The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Trailblazer]

As your friend and as a medium, I wish I could calm your fear and reassure you about crossing over into the spirit world. While I don't know what will happen in the spirit world, I don't feel fear or anxiety based on the feelings I get from my spirit guides and whenever a spirit is ready to cross over and sees the light. I don't see the light myself because I'm not crossing over, but it always gives me a sense of peace and comfort. That alone reassures me.

At least that tells you something about the crossing over process. Invariably, people who have NDEs see the light, but nobody knows what happens after that since they never actually die and cross over to the spiritual world. I am not as worried about crossing over as I am worried about what will happen when I enter the spiritual world, since there is no way to know what that will be like, and it will be forever which is a very long time!

 

[F1fan]

Welcome to the human condition ... having to act on hope because we lack actual knowledge of the outcome

It might be your continual human condition, but in my experience I can predict outcomes based on how I plan and execute my days. As a competitive cyclist that trains in the evenings during the week I organize my days so I can acheive those ends. No hope. No surprizes. But I could live in irrational anxiety of being hit by the last piece of Skylab that is still circling the earth miraculously. And instant death, or just injury? Gotta worry about that to, if I used faith.

It's easy to spot the fools among us by how they misuse words to try and defend their ignorance and bias. That's the interesting thing about language: that we use it to obscure the truth as often as we use it to clarify.

If I didn't know you were being serious your comment would recieve a "laugh" response due to the irony.

All @It Aint Necessarily So was saying is that words have different meanings, and those meanings apply in the relevant context. The context is usually understood by the rest of the sentence. I understand and agree witjh what IANS is saying, yet to are being deliberately defiant. And wrong to boot due to the rules of language. Like I said, your gripe is with linguists and the history of language.

It's up to you who you want to be in that regard.

I want to be rational and follow evidence to sound conclusions. And I do that without any belief in Gods. Belief in any of the many Gods would sabotage what I want.

But I know the difference between faith and religious belief.

The spelling.

I know the difference between faith and belief in general.

Belief can be synonymous to faith all the way to highly logical thinking. Belief is a huge category, that extends for children believing in Santa to those who believe Chauvin violated George Floyd's civil rights. Belief extends for the KKK to the ACLU. Faith applies more to the KKK than the ACLU.

In much the same way as I know that homosexuals are not especially "gay" or that gay men are not particularly likely to be homosexual, ... in spite of what the dictionary or a lot of ignorant, biased fools in this world have to say about it.

What?

All I have to do is apply some reason to the subject and clarity will usually follow.

No wonder you need hope so often. I don't see you apply reason to religious debate, only in political debate. I know you are capable of highly reasoned conclusions, but not when the subject is religion. You are like a different person.

All you ever had to do was realize that faith is the actual methodology by which religious "believers" choose to adopt their state of "belief".

There is no method in faith. It is a justification believers fall back on when they have no evidence to rely on for their thinking. If faith was reliable we wouldn't see republicans trying to eliminate abortion access in every way. Look at the lawsuit against Texas by women whose lives were threatened due to the anti-abortion laws republicans passed.

It was never the belief, itself. Religious or otherwise. Just as faith is the actual methodology by which atheists achieve their state of "unbelief".

No it isn't. But the oddity of this claim is that if faith leads to atheism, and atheism is incorrect, then how reliable is faith as a "method"?

See how trying to defend religion is always a dead end?

Because neither the theist not the atheist has any actual knowledge upon which to base their desired "belief". Hence, they both has to use faith-action, instead.

The difference is that critical thinkers seek truth, and they know following evidence is a means to understainding what is true. Ideas that lack adequate eviudence (and rely on faith) are not something critical thinkers will beliebve, so reject by logical default. You don't seem to realize that being neutral on ideas is an options. Non-believers don't believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

It means there is no rational reason to think they are true. The reasons you offer are not reasoned.

The rational reason to believe they are true is the evidence, and that us the reason I have offered over and over again.

You can believe anything you damn well please, but if you are going to argue them in open debate you need to use reasoned arguments with adequate evidence.

That is what I have done. If the only existing evidence is not adequate fro you that is not my problem.

