume that God communicates in any way imaginable whenever it feels like for whatever reason it feels like. Tailored specifically for the recipient specifically to avoid confusion because that is really no trouble for omnipotence. Nothing is.

Okay then, it is settled. So why bother to hope for that? However, see what I said below.

You are so right. God does not communicate to anyone except His Messengers, so it is not personal to you.

You've got me wrong. I expect no communication from God beyond the life I am living. I don't know if God even exists so why worry what it wants? If it wants something different than what it's getting it can say so in unfathomable ways and fathomable ways. Until then, I will be what I am.

Of course God will not adhere to MY rules. God sets His own rules. I am just explaining what they are.

I will guess you learned what they are from reading Bahaullah. To which I will say we are back to circular reasoning as the 'rule' in question happens to be:

"God will only speak directly to messengers."

However, God breaks His own rules once in a while; God is omnipotent so He can do that.

I know a former atheist now a believer to whom God gave a sign, and where there is one there are more. What happened is that he knew he had hit bottom and he knew he needed God so he reached out to God in desperation and humbled himself before God. What happened after that is that God showed him a sign that was unmistakably God. Interestingly, the next thing he did was go looking to religion for the answers to his questions, so he showed up on a Baha’i forum. I have never met anyone as spiritual as this man. I only wish I had half the faith in God that he did, but then I never got a sign from God. Nevertheless, I know God exists, so that is probably why God did not give me a sign.

I'm sorry, what is the difference between a sign and direct communication? I'm now quite mystified. Do you not understand that this wholeheartedly defeats your position regarding messengers?

All people are not going to be that fortunate. The omniscient God knows who will be worthy and decides accordingly who He will guide. I am not the one who makes that decision. If you prayed to God you might get a sign. God does not normally just come along and intervene in our lives unless we pray. That is part of the setup. We have to pick up the phone and call Him.

I got angry at God and threw my phone down on the ground about a week ago, so I lost all connection to God. It has to be a two way connection for God to get through. He is coming through a little better now but there is still some interference in the phone lines.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

That's... Quaint. I am... Nonplussed.

 

[ArtieE]

John is a human so you can meet John. God is not a human so you cannot meet God. The only way we can know anything about God is by reading what was revealed by Baha’u’llah or other scriptures such as the Bible and the Qur’an.

Or the Urantia Book. That one is packed full of detailed information. Home | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

 

[ArtieE]

The reason people do not agree about God is because everyone has a different computer with different information on its hard drive, and the information they have conflicts with what others have. The latest update from God has explained all of this but since nobody has installed the update they don’t have the most current information from God.

Have you installed this update too? If not you should. Home | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

 

[Polymath257]

I like how you reason things out. You are correct. In matters of the supernatural, if *all* we have is guesswork, the likelihood of getting anything right is very small. But we have more than guesswork. We have religious scriptures, which is really the only way we can know anything about the supernatural.

And my point is that all scriptural writings are done by humans and are just as much guesswork as any other speculation about the supernatural. Why would I believe *any* scripture when the author knows no more than anyone else?

Societies have nothing to do with it, as religions are behind those societies that make the claims about the supernatural. I find it more likely that the most current religion has the most accurate depiction of the supernatural, and particularly of the afterlife because I believe God sends Messengers with updates in every new age, like a computer getting updated.

Once again, you have the logic backwards. You have to know there is a God before you can know there is a Messenger. Otherwise, the Messenger is just as much in ignorance as everyone else. And that means *none* of the scriptures, modern or otherwise are evidence for a supernatural.

You certainly have a point, but things are falling apart because the world has not accepted the “updates” from God via His new Messenger, Baha’u’llah. As such, it is like they are operating a computer that was made in the 1950s, you know those old mainframes. How can you expect anything to run smoothly when people are using such old equipment (the Bible and other older scriptures) which were never intended to be used in this new age we are now living in?

And I consider the whole set of beliefs in a supernatural to be part of the problem.

You raise another good point. Humanity passes through different stages, as the material world changes over time and as man evolves spiritually. The rules of morality change along with the world we live in and man’s capacity to follow new rules increases as man becomes more spiritual. That is why in every new age God reveals new teachings and laws that are suited to the new age.

