Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[ManSinha]

No, because there is BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY.

From that link - "Bahá’u’lláh has drawn the circle of unity, He has made a design for the uniting of all the peoples, and for the gathering of them all under the shelter of the tent of universal unity. This is the work of the Divine Bounty, and we must all strive with heart and soul until we have the reality of unity in our midst, and as we work, so will strength be given unto us. Leave all thought of self, and strive only to be obedient and submissive to the Will of God. In this way only shall we become citizens of the Kingdom of God, and attain unto life everlasting"

That loses the atheists right there - so by definition - the so called circle of unity - is not

 

[Trailblazer]

From that link - "Bahá’u’lláh has drawn the circle of unity, He has made a design for the uniting of all the peoples, and for the gathering of them all under the shelter of the tent of universal unity. This is the work of the Divine Bounty, and we must all strive with heart and soul until we have the reality of unity in our midst, and as we work, so will strength be given unto us. Leave all thought of self, and strive only to be obedient and submissive to the Will of God. In this way only shall we become citizens of the Kingdom of God, and attain unto life everlasting"

That loses the atheists right there - so by definition - the so called circle of unity - is not

It does not exclude atheists, it includes them in the circle of universal unity. If they do not want to be submissive to the Will of God they don't have to be. They will still be citizens of the Kingdom of God.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)​

 

[charlie sc]

You said that it is dubious that what I posted is really about justice and discrimination, and to me that indicates that you question my intent, thinking that maybe you know it better than I do.

This is what sometimes happens on these forums. I am open and honest about my life experiences and my thoughts and feelings and then some people think that they can analyze me. However, all they really end up doing is projecting their own thoughts and feelings onto me, because they have separation issues. I realize that I make myself vulnerable, but I can only be who I am; I cannot be secretive, because that is not my personality.

I'm not trying to analyse you, nor do I claim to know you better than you. However, as you know from psychology and psychoanalysis, we are incredibly bad at judging ourselves or understanding our emotions by ourselves. Though, I think this topic will get us nowhere so I wont bring it up again. Apologies.

I used to debate with Christians a lot but I finally realized it was a lost cause, because rarely are they ever going to change their beliefs and I know I am not going to change mine. After I stopped debating with Christians I started debating with atheists because it was a lot more interesting and I was actually learning something about why people disbelieve in God. Eventually I decided I do not want to debate with atheists but rather just have discussions. I will readily admit that I think it would be a good thing if they freely decided to believe in God, but that is because I think that is important to believe in God. Belief in God has more implications for the afterlife than for this life.

I stopped debating with theists in real life unless they answer a simple question. I ask, is it possible that god does not exist? If they can answer yes, without going on some tangent to immediately refute what they said, I'll have a debate with them. If not, there's no point. You cannot debate someone who is closed-minded.

. Many were hurt by Christianity and many feel hurt by a God that does not seem to “do anything” or a God that does what they consider immoral. But where do these ideas come from? They come from the Bible, but they also come from the Christian doctrines which are a distortion of what Jesus taught.

Yes, most popular anti-religion atheists I've seen have been theists at one time or another. However, I think you're wrong about atheists thinking god hurt them. I've never seen this line of thought. In order for an atheist to think god hurt them, they would have to think god is real, which would not make them atheists. They are angry at the silliness of the ideology itself and the judgemental followers. They may also regret spending so much time on this ideology and feel some shame for judging others while in it. I'm extrapolating, because I've always been an atheist, so I can't really know what they think. I'll explain further about them being angry at god. Someone could think of a fictional character and think this character is a a bit of an ***, but that does not mean that person thinks it's real. For instance, I get incredibly irate at the character Joffrey Baratheon in Game of Thrones, but that doesn't mean I think he's real. When I do, I suspend disbelief so that I can enjoy the series, but also his mannerism are .

Finally, atheists become hostile towards the Baha’i Faith because they falsely assume it is just another religion like Christianity or Islam, and they fail to see the big differences because they don’t really look. Of course, that is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Maybe. Some people are just trolls though. All the POEs I've seen are atheists and they want to annoy everybody.

The obvious thing that comes to mind is that atheists tell theists they are wrong (and vice versa) simply because they think they are right. There is nothing wrong with that, but the problem ensues when they insist they are right and they try to convince the other side they are right. Moreover, since there is no proof that God exists, my position is that given the empirical evidence, there are three possibilities, and each one is equally logical:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

I choose #1 and you choose #3, but that is not something to fight about, although we can discuss it if we want to.

I'm curious what empirical evidence you have? If it's anecdotal, can you use that same evidence for other religions?

I will readily admit that I think it would be a good thing if they freely decided to believe in God, but that is because I think that is important to believe in God. Belief in God has more implications for the afterlife than for this life.

I have several friends I met on other forums who were ex-Christian atheists and after many years of discussion about God and Messengers of God a couple of them have now decided that God probably exists. They are still averse to the idea that God uses Messengers, but that is par for the course. I still think it is great that they think God probably exists even if they do not accept the idea that God uses Messengers to communicate.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I watch the Atheist Experience sometimes - it's a lot of fun. Though, the way it's going, I think atheists are starting to follow the methodological naturalism approach more and more. I see it less likely atheists will convert unless there's some direct or indirect evidence supporting something supernatural or unexplained. There is no evidence to support these desired phenomenons. I say desired because none exist outside anecdotal experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not trying to analyse you, nor do I claim to know you better than you. However, as you know from psychology and psychoanalysis, we are incredibly bad at judging ourselves or understanding our emotions by ourselves. Though, I think this topic will get us nowhere so I wont bring it up again. Apologies.

It is true that sometimes a counselor, close friend or family member can see things about us that we cannot see about ourselves but all too often that is a projection of something they are thinking or feeling. I know there might be motives for my behavior that I am unaware of but there are certain motives I know I do not have. The problem ensues when someone insists I have a motive I know I do not have.

I accept your apology. Please note that I am on guard because off and on for many years on that forum I cited in the OP I have been accused of having intent I know I did not have. In many other regards, I like this forum owner, so it is sad that he cannot take me at my word. However, I am done trying to make my case because there is no reason to think his opinion will ever change. He has a right to hold it, but I don’t want to be a part of it anymore. I already have so many problems in my life.

I stopped debating with theists in real life unless they answer a simple question. I ask, is it possible that god does not exist? If they can answer yes, without going on some tangent to immediately refute what they said, I'll have a debate with them. If not, there's no point. You cannot debate someone who is closed-minded.

I am with you on that. Of course it is logically possible that God does not exist because there is no actual proof that God exists, only evidence, and that evidence can be viewed as evidence in different ways by different people. It is good evidence to some people but it is not evidence at all to other people.

Yes, most popular anti-religion atheists I've seen have been theists at one time or another. However, I think you're wrong about atheists thinking god hurt them. I've never seen this line of thought. In order for an atheist to think god hurt them, they would have to think god is real, which would not make them atheists.

Some atheists I know do believe that God failed them back when they were believers and that is why they are now atheists; God let them down and they can no longer believe such a God could exist. These are ex-Christians who once believed in a “loving God.”

Apparently you have not heard the things I have heard from atheists. There is a lot of anger and even rage. Why would atheists say such awful things about a God they do not believe exists? Having such hateful feelings towards a nonentity does not make sense to me from a psychological standpoint. I would never think twice about a pink unicorn in my garage because I know it does not exist.

