What’s your main reason for being a theist or an atheist?

[paarsurrey]

Not unreasonable to me at all. In fact, I find it makes a ton more sense than the Abrahamic God idea. I'm an atheist to that version of God. If that God actually existed, he'd do something about the conditions of this planet. But he never does.

You have all the right to believe whatever appeals to you.
Nevertheless, the non-believers have never given even "one" positive reason as I mentioned in my post, please.
Quran does not mention of any "God" who is specific with Abraham as is generally understood.
We believe in G-d whose attributes have been clearly mentioned in Quran.

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

You have all the right to believe whatever appeals to you.
Nevertheless, the non-believers have never given even "one" positive reason as I mentioned in my post, please.
Quran does not mention of any "God" who is specific with Abraham as is generally understood.
We believe in G-d whose attributes have been clearly mentioned in Quran.

Regards

I don't see either side, or any side in this debate as being more logical than the other. In belief, there is little logic. But both sides are free to believe that theirs is more logical. I'm just a neutral observer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see that Everything that tries to prove any of Gods Messengers as false, or that their Message are false, is False.

WHAT MAKES YOU SEE THAT WAY? Where is the evidence? Just because you have accepted the Bahai faith and you are on their roster?

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

What about you providing some evidence of your Allah and Mahdi, Paarsurrey? You see our Bahai brothers do not accept Mirza even though he is the latest sent by Allah.

Actually I see it as white light where there is no refractive light.

Perhaps your eyes need a check-up.

 

[Phaedrus]

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

Regards

First one needs to provide evidence for god's existence.

Your ill logic would be like me pointing to an empty table top and saying, "Prove the red cup doesn't exist there."

If there is no god to experience, if there is no evidence for stated god's existence, then the burden of proof is upon the one making the positive claim of existence.

 

[night912]

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

Regards

There, now you're starting to understand. Non-believers haven't given "one" positive reason for me to believe, that's why I'm a non-believer.

So are you now convinced that no gods exist?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

There, now you're starting to understand. Non-believers haven't given "one" positive reason for me to believe, that's why I'm a non-believer.

So are you now convinced that no gods exist?

Please read my post again, perhaps one has not understood it correctly.

Regards

 

[ratiocinator]

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

Non-believers don't believe in the non-existence of god(s), that's why they are called non-believers. They are non-believers because they have not been persuaded by any of the arguments for any of the thousands of gods humans believe in, or have believed in.

Non-belief is just that - it isn't positive belief in the statement "there are no gods".

 

[night912]

paarsurrey said: ↑
But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?


Please read my post again, perhaps one has not understood it correctly.

Regards

I did understand what you said. Apparently you didn't understand what I was getting at. There's no evidence, that's why i, myself, a non-believer, don't believe.

So are you still a non-believer?

 

[paarsurrey]

I did understand what you said. Apparently you didn't understand what I was getting at. There's no evidence, that's why i, myself, a non-believer, don't believe.

So are you still a non-believer?

I am a believer as it is very natural to believe, please.
Regards

 

[night912]

I am a believer as it is very natural to believe, please.
Regards

So what convinced you to believe that no god exist?

 

[paarsurrey]

So what convinced you to believe that no god exist?

I believe that G-d exists very naturally, so nobody was needed to convince me to that.

Regards

 

[JChnsc19]

I’m an atheist because I see no evidence of any god or gods. When I “came out”, & stopped lying to myself and trying to be a theist when I simply couldn’t believe- my life completely changed. The last 2 yrs of my life has been the best by far.

 

[CG Didymus]

I said: ↑
But, what about the Atheists here. You know lots of them did search, investigate and even became believers as best they could in some religions. And then left. Why did they leave? Was it the hypocrisy of the followers?
Then you said:

What a stupid reason to leave, because humans are fallible and they do not represent the religion.

Now I ask... Hypocrisy is stupid but a "stupid" reason to leave a religious group? I don't think so. If the people that say they "believe" aren't going to live up to the standards of their professed religion, why should anyone take that religion seriously? The followers don't even take it seriously.

Related to hypocrites in a religious group is "nominal" believers. I think both are problems for a religion like Christianity where a great number of people tend to only go to church on Sunday. They don't live by the teachings of the religions but still call themselves "Christian". Do Baha'is have the same problem? Do some people only show up every 19 days for the Feast and then are gone? Are some "inactive" and are listed as being Baha'is but rarely or never show up to any gathering?

So let's say an Atheist finally sees the light and joins the Christians or Baha'is, does the community life give the new believer a reason to take the beliefs of the group seriously? Like there is a God. That he is watching and expects or even demands obedience to his laws and commands? I think that is a very good indicator that those beliefs don't work in real life and maybe that even the believers don't take their professed belief in that God serious. So what good is that religion and what good is their laws and what good is their God if the believers aren't going to live up to the standards of that religion?

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'i have been given a clear meaning as to what it means and it is unlawful for a Baha'i to proselytize.

So what is that "clear" definition given to Baha'is as to what is and is not "proselytizing"?

 

[CG Didymus]

The answer would have been is that the Message given by each of those Prophets was not wrong.

How we each choose to see what they said, is what confuses what was the original Message.