There are no religious concepts I have been exposed to tat can be argued to be true or likely true with the evidence believers offer.

That is only your personal opinion yet you state it as a fact.

Their reasoning and the evidence they provide, just like in court.

What evidence?

Because they lack evidence that is adequate to support a claim, which is why we reject your claims.

Because there is evidence that is adequate to support a claims of Baha'u'llah, that is why I accept His claims.

Many people learn that they need to believe in something, and you seem to be one of these, and Baha'i is your something. Your belief in Baha'i concepts satisfies some need you have, and like other believers you don't examine this need. Critical thinkers are, and you push back on it.

I don't have to believe in anything. I have no need for a religion. I only believe in the Baha'i Faith because of the evidence. Actually, I hate being a Baha'i, and I have nothing to do with any Baha'is except @Truthseeker because he is my friend.

This claim is an example of an unfounded assumption, and you don;t seem aware you are making an assumption. You seem to really think this statement is true, but then will admit you can't prove God exists. That is your inconsistent, Jeckl and Hyde personality in these debates. You are not being self-aware of what you think and write.

It is not an assumption, it is a belief. I believe it is true.
I am perfectly self-aware of what I think and write. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. I have said that same thing over and over and over and over again. I have said I do not need proof that God exists because I have evidence.

You need proof that God exists in order to believe, I do not need proof that God exists to believe, because I have evidence.
There could never be proof that God exists unless God proved to us that He exists in some manner.
Lack of proof does not mean that God does not exist, it only means that God chose not to provide proof of His existence.

The reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith because we would know for a fact that God exists.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

God will reward those who earnestly seek Him.

And how can anyone be accountable to a religious character that can't be confirmed as existing? Do you understand that I can't be accountable to an imaginary character?

Confirmation is not necessary o believe in God because anyone with a rational mind would know that the existence of God can never be confirmed. Rational people accept that reality and believe based upon the evidence that God provides.

God is not imaginary just because God chooses not to provide proof of His existence. Talk about illogical.

We don't care what you believe. And that is why your thinking fails at the highest standard. That's fine in your life, but terrible in debate.

I don't care what you disbelieve for reasons that are illogical. And that is why your thinking fails at the highest standard. That's fine in your life, but terrible in debate.

That's what critical thinkers do, and what you don't do. Your low standard for evidence is insufficient for critical analysis.

That's what Baha'is do, and what you don't do. Our high standard for evidence is sufficient for critical analysis.

Yup, we can look what Baha'i is as a religion and learn all the facts about it, but there in no evidence the claims it is built on are factual and true, namely that baha'u'llah is a messenger of God.

Correction: There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God but there is evidence.

I don't understand why you keep using the word "proof" when it is ambiguous. At best you seem to mean it is substantial and verifiable evidence, which you admit you can't offer. You should just use those words and avoid "proof".

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Why is religious belief important? Why do you need to believe anything with inadequate evidence? Critical thinkers have no such need.

I believe because I have adequate evidence and that is the only reason I believe.

The same is true in law and court. Do you think it's OK to convict a person for a crime that lacks evidence they did it? If not then this high standard is useful in society. Your low standard is a threat.

Proof of a crime can be obtained and then the person is convicted.
Proof of God cannot be obtained since there is no way to obtain proof. Thus God can never be convicted to be guilty or not guilty of existing.
Since there is no proof that God exists you can choose to convict God of not existing, but you will never be able to prove God doesn't exist.

Again you post definitions and cherry pick your way through the list. You don't acknowledge the whole list.

You do not acknowledge the list at all, you make up your own definitions.
There is nothing on that list says that knowledge requires verifiable evidence.

The default is that unverifiable claims are not true. They are judged true in proportion to the evidence.

The default setting is not always the correct setting.
If you are saying that unverifiable claims are not true, that is a logical fallacy.
As I said above, some claims are unknown to be true or false because they are unknowable.
Whether God exists or not is unknowable, thus it is unknown to be true or false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

This is observed false.

It is only observed by some to be false, but it is observed by others to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is why it is unreliable, biased, and to be avoided if a person wants a truthful understanding of reality.

