Theists: Are there good reasons not to believe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why are we evolving? To become God.

I didn't ask that question, but your answer is interesting. I like it better than most theistic explanations I see, and it's compatible with my humanistic values, which view man and not gods as the source of whatever answers will be found. I think most Abrahamic theists would consider that blasphemy, including the Baha'i.

I can't agree, but I do agree that man becomes more godlike as his moral theory evolves in the sense that he considers his world his responsibility. I've posted this previously:

"A theist can never know the ineffable joy of doing good for goodness sake, with no expectation that anyone will ever know what good he did or reward him for it. When the atheist pulls over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it, he know that nobody will ever know or care except him. That is authentic kindness, and authentic morality - goodness for goodness sake, and as close to a godlike experience as one can get."

I want to associate myself not just with positions about religion but religion itself

I can't understand why. We're I to suddenly begin believing that the universe was an idea before it was a fact, I still wouldn't turn to any of the religions. That's what deists believe, yet they find no use for religion - no holy book or commandments, no prayer, no rituals, no creation myth, no worship, no afterlife - just the belief that a sentient creator was involved. Adding that idea does not suggest one needs a religion. Also, what would any of them know about gods if they exist anyway? About as much as they know about dark matter, also a place holder to "explain" observed reality. Dark energy is what astrophysicists call whatever causes galaxies to maintain their form while spinning and assemble as a web of filaments and nodes. God is what primitives called whatever moves the sun through the sky and generated lightning and thunder. Both are/were placeholders for unknown causes of observed effects. No religion can tell us anything about either. No man can.

 

[Windwalker]

Theists don't think God exists. Thinking implies logic and critical analysis of verifiable evidence. Theists feel God exists, and often resist evidence and factual analysis.
It's called 'faith', as opposed to knowledge.

Define "feel"? Do you mean intuit? That intuition I'd call faith, yes. But then there are those who actually experience the Divine in firsthand mystical experience. At that point, it is not faith or a sense or a wish or a belief. It's firsthand experience. Experience replaces faith. At the point of experience, that is now actual knowledge. Is it not?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I didn't ask that question, but your answer is interesting. I like it better than most theistic explanations I see, and it's compatible with my humanistic values, which view man and not gods as the source of whatever answers will be found. I think most Abrahamic theists would consider that blasphemy, including the Baha'i.

I can't agree, but I do agree that man becomes more godlike as his moral theory evolves in the sense that he considers his world his responsibility. I've posted this previously:

"A theist can never know the ineffable joy of doing good for goodness sake, with no expectation that anyone will ever know what good he did or reward him for it. When the atheist pulls over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it, he know that nobody will ever know or care except him. That is authentic kindness, and authentic morality - goodness for goodness sake, and as close to a godlike experience as one can get."

This is why I don't call myself a Baha'i but a post-Baha'i. Baha'is believe in progressive revelation. I believe in progressive revelation too, as part of our evolution, I just believe instead of it being sanctioned completely by God's Manifestations, progressive revelation happens because of our species evolution. I am surprised you didn't pull out an article, and there are many, who say that humans have stopped evolving. That is mostly true, humans have stopped evolving because everybody is on medication now instead, but our environment has evolved, and I don't believe God is merely human but what humans have done, and are doing, to nature. God is what nature is becoming.

When I am posed with the question of, "what religion do I think is the best" I immediately think and assume it is the Baha'i Faith. I may believe that monotheism is a construct of a future society, but I very much so believe that because the Baha'i Faith exists, it is more likely that future society will become. If you really think about the differences between what a standard Baha'i believes in and compares them to my own, you will start to understand that if anything I am more like the Baha'is than they are themselves, because the Baha'i Faith to me isn't affirming monotheism, rather, it is creating monotheism. I am Baha'i, but I'm also more than that at the same time.

I can't understand why. We're I to suddenly begin believing that the universe was an idea before it was a fact, I still wouldn't turn to any of the religions. That's what deists believe, yet they find no use for religion - no holy book or commandments, no prayer, no rituals, no creation myth, no worship, no afterlife - just the belief that a sentient creator was involved. Adding that idea does not suggest one needs a religion. Also, what would any of them know about gods if they exist anyway? About as much as they know about dark matter, also a place holder to "explain" observed reality. Dark energy is what astrophysicists call whatever causes galaxies to maintain their form while spinning and assemble as a web of filaments and nodes. God is what primitives called whatever moves the sun through the sky and generated lightning and thunder. Both are/were placeholders for unknown causes of observed effects. No religion can tell us anything about either. No man can.