Then there are other atheists who imagine what god would be like if god existed and they make up a god according to what they consider logical. Of course, this is a hypothetical god, but it makes no sense to me that an atheist would spend so much time talking about a god that does not exist. There is really only one such atheist I know and I have been posting to him off and on (mostly on) on several forums for almost five years. At certain times he divulged that his motive was to make other people on the forum realize how ridiculous believers actually are, to expose us as irrational. I accept that if he says that is his motive, even though I cannot understand why anyone would invest that much time and energy in something they have no belief in. As I have told him repeatedly, if I was not a believer, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not talking about God.

They are angry at the silliness of the ideology itself and the judgemental followers. They may also regret spending so much time on this ideology and feel some shame for judging others while in it. I'm extrapolating, because I've always been an atheist, so I can't really know what they think. I'll explain further about them being angry at god. Someone could think of a fictional character and think this character is a a bit of an ***, but that does not mean that person thinks it's real. For instance, I get incredibly irate at the character Joffrey Baratheon in Game of Thrones, but that doesn't mean I think he's real. When I do, I suspend disbelief so that I can enjoy the series, but also his mannerism are.

You are one step ahead of me. Mind you, I read every post line by line, I never read a post in its entirety lest it distract me from responding to the individual thoughts, or bias me in some way. So sometimes I do end up reiterating what I already said.

Yes, I have noticed that some atheists are angry at the silliness of the ideology itself and they are angry at the judgmental followers; some may regret having spent so much time as a believer but most I know are just happy to have escaped.

After many years posting to atheists, I am finally beginning to understand how an atheist could be angry at a god they do not believe in. They are sometimes angry at the very thought of a god that (if it existed) does not do anything that it could and should do; e.g., communicate directly to everyone in the world or rescue everyone from evil (stop rapists and murderers).

For now, let me just say that I can relate to being angry at God and wondering why God would allow so much suffering in the world, suffering that is not equally distributed. If anyone was going to be angry at God it would be me, given the kind of life I have had, so I really had to work to overcome that. Knowing the reasons why people and animals have to suffer does not always cut it for me and seems like a religious apologetic.

So you were raised as an atheist? I have met very few atheists who were not formerly believers. Actually, I have only known two individuals who were not raised in any religion or believing in God and both became believers in adulthood, in their 30s. The way they became believers was not through religion, one was through an epiphany and the other through a spiritual experience.

I don’t remember if I already told you this, but I was not raised in any religion. Both my parents dropped out of Christianity before their children were born. My father was an atheist and my mother probably retained a belief in God, but neither parent ever talked to us about God. I became a Baha’i during my first year in college, but I never thought much about God back then; I was into the idealism of the religion, its teachings about the oneness of humanity and the soul and afterlife. Anyhow, my sister and brother and mother also became Baha’is so the whole family was Baha’i. This is quite unusual, especially since we were not a close knit family. Most families who are all Baha’is were raised that way, like Christian families.

Maybe. Some people are just trolls though. All the POEs I've seen are atheists and they want to annoy everybody.

That is too bad if it happens because it gives al the sincere atheists a bad name. Of course I am able to differentiate because I can tell who might just be a troll, since I always try to get to know people on forums personally. It is not my experience on forums that there are very many trolls who are atheists but I pretty much ignore people with trollish behavior so I do not know what they believe.

I'm curious what empirical evidence you have? If it's anecdotal, can you use that same evidence for other religions?

Yes, all the major religions have the same kind of evidence since all were revealed by a Messenger of God, what is often referred to as a Prophet. However, some have better evidence for their Messenger than others. For the Messengers that revealed the older religions we have to rely upon personal accounts written in scriptures, but there is verifiable evidence for the Baha’i Faith and its Messengers, facts that we can research. That is because the life and history of the faith is well-documented given it is relatively recent.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I watch the Atheist Experience sometimes - it's a lot of fun. Though, the way it's going, I think atheists are starting to follow the methodological naturalism approach more and more. I see it less likely atheists will convert unless there's some direct or indirect evidence supporting something supernatural or unexplained. There is no evidence to support these desired phenomenons. I say desired because none exist outside anecdotal experience.

I am not sure what you mean by desired phenomenons? What do you think is desired? There is evidence that is supernatural and cannot be explained but I do not think that is the best evidence for God’s existence. I think the best evidence is the great world religions and the effect they have had upon the advancement of civilization, as well as the divine prophets (Messengers of God) and what they were able to accomplish, how they trained nations of people and changed the hearts of man, having a lasting effect upon those who believed in them. To me there is no logical explanation for any of these phenomena except that a God was behind it all. Other people look at Creation and say that means God must exist, but there are scientific explanations for Creation, so I do not consider that the best evidence for God’s existence.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation’s life,—even as it is recorded in the Torah and confirmed in history that when the Jews became fettered by empty forms and imitations the wrath of God became manifest.......

What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272, 273​

 

[charlie sc]

there is no actual proof that God exists, only evidence, and that evidence can be viewed as evidence in different ways by different people. It is good evidence to some people but it is not evidence at all to other people.

Yes, but I think it's worse than that. There's a ton of double standards going on. The continual anecdotal evidence that comes from one religious believer will deny the same anecdotal evidence from another believer from a different religion, even though they're exactly the same. This seems to happen especially when their religion conflicts with others or wants to be unique/superior.

Some atheists I know do believe that God failed them back when they were believers and that is why they are now atheists; God let them down and they can no longer believe such a God could exist. These are ex-Christians who once believed in a “loving God.”

This line of thinking for an atheist seems strange to me. Are they still theists?

Apparently you have not heard the things I have heard from atheists. There is a lot of anger and even rage. Why would atheists say such awful things about a God they do not believe exists? Having such hateful feelings towards a nonentity does not make sense to me from a psychological standpoint. I would never think twice about a pink unicorn in my garage because I know it does not exist.

This is slightly different. Believing something imaginary hurt you is far, far different than being angry at imaginary character and saying bad stuff about them. For some fictional characters, I have, literally, shouted at the TV with rage, but that in no way means I think the character exists. This fictional character may touch on many emotional and world-view expectations(E.G. justice), but that does not mean this character is real. Have you ever seen Martyrs (2008 film) - Wikipedia? Believe me, I was not saying kind things about her captors.
What if this particular unicorn killed a bunch of children, because it felt like it? Unicorns are probably a bad example because we don't think of them as a self-aware entity that understands societal rules or laws. Let's imagine another character. Imagine a fictional guy who goes out and kidnaps children then does horrible things to them and gets away with it every time. This character, especially in some sort of story context, is someone very dis-likeable . How much we suspend disbelief to think this story is relevant will enhance any emotional impact. Considering what I just said, Christians, for example, tend to say god is love and praise god, yada yada yada. However, what I know from the Bible, god is anything but that. For instance, 40 children were killed for teasing a bald man or god wiped out Earths population with a flood, or instantly killed someone for spilling his seed on the ground. This looks exceedingly worse than any rapist or mass murderer in history. What makes this worse for atheists is some cognitive dissonance that religious people seem to portray and they want people to think these stories have relevance, so they take them seriously. Any person performing these acts would be frowned upon, to say the least, but they don't seem to care because it was god doing it. I could understand the rage from the atheist perspective. Not only are they met with people who self-deceive themselves, and they want you to think this character is good and real. The whole notion is ridiculous.

