Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Sir Doom]

Maybe you were just looking in the wrong places.

I don't really think of it that way. There are no obvious places to look. One is as good as another. My answer need not be everyone's answer, after all.

Maybe God wants you to keep searching.

It's what God is getting from me, like it or not.

Maybe God allowed you to find all those false messengers so that when you encountered a true Messenger you would be able to tell the difference.

That's possible, but I think its more likely God isn't interested in communicating that way and people are just incredibly self-centered.

I am happy to hear you say that maybe you could be wrong. Humility is a necessary attribute of the true seeker.

No one who knows me would ever call me humble.

I can certainly understand why you say that. I do not make the restrictions myself, but I believe I know what they are. I just report what they are according to my religion.

Fair enough.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I do not believe God is humble. God cannot be humble because God is All-Powerful. It is kind of foggy in my mind but recently I read that one thing God cannot be is a Servant. Because God cannot be a Servant, humans are enjoined to be Servants, so God can see in us one attribute He does not possess.

You are correct you have heard it as something like this has been said, as I have also read it at some time. I think you may find it may have been a talk by a hand of the cause.

I do not think it comes from what are seen as authorised Baha'i texts, in fact I found it again, it was by by 'Adib Taherzadeh', in
The Child of the Covenant, A Study Guide to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá on page 33 and 34;

"..God and man may be said to be positioned on the two opposite poles. God is the sovereign Lord of all and man a humble servant, hence there is a force of attraction between the two. 'I loved thy creation, hence I created thee', is the voice of God addressing His servants. While God is the possessor of all divine attributes, by reason of His sovereignty, He cannot be humble. The best gift, then, which man can offer to God is the only one He does not already possess, namely, humility and servitude. These are the most befitting attributes for man. The lordship of God and the servitude of man are opposites bound together by the force of love. On the other hand, in the analogy of the magnet, similar poles repel each other. Therefore, should an individual, having recognized a Manifestation of God, aspire to reach His station or attempt to appear equal to Him, such an act will provoke the wrath of God and there will be a force of repulsion between the two parties. This is Covenant-breaking...." http://www.bahai-library.net/englis...f-the-covenant&catid=7:bahai-studies&Itemid=8

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Maybe you were just looking in the wrong places.”

I don't really think of it that way. There are no obvious places to look. One is as good as another. My answer need not be everyone's answer, after all.

I guess I can understand that. Unless you have a good reason to look somewhere in particular, why would you be looking there? That made me think of a passage from my religious scriptures that is related to what you said. I am going to try to explain what it means because it is not something many people would understand unless they were a Baha’i. What that passage below means is that every time a new Messenger of God appears on earth it causes so much commotion and so many different beliefs spring up that it becomes very difficult for people to differentiate truth from falsehood.

“What “oppression” is greater than that which hath been recounted? What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God have multiplied. This “oppression” is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error. For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind. As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions.” The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 31-32

“Maybe God wants you to keep searching.”

It's what God is getting from me, like it or not.

That is what I said for years. I became a Baha’i back when I lived in California in 1970. Them I put aside my beliefs for decades and only recently decided to give them another chance. Nobody but God knows what the future holds. There is always another day. You can only do what your heart is telling you to do and God understands that. God does not want insincere believers. That is why I stayed away for so long.

“Maybe God allowed you to find all those false messengers so that when you encountered a true Messenger you would be able to tell the difference.”

That's possible, but I think its more likely God isn't interested in communicating that way and people are just incredibly self-centered.

Who would those self-centered people be?

“I am happy to hear you say that maybe you could be wrong. Humility is a necessary attribute of the true seeker.”

No one who knows me would ever call me humble.

Maybe they just do not see the good in you that I can see.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are correct you have heard it as something like this has been said, as I have also read it at some time. I think you may find it may have been a talk by a hand of the cause.