I hold value in religion - something that you apparently don't. I like belonging to something greater than myself, and honestly, I care more about what that religion does rather than believes. The Baha'i Faith may not being or doing the most of any religion to improve the lives of others (that would be the Catholic faith instead), but, there's eight million Baha'is and each one of them is reaching us closer and closer to unity, a divine concept in my own faith. You are so focused on being right about your positions all the time that you don't fully understand what is really happening to society, and to each one of us in the meantime. Being in right relation towards each other is better than just being right, and in the case of atheism, unassuming.

We are in a framework which each person goes through his or her own evolution throughout his or her life, each day becoming more than they were the last. I have said things like this numerous times and I have evidence to back up my positions. Right now, I believe in panendeism and syntheism, that is transforming our lives and making life worth living - the syntheism we develop now will become the omnitheism and monotheism of future societies. For this I place immense value and respect for our species, what it has done, and what it is trying to do. If you cannot understand that, because you can't assume anything about our lives - that's not my problem, that's yours. I just see the Baha'i Faith as the religion that can lead us there.

 

[Valjean]

Some theists think that God exists after applying logic and critical analysis to the evidence.
Some theists feel that God exists without looking at any evidence or doing any analysis.

What possible logic and critical analysis might that be? Link?

 

[Valjean]

Define "feel"? Do you mean intuit? That intuition I'd call faith, yes. But then there are those who actually experience the Divine in firsthand mystical experience. At that point, it is not faith or a sense or a wish or a belief. It's firsthand experience. Experience replaces faith. At the point of experience, that is now actual knowledge. Is it not?

"Feel:" emotionally comfortable with an idea.

Your mystical experience would be an observation, but a subjective one, without empirical evidence. I wouldn't expect a rational person to believe such a report without some tangible corroboration.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I like belonging to something greater than myself

I can't help but feel that I belong to something greater than myself. I'm part of the universe, as are you. Like the earth itself, I'm made from the same stuff as stars. So are you. The universe is capable of generating life and mind from clouds of hydrogen and helium, but I cannot, and neither can you.

And if it's only human system to which you refer, humanism is greater than the Abrahamic religions. It's the ism that frees us from superstition and dogma. It's the ism that turned creationism into astronomy evolutionary science. It's the ism that threw out kings and authoritarian regimes supported by Christianity and replaced them with liberal democracies with guaranteed personal freedoms including the freedom of religion, changing people from subjects to autonomous citizens.

there's eight million Baha'is and each one of them is reaching us closer and closer to unity

Every peace-loving person on the planet makes that same contribution. Most aren't Baha'i. And change doesn't come from the Baha'i. It comes from secular organizations.

Did you happen to see the thread about Baha'i and it's doctrine on homosexuals? We've got a handful of humanists and one dharmic explaining to the Baha'i how divisive that doctrine is, with the Baha'i arguing back that they are not homophobic if they don't feel or express hatred for homosexuals, a position that has led to a significant amount of dissent and even hard feelings on the part of the believers. These are all essentially decent people who would hold no homophobic beliefs were they humanist or dharmic or pagan, but they are of an Abrahamic faith, so they do.

If the theists can be overcome, the humanists, using reason and compassion rather than received dogma, will continue to lead mankind into the future as they have since the Enlightenment. It's been an uphill battle for centuries. What intellectual or moral progress have any of the religions made that can compete with the gifts of humanism in that time? Humanists promote reason over faith, and compassion and tolerance over dogma. Humanism promotes human development and social and economic opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. This is the road to maximizing human potential and the human condition, not Abrahamic religions. They are an impediment.

You are so focused on being right about your positions all the time that you don't fully understand what is really happening to society

What is your evidence for that? You haven't identified anything of value I've missed, nor any aspect of society that I don't really understand. I simply disagree with the religions and find no value there. And you haven't tried to demonstrate any. You claim without evidence or argument that somehow, the Baha'i have the best plan for world unity, but there's no substance included with the claim to support it.

Being in right relation towards each other is better than just being right

Being both is better than either. Wouldn't you like to be both correct and good a human being rather than just a good human being? You'd be more useful to neighbors.