Faith cannot be avoided if a person wants an understanding of God, since there is no proof that God exists.

It's bias because they want a conclusion that evidence doesn't lead them to, and they make the conclusion from desire, not evidence.

The evidence leads them to the conclusion they make.
Why speak for others as if you know what they desire? You don't know what anyone desires. You only know what you desire.

Gods are in the same category as imaginary characters. If anyone finds evidence any gods exist them we will reassess the argument and conclusions.

God is real because God exists. There is evidence but there is no proof. There will never be proof that God exists since God chooses not to provide proof.

We care about what we can know and confirm. Uncertainty is still uncertainty.

You are welcome to care about anything you want to care about as am I. I cannot confirm God's existence but I am certain that God exists.

This declaraction of faith is devoid of fact, thus meaningingless. That you state this as if a fact shows your contempt for those you are debating.

I did not state that as a fact. If God's grace was a fact I would not need faith.

Nothing that impresses skilled thinkers. You have contempt for skilled thinking, too.

It impresses thinkers who are skilled enough to recognize the evidence.
I have no contempt for skilled thinking, I employ it.

Now it is your turn to contradict me and say I don't think critically just because you don't agree with me.
In so doing, you are the one who shows contempt for those you are debating.

 

[F1fan]

The rational reason to believe they are true is the evidence, and that us the reason I have offered over and over again.

This is impressive word salad and makes zero sense.

As for the rest of your responses it is clear you are getting more incomprehensible and repetitive with your false statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is the abandonment of valid reasoning.

Faith with evidence is not.

That's a different meaning of the word than what you were complaining about. You were complaining about personal attack, not criticism in the neutral sense like what peer review does.

No, I was not complaining about personal attack.

A god that thought like that couldn't create a rational universe. Actually, if I encountered such a god, I'd have to assume that it wasn't the creator.

A God who did not think like that does not exist, since it is self-evident that if God exists God does not provide proof, which means if God exists, God requires faith. It is not a contest between critical thought and faith since we need both. God does not expect us to believe on faith alone. God provides evidence, and we need critical thought to evaluate the evidence, but we need faith to believe in what cannot be proven.

Feel free to rebut the claim if you think it's wrong. Mere dissent doesn't persuade.

You claimed that faith is unjustified belief.
The dictionary does not define faith as unjustified belief, so it is only your personal opinion that faith is unjustified.

faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
what is faith - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

If they found out that their beliefs were incorrect this entire time, and were atheists here on Earth, I would think they would change their ways and try to be as close to God as possible in the afterlife. Besides a few Satanists and Luciferians, I don't think anyone really wants to send themselves to Hell. But if there is ample amount of evidence of God in the afterlife, I would think everybody would be drawn towards that source of light and inspiration, even if they proclaimed atheism here on Earth.

Do you think it will be obvious to everyone who dies and goes to the spiritual world (afterlife) that God exists and is benevolent and loving? Nobody really knows, but I don't think everyone will perceive God the same way, or if they will even perceive God at all. I don't think that atheists are going to suddenly realize that God exists and their beliefs were incorrect. I think they will simply be very confused. It will only add to the confusion that they were not even expecting an afterlife.

No, I don't think it will be that easy for atheists, because if it was going to be that easy there would not be so many scriptures that exhort people to believe in God and how important it is to achieve that while still living on earth. I do not believe in a free ride. On the other hand, the Baha'i Writings say that God can accept anyone into heaven by His mercy and bounty.

Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, but a Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

If I am wrong about the afterlife and I get sent somewhere I don't want to be because of my syntheism and Earthseed beliefs, I will be very surprised, but as soon I know that I was wrong about the whole thing, I would try my best to make it up towards this monotheistic God. And if I am right, you will still get your Abha Kingdom and still be spiritually close to your late husband, your cats and God, because humans will ultimately have the ability to make conditions like this for your afterlife.

I do not believe we will have free will like we have in this life after we die and enter the spiritual world, so if we were wrong we won't be able to change our minds and choose something different. Baha'is believe that progress in the spiritual world is only possible by the mercy of God, prayers of others, and good works done in their name. On the other hand, I also tend to believe what the spiritualists say about spirit guides who can come from higher spheres and help people in lower spheres move up to higher spheres. At the end of the day, nobody really knows what will happen after we die.