Well, its why people rearrange their beliefs to be more in keeping with the new realities. Once again, you are assuming a Messenger when that person is making guesses just like everyone else.

How is it different?

UV light is physical and can be measured by physical processes. The supernatural, by definition, cannot. So, the fact that UV light is unseen doesn't make it supernatural.

The nature of God cannot ever be defined. I have been explaining that to Unveiled Artist, so please refer to my posts to her for the past couple of days. God is not a material object so looking at “evidence” for God cannot be approached as we would approach a scientific study. The only evidence for God is the Messengers of God (Prophets).

But you have to demonstrate the authority of this person as a Messenger, which requires at lest evidence of God beforehand. Otherwise, they are just people making guesses like all of us. And yes, that is what I think happens.

Indeed, there has to be a starting point in our study. The reason there is so much confusion is that most religious people are clinging to that old mainframe computer that has a lot of outdated information on its hard drive. And some of those computers are older than others. The older they are the less accurate they are, which is why the newer religions have more accurate information than the religions that preceded them. Each new religion brings something new to the table.

The reason people do not agree about God is because everyone has a different computer with different information on its hard drive, and the information they have conflicts with what others have. The latest update from God has explained all of this but since nobody has installed the update they don’t have the most current information from God.

It sounds to me like they need a completely different Operating System and not simply an update. Instead of working under an assumption that a God exists, maybe they need an OS where no such assumption is made.

That is true. The supernatural, or what I call the spiritual, cannot be detected at all in a physical world because it is not physical. Only physical things can be detected in the physical world. Spiritual things are detected in the spiritual world. The caveat is that we can know that spiritual things such as God and the spiritual world (afterlife) exist because they are described in scriptures. However, they are only described according to our capacity to understand them. The knowledge that is revealed by God must be timely and suited our capacity to hear it. As human capacity increases over time, more is revealed.

But this only works is scriptures and Messengers are reliable. And there is no evidence to support those claims. If we acknowledge scriptures as guesswork and Messengers as people who can be wrong, we realize there is *no* evidence for a supernatural.

The spiritual world (afterlife) is so different from this world that we cannot grasp its nature from the vantage point of this world. A good analogy is that a child while still in the womb cannot possibly understand what it will be like after it is born into this world. What we are told in the Baha’i scriptures is that there is a spiritual world we go to after we die (afterlife) and we are told something about it. After all, it would not be a just God who would expect us to believe in something we know absolutely nothing about. For example...

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346

Joy and gladness are things we can understand. We are also told that there will be no more suffering, something else we can understand. There is much more, but I do not want to overwhelm you with too much information unless you are interested.

nice shiny promises, but no substance to back them up. Why should I believe these writings?

That starting point has to be scriptures and it makes sense to me that they would be the most current scriptures. The question of how one would be able to distinguish God’s existence from non-existence is a whole different ball game. That gets into belief and what reasons we have to believe what we do.

No,the starting point is demonstrating that scriptures have any real authority and are not simply stage upon stage of guesswork. ALL scriptures can be false.

 

[ecco]

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?

Pardon the late entry into the discussion.

Why is this thread titled:

Questions for Atheists and Agnostics​

Wouldn't it be better addressed to theists and worded...

Questions for Theists and Believers

Since God exists, does He want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

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

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

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I fully understand. For most of my life as a Baha’i, I did not understand the Writings of Baha’u’llah. I had to learn a lot about Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i Faith before I could understand them.

No. I can't understand it. It's like telling me you understood Russian after awhile of religious spiritual understanding before taking into consideration you have to be fluent in Russian first before getting any spiritual benefit out of the message.

Aka. Thee, thows, and thows and flowery language doesnt help. Its even hard to get through The Buddha's Dharma and I try to study that daily since that is my belief system and what I am called to practice. Understanding the message has prerequisites of understanding the language to which that message is written.

Youre probably used to quoting (have verses memorized in your head). As long as you summarize it, youre fine.

I do not know what you cannot “separate out” the nature of God from the attributes of God.

Thats a contradiction.

If you dont know the nature of god then you cant say his attributes are interconnected with his nature. Either his nature is his attributes that you know or the attributes describe the nature to which you cannot define.