For this I place immense value and respect for our species, what it has done, and what it is trying to do.

You're almost a humanist: "Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential and agency of human beings. It considers human beings the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. In the current day, the term generally refers to a focus on human well-being and advocates for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world. Most frequently, humanism refers to a nontheistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. Those with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state."

What's not to like there, huh? This sounds like your position, although you throw gods into it, which can be done in humanism as long as they're non-interventionalist gods like the deist god, the pagan gods, or the Hindu pantheon. All of those kinds of theists can also be humanist as described above, which doesn't require atheism.

If you cannot understand that, because you can't assume anything about our lives - that's not my problem, that's yours.

I don't know what it is you think I don't understand, or why you think it's a problem for me. I'm a humanist. That's my position, except that I don't respect much of what humanity is and has done.

I just see the Baha'i Faith as the religion that can lead us there.

Baha'ism is a feelgood ism with no original ideas for peace and unity. It comforts its adherents while making no discernible impact in world affairs or cultural evolution. As a Baha'i, one gets to feel good about himself as peacemaker while seeing himself as part of something important making a difference in the world even though much of the world has never heard of it and outsiders aren't impacted by it at all. I don't begrudge you that, but let's not confuse the action of humanism with the niceties of Baha'ism and see the latter as more efficacious in improving the human condition when it actually accomplishes nothing of substance to point at. If you disagree, please make the case with an evidenced argument. Show me some original ideas of value there. Show me what the Baha'i have accomplished that the world should value. If you can't so that, perhaps you should consider the validity of these claims.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@It Aint Necessarily So

You assume that one cannot be a Baha'i and a humanist at the same time.

As a cultural omnist I respect all religions and their differences. Just because the Baha'i Faith doesn't condone homosexual acts or marriages doesn't necessarily make all Baha'is homophobic. If humanism was so important to you, then wouldn't your religion status on here would be humanism and not none? Because humanism isn't a religion. And I don't know why you are on here, on a website called Religious Forums, if you aren't religious. Do you just like arguing with religious people?

I have a unique theology, it's about becoming God rather than definitely saying that God exists or not. For many years I called myself a humanist, but humanism isn't a religion, it's a stance on human agency instead. I take the concept of humanism and elaborate it, explaining that it is because of humans that Gods will be created one day. No humanist believes that - instead their eschatology views are focused on the heat death of the Universe, and with that, all humans being wiped out one day from entropy. All the humanists I've talked to believe that humans will one day no longer exist. Baha'is don't have a stance on that issue.

So, who is more "pro-human", the humanist who believes humans will all die somehow and since there is no afterlife, completely not exist in any way, or the Baha'i who sees the progression in humankind and seeks to strive for a permanence in our species lineage? Religions do change, they are progressive, it's just that most people are stuck on tradition and religion being the exact same thing when they aren't. Some religions change. Others don't. Some scientists change. Others don't. Science only explains how things exist, not why, and I have personally found out for myself why things exist: to become God. Anything less than that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

What possible logic and critical analysis might that be? Link?

I applied logic and critical analysis to the evidence the supports the claims of Baha'u'llah, which led me to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be and therefore God exists.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I applied logic and critical analysis to the evidence the supports the claims of Baha'u'llah, which led me to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be and therefore God exists.

Let me rewrite that for you in the way I understand my faith.

"I applied logic and critical analysis to the evidence the supports the claims of Baha'u'llah, which led me to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be and therefore we are all becoming Gods."

i would appreciate it if you commented on this thread.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I know Baha'u'llah never claimed that we were creating monotheism or that every person is becoming a God, but nonetheless the Baha'i Faith is structured in a way which is helping humanity achieve unity, which will inevitably lead to the creation of both.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because the Baha'i Faith doesn't condone homosexual acts or marriages doesn't necessarily make all Baha'is homophobic.

The doctrine, which is not a mere lack of condoning, but an actively bigoted position, is homophobic, as is anybody that accepts it. You probably don't accept that doctrine. If not, if you are picking and choosing what to believe, why go to its holy books for choices? What have you found there that you are not rejecting that you didn't already know?

If humanism was so important to you, then wouldn't your religion status on here would be humanism and not none? Because humanism isn't a religion.

That doesn't make sense to me. I don't list humanism as my religion because I don't consider it a religion as you just stated.

And I don't know why you are on here, on a website called Religious Forums, if you aren't religious. Do you just like arguing with religious people?