I get that Baha'u'llah was trying to solve the crisis of unity amongst people, but after he existed there's been two world wars, the Cold War and the War on Terror. Your bar has to be really low if you think he solved the problem of unity on Earth.

Baha'u'llah never claimed that He was going to solve the problems here on earth, He revealed what will necessary for humans to solve them.
The wars continued after He revealed what was necessary because all the kings and rulers rejected him and the people continue to reject him and his peace plan to this day.

But I am not saying that I don't respect Baha'u'llah and the other prophets. They are all very influential and inspiring figures to attend to. But we need to look forward and correct the problems we have now rather than looking back hundreds of years for people to fix the problems we ought to fix ourselves.

I fully agree that we need to correct the problems that exist today rather than looking back hundreds of years for people to fix the problems we ought to fix ourselves.

 

[PureX]

It might be your continual human condition, but in my experience I can predict outcomes based on how I plan and execute my days. As a competitive cyclist that trains in the evenings during the week I organize my days so I can acheive those ends. No hope. No surprizes. But I could live in irrational anxiety of being hit by the last piece of Skylab that is still circling the earth miraculously. And instant death, or just injury? Gotta worry about that to, if I used faith.

Well, isn't that wonderful for you. But there are billions of humans on this planet that don't have the benefits you have in terms controlling your own life. They lack the knowledge, the information, the opportunities, the reasoning skills, the luck, the social support, and the faith in themselves that you have been given by the whim of fate. So when they assess the probabilities in their lives the results don't look nearly so rosy for them as they do for you. And yet they have to keep moving forward, and keep hoping, anyway. And they find that faith in God is the only effective way for them to do that.

And you're going to look down on them like they're silly superstitious children? What does that say about you and your supposed superior indifference? And yet this is the common refrain from atheists ... this arrogant superiority and total ignorance and indifference to the reasons that billions of humans on this planet need to have faith in their idea of God.

And when your luck runs out or your circumstances change and you no longer have the rosy control over how your life unfolds, what then? How are you going to muster the hope and courage to keep moving forward when all your assessed probabilities tell you that doom is inevitable? Or are you just going to check out; take your ball and go home, then, because you can't win the game, anymore?

 

[Hawkins]

A religion serves as the mass media for a God's truth to convey. The basic functionality of a media is to examine the credibility of both the eyewitnesses and their stories before broadcasting. A reporter/journalist makes sure that his source of information is reliable and credible before the story of an eyewitness is broadcast in the name of the credibility of the media. That's the way how a truth shall convey among the mass majority of humans.

Similarly, God dedicated a 'media' which is Israel for the examination of the credibility of the stories from the OT prophets who are the eyewitnesses of God. All those stories were broadcast locally to all the Jews. That's the foundation of Judaism, before the broadcast turns to all mankind. It is more or less like the stage where a media such as CNN gather all the stories of a day as the preparation for the day's broadcast. The final round of stories are from Jesus and His chosen disciples. God's CNN which are the Jews however failed to grant credibility to their stories. Under the circumstance God has to switch His dedicated media from Judaism to Christianity, in order for His truth to be preached/broadcast to all mankind.

This is a typical process for a truth to convey among humans. Moreover, if the US government has an important message for its citizens, the only efficient way for this message to reach its citizen is by means of the media (the credible ones), it can alos dedicates certain agencies such as CNN for the general governmental messages to be annonouced. If CNN failed the job, it may switch to Fox News as its designated source of government annonouncements. Similarly, if Israel failed to do the job of broadcasting God's 'news' (i.e., preaching the gospel), God may switch to another agency which is today's Christianity.

When the US government has an important annonouncement delievered to CNN or Fox News, the media will have a scope of audience to cover, in this case the media shall cover all the states of America such that the message can reach each and every citizens. Similarly, God makes this explicit, the gospel (God's news) must be preached (broadcast) to all nations of this world.