Then there are other atheists who imagine what god would be like if god existed and they make up a god according to what they consider logical. Of course, this is a hypothetical god, but it makes no sense to me that an atheist would spend so much time talking about a god that does not exist. There is really only one such atheist I know and I have been posting to him off and on (mostly on) on several forums for almost five years. At certain times he divulged that his motive was to make other people on the forum realize how ridiculous believers actually are, to expose us as irrational. I accept that if he says that is his motive, even though I cannot understand why anyone would invest that much time and energy in something they have no belief in. As I have told him repeatedly, if I was not a believer, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not talking about God.

Some people take enjoyment in arguing and debating, but some have some invested interested because they may have been theists. Though I don't see where he is wrong. Theists don't seem to care about the definition of god or the logical possibilities. Some atheists want it to at least make sense before they even get to evidence, which I find perfectly acceptable. However, because theists don't really care and there are so many deities, I find this is a waste of time from any standpoint. To say considering logical possibilities is nonsense though, would be to say I think the round-square exists or I don't want to consider if it exits.

So you were raised as an atheist? I have met very few atheists who were not formerly believers. Actually, I have only known two individuals who were not raised in any religion or believing in God and both became believers in adulthood, in their 30s. The way they became believers was not through religion, one was through an epiphany and the other through a spiritual experience.

I don’t remember if I already told you this, but I was not raised in any religion. Both my parents dropped out of Christianity before their children were born. My father was an atheist and my mother probably retained a belief in God, but neither parent ever talked to us about God. I became a Baha’i during my first year in college, but I never thought much about God back then; I was into the idealism of the religion, its teachings about the oneness of humanity and the soul and afterlife. Anyhow, my sister and brother and mother also became Baha’is so the whole family was Baha’i. This is quite unusual, especially since we were not a close knit family. Most families who are all Baha’is were raised that way, like Christian families.

I've always been a humanist, as far as I can remember, but I never knew what it meant. Eventually I become an agnostic, but the way I meant it was soft atheist. So, the whole time I've been an atheist. I went to a Christian school, then a Jewish school(which sucked), then a non-religious school. My parents were never really religious and were atheists to begin with but they never spoke about this sort of thing. I grew up watching Star Trek, so there's that. Also, I learnt about socialism and Marxist while studying in Uni. Since then some of my political beliefs have shifted towards Marxism. That's about it.

That is too bad if it happens because it gives al the sincere atheists a bad name.

I'm not sure why it would give sincere atheists a bad name if they're pretending to be fundamentalist theists. Unless you're saying they're giving atheists, in general, a bad name because they're probably atheists themselves?

Yes, all the major religions have the same kind of evidence since all were revealed by a Messenger of God, what is often referred to as a Prophet. However, some have better evidence for their Messenger than others. For the Messengers that revealed the older religions we have to rely upon personal accounts written in scriptures, but there is verifiable evidence for the Baha’i Faith and its Messengers, facts that we can research. That is because the life and history of the faith is well-documented given it is relatively recent.

If someone says they're a prophet from god, does that make them a prophet from god?

I think the best evidence is the great world religions and the effect they have had upon the advancement of civilization

This seems to be an argument from population or utility. Are you saying that because religions are useful, everything they've said is now true?

the divine prophets (Messengers of God) and what they were able to accomplish, how they trained nations of people and changed the hearts of man, having a lasting effect upon those who believed in them.

Are you saying that if a person has the ability to change a nation, everything they've said is now true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but I think it's worse than that. There's a ton of double standards going on. The continual anecdotal evidence that comes from one religious believer will deny the same anecdotal evidence from another believer from a different religion, even though they're exactly the same. This seems to happen especially when their religion conflicts with others or wants to be unique/superior.

I think there is evidence for all the major religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith, but the older the religion is the less reliable the evidence is because any scriptures there might have been cannot be trusted to be the originals and they might have been altered over time. So the anecdotal evidence is not the same for all the religions, some evidence is more remote in history and thus less reliable.

Of course the religious believers from one religion are going to deny the evidence for the other religions; that is par for the course because most believers believe that they have the one true religion. Muslims acknowledge the religions that were revealed before Islam, but Muslims still consider their religion superior, the best and the last.

The Baha’i Faith is the only religion that acknowledges all the religions that came before as being of equal standing. However, the remedy humanity needs from God in every age is always new and different since people and the world change over time.

Whenever a new Messenger of God reveals a new religion, His religious dispensation abrogates all the religious dispensations that preceded it, since what was revealed during those dispensations is no longer needed for the present age.

The Baha’i Faith is also the only religion that teaches that more Messengers will come in the future, thus more religions will be revealed and this process will continue throughout all of eternity. Thus there is no “last or best religion.” This is called Progressive Revelation.

This line of thinking for an atheist seems strange to me. Are they still theists?

It seems strange to you because you were never a believer. I think that ex-believers who are now atheists are very different from atheists who had never been believers. Some of them never really ever break free of their religious past, even though they say they do not believe in God anymore. Some say God might exist, but not the Christian God. I would not consider these atheists, but rather agnostics or deists.

This is slightly different. Believing something imaginary hurt you is far, far different than being angry at imaginary character and saying bad stuff about them. For some fictional characters, I have, literally, shouted at the TV with rage, but that in no way means I think the character exists. This fictional character may touch on many emotional and world-view expectations(E.G. justice), but that does not mean this character is real. Have you ever seen Martyrs (2008 film) - Wikipedia? Believe me, I was not saying kind things about her captors.

No, I have not seen that movie. I get that way too when I watch movies but more so when I watch true crime programs like Forensic Files or Investigation Discovered (ID). It is UN-believable the evil things some humans are capable of doing for sex or money, or even just for fun.

What if this particular unicorn killed a bunch of children, because it felt like it? Unicorns are probably a bad example because we don't think of them as a self-aware entity that understands societal rules or laws. Let's imagine another character. Imagine a fictional guy who goes out and kidnaps children then does horrible things to them and gets away with it every time. This character, especially in some sort of story context, is someone very dis-likeable . How much we suspend disbelief to think this story is relevant will enhance any emotional impact. Considering what I just said, Christians, for example, tend to say god is love and praise god, yada yada yada. However, what I know from the Bible, god is anything but that. For instance, 40 children were killed for teasing a bald man or god wiped out Earths population with a flood, or instantly killed someone for spilling his seed on the ground. This looks exceedingly worse than any rapist or mass murderer in history. What makes this worse for atheists is some cognitive dissonance that religious people seem to portray and they want people to think these stories have relevance, so they take them seriously. Any person performing these acts would be frowned upon, to say the least, but they don't seem to care because it was god doing it. I could understand the rage from the atheist perspective. Not only are they met with people who self-deceive themselves, and they want you to think this character is good and real. The whole notion is ridiculous.

Okay, I think I understand. You were never a Christian but of course you have been exposed to the Bible and Christians so you know the Bible stories. That is not something I have been exposed to except indirectly through other people who tell me “God did this or that.” But since Baha’is do not believe that everything in the Bible was intended to be interpreted literally, but rather figuratively, I am not buying off on what it says God did. Keep in mind that these are men writing these stories and wehave no way to know where they got this information, so I am certainly not going to judge God according to the Bible. Back in ancient times, stories were told in order to convey spiritual truths.

