The Folly of Atheism

[Trailblazer]

"While these are among the Manifestations mentioned in the Bahá'í writings, there are others mentioned by name in Bahá'u'lláh's writings and he indicates that there are many more prophets than are named."
BBC - Religions - Bahai: God's prophets
"The writings associated with these prophets are the means through which an individual can get a deeper knowledge of God."
Isn't that a bit difficult when these "messengers" can't agree among themselves who this god is? The Christians and the Muslims can't even agree whether he had a son or not...

The Messengers themselves DID agree who God is.

But what happened is that the followers of these Messengers misconstrued what the Messengers revealed about God. The followers of religions always get off track over time. That is ‘one reason’ God sends a new Messenger in every age.

Sine Baha’u’llah is the latest Manifestation of God, His Revelation abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, so there is no need to refer to older scriptures in order to know about God or God’s will for humanity. All that is contained in the Baha’i Writings.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the basic contradiction then. If there is no objective way to test the notion that this god of yours exists, yet it will still judge people for not believing in it, then it can't be just and fair...

You can believe whatever you want to believe because you have free will.

There is no contradiction because there can never be an objective way to test the notion that God exists since God is not a material being.

God sends Messengers as proof of His existence and that is just and fair because everyone has the capacity to recognize these Messengers.

I cannot say how God will judge those who failed to recognize Baha’u’llah, who was God’s Messenger for this age.I do not know what their eternal destination will be, only God knows that. However, you can try to draw your own conclusions from the following letter.

"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

 

[ratiocinator]

You can believe whatever you want to believe...

No you can't. Try to stop believing in your god for a couple of hours or try to believe that the earth is flat. People either find things convincing or not. Belief isn't a choice.

...because you have free will.

Do we? Depends what you mean. The way many people think of free will is logically incoherent. I know of no self-consistent notion of free will that would be of any significance from the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator (who would, in effect, have chosen everybody's nature, nurture, and life experience).

There is no contradiction because there can never be an objective way to test the notion that God exists since God is not a material being.

So this god is not omnipotent? The contradiction I was referring to was between god's judgement for unbelief and the lack of any objective reason to believe.

God sends Messengers as proof of His existence and that is just and fair because everyone has the capacity to recognize these Messengers.

Looks like an article of blind faith. I see no messengers from any god that are remotely credible to me.

 

[PureX]

You can believe whatever you want to believe because you have free will.

And because you can't know. Freedom comes from that limitation. Those who think they know do not recognize their own freedom (and obligation) of choice. These are the blind zealots; both theistic, and atheistic.

There is no contradiction because there can never be an objective way to test the notion that God exists since God is not a material being.

Which is precisely why the disingenuous atheist demands only objective evidence as proof.

 

[PureX]

No you can't. Try to stop believing in your god for a couple of hours or try to believe that the earth is flat. People either find things convincing or not. Belief isn't a choice.

The Earth IS flat experientially. We only believe it's a sphere via reasoned conjecture. So we have to choose whether we will believe the reasoned conjecture, or the common experience. Most of us choose the reasoned conjecture because the reasoning is strong. But some of us still choose the common experience. This is why context and is so important when confronted by other people's conceptions and propositions of truth. And it is precisely because we are not omniscient that we must and do choose by what means we will accept a given proposition as being true.

Those who don't understand this are called 'zealots'. Zealots can't or won't differentiate between what they believe to be true, and what the truth is. They have no awareness of their own relative limitations, or subjective context.

 

[ratiocinator]

So we have to choose whether we will believe the reasoned conjecture, or the common experience.

Except it isn't a choice, is it? As I said, take whichever one you believe and sincerely believe the other for a few hours - then let us know how much of a choice it is.

Most of us choose the reasoned conjecture because the reasoning is strong. But some of us still choose the common experience.

The reasoning and objective evidence are indeed very strong.

Those who don't understand this are called 'zealots'. Zealots can't or won't differentiate between what they believe to be true, and what the truth is. They have no awareness of relativism, and context.

Those people who accept strong reasoning and objective evidence, and require it before accepting claims about objective reality, are called 'rational'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except it isn't a choice, is it? As I said, take whichever one you believe and sincerely believe the other for a few hours - then let us know how much of a choice it is.



The reasoning and objective evidence are indeed very strong.



Those people who accept strong reasoning and objective evidence, and require it before accepting claims about objective reality, are called 'rational'.

Perhaps your, and my, problem is that we reason rationally when it comes to religious beliefs. I cannot chose what to believe and neither apparently can you. But many arguments for God assume that one can make a choice. Pascal's wager is based upon the idea that someone could reason irrationally and choose to believe in a god because of the supposed benefits.

Whenever I see someone writing about choosing to believe something I see someone admitting to irrational thought.