I do not think it comes from what are seen as authorised Baha'i texts, in fact I found it again, it was by by 'Adib Taherzadeh', in
The Child of the Covenant, A Study Guide to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá on page 33 and 34;

"..God and man may be said to be positioned on the two opposite poles. God is the sovereign Lord of all and man a humble servant, hence there is a force of attraction between the two. 'I loved thy creation, hence I created thee', is the voice of God addressing His servants. While God is the possessor of all divine attributes, by reason of His sovereignty, He cannot be humble. The best gift, then, which man can offer to God is the only one He does not already possess, namely, humility and servitude. These are the most befitting attributes for man. The lordship of God and the servitude of man are opposites bound together by the force of love. On the other hand, in the analogy of the magnet, similar poles repel each other. Therefore, should an individual, having recognized a Manifestation of God, aspire to reach His station or attempt to appear equal to Him, such an act will provoke the wrath of God and there will be a force of repulsion between the two parties. This is Covenant-breaking...." http://www.bahai-library.net/englis...f-the-covenant&catid=7:bahai-studies&Itemid=8

Peace be upon you and all.

Thanks. That is it. “While God is the possessor of all divine attributes, by reason of His sovereignty, He cannot be humble. The best gift, then, which man can offer to God is the only one He does not already possess, namely, humility and servitude.” I read something like that recently in the book entitled “The Covenant of Baha’u’llah” by 'Adib Taherzadeh.

The same thing could happen as happened to someone aspired to be equal to a Manifestation of God; if someone aspired to be equal to God by questioning God’s Authority; such an act would provoke the wrath of God and there would be a force of repulsion between the two parties. Unfortunately, I know what that feels like from my own side, but I have also seen it in many others, mostly in atheists I know who do not even believe in God. They are repulsed by how I describe God because they cannot accept the Authority of the God I believe in as higher than their own.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, you can think in the hypothetical realm... if god existed, would god want everyone in the world to believe in him?

Fine, I can understand that from your perspective. From your perspective, my version of God that comes from my religion is no more likely to be the correct version than is any version anyone might make up.

But what do you think about an atheist who insists that his make believe version of the god he does not believe in is the only version of god that could exist, and otherwise god cannot exist? In other words, it is his make believe god or no god at all... In other words, he has decided what god would do if god were real, as if he could ever know what god would do. What do you think of such an atheist?

When it comes to beings that can't be verified as real, you can ONLY think of them in the hypothetical realm. And the question remains silly. It's like asking IF the Easter Bunny is real does he want EVERYONE to believe in him?

First off, I'd say that I've never heard of an atheist who makes that claim. But if one has, why would you be surprised? After all, you ASKED atheists to make believe that god is real, which means that they are free to make believe whatever they want, right?

It seems to me that such an atheist is mimicking what many theist do. That is that they insist that their make believe god is the only version of god that could exists and that they've decided what god would do, as if they know what god would do. So let me ask you, what do you think about a theist who insists that his make believe version of god is the only version of god that could exist and that they have decided what god would do, as if they could know what god would do?

 

[Trailblazer]

When it comes to beings that can't be verified as real, you can ONLY think of them in the hypothetical realm. And the question remains silly. It's like asking IF the Easter Bunny is real does he want EVERYONE to believe in him?

First off, I'd say that I've never heard of an atheist who makes that claim. But if one has, why would you be surprised? After all, you ASKED atheists to make believe that god is real, which means that they are free to make believe whatever they want, right?

No, I Never asked that atheist’s opinion about God. He asked me. It was all his idea to discuss god. After three years, I finally asked him why he spends so much time talking about a god he does not believe exists. He admitted that he does it to refute the God of religion, since his make belief god would never do anything as stupid as my God does, using Messengers to communicate. He also said he does it to keep atheists from falling for religion and to prove that religionists are wrong. But he has never won any arguments with me in over three years. There is nothing logical about his position. It is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my entire life, but of course I know something about God, so that is how I know it is ridiculous.

It seems to me that such an atheist is mimicking what many theist do. That is that they insist that their make believe god is the only version of god that could exists and that they've decided what god would do, as if they know what god would do.

No, we have decided what God has actually done, based upon scriptures that indicate that. So we have something rather than nothing.

So let me ask you, what do you think about a theist who insists that his make believe version of god is the only version of god that could exist and that they have decided what god would do, as if they could know what god would do?

The salient difference is that we religious believers have a religion to base our beliefs upon. This atheist just makes them up in his head, having no way to know anything about what a real God would do or what a real God wants. You atheists can discount what we religionists have but we have something to base our beliefs upon other than a “personal opinion” of what god would do if god were real.