No other religions did the same. Simply becasue the gods behind those religions are false gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that guy who now lives in Mexico, and if his predictions were correct had peking duck last night with another couple.

LOL. Yes, as it was foretold, we did have Peking duck Saturday night. Such is the power of prophecy. So let it be written, so let it be done. And I claim godhood for it. Who but a god sees the future?

I have learned quite a bit from them in recent weeks, and that is because they have taken time to educate themselves in ways I haven't. I know this because they show their work.

Thanks, and vice versa. Your posting is always clear, sound, and relevant.

But there are billions of humans on this planet that don't have the benefits you have in terms controlling your own life. They lack the knowledge, the information, the opportunities, the reasoning skills, the luck, the social support, and the faith in themselves that you have been given by the whim of fate. So when they assess the probabilities in their lives the results don't look nearly so rosy for them as they do for you. And yet they have to keep moving forward, and keep hoping, anyway. And they find that faith in God is the only effective way for them to do that.

Yes, and that's fine, but it changes nothing about what faith is and means. It's as a coping mechanism for those who feel relatively powerless and vulnerable. But it also affects many people adversely. It functions as a crutch when intellectual and moral development should be occurring, rendering its victims in a juvenile stage in both areas, still with the magical thinking, and still with the conscience of a child following received rules from a judgmental father figure in order to earn rewards and escape punishment.

This is how we all think until a certain age. Those who mature outside of that Abrahamic perspective of a magic man punishing sin where faith is considered a virtue can develop critical thinking skills and a mature conscience in their place. They learn to determine what is true, right, and good for themselves.

I still say that faith is like eyeglasses - great for those who see better with them, but a hindrance for those who see clearly without them. If faith can make one's life more comfortable, then it is understandable why one would lean on it, but because it is a path to false belief which can have grave consequences, the willingness to believe by faith comes with a risk, especially if it informs action.

you're going to look down on them like they're silly superstitious children?

No, that's your atheophobia coming through. You've toned down that rhetoric over the years, for which you should be commended, but your contempt for atheists is palpable. They are childlike in their thinking, but I haven't seen any expression of contempt or ill will for such people from the empiricists.

It's YOU who looks down on the empiricists. YOU'RE the one using the language of superiority when you dismissively and scoffingly refer to others as materialists and into scientism, and use the words 'fool' and 'stupid 'to refer to those who disagree with you. Your contempt is palpable. Sorry you don't approve, but your emotional reaction is all you.

you will never be able to prove God doesn't exist.

This again? Why do you think anybody needs to do that? Seriously, why do you keep posting this? Atheists don't need disproof of gods, and theists don't need proof.

But if by 'God' you mean the god of the Old Testament, the god of Abraham, that one can be disproven, but only to a prepared mind ready to hear the disproof, meaning one capable of evaluating an argument for soundness and willing to change his mind following a compelling argument. Without that, and in the presence of a faith-based confirmation bias, there is no burden of proof. Teaching is a cooperative process, and experience tells us that it is nearly impossible to convince a person of that which he has stake in not believing.

If you are saying that unverifiable claims are not true, that is a logical fallacy.

Unverifiable claims should not be called true, but it would be a logical fallacy to call them false without falsification.

Faith cannot be avoided if a person wants an understanding of God, since there is no proof that God exists.

I don't want any idea in my belief set that can only be believed by faith. You seem to think that if the faith-based belief follows looking at evidence that it is sound. It is not. The trope 'I have evidence but not proof, and I belief by that evidence and faith' means that you believe by faith. One drop of faith in an argument and the entire argument becomes unsound. Maybe your addition is impeccable except for just one mistake. If so, your sum is wrong. That's how faith contaminates reason. A little bit of faith and it's all faith.

I have no contempt for skilled thinking, I employ it.

No, you don't. And that's demonstrably true as we'll see next:

God is real because God exists.

That's an unsound argument. It contains a well-characterized fallacy. Can you name it despite committing it? And you like to talk about interpreting evidence, this is evidence that your reasoning skills are not as good as you think, but I don't expect you to draw sound conclusions from it. You don't know how, and you aren't interested in them anyway. They're just opinions, right?