 

[usfan]

Whenever I see someone writing about choosing to believe something I see someone admitting to irrational thought.

..everyone gotta believe something..

..that does not automatically make it irrational. Your beliefs are the result of your influences.. peers, upbringing, Indoctrination, memorized dogma.. it is no more (or less) 'Irrational!' than anybody else's. You choose to believe in your set of opinions, and others choose theirs.

It's really not that complicated.

The 'Folly!' among some, is pretending THEIR beliefs are somehow automatically superior, imbued with Truth and Empirical facts, when they are not. Most of the time, these pop religious beliefs (including pop atheism!) are just indoctrinated by institutions, assembled for that end.

The bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in unison, demonstrating the effectiveness of mass propaganda.

Most just toe the line, and submit to their brainwashing, but some break free, and discover a world of Possibility and Reason. ..that is verboten in Progresso World..

 

[Trailblazer]

No you can't. Try to stop believing in your god for a couple of hours or try to believe that the earth is flat. People either find things convincing or not. Belief isn't a choice.

I was referring to what you said about God not being just and fair:
"If there is no objective way to test the notion that this god of yours exists, yet it will still judge people for not believing in it, then it can't be just and fair..."

I was not referring to you (or anyone) being able to believe in God. I do not think that is as easy as falling off a log, but it can be accomplished. The proof of that is that people who were atheists have "come to believe" so it is possible if one makes an effort. It is not as easy to stop believing in God once one believes and tehre is a reason for that.

Do we? Depends what you mean. The way many people think of free will is logically incoherent. I know of no self-consistent notion of free will that would be of any significance from the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator (who would, in effect, have chosen everybody's nature, nurture, and life experience).

Our free will is limited because it has many constraints on it, but it is NOT limited by what God knows we will do owing to His omniscience. It might be limited by God's omnipotence since God can override our free will decisions IF He wants to, although He usually does not.

So this god is not omnipotent? The contradiction I was referring to was between god's judgement for unbelief and the lack of any objective reason to believe.

I thought you were referring to objective evidence for God. There is no such evidence except what we can SEE in the Messenger of God, but we interpret that subjectively.

Looks like an article of blind faith. I see no messengers from any god that are remotely credible to me.

Have you looked? If you do not look, but rather just assume, nothing can be credible.
There is only one true Messenger of God in every age, so anyone else is a false prophet.

 

[ArtieE]

I did not make it up. It was revealed by Baha’u’llah.

So you just picked his version of god then to believe in. No difference.

 

[ArtieE]

Why do you think that God should show Himself to you?
God only reveals Himself to His chosen Messengers, those such as Moses.

And how do you know I'm not a chosen messenger? Do you have a complete list?

How much of God Moses ever saw we cannot ever know, as much of what is in the Bible is allegorical.
Exodus 33:23 is obviously allegorical because God does not have any “back parts.”

Pardon me, but it was God himself speaking. Are you now contradicting God?

 

[ArtieE]

Sine Baha’u’llah is the latest Manifestation of God

How do you know that?

 

[ratiocinator]

Our free will is limited because it has many constraints on it, but it is NOT limited by what God knows we will do owing to His omniscience.

I meant that free will would effectively be non-existent from the point of view of an omniscience, omnipotent creator because, except for any true randomness and any subsequent interventions, such a god would create all of history in the initial instant.

I thought you were referring to objective evidence for God.

I was - you said there could never be such evidence. There obviously could be if an omnipotent god wanted there to be.

Have you looked? If you do not look, but rather just assume, nothing can be credible.
There is only one true Messenger of God in every age, so anyone else is a false prophet.

I think we've done this before - why should anybody go searching through the world's superstitions just in case one of them is true?

 

[ArtieE]

You can believe whatever you want to believe because you have free will.

Of course not. I can't believe in Santa Claus even if I tried or wanted to.

There is no contradiction because there can never be an objective way to test the notion that God exists since God is not a material being.

Of course God can be tested objectively. Any interaction with the material world leaves a trace. And if he doesn't interact with the material world he might as well not exist to begin with.

God sends Messengers as proof of His existence and that is just and fair because everyone has the capacity to recognize these Messengers.

Well then we could take some of these messengers and check what's going on in their brains when they are having a religious experience like getting messages from God. I bet you will find they have some kind of temporal lobe epilepsy caused by injury or disease.
Spirituality and religion in epilepsy. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crinm/2015/235856/

I cannot say how God will judge those who failed to recognize Baha’u’llah, who was God’s Messenger for this age.I do not know what their eternal destination will be, only God knows that. However, you can try to draw your own conclusions from the following letter.

"To 'get to heaven'

Describe this heaven I would be getting to in detail. See if you can get as detailed as in these books... Michael Newton

 

[Subduction Zone]

..everyone gotta believe something..