I am not saying it is impossible that God wiped some people out, but if He did it was in accordance with His justice, because they deserved it. I loving God is not loving all the time, He also has wrath when it is warranted. Are you a bad person because you get enraged over grave injustices? I don’t think so. That is called righteous indignation. Why should God be any different? God should be angry if it is warranted.

Some people take enjoyment in arguing and debating, but some have some invested interested because they may have been theists. Though I don't see where he is wrong. Theists don't seem to care about the definition of god or the logical possibilities. Some atheists want it to at least make sense before they even get to evidence, which I find perfectly acceptable. However, because theists don't really care and there are so many deities, I find this is a waste of time from any standpoint. To say considering logical possibilities is nonsense though, would be to say I think the round-square exists or I don't want to consider if it exists.

I understand the atheist perspective, but from my perspective, the atheist perspective is illogical. Let me explain why.

God is whatever God is and you cannot create a God in your own image according to what you think would be logical. First, humans are fallible so what they consider logical can be wrong; and second, an infinite, transcendent, ineffable God is not subject to logic because He is beyond anything that can either be recounted or perceived. An omnipotent God does whatsoever He wills and ordains what He pleases. Humans are not omnipotent so they cannot do anything about it. Even though humans have free will, humans are completely at the mercy of God’s will, since God has more power than we do. Another important point is that God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, and no human is either of those. As such, it makes no logical sense to think we could know more or be wiser than God. I am not saying most atheists commit these errors in logic, but some do.

All that said, if you really understood what God does and why you would know that there is nothing illogical about it. It makes complete sense if you know the grand scheme of things.

How could you know the logical possibilities for a God you know nothing about? That atheist I was referring to bases all his arguments upon “God is omnipotent so God can do anything.” Whereas that is true that God is All-Powerful, there are some things God cannot do because it is not according to God’s nature. For example, God cannot appear on earth like a man because God is not a material entity, and God cannot write because God does not have hands. So God appoints Messengers to appear as His Representatives and write scriptures.

I've always been a humanist, as far as I can remember, but I never knew what it meant.Eventually I become an agnostic, but the way I meant it was soft atheist. So, the whole time I've been an atheist. I went to a Christian school, then a Jewish school(which sucked), then a non-religious school. My parents were never really religious and were atheists to begin with but they never spoke about this sort of thing. I grew up watching Star Trek, so there's that. Also, I learnt about socialism and Marxist while studying in Uni. Since then some of my political beliefs have shifted towards Marxism. That's about it.

Humanism is close to Baha’i in principles and what we consider important, only without the God. Most of the atheists I get along with best are humanists because our values are the same.

That is interesting. After I got into trouble in public school, my mother put me in a Catholic school and then after that I went to a public school which was almost exclusively Jewish although it was not a religious school. In many ways I think socialism it beats capitalism.

If someone says they're a prophet from god, does that make them a prophet from god?

Of course not. Their claim to be a Prophet is not part of the evidence that they are a Prophet because that would be a circular argument.

This seems to be an argument from population or utility. Are you saying that because religions are useful, everything they've said is now true?

No, they are true only if the Prophets that established them were sent by God. But if humans altered the religions that were established by the Prophets they might no longer be true.

Are you saying that if a person has the ability to change a nation, everything they've said is now true?

No, I am saying that, but if they had such an effect upon the advancement of civilization that is an indication that they are Prophets (Messengers) sent by God. If they were sent by God, then anything that revealed was true because God is the Source of all Truth.

 

[charlie sc]

I think there is evidence for all the major religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith, but the older the religion is the less reliable the evidence is because any scriptures there might have been cannot be trusted to be the originals and they might have been altered over time. So the anecdotal evidence is not the same for all the religions, some evidence is more remote in history and thus less reliable.

Of course the religious believers from one religion are going to deny the evidence for the other religions; that is par for the course because most believers believe that they have the one true religion. Muslims acknowledge the religions that were revealed before Islam, but Muslims still consider their religion superior, the best and the last.

The Baha’i Faith is the only religion that acknowledges all the religions that came before as being of equal standing. However, the remedy humanity needs from God in every age is always new and different since people and the world change over time.

Whenever a new Messenger of God reveals a new religion, His religious dispensation abrogates all the religious dispensations that preceded it, since what was revealed during those dispensations is no longer needed for the present age.

The Baha’i Faith is also the only religion that teaches that more Messengers will come in the future, thus more religions will be revealed and this process will continue throughout all of eternity. Thus there is no “last or best religion.” This is called Progressive Revelation.

I think this is a very interesting perspective. Do you include religions like Scientology and all the polytheistic religions? If you don't, then I think you're committing the same act you claim other religions do. I'd be very impressed if you include all religions, but not so if you start being selective. If you are being selective, what grounds do you base this on?

I am not saying it is impossible that God wiped some people out, but if He did it was in accordance with His justice, because they deserved it. I loving God is not loving all the time, He also has wrath when it is warranted. Are you a bad person because you get enraged over grave injustices? I don’t think so. That is called righteous indignation. Why should God be any different? God should be angry if it is warranted.

Being angry is quite different from being a mass murderer. Also, I find it strange why a supremely powerful entity would get angry if they know the future. Anyway, I don't think you can wave this part of the story away, which is what I'm noticing. In society as we know it, you don't get to murder someone or a group of people, especially children, because they offended you. Are you saying that because someone is angry, it gives them to right to murder people? I sure hope note. So, this is my atheistic perspective: If god is real, he's a monster. If he's not, he's a monster for Christianity . And I find it absurd that you'd make god an exception, as I said in the prior post, because he's god. It seems like you're creating double standards, as I said in a prior post and you're too close to the material to realise this. To be fair and impartial is to use the same method of judgement all around, not play favourites. You placed emphasise on your need/desire for justice, but I don't see that here. I would kindly ask you to contemplate and examine why you would defend anyone for being a mass murderer, whether the victims are innocent or not and it can be avoided. This is the example of the 42 children https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2 Kings 2.23–24 I mentioned. I noticed that apologetics will write pages upon pages to try lesson the blow and defend this in any way possible. I'm just not sure if anyone not awed by religion/god can take this type of dodge and weaving seriously, let alone how horrible some religions are and their monstrous deities are. I'm sorry if I'm being offensive, but I'm not playing favourites or having double standards: I would give the same response for any human being that killed 42 children on a whim or any reason.

I just want to warn you on the line of logic you're using and how unloving/biased it is. If you had anything bad happen in your life, I could turn around and say, "you deserved it," without a second guess. This is line of thinking is apathetic to offensive. You would literally ignore the suffering of others if you thought they deserved it by some righteous punishment. I am absolutely shocked that you would claim you care about about "injustice and inequity," in this OP, but are willing to ignore these qualities when it suits you. Again, I can turn around for the OP, and say you deserved to get banned because you're getting some righteous whatever and god did it through him.

I understand the atheist perspective, but from my perspective, the atheist perspective is illogical. Let me explain why.