Since you said you do not know the nature of god, his attributes only describes his external nature (i.e. color of pants and type of shirt) but not his nature (i.e. human being).

The attributes like four limbs, hair, and a spine are of a living being but does not identify if its an animal or human. To know the nature of something before describing its attributes (noun before adjective) we need to know its nature; what exactly is it you are describing. What exactly is god to which those attributes describe?

What is god to which these attributes describe?

Aka. Whats the noun the adjectives are describing?

Why would Baha’u’llah need to know the nature of God in order to know the attributes of God? Nobody can ever know the nature of God. All we can know are the attributes of God and the will of God.

Logically, it just makes sense.

If you told me RaminoZka attributes is that it has four limbs, hair, and eyes these tell me nothing. If you told me first RaminoZka is a cat (his nature) then tell me he has four limbs, hair, and eyes I can get a better picture to which these attributes describe.

If not, attributes can describe anything. Anyone god(s) can have the attributes to which you use for your god. You have to explain his nature in order to specify why these attributes go to your god and not general any god can have.

So god wont be vague.

In short, only God knows the nature of God. Baha’u’llah just got a message. In that message God told Baha’u’llah what His attributes are and what His will is (what God wants humans to do).

But what is a god to which these message and attributes come from?

I mean, anyone can trust a message but if they dont know the source of the message, I see no reason to trust it. You gotta know the source before the message. Its blind faith when you trust the message without wanting to know the source. While thats fine to that, personally, I find it more dangerous. If spirits exist and the bible says the devil can mask himself as an angel of light, I think it would take a bit more effort to know the nature of god, but then to distinguish light from dark, like The Buddha says it comes from you-from your mind-not from god and not from a prophet.

God cannot ever be defined. God is above definition. All we can know are some of God’s attributes.

What exactly does these attributes describe?

I cant give an example from what bahaullah says since I dont understand it. Gives me a headache of the eyes.

The attributes mean nothing to you but they mean a lot to people who believe in God. For example, if we do not know that God is loving and just, why would we want to believe in God?

Attributes (love, kindness, etc) mean A LOT to me; thats an inaccurate assumption. Just, the nature of the person to which those attributes describe is known to me; thats why I trust these attributes as true. I know the nature (and still learning) to whom gave the teaching. He isnt greater. He isnt powerful. There is no mystery.

Is gods nature loving and just?

Any god can be loving and just but how does these things describe the god you believe in when you dont know its nature?

I mean, we cant play guessing games. You can repeat and say god is just and love all day, but unless you say this is his nature, I would look at you funny and say, um, but yeah, who is this god that has these characteristics you are using.

John is a human so you can meet John. God is not a human so you cannot meet God. The only way we can know anything about God is by reading what was revealed by Baha’u’llah or other scriptures such as the Bible and the Qur’an.

Its an analogy. Follow the intent of the analogy rather than the specific words.

So, who would trust what I said about John is true without even meeting or hearing for herself John before trusting anything I said about him is true?

How can you trust what bahaullah says about god without you even meeting or hearing for yourself what bahaullah says and know the nature to the god in order to correlate whether or not he is telling you the truth?

It would not matter if Baha’u’llah knew God’s nature. You would still have to trust what Baha’u’llah wrote about His nature. Do you understand what I mean?

No.

I wouldnt trust bahaullah unless I knew who he was talking about first. I cant just someone outright without knowing the source.

Thats like writing an essay with citations but you never check whether the citations for a given fact is true but take the essays word for it. Maybe thats fine for a lay person but not a professor.

I see no reason why we need to define the nature of God in order to know the attributes of God. Baha’u’llah revealed the attributes, not the nature.

Because if I said X living being has four limbs, hair, and ears, Id be curious if this person is describing a human being or animal.

I dont go off blind trust well. Not what The Dharma teaches, really.

I think we are at an impasse

No, I do not see how it makes sense to need to know the nature of God. The nature of God is hidden from our view. God decides to keep it hidden. I just accept that.The following passage says that nobody can fathom the mystery of God (God’s nature). It concludes by saying that accepting our helplessness to understand the nature of God is the highest level of understanding any human can attain to.

I'll put it in my view.