Now it is your turn to contradict me and say I don't think critically just because you don't agree with me. In so doing, you are the one who shows contempt for those you are debating.

That you experience dialectic emotionally is unfortunate, but does not establish your claim. To my knowledge, nobody here disagreeing with you has contempt for you. But this is another area where you can't be reached, so it is your lot to feel badly in discussions like these. Nobody can help you.

Faith with evidence is not.

Faith in evidence is still faith.

I was not complaining about personal attack.

You were objecting. You became defensive. You didn't like it. You claimed that my criticism of your ideas was to puff myself up.

It is not a contest between critical thought and faith since we need both.

No, we don't need faith. In fact, belief by faith is undesirable.

God does not expect us to believe on faith alone. God provides evidence, and we need critical thought to evaluate the evidence, but we need faith to believe in what cannot be proven.

If you need faith to believe anything, then you shouldn't believe it. Tossing the word evidence in there doesn't make belief by faith any more sound.

You claimed that faith is unjustified belief. The dictionary does not define faith as unjustified belief, so it is only your personal opinion that faith is unjustified.

That's not a rebuttal. Nor is it correct. Millions agree with me that belief by faith is unjustified belief whether they use those words or not.

The reason that that is not a rebuttal is that we could both be correct, because our claims aren't mutually exclusive as is required to call an answer a rebuttal. It has to falsify what it responds to. Even if no dictionary uses the phrase unjustified belief (perhaps none do, although many describe faith in terms of belief without sufficient evidence to justify that belief), and even if it is my opinion (and it is), my claim need not be wrong.

It is in fact correct. There is a word faith that means unjustified belief, just as there is another word of the same spelling and pronunciation (homonyms that are both homographs and homophones) that means justified belief, and another that means a religion. Capitalized, it's also a girl's name. In the phrases good and bad faith, it refers to intention and trustworthiness.

 

[F1fan]

Well, isn't that wonderful for you.

It is actually, because I see no utility to go about life with extra anxiety and worry about ideas that religion brings. Does the promise of heaven or threat of hell make believers act in better ways? Not that is evident. Oddly, the more fervent the believer the more confident they sem to be about being on God's side. Yet we see the more fervent typically violating the basic moral dictates from Jesus or Muhammed, and even human decency. You have noted these yourself.

But there are billions of humans on this planet that don't have the benefits you have in terms controlling your own life.

That is the lottery of life. A creator should have designed a better world if it didn't want this outcome (assuming any of the over 200 creator gods exist).

They lack the knowledge, the information, the opportunities, the reasoning skills, the luck, the social support, and the faith in themselves that you have been given by the whim of fate. So when they assess the probabilities in their lives the results don't look nearly so rosy for them as they do for you. And yet they have to keep moving forward, and keep hoping, anyway. And they find that faith in God is the only effective way for them to do that.

Lottery of life. Just be glad you weren't born in Ukraine and are having your life fully disrupted. That is the reality in a world with dynamic actors. It's why we as citizens need to use reason to make decisions and avoid risky options, like Trump as a candidate and president. Very risky, and it backfired.

So more desperate people find God? I notice in your poilitical arguments you never mention a God as a means for democracies to solve problems. You suggest governments help citizens who have fewer resources help the needy. But in religious arguments you go all in on God as if that is the only path to solutions.

And you're going to look down on them like they're silly superstitious children?

I am critical of poor reasoning. I'm critical of your Jeckl and Hyde approach to religion and politics. Your decisions have nothing to do with me, I observe them and comment. Your cimment here illustrates a sort of insecurity and victimhood. You are being defensive instead of rebutting my observations and criticisms.

What does that say about you and your supposed superior indifference?

That I'm taking it less personally than you are.

And yet this is the common refrain from atheists ... this arrogant superiority and total ignorance and indifference to the reasons that billions of humans on this planet need to have faith in their idea of God.

This is how you interpret criticism. You don't like it, and you don't seem to be able to form any logical defense and rebuttal.

And when your luck runs out or your circumstances change and you no longer have the rosy control over how your life unfolds, what then? How are you going to muster the hope and courage to keep moving forward when all your assessed probabilities tell you that doom is inevitable? Or are you just going to check out; take your ball and go home, then, because you can't win the game, anymore?