Regards Tony

Do Baha'i believe Adam and Noah were manifestations? If yes, then what was their original message? I know you include Abraham and Moses as manifestations, so what was their original message? And how did the Jews get it wrong? Same with Jesus, he never wrote a thing, so the only original message about what he said is from the gospel writers. Did they get it right? Is what the gospels say about what Jesus said and did accurate? If so, then what did the early Christians get wrong about that message?

 

[CG Didymus]

A claim is not evidence because that would be circular reasoning.
Evidence is separate from the claim and backs up the claim so it is not circular.

Let's take some of the "evidence" to the claim that Jesus is the "Son of God" and for many Christians, God himself. He was born of a virgin, thus avoiding the taint of a sin nature. Through the power of God, his father, he performed great miracles including bringing a couple of people back to life. Also, in Matthew, Jesus healed a guy and forgave his sins. Something that the Jews believed only God had the authority to do.

Matthew 9:2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" 4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7Then the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Then the big one, He himself rose from the dead. Oh, and I almost forgot, a couple of times God spoke from heaven about Jesus and it was heard by the people present. Oh, and one more, people came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem for a few days.

I don't know about you, but I would be convinced that God was real and whatever was said about Jesus, I'd believe that too. But now, 2000 years later, do we really believe those things? If we don't and if we question whether or not they really happened, and then if we come to the conclusion that they probably didn't really happen, then where is the "proof" that God is real? And Baha'is don't help in making any of those stories believable, except the supposed virgin birth. So Baha'is themselves destroy the proof Christians offer that God and Jesus are real.

 

[CG Didymus]

…(T)he manifold bounties of the Lord of all beings have, at all times, through the Manifestations of His Divine Essence, encompassed the earth and all that dwell therein. Not for a moment hath His grace been withheld, nor have the showers of His loving-kindness ceased to rain upon mankind.

Really? So when the Aztecs were cutting people's heart out as a sacrifice to their gods, that was to the real God? And those people and all people throughout all of time were living under the grace and loving-kindness of the real God? Hmmm, tell that to the poor sucker who got sacrificed.

But then let's look at two religions that had manifestations as their founders, Judaism and Christianity. Christians tortured and killed Jews that wouldn't convert during the Inquisition. So who was right? The Jews denied that Jesus was their Messiah. The Christians believed that Jesus was part of a Trinity? So where was God and his "original" message? There is no "original" message. Only for Baha'is is there an "original" message. Too bad Jesus didn't take the time to jot down a few things. Instead, God thought it would be all right to let people write down his story and people interpret that story. What could go wrong?

 

[CG Didymus]

Islam had the Truth that before Baha'i and before that Christianity and before that Judaism. It is called progressive revelation. ALL these religions had the Truth for the ages in which they were revealed.

That is so easy to say. By using only the Scriptures of each religion, do you think you could come up with the spiritual truths that all the religions revealed? After a few things like "everyone should love one another" and the Golden Rule type of things, it don't take long before all religions go into different directions. Basic things like... Is there only one God or many? Baha'is have to rewrite and reinterpret some religions to make them all believe in one God. Is there an evil spirit being? Baha'is do away with all evil spirit beings from all the other religions.

These things are not changeable laws given for a certain time or place. Those were beliefs about Spiritual reality and most all religions said something different. Baha'i explanation? That those things were added in or were misinterpretations? Then the Scriptures themselves are inaccurate about God and God allowed the early leaders of every religion to get things mixed up and then taught as truth.

And changeable laws? What's up with that? One day it is okay to do work on the Sabbath, but the day before it is punishable by being stoned to death? One day it is okay for... let's say a manifestation, to have multiple wives, but the next day his followers can have only one wife? One day a homosexual should be put to death, but today Baha'is say it is only a "disease" of the brain? And is curable? I don't know, things are way more complicated than the sometimes simplistic Baha'i solutions. But, those solutions are from an all-knowing God?

 

[CG Didymus]

Perhaps your eyes need a check-up.

God, how true is that? Christians say they "see the light". Baha'is "have the light". Both believe in totally different things about each other. What are they looking at? But yet, the God that each one preaches is real? One of them ain't.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is spiritual Truth in all of the great religions and it does not change or alter.

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world,and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

Islam had the Truth that before Baha'i and before that Christianity and before that Judaism. It is called progressive revelation. ALL these religions had the Truth for the ages in which they were revealed.

I disagree. They were not false when they were originally revealed but then later they became distorted and corrupted by the followers.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

I agree that a True Seeker should recognize only the Baha'i Faith as the truth for today, because it is. But God guides who He chooses to guide. The rest will remain lost and confused. God cannot guide those who rebel against Him because free will is sacrosanct.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

"It is called progressive revelation"

Sorry to state but while I was reading "Kitabe-i-Iqan" I came to know of certain things, though not in that book specifically, but from related matters it "revealed" that Bahaullah's teachings/dealings were anti-progress or regressive rather than their tall claim to be "progressive".

Case in study Bahaullah's relationship and dealings with his third wife Gawhar Khanum, previously living in the house of one of his elder wives as a made-servant, persuaded her into firstly in a temporary marriage and then later married her when her brother intervened. Bahaullah deserted her with a girl-baby to live with his brother. It seems he did not support them financially and later Abdul Baha excommunicated her and her daughter. So, it is successive repression and regression in this case not progressive. Right, please?

Regards