If my life is based on someone elses words (say The Buddha), I would want to know who The Buddha is before I trust The Dharma. The way I do this, since The Buddha is not god nor did he teach of god in relation to enlightenment, is practice. I do what The Buddha did and find out for myself whether what he says is true based on practice. If the practice correlates with what The Dharma says is true, then I look more into the practice and continue to cultivate my understanding of mortality and deeds through it. Of course I give my respects to The Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, but without practice (getting to know The Dharma personally), these Jewels mean nothing.

Aka

Without getting to know god personally, his attributes mean nothing. Personally, I have to know who Im believing in before I believe anything he says.

Baha’u’llah was separate from God because He was not God. He had some attributes of God and he had a mind that was like God but He did not have the full nature of God. Nobody has the full nature of God but God.

This is confusing.

Bahaullah is separate from god because he is not god (okay) but he has some of gods attributes?

Is gods nature his attributes?
What is missing from god to which bahaullah doesnt even know of himself?

But that is not true. Jesus was not God incarnate. Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

Its the same thing.

When you manifest something, you make something into existence (or a growth of something) such as an idea into action. I read it also means a reflection of gods attributes in this world. An incarnation does the same thing. It makes something present by mirroring its attributes in the physical world.

The meaning is the same. The way its done (flesh vs. abstractness) is different. Regardless of how the reflection and manifestation and incarnation takes place, its still the same.

It is a language issue. To say that God is love and God is justice are describing the attributes of God; God is loving and God is just. That does not describe the intrinsic nature of God; things such as what God is comprised of, how God operates, where God is located, cannot ever be known.

Thats confusing. Its like jumping around god saying you dont know his nature but using attributes to describe it.

It does.

God is love is describing the nature (noun) of god. Who is god: he is love.

How he operates (the verb). Because god is love, he expresses his love through the words of prophets. The trust we have in the prophets (what christians call the holy spirit) brings one to faith in god and trust the prophets. Its the motor to which a person believes and the motivation that stirs the spiritual soul of the believer and god.

Gods location is in the hearts, minds, and soul of the people. He isnt a deity but an (what your peers say?) an essence. Hes a spirit that does not live someone in heaven but inside the trust, love, and experience of the believer.

Its not greater, mysterious, or anything. Its the nature of how human beings find meaning in life, interact with life, gratitude, and/or anything else.

That is a good point. God is described by His attributes, but God is ABOVE all those attributes because the nature of God is, and has ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

How is god above his attributes????

Thats confusing. If his attributes describe his nature, his nature, then, has been defined. So, he is nature is above the description of his nature??

I do not see why. We cannot ever know the nature of God, only God’s attributes and God’s will.

I dont see a separation.

Christians cut god up into sections where its not needed. They do this (as you do with attributes and nature) with the trinity. I almost got how they express it. However, they do know the relationship between gods nature (creator), gods operations (the act of the holy spirit), and the manifestation or incarnation to which the creator uses his holy spirit to express his Will through the physical world via jesus christ.

Im still lost with bahai explanation. Sounds the same and because you believe in the bible, Im trying to compare the two expressions. They dont match.

 

[Shad]

I have read that only 15% of the tablets of Baha’u’llah have been translated into English to date, but before he died in 1957, Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, translated the most important Tablets of Baha’u’llah and complied them into books. Not all of the books are in King James English as is Gleanings, which is the book I usually quote. I do not know what it was translated in King James English, but I could hazard a guess that it has to do with the fact that it has an effect upon the soul.

I did not used to like Gleanings or that style of language, and I found it every difficult to understand, but now find that style of language very uplifting even though it can sometimes be a bit of a challenge to understand.

The language used is problematic for those not familiar with the language. For me it is annoying to read as I do not like the version of English used. Maybe a suggestion to your leadership that nonbelievers can have issues with the style. Perhaps a new translation in Modern English would be better for non-believers is in order.

 

[Trailblazer]

The language used is problematic for those not familiar with the language. For me it is annoying to read as I do not like the version of English used. Maybe a suggestion to your leadership that nonbelievers can have issues with the style. Perhaps a new translation in Modern English would be better for non-believers is in order.