God is whatever God is and you cannot create a God in your own image according to what you think would be logical. First, humans are fallible so what they consider logical can be wrong; and second, an infinite, transcendent, ineffable God is not subject to logic because He is beyond anything that can either be recounted or perceived. An omnipotent God does whatsoever He wills and ordains what He pleases. Humans are not omnipotent so they cannot do anything about it. Even though humans have free will, humans are completely at the mercy of God’s will, since God has more power than we do. Another important point is that God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, and no human is either of those. As such, it makes no logical sense to think we could know more or be wiser than God. I am not saying most atheists commit these errors in logic, but some do.

All that said, if you really understood what God does and why you would know that there is nothing illogical about it. It makes complete sense if you know the grand scheme of things.

How could you know the logical possibilities for a God you know nothing about? That atheist I was referring to bases all his arguments upon “God is omnipotent so God can do anything.” Whereas that is true that God is All-Powerful, there are some things God cannot do because it is not according to God’s nature. For example, God cannot appear on earth like a man because God is not a material entity, and God cannot write because God does not have hands. So God appoints Messengers to appear as His Representatives and write scriptures.

I've noticed quite a few assertions here and I don't really want to try defend another person's argument, especially if I don't even properly know what they're saying or looking at.
However, if god was within the realm of logic or laws of logic, we can understand his nature. If not, then there's no point trying to understand, at least, some of his nature. However, you don't need to look if the proposition is true, you just need to look at if it doesn't contradict each other. For instance, if the claim is god has experienced everything, by necessity he has has experienced lust. Therefore, god is also lustful. Logically, this is valid. However, many theists may not like the sound of this so they would probably want to change the premise somewhat. Though I don't really care about this because it's all speculation and it goes on ad infinitum(this is not an example of a contradiction). To make a simple example so it's understandable: You are either in your house or not. You can't be both at the same time.

Humanism is close to Baha’i in principles and what we consider important, only without the God. Most of the atheists I get along with best are humanists because our values are the same.

That is interesting. After I got into trouble in public school, my mother put me in a Catholic school and then after that I went to a public school which was almost exclusively Jewish although it was not a religious school. In many ways I think socialism it beats capitalism.

Indeed. I prefer communism but it's never existed in the Marxist sense so it's just hopeful thinking, but that's neither here nor there.

Of course not. Their claim to be a Prophet is not part of the evidence that they are a Prophet because that would be a circular argument.
No, they are true only if the Prophets that established them were sent by God. But if humans altered the religions that were established by the Prophets they might no longer be true.
No, I am saying that, but if they had such an effect upon the advancement of civilization that is an indication that they are Prophets (Messengers) sent by God. If they were sent by God, then anything that revealed was true because God is the Source of all Truth.

So, according to your logic, any one person who has had a great and positive effect on civilisation indicates they are a prophet sent by god?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think this is a very interesting perspective. Do you include religions like Scientology and all the polytheistic religions? If you don't, then I think you're committing the same act you claim other religions do. I'd be very impressed if you include all religions, but not so if you start being selective. If you are being selective, what grounds do you base this on?

These are all very good questions. One first has to define what is considered a religion and hat is not. According to the Baha’i Faith, a religion is revealed by Messengers, what we normally refer to as Manifestations of God. Ron L. Hubbard was not a Messenger of God so Scientology is not a real religion; rather, it is a philosophy. A polytheistic religion such as Hinduism was a true religion, because it was revealed by Krishna, who we consider a Messenger.

Being angry is quite different from being a mass murderer. Also, I find it strange why a supremely powerful entity would get angry if they know the future.

I do not why you think God knowing the future has anything to do with God getting angry.

Anyway, I don't think you can wave this part of the story away, which is what I'm noticing. In society as we know it, you don't get to murder someone or a group of people, especially children, because they offended you. Are you saying that because someone is angry, it gives them to right to murder people? I sure hope not. So, this is my atheistic perspective: If god is real, he's a monster. If he's not, he's a monster for Christianity . And I find it absurd that you'd make god an exception, as I said in the prior post, because he's god. It seems like you're creating double standards, as I said in a prior post and you're too close to the material to realise this. To be fair and impartial is to use the same method of judgement all around, not play favourites. You placed emphasise on your need/desire for justice, but I don't see that here. I would kindly ask you to contemplate and examine why you would defend anyone for being a mass murderer, whether the victims are innocent or not and it can be avoided. This is the example of the 42 children https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2 Kings 2.23–24 I mentioned. I noticed that apologetics will write pages upon pages to try lesson the blow and defend this in any way possible. I'm just not sure if anyone not awed by religion/god can take this type of dodge and weaving seriously, let alone how horrible some religions are and their monstrous deities are. I'm sorry if I'm being offensive, but I'm not playing favourites or having double standards: I would give the same response for any human being that killed 42 children on a whim or any reason.

I am not defending God. I think I already told you I was not raised as a Christian and I never even read any of the Bible until about six years ago, so I do not know all these horrible things that you think God did.

Are you basing God is a monster upon what God purportedly did in Old Testament?

Are you saying you think that God killed 42 children because of these verses? https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2 Kings 2.23–24. I do not interpret those verses that way at all.

If you want to know what Baha’is believe about what God actually did that is in the Old Testament, I suggest you ask a Baha’i who used to be a Christian and knows the Bible really well, one such as @ adrian009.

I just want to warn you on the line of logic you're using and how unloving/biased it is. If you had anything bad happen in your life, I could turn around and say, "you deserved it," without a second guess. This is line of thinking is apathetic to offensive. You would literally ignore the suffering of others if you thought they deserved it by some righteous punishment. I am absolutely shocked that you would claim you care about about "injustice and inequity," in this OP, but are willing to ignore these qualities when it suits you. Again, I can turn around for the OP, and say you deserved to get banned because you're getting some righteous whatever and god did it through him.

Let’s calm down and try to think logically. Do you think that humans never deserve to be punished for evil acts they commit? If they didn’t why do we have a justice system that punishes murderers and rapists, etc.? If fallible humans can judge and punish other humans why wouldn’t an Infallible God have the same right? After all, if God is All-Knowing then God knows who is guilty, who is worthy of punishment. Do you really think that All-Loving means that God can never get angry or have wrath, even when it is deserved? Do you think that people should be forgiven all their sins? If you believe that maybe you should be a Christian. I watch a lot of true crime shows and I recall one true story about a Lutheran man who murdered his entire family, thinking he would be forgiven, because that is what the Bible says. What do you think God should do to him, send him straight to heaven?

I've noticed quite a few assertions here and I don't really want to try defend another person's argument, especially if I don't even properly know what they're saying or looking at.
However, if god was within the realm of logic or laws of logic, we can understand his nature. If not, then there's no point trying to understand, at least, some of his nature.

No, I do not think that God is within the realm of logic.

However, you don't need to look if the proposition is true, you just need to look at if it doesn't contradict each other. For instance, if the claim is god has experienced everything, by necessity he has experienced lust. Therefore, god is also lustful. Logically, this is valid. However, many theists may not like the sound of this so they would probably want to change the premise somewhat. Though I don't really care about this because it's all speculation and it goes on ad infinitum(this is not an example of a contradiction). To make a simple example so it's understandable: You are either in your house or not. You can't be both at the same time.

Whatever gave you the idea that God has experienced everything that humans have experienced? God is not a human. God understands humans because God is responsible for their existence, but that does not mean God has experienced everything humans experience, such as lust. Just because God knows what lust is does not mean that God is lustful. I know what murder if, but that does not make me a murderer.

