John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . They're rude, condescending, and think they're much smarter than they appear to be. And of course if they don't see that in the mirror they won't run across it elsewhere.
John
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The new Athiest Humanities downfall?
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism
. . . They're rude, condescending, and think they're much smarter than they appear to be. And of course if they don't see that in the mirror they won't run across it elsewhere.
John
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's not atheism, atheism involves not knowing how life originated, atheists just don't indulge unevidenced archaic creation myths involving inexplicable magic, and laughably pretend this is more probable than a natural phenomenon we have yet to understand. Oh and life "creates itself" every second of every day, Google "the birds and the bees".
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, what is your take on his claim that we can use evidence on making decisions? Does that have any limit or does it apply to all decisions?
Reflection is wonderful thing
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Irony? It's hilarious that every single one of these accusations of rudeness ends in a petty insult.A rather laboured piece of circular reasoning, indulging yet more petty ad hominem, none of which is as egregious as the superfluous word "and" at the start of that sentence. A real own goal, if you're going to make sweeping insults about other people's intellect.
Well, one must suppose if dinosaurs had developed any intelligence and sense of introspection, they might have had that belief themselves -- and been totally correct!
Uh, uh! Not so. It is life continuing itself.
Most atheists I know are agnostic about God in the same way they are about any other thing that hasn't been reasonably demonstrated. Such a thing may exist, but we have no reason to act like it does until such time as we have good reason to believe as much.
But I know the logic of this has been explained to you before, in excruciating detail. By me, even. So I really don't know how else to walk you through it. We just disagree.
It comes from the recordings of the stories told about Baha'u'llah by his son Abdul'baha, who shared his excile and imprisonment. This was during the time in Baghdád.
Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library
This is that record.
Note at the end that this story will have other sources.
"It often happened in Baghdád that Muslim, Jewish, and Christian divines and European men of learning would be gathered in His blessed presence. They would each ask a different question and, despite their varying beliefs, would each receive so complete and convincing a reply as to be fully satisfied. Even the Persian divines residing in Karbilá and Najaf chose a learned man by the name of Mullá Ḥasan ‘Amú and dispatched him as their representative. He came into His blessed presence and asked a number of questions on their behalf, to which Bahá’u’lláh responded. He then said, “The divines fully recognize the extent of your knowledge and attainments, and it is acknowledged by all that you are without peer or equal in every field of learning. It is moreover evident that you have never studied or acquired this learning. But the divines say that they are not satisfied with this and cannot acknowledge the truth of your claim on the basis of your knowledge and attainments alone. They therefore ask you to produce a miracle in order to satisfy and assure their hearts.”
Bahá’u’lláh replied, “Although they have no right to ask this, since it is for God to test His creatures and not for them to test God, yet their request is in this case accepted and allowed. But the Cause of God is not a theatrical stage where every hour a new performance may be offered and every day a new demand presented. For otherwise the Cause of God would become the plaything of children.
“Let the divines, therefore, assemble and choose unanimously one miracle, and let them stipulate in writing that once it has been performed they will no longer entertain any doubt, but will all acknowledge and confess the truth of this Cause. Let them seal that paper and bring it to Me. They must fix this as the criterion of truth: If it be performed, they should have no remaining doubt; and if not, We shall stand convicted of imposture.”
That learned man arose and replied, “There is no more to be said.” He kissed Bahá’u’lláh’s knee, even though he was not a believer, and departed. Then he gathered the divines and conveyed Bahá’u’lláh’s message. They consulted together and said, “This man is a magician; perchance he will perform some enchantment, and then we will have no recourse”, and so they dared not respond.
Mullá Ḥasan ‘Amú, however, reported this fact in many gatherings. He left Karbilá for Kirmánsháh and Ṭihrán, where he provided all with a detailed account of this episode and spoke of the fear and inaction of the divines."
Regards Tony
Well to me you quoted what any Baha'i knows is a teaching of Baha’u’llah, so we'll done as we have the same goals, albeit in a different frame of reference.
Regards Tony
Nimos
Well-Known Member
First of all, I just realized that I actually didn't answer your question in the last reply, so will just do that here first:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
You are correct that science doesn't answer moral questions, for instance we can use science to create an atom bomb which we can use to blow each other up, but science doesn't have a stance on whether that is morally right or wrong.