My mom became sick a year and a half ago and was diagnosed with brain cancer. I was still working and had to manage work and my mom's affairs. Once she was in home hospice it was full time for about 7 weeks. One of my mom's friends helped, and she is an atheist too. We dealt with all this factually and emotionally, and it all went well. Jody and me allowed all my mom's religious friends to do their rituals, prayers, and so on. These did nothing for me. Even the chaplin for hospice was pretty cool, and did not push any religion since we asked for none.

So to asnswer your questions I did fine. Luck didn't run out, and your expectation of failure is wrong. It's not luck, this is the advantage of having a mind set that deals in facts and avoids appeals to supernatural miracles that never come true. Jody and me were able to make rational choices at every step. Home hospice was a last minute decision but only because we didn't know it was an option. That was luck and it turned out for the best.

What I just thought about before I submitted this post was how oddly unspiritual your response is. It strikes me as so bitter and angry that you would want me to have a mental collapse just because I am an atheist. It's this sort of thing that I see in some theists, that despite you claiming some sort of superiority as a believer there really is resentment deep in your soul. Can you see this in yourself? Can you step back any ponder why you are reacting to atheists with such disdain? This is a good thing about forums as it gives us opportunities to relate and listen to others with low risk of harming them. These are opportunities to learn. I suspect a lot of your posts against atheists are revealing things about you, and are you paying attention to what you write?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I do not believe we will have free will like we have in this life after we die and enter the spiritual world, so if we were wrong we won't be able to change our minds and choose something different.

That's ultimately where we disagree on the most. I believe you will have more free will in the afterlife than you do in this life, you think there will be less, or really, no free will. If I don't have any free will in the afterlife I really don't want to have an afterlife, honestly. What's the point of living if you can't, well, live? And as far as Shoghi Effendi's comment about the afterlife is considered, only Baha'is who do good works will enter the kingdom of Heaven anyways. This line of thinking is tribalism and does not promote the unity of humankind together. If he were to say anyone who believes in any manifestation and does good works goes to Heaven, I could almost get on board with such an idea, but the afterlife is not a place where only Baha'u'llah has the keys to get into!

 

[F1fan]

That's ultimately where we disagree on the most. I believe you will have more free will in the afterlife than you do in this life, you think there will be less, or really, no free will.

Why would you believe this?

If I don't have any free will in the afterlife I really don't want to have an afterlife, honestly. What's the point of living if you can't, well, live?

Free will requires a living brain that can make decisons. Afterlife is litterally AFTER being alive, so how can anyone make decisions? I am critical of such claims as it suggests a sort of greed for life, and insecurity of death. I don't see believers adequate address these.

And as far as Shoghi Effendi's comment about the afterlife is considered, only Baha'is who do good works will enter the kingdom of Heaven anyways.

I suggest a better way to consider heaven and hell is not an afterlife, but how a person lives their life. Doing good, being ethical, having a sound morl sense would contribute to a heavenly state of mind. To be greedy, selfish, mean, angry would cast a person in a hellish state of mind. The path to heaven is self-reflection and letting go of the geivances of pain. I see theists get too absorbed in their dogmas to self-reflect, thus a hellish state.

This line of thinking is tribalism and does not promote the unity of humankind together. If he were to say anyone who believes in any manifestation and does good works goes to Heaven, I could almost get on board with such an idea, but the afterlife is not a place where only Baha'u'llah has the keys to get into!

Religions tend to take people down the path to hell. In hell there is always a need to find heaven, and the devout show themselves to be lost souls. Rejecting the dogmas is a start to finding the way out of hell. All dogma does is act as layers that suffocate the soul. The way to free the soul is abandon dogma. It frightens the believer because it means they have to be courageous and self-sufficient in ways that religion has warmed them about. The Bible clals humans "wothless rags" for a reason, and not to enstill virtue and self-reliance.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Why would you believe this?

Because I ultimately believe that the afterlife is a physical resurrection, done at a much later date, and with that physicality there is granted the freedoms of free will once again. And since many imperfections will be cast out, everybody will have more free will, not less.