Finally, he bases his entire argument upon a god that is omnipotent, so it can so ANYTHING, which really translates into “it should do anything I want it to do or else I am not going to believe in it.” He really does not understand that omnipotence cuts both ways so an omnipotent God does not do anything it does not want to do, and as such it doesn’t kowtow to him or any other human.

So he has a god made in his own image, an omnipotent god that is not omniscient. He does not like to talk about the god being omniscient because that means it knows more than he knows, since no human is omniscient, let alone more than omniscient.

How well would that work, a god that has all power but not all knowledge? Sorry, but those attributes of God go hand in hand.

So as I have told him repeatedly, only three logical possibilities exist, given the empirical evidence:

1. God exists and uses Messengers to communicate (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

There is no evidence whatsoever and no logical reason to think God is going suddenly change the way He has communicated throughout human history – Messengers.

 

[blü 2]

my atheist friend on another forum [...] absolutely insists that if god exists god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him.

But if God is real and wise, [he] already knows who's a believer and who's not, indeed if [he]'s omniscient, has known since before [he] made the universe. So I don't think I can agree with your friend.

Abrahamic religious believers believe that God is an immaterial Spirit (whatever that means). So we believe that God is not a material being with objective existence.

And that's really the crunch point. Since no objective test can distinguish the immaterial (or spiritual, or supernatural &c) from the imaginary, why is it not necessary to conclude that if God is immaterial then God is ipso facto imaginary?

So from that we deduce that God is not “subject” to anything that you noted above. Actually, God is not subject to anything but Himself, since God is fully self-subsisting and fully self-sufficient.

But that won't count for much if God is simply imaginary, will it?

 

[ChristineM]

Good point. No, the engineer would not expect anyone to believe in him, but he would hope that people would trust that the bridge was sound so they would use the bridge to get where they are going. So it seems as if a god existed that god would hope that we would make use of His creation.

I plead ignorance about the Bible God since I was never a Christian and I do not know much of what is in the Bible. The Baha’i God does not expect everyone to believe in Him. He leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves whether to believe in Him or not.

A bridge is real, "so it seems" shows you are guessing

Is not your god the abrahamic god? Or is there more than one?

I am a firm believer that it does not matter one iota how many believers this God has. An Almighty God does not need any believers at all. Only a wimpy god would need believers.

In your opinion! Many have a different firm belief.

What kind of evidence would that be? What exactly would God do?

Evidence of he sort provided by the definition of evidence. What form that evidence would take does not matter so long as it can be independently validated. I.e. "believe me when i say god was in my room last night when i was alone" does not count as valid evidence. However if said night visitor left dna which could uniquely identify a god then the dna is evidence.

So you are saying you don’t really know, but it would have to be something onl

No, i was being sarcastic, very naughty tait of mine.

That is true, and that is one reason God will never show up on earth. God wants our faith. The other reason is that it is impossible for an immaterial Spirit to show up in a material world and be seen by anyone.

Opinion again, apologetic opinion at that

 

[PureX]

It is the rejection of the philosophical proposition of based on a LACK OF BELIEF.

No, it's usually based on a perceived lack of logical reasoning, and the lack of resonant experience. "Belief" is just a vague notion we wallow in until the real reasons become articulated.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it's usually based on a perceived lack of logical reasoning, and the lack of resonant experience. "Belief" is just a vague notion we wallow in until the real reasons become articulated.

So you are expert in what you know little about? O r is it just your opinion of what you fail to comprehend?

 

[PureX]

So you are expert in what you know little about? O r is it just your opinion of what you fail to comprehend?

Do you even know why you're arguing at this point?

 

[ChristineM]

Do you even know why you're arguing at this point?

Im not arguing, i am showing you how wrong your personal definition is. Its falling on stony ground am afraid

 

[ERLOS]

You are correct you have heard it as something like this has been said, as I have also read it at some time. I think you may find it may have been a talk by a hand of the cause.