Thanks for the suggestion. It is possible that in the future another translation will be forthcoming, but the priority now is to translate into English what has not yet been translated.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you installed this update too? If not you should. Home | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

Baha'u'llah brought the most current update.
There have been no other updates since 1852 and there can be no updates until at least 2852 A.D.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

 

[Trailblazer]

Pardon the late entry into the discussion.

Why is this thread titled:

Questions for Atheists and Agnostics​

Wouldn't it be better addressed to theists and worded...

Questions for Theists and Believers

Since God exists, does He want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

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

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

The “reason” the thread is entitled Questions for Atheists and Agnostics is because there is an atheist on another forum who I have been posting to for over three years almost daily who insists that he knows what god would do if god existed. He thinks that god would communicate directly to everyone in the world, all 7.44 billion people.

He thinks that because an omnipotent god could do that, an omnipotent god should do that. He also thinks that if god existed god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him, and that is tied in with his idea that god should communicate directly to everyone. He thinks that if god communicated directly to everyone, everyone would believe in god.

He also thinks that if god were real god could show up on earth.

He thinks that only a stupid god would use messengers because not everyone believes in them.

Because god has not done what he thinks god should do he does not believe god exists.

Now do you understand? He thinks he knows more about what god would do/should do than any theist but he has no way to know any of this. His entire argument is based upon the premise that god is omnipotent so god can do anything. What he is really implying is that god should do everything he wants god to do just because god can do it.

He considers himself the king of logic but he misses two very obvious logical points.

1. If god is omnipotent, god does only what god wants to do, not what any human wants him to do. Thus he cannot dictate to an omnipotent god what it should do.
2. If god is omniscient, god knows the best way to communicate to humanity, so if god used messengers to communicate that would have to be the best way to communicate. Since the only empirical evidence we have is that god has communicated via messengers, and we know that god has never communicated directly to everyone, the only other logical possibilities are that god exists but does not communicate or that god does not exist.

I have to add that it has been an exhilarating experience to be on this forum with rational atheists. What a breath of fresh air, after conversing with atheists on the other forum who are completely illogical. I understand that atheists do not like the “idea” of messengers of god but that is not what this is all about. This is about logic and reason.

Finally, there are all manner arguments we could make for the nonexistence of god, but god using messengers is not a good reason why god would not exist. A much better reason to argue the nonexistence of god is the suffering we see in the world.

 

[ecco]

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

Wow. That's a really cool tactic:

"I said it and now no one can dispute it for a thousand years"
​

I wonder if any other religious founders/leaders were smart enough to insert that little gem into their scripture.

 

[Trailblazer]

My personal experience has been stated many times. Of course, I do not see God speaking to anyone. But what is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. Omnipotence by it's very nature is quite inexplicable. It is as likely to do one thing as any other. I maintain my position that if God has any of instructions for me or you or any other silly sack of meat on this planet as individuals or in groups or both, God will without a doubt convey that message successfully as failure in any task is simply off the table for God.

You are right. God is as likely to do one thing as any other. However, there are some things we know that God does not do. God does not convey messages directly to anyone except His Messengers.

I maintain my position that if God has any of instructions for you or you or any other silly sack of meat on this planet as individuals or in groups or both, God will without a doubt convey that message successfully through one of His Messengers, as failure in any task is simply off the table for God.

As that is the case, I assume that God communicates in any way imaginable whenever it feels like for whatever reason it feels like. Tailored specifically for the recipient specifically to avoid confusion because that is really no trouble for omnipotence. Nothing is.

God could do that but God doesn’t do that. God is not a tailor. An omnipotent God only does what it wants to do and it does not want to tailor anything to individuals. God communicates a message through a Messenger that is tailor made to “fit all of humanity.” If individuals don’t like how it fits, they don’t have to believe the message.

You've got me wrong. I expect no communication from God beyond the life I am living. I don't know if God even exists so why worry what it wants? If it wants something different than what it's getting it can say so in unfathomable ways and fathomable ways. Until then, I will be what I am.

That’s okay. Be who you are. You seem like a pretty nice guy. God does not need your belief. God does not need anything. God is just going to be who He is.

I will guess you learned what they are from reading Bahaullah. To which I will say we are back to circular reasoning as the 'rule' in question happens to be:

"God will only speak directly to messengers."