So, according to your logic, any one person who has had a great and positive effect on civilisation indicates they are a prophet send by god?

It means they could be a Prophet sent by God, not that they are. There are other criteria that would have to meet in order to be considered a Prophet.

 

[ManSinha]

A polytheistic religion such as Hinduism was a true religion, because it was revealed by Krishna, who we consider a Messenger.

The hubris (or the arrogance) there is astounding - so you and your prophet are the sole deciders? What about Ram? What about Shiva? What about Vishnu? What about Hanuman?

There is Gaudenya Vaishnavism (where Krishna is the supreme deity). As @Vinayaka can tell you - in his particular line of belief it is Shiva that is the Supreme Godhead. Where do you (or your prophet) come off equating Hinduism with just Lord Krishna? He is one part of a whole and a particularly prominent one but by no stretch of imagination the entirety of it. Why, even Lord Parshuram - is regarded as a manifestation and is worshipped. Your scriptures' knowledge is incomplete if they fail to take into account all these nuances and variations. And as I have repeatedly pointed out - as has @Aupmanyav - there is a philosophy called Samkhya which is closer to atheism than a deist direction.

Do you think that humans never deserve to be punished for evil acts they commit? If they didn’t why do we have a justice system that punishes murderers and rapists, etc.?

Yes but the human justice system purports to be fair as much as possible - two individuals committing the exact same crime - receive the same sentence. Hence the saying all are equal in the eyes of the law. Not so with your god - people lie and cheat and oppress others and live a fine life while others that try to do better - often do not have the same privileges and luxuries. So I openly question the "justice" that you talk about. And don't purport to tell me - well they will be judged on the day of resurrection - that is a fairy tale - in over 6000 years of recorded human history there has not been one - it strains credulity that an otherwise sane intelligent human still believes that there will be.

 

[Trailblazer]

The hubris (or the arrogance) there is astounding - so you and your prophet are the sole deciders? What about Ram? What about Shiva? What about Vishnu? What about Hanuman?

There is Gaudenya Vaishnavism (where Krishna is the supreme deity). As @Vinayaka can tell you - in his particular line of belief it is Shiva that is the Supreme Godhead. Where do you (or your prophet) come off equating Hinduism with just Lord Krishna? He is one part of a whole and a particularly prominent one but by no stretch of imagination the entirety of it. Why, even Lord Parshuram - is regarded as a manifestation and is worshipped. Your scriptures' knowledge is incomplete if they fail to take into account all these nuances and variations. And as I have repeatedly pointed out - as has @Aupmanyav - there is a philosophy called Samkhya which is closer to atheism than a deist direction.

I do not know about other religions and I do not profess to know. I do not know who all the Prophets were. I was just giving one example, pointing out that not every man who claimed to be a Prophet of God was a Prophet of God. One thing I can say though, I do not think that the older religions exist in their originally revealed form, I think they have been completely changed by man. The very fact that no two believers who claim to be Hindus agree what Hinduism is is logical proof that the original Hinduism has been lost. The same applies to Buddhism.

Yes but the human justice system purports to be fair as much as possible - two individuals committing the exact same crime - receive the same sentence. Hence the saying all are equal in the eyes of the law. Not so with your god - people lie and cheat and oppress others and live a fine life while others that try to do better - often do not have the same privileges and luxuries. So I openly question the "justice" that you talk about. And don't purport to tell me - well they will be judged on the day of resurrection - that is a fairy tale - in over 6000 years of recorded human history there has not been one - it strains credulity that an otherwise sane intelligent human still believes that there will be.

I guess your issue is that God is not just because good people that try hard suffer more than bad people who lie and cheat and oppress others and have an easy life. There is no answer to that except that there will be recompense in the afterlife.
I do not believe in judgment day. That is a Christian belief.

 

[ManSinha]

The very fact that no two believers who claim to be Hindus agree what Hinduism is is logical proof that the original Hinduism has been lost.

Again - you take your personal opinions as assertions of fact - when none exist. Where is the source to back up your unfounded statement? You seem to be adept at using the internet - do yourself and others a favor and read up on something before you go and make comments that show your narrow minded focus

There is no answer to that except that there will be recompense in the afterlife.

I thought so - and that "afterlife" you speak of - is a sell - to convince naive innocents to continue believing for a "reward" - one of three things can happen eventually - either the person you speak to goes to the "afterlife" first or you do or both go around the same time - it is like misappropriating something but disguised as a loan - neither you have to answer nor can the other person claim they were misled.

If you truly are open minded - take a deep look at what you profess and believe - and compare it with what the dharmic faiths say - and then come back and we can talk further

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let’s calm down and try to think logically. Do you think that humans never deserve to be punished for evil acts they commit?

I will reply to this particular statement picked up by @ManSinha rather than to reply to all blah-blah. Yes surely, they are punished, either by their own self, psychologically, guilt, regret; or by society and law of the land. There is no proof of any other punishment. Gods are a fiction. Think logically, if you can.

The very fact that no two believers who claim to be Hindus agree what Hinduism is is logical proof that the original Hinduism has been lost. The same applies to Buddhism.

Dharmic religions do not fetter one. They give freedom of personal belief. They are constituted in that way. Something like Linux rather than Windows. What is unchangeable is 'dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous action)*, as I mentioned earlier, which is the bed-rock. Whether one believes in existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or not is a personal thing. I don't. Abrahamic religions have not tasted this freedom. You would value it if you ever taste it.
Edited to add: Linux Core*. One can build upon that in anyway one likes.

 

[charlie sc]

Hubbard was not a Messenger of God so Scientology is not a real religion; rather, it is a philosophy.

It is a religion and is classified as such in the USA. How do you know Hubbard was not a prophet?

I do not why you think God knowing the future has anything to do with God getting angry.

This is more of a nuanced view, but if you know what's going on happen then you don't get surprised when it actually happens. And since god is apparently infinite, he had a long time to mull this over. This is just an opinion so you can ignore it.

I never even read any of the Bible until about six years ago, so I do not know all these horrible things that you think God did.

I don't think god did any of these because it's unlikely god is real, but Christians want me, and others, to believe god is real. Therefore, if we were to take these writings as a fictional character or a real god, it looks horribly immoral from any standpoint

Are you basing God is a monster upon what God purportedly did in Old Testament?

Are you saying you think that God killed 42 children because of these verses? https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2 Kings 2.23–24. I do not interpret those verses that way at all.

If you want to know what Baha’is believe about what God actually did that is in the Old Testament, I suggest you ask a Baha’i who used to be a Christian and knows the Bible really well, one such as @ adrian009.

I'm not just basing it on this but many stories and I don't know how you can read it differently. Most of the apologetics I've seen for this try to say the children were hooligans or such nonsense lol. I don't see why I need to talk to adraid009 when you have your own opinion from the knowledge at hand. I mean, if god created a flood to murder most of the population, there would have been a lot innocent people and children killed? Christians don't seem to care and pass it off as, "eh, they were all bad." If you want to put absolute justice and immorality in some supremely powerful entity, you think exists, without even questioning the motives or actions, especially because anger is involved(of course making decision in anger is good a thing), then that's fine. However, my view of your impartial justice has been flushed down the toilet.

Do you think that humans never deserve to be punished for evil acts they commit? If they didn’t why do we have a justice system that punishes murderers and rapists, etc.?