..that does not automatically make it irrational. Your beliefs are the result of your influences.. peers, upbringing, Indoctrination, memorized dogma.. it is no more (or less) 'Irrational!' than anybody else's. You choose to believe in your set of opinions, and others choose theirs.

It's really not that complicated.

The 'Folly!' among some, is pretending THEIR beliefs are somehow automatically superior, imbued with Truth and Empirical facts, when they are not. Most of the time, these pop religious beliefs (including pop atheism!) are just indoctrinated by institutions, assembled for that end.

The bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in unison, demonstrating the effectiveness of mass propaganda.

Most just toe the line, and submit to their brainwashing, but some break free, and discover a world of Possibility and Reason. ..that is verboten in Progresso World..

Yes, one has to believe something. But when one admits that he chose to believe something one also has admitted to thinking irrationally. You really should drop the name calling and ad hom, especially since you have as much as admitted to not reasoning irrationally.

And you are projecting again too. You are the one that proclaims that your beliefs are superior without any evidence. My beliefs are evidence based and are tested repeatedly. That is why my beliefs are superior to your superstition. Not because I say so, or because Sam says so, but because they can be tested and found to be accurate. Testing and evidence are concepts that you do not understand.

You are the one guilty of making claims about your superstitious beliefs that you cannot support and pretending that they are superior. So drop the personal attacks against those that are not afraid. Your fear is probably the cause of your inability to reason rationally.

Once again I offer to discuss the nature of evidence with you, but to continue to preserve your false beliefs are predict that you will run away again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why are atheists so frightened by such honesty?

Frightened? Atheism requires courage and intelligence. Anybody can fall to their knees groveling in worship, afraid of death. I prefer standing like the bipedal ape I was born to be, unencumbered by irrational superstitious beliefs.

atheists lie about what they 'unbelieve'.

We have no more reason to lie to a theist than to a cat.​

I am not the arbiter of truth for other people

Except when you are, as with the scurrilous accusation that atheists are lying.

why are atheists constantly asking theists for "objective evidence"?

Think of that not as a question seeking an answer, but as a rhetorical question making a statement. The atheist is telling you that he is not willing to follow you in your religious folly. Faith is folly. It can't possibly be a path to truth unless one guesses correctly, and even then, he cannot know that he has guessed correctly without subsequently obtaining evidence. By faith, one can believe either of two mutually exclusive possibilities equally strongly even though at least one is wrong. Faith is unexamined thought, the surest way to get wrong ideas into one's head. I'll stick with evidence.

Theism is based on the LACK of such evidence.

So are vampirism and leprechaunism.

The 'Folly!' among some, is pretending THEIR beliefs are somehow automatically superior

Like those who start threads to call atheism folly.

The bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in unison, demonstrating the effectiveness of mass propaganda.

I know. Repeat after me: "Our father who art in heaven..." That's what bobbleheaded indoctrination sounds like. I'll stick with reason and evidence. Or for a patriot like you, "I pledge allegiance ..."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

..everyone gotta believe something..

No. You don't. I do not believe in anything, for example. And you claimed "everyone"...

Belief is irrational, so why do it?

 

[PureX]

Except it isn't a choice, is it?

Of course it is. As exemplified by the fact that different people choose different truth propositions to "believe in", because they choose different methods of determining truthfulness (context).

As I said, take whichever one you believe and sincerely believe the other for a few hours - then let us know how much of a choice it is.

A belief is just a relative presumption of truthfulness. They change all the time depending on all sorts of things: desire, circumstance, temperament, and so on.

The reasoning and objective evidence are indeed very strong.

It is an objective question (at this time, at least). But we may someday decide the sphere concept is as 'wrong' as the flattened disc conception of Earth seems to us, now. We may choose a new and very different conception of the Earth when we understand more sophisticated expressions of metaphysical dimensionality. And I predict that when that happens, some of us will choose NOT to accept that new concept, just as some of us have chosen not to accept the sphere conception over the flattened disc.

Those people who accept strong reasoning and objective evidence, and require it before accepting claims about objective reality, are called 'rational'.

No, they are called "biased".

 

[Trailblazer]

So you just picked his version of god then to believe in. No difference.

Yes, I picked His version but there IS a difference.
He was a Manifestation of God and I am not.

 

[Trailblazer]

And how do you know I'm not a chosen messenger? Do you have a complete list?

I have a partial list and I know YOU are not a Messenger because you do not have the evidence to back up such a claim. I also know that because Baha'u'llah wrote that there can be no more Messengers after Him until the year 2852.

“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

Pardon me, but it was God himself speaking. Are you now contradicting God?

That was not God speaking. God did not write the Bible.