Religious forums is for everybody. I like thinking. Ilike reasoning. I like evaluating the arguments of others for soundness, and to identify and nae logical fallacies when I see them. I like constructing cogent arguments. And I like learning from and sharing with other skeptics. I am particularly interested in what seems to be a trend on RF of skeptics becoming more assertive with the faithful.

What do you imagine this site would be like without the skeptics?

instead their eschatology views are focused on the heat death of the Universe, and with that, all humans being wiped out one day from entropy.

I don't know of anybody that's focused on that except perhaps cosmologists, and then only at work, but the existing data supports that hypothesis, so why would I want to rewrite that without supporting evidence? Do you find the idea unacceptable? Depressing?

All the humanists I've talked to believe that humans will one day no longer exist.

That may very well be the case. Man's best hope there is to colonize space. Even then, can you imagine what the surviving descendants of those people will look like in a few million years? Every human colony will evolve independently and differently (founder effect), and would become post-human, members of separate colonies eventually being unable to reproduce with one another if they met again some day. That's speciation.

So, who is more "pro-human", the humanist who believes humans will all die somehow and since there is no afterlife, completely not exist in any way, or the Baha'i who sees the progression in humankind and seeks to strive for a permanence in our species lineage?

The ism that most benefits the human condition is the most pro-human. That's not the Baha'i.

Science only explains how things exist, not why

Science explains why many things exist, but not why the universe or its contents exist.

By contrast, religion explains neither. Spinning myths explains nothing. Consider creationism, which calls itself an explanation for the origin of the universe and the life in it, but unlike the scientific account, offers zero explanatory and predictive power, and offers no supporting evidence nor mechanisms. Contrast that with science and evolutionary theory, which does all of those things and, unlike creationism, has already improved the human condition.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a cultural omnist I respect all religions and their differences. Just because the Baha'i Faith doesn't condone homosexual acts or marriages doesn't necessarily make all Baha'is homophobic.

That's true. Baha'is are not even homophobic at all, not according to the definition of homophobic, since we do not have a dislike of or prejudice against gay people. All we have are Baha'i Laws that prohibit homosexual acts but these Laws only apply to Baha'is.

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@It Aint Necessarily So

Some Baha'is may fear gay people - that's what homophobia is, but God doesn't. There's a difference between condemnation and fear. They condemn the idea, but they don't fear it.

It would be interesting if Religious Forums was here without the skeptics. I suspect it would turn much like into a huge DIR section with self-affirming people, like me.

I find the idea of heat death completely unacceptable for the idea of end times. Not only unacceptable, but if I believed it, I probably wouldn't be on this website. I would be depressed all the time and not want to do anything.

Cosmological speciation ... I haven't thought of that. That could be a serious problem if we don't find ways to quickly travel across planets.

I see both the Baha'i Faith as the most pro-God religion that exists, and because God will be created by us, it is also by in effect the most pro-human organization to exist. Yes, I have met Baha'is that I disagree with, and no I don't think by a long shot that the religion is perfect. I'm just advocating for myself and others to think outside the box, and for both Baha'is and atheists, it's extremely difficult for them to do so.

Science can't explain why grass is green or the sky is blue, it explains how receptors in our eyes picks up light that then allows us to see those colors. I have a two fold explanation on why things exist. 1 - Things exist to be benevolent. 2 - Things exist to become God (that's humans) so we can become more benevolent. Humans developed in a way which looking at grass and the sky looks nice, therefore, the colors themselves became benevolent (this is probably why I don't like playing No Man's Sky - ugly planets).

I would argue that most Baha'is probably believe in evolution that was created by God. And so do I. That solves the problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me rewrite that for you in the way I understand my faith.

"I applied logic and critical analysis to the evidence the supports the claims of Baha'u'llah, which led me to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be and therefore we are all becoming Gods."

i would appreciate it if you commented on this thread.

I will comment on that thread as soon as I have time, but meanwhile, can you explain what you mean by "we are all becoming Gods?"

 

[Trailblazer]

I would argue that most Baha'is probably believe in evolution that was created by God. And so do I. That solves that problem.

Yes, that is what Baha'is believe. We believe in evolution and that it was created by God.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I will comment on that thread as soon as I have time, but meanwhile, can you explain what you mean by "we are all becoming Gods?"