That is true but it is not circular reasoning.

I'm sorry, what is the difference between a sign and direct communication? I'm now quite mystified. Do you not understand that this wholeheartedly defeats your position regarding messengers?

A sign is just a way for God to let someone know He exists... There is no message attached. It is kind of like a text message saying “I exist.”

A sign is a sign, a voice is a voice. The Messenger hears a Voice.

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104

There is a message that comes through the Voice, like an attachment on an e-mail.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

 

[ecco]

The “reason” the thread is entitled Questions for Atheists and Agnostics is because there is an atheist on another forum who I have been posting to for over three years almost daily who insists that he knows what god would do if god existed. He thinks that god would communicate directly to everyone in the world, all 7.44 billion people.

So your purpose is to see if other atheists agree with him - OK.

He thinks that because an omnipotent god could do that, an omnipotent god should do that. He also thinks that if god existed god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him, and that is tied in with his idea that god should communicate directly to everyone. He thinks that if god communicated directly to everyone, everyone would believe in god.

Maybe not gods, but wanna-be gods like Trump clearly believe that.

He thinks that only a stupid god would use messengers because not everyone believes in them.

Some Messengers are more believable that others. With Islam we know it was a one on one deal. Perhaps that could be said of Moses. But MMLJ clearly have problems.

He considers himself the king of logic but he misses two very obvious logical points.
...
If god is omniscient, god knows the best way to communicate to humanity, so if god used messengers to communicate that would have to be the best way to communicate.

But if there are multiple messengers, each giving different stories, it does lead to confusion, wouldn't you agree?

I have to add that it has been an exhilarating experience to be on this forum with rational atheists. What a breath of fresh air, after conversing with atheists on the other forum who are completely illogical. I understand that atheists do not like the “idea” of messengers of god but that is not what this is all about. This is about logic and reason.

Was the eyeroll following "logic and reason" a Freudian Slip?

Finally, there are all manner arguments we could make for the nonexistence of god, but god using messengers is not a good reason why god would not exist. A much better reason to argue the nonexistence of god is the suffering we see in the world.

I would have to disagree. The suffering we see in this world has been existing (according to the bible) since God messed with Adam & Eve. And then there is that whole God drowning all the people incident.

No, the suffering we see in this world is quite consistent with the existence of the Abrahamic God.


ETA: Just realized you were not a Christian. Just ignore those parts that don't apply to your religion.

 

[ecco]

double post

 

[Trailblazer]

So your purpose is to see if other atheists agree with him - OK.

Yes, but also to find out if they disagree with him, and why they agree or disagree.

Maybe not gods, but wanna-be gods like Trump clearly believe that.

I’ll second that.

Some Messengers are more believable that others. With Islam we know it was a one on one deal. Perhaps that could be said of Moses. But MMLJ clearly have problems.

I agree it was a one on one deal with both Moses and Muhammad, but why do you, an atheist, believe that.
Who is MMLJ?

But if there are multiple messengers, each giving different stories, it does lead to confusion, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree, if all the Messengers showed up at the same time and started talking, but that is not what they do. They come 500-1000 years apart and bring a new message that is “suited” for the age in which they appear.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Was the eyeroll following "logic and reason" a Freudian Slip?

No, it was because of what I have been going through with this atheist who is so illogical and so unreasonable. I am close to losing my mind. Maybe the eye roll was misplaced at the end of that sentence though.

I would have to disagree. The suffering we see in this world has been existing (according to the bible) since God messed with Adam & Eve. And then there is that whole God drowning all the people incident.

Do you believe those stories? I do not believe any of it the literal way that Christians interpret it, but of course I am a Baha’i, not a Christian.

No, the suffering we see in this world is quite consistent with the existence of the Abrahamic God.

But it is not consistent with the “loving God” Christians believe in.

You still might have point about that though since the Abrahamic God does allow it to exist while He sits up there in His ivory tower playing golf with Trump.

Most of the suffering in the world is caused by humans, but we still have the problem of innocent people and animals suffering, and we have the material world God made which is a storehouse of suffering by its very nature, and the fact that some people suffer so much while others hardly suffer at all. Then we have the natural disasters and diseases that cannot be attributed to humans, although some diseases can be the result of a poor lifestyle and some natural disasters that are caused by climate change can be attributed to humans.