So for instance, lets imagine a hostage situation and the negotiator is working with an unstable person, the negotiator have very limited knowledge about this person, but might have former experience from dealing with similar situations which might be useful or it might not. So the negotiator will be able to use critical thinking only with limited effect trying to figure out which approach might end in the best possible result.
But in cases where evidence is present, making use of critical thinking is highly useful. For instance, lets say that you are given the option to walk over a metal plate and can see fire underneath it, which you know will make it burn you. Clearly using the evidence or knowledge of fire and metal, will make you choose not to do it.
So using your wife as example, to the best of my knowledge, she will also use critical thinking to determine which approach is best in a given situation, should she lean on the religious stuff? or is it better with the other approach. But critical thinking about this as also stated above, doesn't say anything about whether this is moral right decision or not.
But we can use critical thinking when it comes to morality to judge and examine each others arguments. For instance, a person might argue that people of a specific skin color is worse humans than others are. But by using critical thinking, we can evaluate their argument. Which is also why I said that critical thinking might in fact be necessary in order to do moral evaluations in the first place, because it gives us a method or approach to do this.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
You are correct that science doesn't answer moral questions, for instance we can use science to create an atom bomb which we can use to blow each other up, but science doesn't have a stance on whether that is morally right or wrong.
There are limitation whenever we have a lack of evidence, which means that the critical thought process will be less reliable and we might have to make use of less certain ideas or experiences to help make us make a decision.
So for instance, lets imagine a hostage situation and the negotiator is working with an unstable person, the negotiator have very limited knowledge about this person, but might have former experience from dealing with similar situations which might be useful or it might not. So the negotiator will be able to use critical thinking only with limited effect trying to figure out which approach might end in the best possible result.
But in cases where evidence is present, making use of critical thinking is highly useful. For instance, lets say that you are given the option to walk over a metal plate and can see fire underneath it, which you know will make it burn you. Clearly using the evidence or knowledge of fire and metal, will make you choose not to do it.
So using your wife as example, to the best of my knowledge, she will also use critical thinking to determine which approach is best in a given situation, should she lean on the religious stuff? or is it better with the other approach. But critical thinking about this as also stated above, doesn't say anything about whether this is moral right decision or not.
But we can use critical thinking when it comes to morality to judge and examine each others arguments. For instance, a person might argue that people of a specific skin color is worse humans than others are. But by using critical thinking, we can evaluate their argument. Which is also why I said that critical thinking might in fact be necessary in order to do moral evaluations in the first place, because it gives us a method or approach to do this.
I suspect that some find our non-belief & preference
for secular government rather threatening. That can
create some animosity.
I do not see that faith is based in ignorance. I see faith is based in sound and logical reasoning, which should be used in all aspects of life.
Regards Tony
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure he was, particularly. Did Marx have all that much to say about religion? I don’t know.
As for the USSR, Bolshevik policy was to oppose pretty much any institution that was associated with the Tsarist regime. Stalin prosecuted oppression of the church for ideological reasons, but it was also personal with him; he was a seminarian in his youth.
Anyway it didn’t work. The Russian Orthodox Church is now probably one of the most influential religious institutions in the world.
Daniel Nicholson
Blasphemous Pryme
Number 3, 4, 11, and 12 are blatant misrepresentation.
"A Bahá'í Perspective", sounds about right...
"A Bahá'í Perspective", sounds about right...
Last edited:
Oh yeah, I'm so scared. Yer fondness for antique machinery, some of which may have sharp blades, or fast spins, frightens me far more than that atheism thing, which is trivial, in comparison.
My mind found all the proof I need. What remains is the written word, it is the standard we can obtain to, in one post to me, things that can unite the world, you reflected what Baha'u'llah had offered is needed.
That to me is proof.
Regards Tony
Big old engines can injure ya.
I've visited the hospital many times.
Eventually, I wised up. I'm safer now.
I think it's more of an issue of atheists being able to articulate problems with religion and belief in the modern age, and theists not really able to respond in an equally successful way.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Faith comes not solely from the intellect but also from the spirit, and the materialist who acknowledges mind and body but denies the existence of the spirit is, by definition, likely to remain ignorant of it. Indeed, in rejecting the possibility of there even being a soul, until he has first seen proof of it’s existence, such a person has chosen to remain in ignorance.