I'm not surprised this is how you think. You seem to think justice is an eye for an eye and requires some sort of suffering/punishment, which archaic and revenge based. However, in the modern world, prisons are used for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not to punish. If the action is to sever and they cannot be rehabilitated then it's to stop them from damaging the rest of society, hence they stay there. I'm sure suffering plays a part in the rehabilitation because it deters actions, but if this could be avoided it would. If someone could be helped without hurting them, even though they did something atrocious, it would be a better option than causing suffering, much to the dismay of fundamentalists and those that want revenge. Justice is not used for vengeance.

If fallible humans can judge and punish other humans why wouldn’t an Infallible God have the same right?After all, if God is All-Knowing then God knows who is guilty, who is worthy of punishment. Do you really think that All-Loving means that God can never get angry or have wrath, even when it is deserved?

This is so loaded I don't know where to begin. Human beings try each other because laws are meant, in hope anyway, to keep society intact(Hobbes-Leviathan - social contract). Therefore, defying laws is seen as destabilising society and any such action needs to be stopped, but that doesn't mean punishment is a requirement. I have no doubt, especially people like you, want revenge. Though this is not civilised; it represents and old tribal mentally that has no place is civilised society. People are forced to enforce laws but this has nothing to do with god nor does it give anyone the right to inflict pain or suffering on others. Again, this is so loaded and this more represents want you think than anything else.

Do you think that people should be forgiven all their sins? If you believe that maybe you should be a Christian.

This is loaded. I saw you used the word evil and and now sin. These words are not appropriate to use because they conflate so many things that'll make any conversation include your religious ideology and stigmas. These words, at a glance, not only describe bad actions but souls/free-will/innate badness, etc. Therefore, I will change them more appropriate for civilised discourse.
Do I think people should be forgiven for their actions(I assume bad, like murder)? This is not about me forgiving them. The person that needs to forgive them is the victim, if they want to. The justice system is not about forgiveness but about rehabilitation. If they can return to society then it needs to be judged based on their actions(possible repeat offence or not) and the crime they committed.
Do I believe they should be responsible for their crime? Yes, but that doesn't mean they should be blamed. When you stigmatise someone you make it worse and concrete their belief that they are a bad person.

I watch a lot of true crime shows and I recall one true story about a Lutheran man who murdered his entire family, thinking he would be forgiven, because that is what the Bible says. What do you think God should do to him, send him straight to heaven?

I think this shows how dangerous interpretive religious scripture is more than anything else. I can't really answer your question because I don't even know if god exists let alone a Heaven. However, if I were God, first of all I would fix the world or quit because I suck at my job. Second, I would not inflict suffering on another human being if I knew there were other ways to change them or they could live in a part of heaven where they cannot harm others.

It means they could be a Prophet sent by God, not that they are. There are other criteria that would have to meet in order to be considered a Prophet.

I could name a number of people who have influenced society for better or worse, but they never said they were a prophet. If they did, I'm sure people would think they were. I can see something similar to the halo effect going on.
Just because someone says something does not make it true and if something is true from what they've said it does not make everything else true, nor if a person is popular or useful does it mean what they say is true. As an example, I'm a Marxist. If I look at some of his writings and see some of it is true it doesn't mean everything is true. You need to judge every claim individually. Your reasons for deciding they're prophets is not surprising to me in the least, I find this in nearly all theists.
I'd urge you to examine every detail rather than accept everything without criticism, but that's just my silly opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Something like Linux rather than Windows. What is unchangeable is 'dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous action)*, ..

Edited to add: Linux Core*. One can build upon that in anyway one likes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I will reply to this particular statement picked up by @ManSinha rather than to reply to all blah-blah. Yes surely, they are punished, either by their own self, psychologically, guilt, regret; or by society and law of the land. There is no proof of any other punishment. Gods are a fiction. Think logically, if you can.

Many gods are a fiction, but one God is a reality. IMO.

I do not know that God punishes anyone, although that is possible. I believe that whatever punishment we receive is as the result of our own beliefs and actions.

Dharmic religions do not fetter one. They give freedom of personal belief. They are constituted in that way. Something like Linux rather than Windows. What is unchangeable is 'dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous action)*, as I mentioned earlier, which is the bed-rock. Whether one believes in existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or not is a personal thing. I don't. Abrahamic religions have not tasted this freedom. You would value it if you ever taste it.
Edited to add: Linux Core*. One can build upon that in anyway one likes.

I like the idea of 'dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous action). The only problem I can see with that is this: who sets the standards for what duties we have and what is righteous action?

I do not believe that humans determine what reality is. God determines that since God created the Universe and all that is therein. Humans simply believe in what God has created and how it works or choose not to believe in any of that. Belief is a choice.

I do not want to be free to create my own reality because it makes no logical sense to me that I can create reality. Of course that is because I believe in God.

However, I can create my own reality within the parameters that God has set. I am not a puppet on a string. I have free will to think and act as I please.

People who have “control issues” don’t want to be in the Abrahamic religions because we know that God is in total control; even though we are free to act by virtue of our own free will, we cannot control outcomes as they are at God’s discretion.

I like my Windows 7 OS. God forbid my computers that have it installed ever die because I have no way to reload it.

 

[McBell]

Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

for the same reasons, please note the plural, some theists are intolerant of atheists.
for the same reasons, please note the plural, some Christians are intolerant of Muslims.
for the same reasons, please note the plural, some some Christians are intolerant of other Christians.
for the same reasons, please note the plural, some Republicans are intolerant of Democrats.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is a religion and is classified as such in the USA. How do you know Hubbard was not a prophet?

Religion generally has something to do with a God or gods. Hubbard even said that God is not part of his teachings. That is no doubt why Scientology is not classified as a religion in Wikipedia: Major religious groups

Hubbard never claimed to be a Prophet. The claim is not proof, but with no claim, there is no reason to think he was a Prophet.

This is more of a nuanced view, but if you know what's going on happen then you don't get surprised when it actually happens. And since god is apparently infinite, he had a long time to mull this over. This is just an opinion so you can ignore it.

Of course God knew so of course God was not surprised, but that does not mean God might not be angry about what He knew all along.

I don't think god did any of these because it's unlikely god is real, but Christians want me, and others, to believe god is real. Therefore, if we were to take these writings as a fictional character or a real god, it looks horribly immoral from any standpoint.

I guess that would depend upon how you interpret the Bible. It can be interpreted in myriad ways. Not even all Christian interpret the Bible the same way, which is one reason there are so many different sects of Christianity.

I'm not just basing it on this but many stories and I don't know how you can read it differently. Most of the apologetics I've seen for this try to say the children were hooligans or such nonsense lol. I don't see why I need to talk to adraid009 when you have your own opinion from the knowledge at hand. I mean, if god created a flood to murder most of the population, there would have been a lot innocent people and children killed? Christians don't seem to care and pass it off as, "eh, they were all bad." If you want to put absolute justice and immorality in some supremely powerful entity, you think exists, without even questioning the motives or actions, especially because anger is involved (of course making decision in anger is good a thing), then that's fine. However, my view of your impartial justice has been flushed down the toilet.