God has some answering to do, that’s for sure. I know that is illogical as I say it because an omnipotent God is not answerable to anyone, but I have been mad at God for the last week.

 

[Sir Doom]

You are right. God is as likely to do one thing as any other. However, there are some things we know that God does not do. God does not convey messages directly to anyone except His Messengers.

We know nothing of the sort. You, in fact, have and will continue to demonstrate the exact opposite via your formerly atheist friend who had a sign. I will continue to keep a completely open mind when it comes to God's methods of communication because I can't possibly know anything about it until it actually happens. With the notable exception of dismissing those that claim to know what God wants without ever successfully qualifying their right to do so let alone their ability.

I maintain my position that if God has any of instructions for you or you or any other silly sack of meat on this planet as individuals or in groups or both, God will without a doubt convey that message successfully through one of His Messengers, as failure in any task is simply off the table for God.

Is that metaphorical cell phone going to remain broken then?

God could do that but God doesn’t do that. God is not a tailor. An omnipotent God only does what it wants to do and it does not want to tailor anything to individuals. God communicates a message through a Messenger that is tailor made to “fit all of humanity.” If individuals don’t like how it fits, they don’t have to believe the message.

You sure seem to be keen on telling God what it won't do.

That’s okay. Be who you are. You seem like a pretty nice guy. God does not need your belief. God does not need anything. God is just going to be who He is.

God needs me. Can't speak for the rest of you.

That is true but it is not circular reasoning.

It is though, because it is the Messenger telling you he is the messenger and qualifying that he is the messenger by saying that God only speaks to messengers and the messengers say they are messengers so they are not wrong about being messengers because they are messengers and messengers can't be wrong because they speak for God and God told them they were messengers so that can't be wrong either. Did I get all of that?

A sign is just a way for God to let someone know He exists... There is no message attached. It is kind of like a text message saying “I exist.”

Oh I see a text message as opposed to a 'real' message. I'm sorry but I still see this as the exact opposite of what you've been saying all along. Giving an atheist a sign that God exists is pretty far and away from 'God only communicates through messengers' it seems pretty well tailored to be quite Francois about it.

A sign is a sign, a voice is a voice. The Messenger hears a Voice.

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104

Splitting hairs. Seriously, splitting hairs.

There is a message that comes through the Voice, like an attachment on an e-mail.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

These tech analogies are really not helping your position, honestly.

 

[Trailblazer]

And my point is that all scriptural writings are done by humans and are just as much guesswork as any other speculation about the supernatural. Why would I believe *any* scripture when the author knows no more than anyone else?

That is a good point. You would not have any reason to believe a scripture that was written by an ordinary human being. A Messengers of God (Prophets) are not ordinary human beings. They are another order of God’s creation, a Being in between a man and a God. They are not like us so we cannot fully comprehend their nature, we can only comprehend the human part of their nature. Because the souls of the Messengers of God were pre-existent in the spiritual world they were given the “capacity” to receive God’s revelation on earth and to communicate it to humanity in a way in which we can comprehend it.

No religion preceding the Baha’i Faith has original scriptures written by a Messenger of God (Prophet). The scriptures of the Bab and Baha’u’llah were written in their own Pens. Some of the scriptures of Baha’u’llah were dictated to his personal secretary and then He stamped then with His official seal to guarantee authenticity.

Once again, you have the logic backwards. You have to know there is a God before you can know there is a Messenger. Otherwise, the Messenger is just as much in ignorance as everyone else. And that means *none* of the scriptures, modern or otherwise are evidence for a supernatural.

I understand what you mean, but if the Messenger is the only evidence God provides of His existence, how do you think you can know there is a God before you can know there is a Messenger? If the Messenger is actually sent By God, then He is not in ignorance. The problem is in determining if He was sent by God. Even if you believed in God before you knew there was a Messenger you would still have to determine if the Messenger was sent by God.

And I consider the whole set of beliefs in a supernatural to be part of the problem.

Which beliefs and why are they part of the problem?

Well, its why people rearrange their beliefs to be more in keeping with the new realities. Once again, you are assuming a Messenger when that person is making guesses just like everyone else.