I do not think it comes from what are seen as authorised Baha'i texts, in fact I found it again, it was by by 'Adib Taherzadeh', in
The Child of the Covenant, A Study Guide to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá on page 33 and 34;

"..God and man may be said to be positioned on the two opposite poles. God is the sovereign Lord of all and man a humble servant, hence there is a force of attraction between the two. 'I loved thy creation, hence I created thee', is the voice of God addressing His servants. While God is the possessor of all divine attributes, by reason of His sovereignty, He cannot be humble. The best gift, then, which man can offer to God is the only one He does not already possess, namely, humility and servitude. These are the most befitting attributes for man. The lordship of God and the servitude of man are opposites bound together by the force of love. On the other hand, in the analogy of the magnet, similar poles repel each other. Therefore, should an individual, having recognized a Manifestation of God, aspire to reach His station or attempt to appear equal to Him, such an act will provoke the wrath of God and there will be a force of repulsion between the two parties. This is Covenant-breaking...." http://www.bahai-library.net/englis...f-the-covenant&catid=7:bahai-studies&Itemid=8

Peace be upon you and all.

No, I Never asked that atheist’s opinion about God. He asked me. It was all his idea to discuss god. After three years, I finally asked him why he spends so much time talking about a god he does not believe exists. He admitted that he does it to refute the God of religion, since his make belief god would never do anything as stupid as my God does, using Messengers to communicate. He also said he does it to keep atheists from falling for religion and to prove that religionists are wrong. But he has never won any arguments with me in over three years. There is nothing logical about his position. It is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my entire life, but of course I know something about God, so that is how I know it is ridiculous.

No, we have decided what God has actually done, based upon scriptures that indicate that. So we have something rather than nothing.

The salient difference is that we religious believers have a religion to base our beliefs upon. This atheist just makes them up in his head, having no way to know anything about what a real God would do or what a real God wants. You atheists can discount what we religionists have but we have something to base our beliefs upon other than a “personal opinion” of what god would do if god were real.

Finally, he bases his entire argument upon a god that is omnipotent, so it can so ANYTHING, which really translates into “it should do anything I want it to do or else I am not going to believe in it.” He really does not understand that omnipotence cuts both ways so an omnipotent God does not do anything it does not want to do, and as such it doesn’t kowtow to him or any other human.

So he has a god made in his own image, an omnipotent god that is not omniscient. He does not like to talk about the god being omniscient because that means it knows more than he knows, since no human is omniscient, let alone more than omniscient.

How well would that work, a god that has all power but not all knowledge? Sorry, but those attributes of God go hand in hand.

So as I have told him repeatedly, only three logical possibilities exist, given the empirical evidence:

1. God exists and uses Messengers to communicate (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

There is no evidence whatsoever and no logical reason to think God is going suddenly change the way He has communicated throughout human history – Messengers.

Do you even know why you're arguing at this point?

Dudes you are so wasting your valuable time trying to move water with a sieve. You are trying to explain colour to the blind. You are talking to people who insist as an article of faith that consciousness is a product of the brain.

 

[ChristineM]

Dudes you are so wasting your valuable time trying to move water with a sieve. You are trying to explain colour to the blind. You are talking to people who insist as an article of faith that consciousness is a product of the brain.

So what is is a product of, with citations please

 

[ERLOS]

So what is is a product of, with citations please

Oh perhaps Carl Jung's universal subconscious, the greater mind perhaps, Plato's cave -- all sorts of possibilities. Possibilities. Unproven. Like M (string) Theory. Ideas. What is energy? With citations please...

 

[ChristineM]

Oh perhaps Carl Jung's universal subconscious, the greater mind perhaps, Plato's cave -- all sorts of possibilities. Possibilities. Unproven. Like M (string) Theory. Ideas. What is energy? With citations please...

I said evidence not theories or hypothesis or wild imagination.

And why try obfuscating?

 

[ERLOS]

I said evidence not theories or hypothesis or wild imagination.

And why try obfuscating?

Evidence for string theory?

Save your time. There's none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for string theory?

Why do you ask? String theory is not even a proper scientific theory. The math is promising for it, but it has not been supported by evidence yet. Even scientists sometimes use the word "theory" incorrectly. Did you have a point?

 

[ERLOS]

Exactly. It's a nice idea that has a lot of serious people interested in it. But not an iota of proof or evidence. Supetsymmetry hasn't been found by the LHC so now they just shift the possible parameters and suggest a bigger collided may find it?

These are serious scientists. But who completely reject anything like disembodied consciousness exists because it cannot be proved.

I find it pretty sad.

 

[ERLOS]

To start with the body/brain and conclude everything originates therefrom is quite similar to the belief that everything went round the earth, imo.