I do not question God’s Justice because I believe in God according to what Baha’u’llah revealed about God, NOT according to what is recorded in the Bible. If you want to know the Baha’i position on the Bible, you can read on this link. That might give you a better idea why I do not take the stories seriously:
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

I'm not surprised this is how you think. You seem to think justice is an eye for an eye and requires some sort of suffering/punishment, which archaic and revenge based. However, in the modern world, prisons are used for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not to punish. If the action is to sever and they cannot be rehabilitated then it's to stop them from damaging the rest of society, hence they stay there. I'm sure suffering plays a part in the rehabilitation because it deters actions, but if this could be avoided it would. If someone could be helped without hurting them, even though they did something atrocious, it would be a better option than causing suffering, much to the dismay of fundamentalists and those that want revenge. Justice is not used for vengeance.

The Baha’i belief is that we should not seek revenge. Punishment is justice, not revenge. Sometimes criminals can be rehabilitated and reintegrated, sometimes not. Usually serious offenders who commit heinous murders cannot e rehabilitated. There is no logical reason why people should never be punished for misdeeds. Of course this is a Baha’i belief...

“The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment…” Gleanings, p. 219​

I do not understand this: “If someone could be helped without hurting them, even though they did something atrocious.” Why shouldn’t they be hurt? Given what you seem to believe about forgiveness, I am starting to wonder if maybe you were not once a Christian. Do you believe in free will? If free will exists, are people not responsible for their own decisions and actions, unless they are mentally ill or mentally challenged? If we say, gee, they had a bad childhood where does that end? Lots of people had bad childhoods.

This is so loaded I don't know where to begin. Human beings try each other because laws are meant, in hope anyway, to keep society intact (Hobbes-Leviathan - social contract). Therefore, defying laws is seen as destabilising society and any such action needs to be stopped, but that doesn't mean punishment is a requirement. I have no doubt, especially people like you, want revenge. Though this is not civilised; it represents and old tribal mentally that has no place is civilised society. People are forced to enforce laws but this has nothing to do with god nor does it give anyone the right to inflict pain or suffering on others. Again, this is so loaded and this more represents want you think than anything else.

This is really all about free will, choice, and responsibility. Of course people need to be punished, that is in accord with justice. So a murderer can inflict pain and suffering on a family who lost a loved one for the rest of their lives, but they should not be punished? There is something terribly wrong with that view.

This is loaded. I saw you used the word evil and now sin. These words are not appropriate to use because they conflate so many things that'll make any conversation include your religious ideology and stigmas. These words, at a glance, not only describe bad actions but souls/free-will/innate badness, etc. Therefore, I will change them more appropriate for civilised discourse.

Do I think people should be forgiven for their actions (I assume bad, like murder)? This is not about me forgiving them. The person that needs to forgive them is the victim, if they want to.

Why should the victim forgive them? Don’t you believe in any kind of personal responsibility?

The justice system is not about forgiveness but about rehabilitation. If they can return to society then it needs to be judged based on their actions (possible repeat offence or not) and the crime they committed.
Do I believe they should be responsible for their crime? Yes, but that doesn't mean they should be blamed. When you stigmatise someone you make it worse and concrete their belief that they are a bad person.

The justice system is not about rehabilitation, it is about punishment. Some criminals can be rehabilitated but most cannot, especially hardened criminals.

You said that are responsible for their crime but they should not be blamed. That is an oxymoron. Why can’t you just accept the fact that there are some bad people in the world, and they are responsible for their bad behavior. Everyone is not the same.

I might as well put my cards on the table right now:

“Let no one imagine that by Our assertion that all created things are the signs of the revelation of God is meant that—God forbid—all men, be they good or evil, pious or infidel, are equal in the sight of God. Nor doth it imply that the Divine Being—magnified be His name and exalted be His glory—is, under any circumstances, comparable unto men, or can, in any way, be associated with His creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 187​

I think this shows how dangerous interpretive religious scripture is more than anything else. I can't really answer your question because I don't even know if god exists let alone a Heaven. However, if I were God, first of all I would fix the world or quit because I suck at my job. Second, I would not inflict suffering on another human being if I knew there were other ways to change them or they could live in a part of heaven where they cannot harm others.

Was that quote I posted above difficult for you to understand?

It is not God’s job to fix the world. God gave man an intelligent brain and free will so humans could fix themselves.

God does not inflict suffering upon people, they inflict suffering upon themselves. They can change or not change, that is their own choice. It is only their own suffering that can teach them a lesson and make them want to change. Some people learn from experience, others don’t. Been there, done that.

I could name a number of people who have influenced society for better or worse, but they never said they were a prophet. If they did, I'm sure people would think they were. I can see something similar to the halo effect going on.

It does not matter what people think because thoughts do not determine reality. Someone was either sent by God of not. The difference between someone who was a Prophet is that He had a long-lasting effect upon civilization, and still have an effect to this very day, not just that they influenced society for the better.

Just because someone says something does not make it true and if something is true from what they've said it does not make everything else true, nor if a person is popular or useful does it mean what they say is true. As an example, I'm a Marxist. If I look at some of his writings and see some of it is true it doesn't mean everything is true. You need to judge every claim individually. Your reasons for deciding they're prophets is not surprising to me in the least, I find this in nearly all theists.
I'd urge you to examine every detail rather than accept everything without criticism, but that's just my silly opinion.

Obviously, what they say is not what makes it true. Whether it is true or not depends upon the evidence. Baha’u’llah said what the evidence is for His claim to be a Prophet/Messenger of God:

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of the claim of any Prophet/Messenger of God. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 105​

 

[ManSinha]

Nor doth it imply that the Divine Being—magnified be His name and exalted be His glory—is, under any circumstances, comparable unto men, or can, in any way, be associated with His creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 187

Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 105

From where I sit - those statements are mutually contradictory - it would appear that the writer has different thoughts at different times

IF one cannot be associated with something in any way THEN one cannot have any emotions towards that - because to have any feelings for - is to associate with - remember my story to you several posts ago

 

[Trailblazer]

From where I sit - those statements are mutually contradictory - it would appear that the writer has different thoughts at different times

IF one cannot be associated with something in any way THEN one cannot have any emotions towards that - because to have any feelings for - is to associate with - remember my story to you several posts ago

What that first quote means is that God cannot associate with His creatures as a partner with us or as an equal, since humans are not equal to God. God cannot associate with humans because God is one and alone, without peer or equal, and self-subsisting. That is explained in this quote:

“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192​

However, that does not preclude God having emotions for humans. God created humans out of love and that is an emotion.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4​

God loves all of us regardless of whether we love Him, but if we do not love God, God’s Love cannot reach us, because God never forces His Love upon anyone. God’s love can reach us only if we love Him, because we then open our heart to God’s Love and it can flow to us as water would flow through a conduit. But God remains in His Own High Place. God does not associate or have a personal relationship with humans. God is far to exalted to enter into relationships with humans. Humans can relate to God only through His Manifestations (Messengers).

 

[Aupmanyav]

The only problem I can see with that is this: who sets the standards for what duties we have and what is righteous action?
I do not want to be free to create my own reality because it makes no logical sense to me that I can create reality. Of course that is because I believe in God.I like my Windows 7 OS. God forbid my computers that have it installed ever die because I have no way to reload it.

The society.
By assuming the existence of One God (and his manifestation), you have already created your own virtual reality.
You are always welcome to Linux. One core, many distributions. Freedom as in Hinduism.