If the Messenger was sent by God, then He is not making guesses. It is a Baha’i belief that God is infallible and that all the Messengers of God are also infallible because their will is identical with the Will of God.

UV light is physical and can be measured by physical processes. The supernatural, by definition, cannot. So, the fact that UV light is unseen doesn't make it supernatural.

Okay thanks. That makes sense. Supernatural is anything that cannot be measured or proved to exist.

But you have to demonstrate the authority of this person as a Messenger, which requires at least evidence of God beforehand. Otherwise, they are just people making guesses like all of us. And yes, that is what I think happens.

Again, since the Messenger is the only evidence of God, it is a Catch-22 proving God first. Also, we would still have to demonstrate the authority of this person as a Messenger. That is really the crux of the issue, is it not?

It sounds to me like they need a completely different Operating System and not simply an update. Instead of working under an assumption that a God exists, maybe they need an OS where no such assumption is made.

Without a God on the OS they would not be a religion would they?

But this only works if scriptures and Messengers are reliable. And there is no evidence to support those claims. If we acknowledge scriptures as guesswork and Messengers as people who can be wrong, we realize there is *no* evidence for a supernatural.

There is no proof that Messengers actually got a message from God but there is evidence that indicates that they did. How could anyone ever prove that they got a message from God unless they were the ones who got the message? There were witnesses to the revelations of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, but that is as close as we can get to proof.

Obviously, if we acknowledge scriptures as guesswork and Messengers as people who can be wrong, we realize there is *no* evidence for a supernatural. However, if we acknowledge scriptures as truth from God and Messengers as people who are infallible, then we can consider that the evidence for a supernatural. I understand how that is a stretch for most people, but it is certainly a lot easier to believe what Baha’u’llah wrote than the Bible, since we can research the course of His life and mission on earth and we can read His original scriptures. All this constitutes verifiable evidence “indicating” that He made a valid claim.

nice shiny promises, but no substance to back them up. Why should I believe these writings?

You should/would only believe them if you did what seekers are enjoined to do, fearlessly and independently investigate the claim of Baha’u’llah to speak for God and find it to be the truth. The following is from one of the first books that I ever read; it is an encapsulation of the Baha’i Faith. Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era

“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

Obviously, not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion, but if they do not look they will never know.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

I can only speak for myself. For me, there was just too much evidence to refute, and it was the preponderance of evidence I could not refute.

No, the starting point is demonstrating that scriptures have any real authority and are not simply stage upon stage of guesswork. ALL scriptures can be false.

By the same token, scriptures can be true. Hypothetically speaking, what if they were true and you never determined that? I think that they at least deserve a fair shot, given what is at stake. If people trust their own intellectual abilities, there is really no way they can get duped.

 

[ecco]

I agree it was a one on one deal with both Moses and Muhammad, but why do you, an atheist, believe that.
Who is MMLJ?

I don't believe it. I was addressing what believers believe.

MMLJ Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. I thought that was obvious since we were discussing messengers.

I would agree, if all the Messengers showed up at the same time and started talking, but that is not what they do. They come 500-1000 years apart and bring a new message that is “suited” for the age in which they appear.

I dunno, they could all be talking about sexual prohibitions and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Why are most religions so negatively obsessed with sex?

Do you believe those stories?

Why would I believe stories written by men about gods that men have created?

I do not believe any of it the literal way that Christians interpret it, but of course I am a Baha’i, not a Christian.

Very, very few Christians take all of the NT and the OT as absolute truth. The vast majority pick and choose. Do you take all the writings of Baha'i as absolute, unquestionable truth?

God has some answering to do, that’s for sure. I know that is illogical as I say it because an omnipotent God is not answerable to anyone, but I have been mad at God for the last week.

That's something atheist never have to go through.

 

[ecco]

No religion preceding the Baha’i Faith has original scriptures written by a Messenger of God (Prophet).

Islam has the Koran.

The problem is in determining if He was sent by God.

Surely the Golden Tablets delivered by the angel moroni must quality as "word of god" and Joseph Smith as a true Messenger.

If people trust their own intellectual abilities, there is really no way they can get duped.

I guess you never heard of Bernie Madoff or Donald Trump.