 

[F1fan]

Because I ultimately believe that the afterlife is a physical resurrection,

Why? Explain how you came to this conclusion, and use facts.

done at a much later date, and with that physicality there is granted the freedoms of free will once again. And since many imperfections will be cast out, everybody will have more free will, not less.

Why would you believe this? Give a detailed explanation, not just repeating the belief.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Why? Explain how you came to this conclusion, and use facts.

We already have technology to create unique AI, electric cars, we sent a man to the moon, among other great accomplishments that we shouldn't take for granted. I just think that with the rise of this technology there will eventually be technology to resurrect consciousnesses back from the dead. I can't know for certain what people will do in the future, and I don't know what the future is going to be like, but I figure that people coming back from the dead will have valuable information and insight that future people will want to keepsake. Since human life is so valuable as it is, I figure we'll develop quantum archeology to uncover secrets and try to understand the past better. No, I don't have proof that this is going to happen, but it seems like an inevitability to me, and is more pleasant than an afterlife which you have no free will or choice of outcome after you're dead.

 

[F1fan]

We already have technology to create unique AI, electric cars, we sent a man to the moon, among other great accomplishments that we shouldn't take for granted. I just think that with the rise of this technology there will eventually be technology to resurrect consciousnesses back from the dead.

So you think memories, knowledge, exveriences, etc. that any arbitrary person had in life before their death is recorded somewhere? Where is this data? The brain is not like a harddrive that still holds data once the power is turned off, yes?

Where are memories in brains that are cremated, or decayed for a century?

Your scenario could have some validity to it IF a brain is kept alive after death, but that has serious problems neurologically.

I can't know for certain what people will do in the future, and I don't know what the future is going to be like, but I figure that people coming back from the dead will have valuable information and insight that future people will want to keepsake.

So could it be more a case of you having hopes, not an actual line of thought that is practical?

Since human life is so valuable as it is,

To us personally, yes. To the universe, no. If the universe gave two ****s about human life we wouldn't see children develop cancers and die.

I figure we'll develop quantum archeology to uncover secrets and try to understand the past better. No, I don't have proof that this is going to happen, but it seems like an inevitability to me, and is more pleasant than an afterlife which you have no free will or choice of outcome after you're dead.

OK, your views are more dreamy speculation and fantasy than plausible technologies. So not really believable. Good movie plots at best.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

OK, your views are more dreamy speculation and fantasy than plausible technologies. So not really believable. Good movie plots at best.

It's more believable than believing that everybody you don't like or doesn't think like you goes to Hell.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

At least that tells you something about the crossing over process. Invariably, people who have NDEs see the light, but nobody knows what happens after that since they never actually die and cross over to the spiritual world. I am not as worried about crossing over as I am worried about what will happen when I enter the spiritual world, since there is no way to know what that will be like, and it will be forever which is a very long time!

I addressed this topic in another thread, so I thought I'd post a link to it because I believe it is relevant to what we're discussing here.

If all paths lead to God, why should I choose your religion ?

Well, not all humans believe in God, but yet some of them are religious. It depends on the definition of religion. For me it means that I believe in non-revealed deity, but not theistic God, yet as a strong skeptic and agnostic I know nothing of that deity. Interesting. So you don't know God...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[F1fan]

It's more believable than believing that everybody you don't like or doesn't think like you goes to Hell.

No it isn't. Believable has to be both plausible and have at LEAST a MODERATE level of evidence that an idea is true or likely true. The literallist notion of hell and what you proposed are not very plausible nor evidenced, so neither believable. Your thinking offers no evidencd basis for belief, it is more wishful thinking.

Many folks are very sloppy believers, and they have a mix of beliefs that are likely true with others that are absurd. If you follow these debates you will see how critical thinkers subject all ideas with the same scrutiny regardless how much they can appeal to human emotions. The theists among us show patterns of bias for ideas that feel good and satisfying. That's fine for the self's own meaning, but very poor in debate. Critical thinkers will subject ideas to the same scrutiny that believers won't, and we will explain why.