A long, long time ago I devised in my head thoughts about what God means to me. Before I was even interested in religion in fact. What I came up with was the fact that about half of the traditional God attributes are held in nature, while the other half are held with people. It was from there that I literally divided God in half. God is eternal and ubiquitous. The Omniverse is eternal and ubiquitous. Humans have utility and generosity unlike any other species on Earth, and God also have utilities and is generous.

There are ten divine traits that I have isolated. The Omniverse is the totality (1), is essential to every part of life (2), is close as possible to being eternal and ubiquitous (3 and 4), and has an almost infinite amount of energy that can also probably be created (5).

Humans, on the other hand, developed utilities with that energy (1), became generous because of those utilities (2), developed wisdom from being kind with generosity (3), our wisdom helped us develop sovereignty between different nation states (4), and when nation states, and religions come together, it creates unity (5).

I believe right now we are between an age of global sovereignty, which every piece of land has been claimed by some sovereign nation, and global unity, or global peace and prosperity between those nation states.

After global unity has been established (give it a few hundred years), we will start the collective assembling of humans to slowly obtain the infinite amount of energy that nature has. Instead of working on humans internally, we will focus on our environment instead, eventually spreading like a plague to every location in the entire Universe, to the point which we will discover alien life on other planets. We will find the means to develop technology to leave the Universe or even create other Universes.

Sounds like science fiction, and a lot of it is, for now, but think about trying to explain 2022 society to someone living in a thousand years ago. Much of what we have now appears to be magic, and the same will happen by 3022.

It is from this that humans will eventually have all the energy possible (potency), become eternal and ubiquitous, have as essential role on the development of reality, or essentiality, and exist as part of the totality of The Omniverse. It is then we will become Omniversal ourselves, and then, each human that has ever existed will become a God, and its environment will be also become God, with each entity becoming God itself. When this happens, we will also develop soul technology to create God avatars, and many of them will be developed for The Omniverse, which will then have the five characteristics we have that it doesn't - utility, generosity, sagacity, sovereignty and unity, and itself will transform from the panendeistic God that exists now and become a monotheistic God, overseeing everything and existence will then go from being panendeistic and syntheistic to omnitheistic and monotheistic.

Imagine an infinite amount of realities to do an infinite amount of things in. That is what we will create for ourselves in the far future, and because nothing can be permanently destroyed as everything will have souls and soul avatars, if you make a huge mistake you can correct it simply by going to a alternate reality where that mistake never occurred.

I know this sounds crazy but some day it will all make sense. The Baha'i Faith, while admittedly being limited in scope, has advocated for global unity and peace, because we are in that stage of transition between global sovereignty and global unity. Once we establish global unity there is no going back - we will forever exist somewhere throughout the Universe, because humanity will no longer be against each other. That is the most important aspect to all of this. Once humans stop fighting against each other on massive scales, then we will develop ways in which we can become God and God can become like man, too.

That is the whole reason why we exist, and why evolution occurs. Both science and religion are creating and help us become God.

 

[Valjean]

I am 100% sure, but since there is no proof (verifiable evidence) that God exists my belief is not a fact.

It may well be a fact, just not a demonstrable one.

 

[Valjean]

Even during the darkest years of my life, when I had almost no faith in anything at all, I wasn’t an atheist. I always felt there was something that lay beyond reason.

All the convincing, carefully constructed atheist arguments that I have heard, and which are often repeated with great articulacy, fail to reach me because they are entirely cerebral; and our experience of reality, of the world and of each other, is not entirely cerebral.

We are formed of mind, body and spirit; the ego, which dwells in the mind, often drowns out with it’s incessant clamour, the voice of the spirit. But if we pay no attention to the spirit, if we attend only to the demands of the body and the chatter of the mind, we are like a two legged stool, unbalanced. Put another way, if we perceive the world only through mind and body, we see only in two dimensions, and our vision necessarily lacks depth.

But if you're cerebral enough, you might be able to pull off 11 dimensions.

 

[Valjean]

Of course, ...but that's by design - God deliberately left ambiguity and antithesis in His creation in order to expose the cynics and defiant, and weed out the insightful and good hearted.

Like the atheists, and secular humanists?
Yeah, we don't need any simpletons in Heaven who disparage God's gift of reason and intelligence.

 

[Valjean]

Why are we evolving? To become God.

Evolving spiritually, or physically?