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

[Trailblazer]

Fair enough. It is not like believing in God is supposed to be a big deal.

I withdrew my statement about Messengers being "the only evidence."
See what I just said to Vinayaka in my last two posts to him.

 

[LuisDantas]

I saw it. But that is no reason to retract mine.

 

[Riders]

I see it just the opposite living in Tx it seems to me that there are too many christian bullies. I don't believe especially for non Christian students that they feel like they have the same rights as Christian students who insist on school prayer at school.

 

[Trailblazer]

I saw it. But that is no reason to retract mine.

No reason to, because believing in God is not supposed to be a big deal.
It is a big deal to some people, a small deal to others, and no deal for others.

 

[LuisDantas]

No reason to, because believing in God is not supposed to be a big deal.
It is a big deal to some people, a small deal to others, and no deal for others.

Exactly.

And it may vary according to the moment as well as to the person.

That is fine.

 

[Trailblazer]

That was an explanation? I saw just a claim, one that begs for support but seems to have to try to do without.

The explanation as to why more people do not go for a new religion such as Baha’i is that most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

I know for a fact that this is true because I have evidence. That evidence is all the people I have talked to on forums for the last six years as well as people I know in real life.

“What claims are logically inconsistent with reality?”

Frankly, pretty much all of those that characterize them as Abrahamic faiths.
A creator God that both demands and neglects awareness and belief in its existence?

That is just too contradictory.

God has not neglected to make us aware of His existence; He sent Messengers to make us aware. Even so, God does not demand that we are aware of His existence.

To make the belief in the existence of that oddly schizo deity a central tenet of a supposedly religious faith? Bizarre, just bizarre.

Belief is not the central tenet. Knowledge of God and obedience to His ordinances are what matter most:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5​

It makes perfect sense why these would be important, if an All-Knowing and All-Wise God exists.

To state, against the direct experience of billions of people through many thousands of years, that religious wisdom is a very centralized resource that can only trickle down by way of scriptures from a half dozen or so Messengers spread from each other by centuries or millennia? That is just lack of awareness of true religious practice, if you ask me.

Where do you think these billions of people through many thousands of years got their religious wisdom? The Baha’i Faith does not claim that there have only been half a dozen or so... Actually, there have been many Prophets, and just because we do not know who they all were does not mean they did not exist....

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?
Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars. The Three Kinds of Prophets​

To spend most of their energies attempting to explain their own contradictions and the fierce antagonism between their own doctrines? At this point I feel sorry for them, even as I can't help but perceive them as hopelessly misguided.

You can feel sorry for the Christians and the Muslims and the Buddhists and the Hindus because within the different sects of each of those religions there are contradictory beliefs. Good luck ever sorting that out.

And that is demonstrably not worth the trouble to even want to guess, since after all even if it is true, that very God did not bother to make us instinctively aware of it.
If to know of it is not important according to that deity's own parameters, how could it possibly be important for anyone?

God does not want to MAKE people believe He exists. God wants us to determine He exists by using our own innate intelligence coupled with a sincere effort, which demonstrates our desire to know.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

Why would everyone know that? Again, it all goes back to what I said before -- everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same religions in the same way.

Now you are on to something. If you can only look past all that attachment to monotheism for the sake of monotheism...

I am not attached to monotheism... In fact I ran away from it for the first 42 years that I was a Baha’i... Then for the last six years I have tried to reconcile myself to the one true God, because I know it is in my best interest. For most of my life, I have done what I thought was right, not what I want to do. If I did what I wanted to do, I would take the easy way out and be an atheist.

I am sorry that you have chosen Islaam of all creeds. It took me a while, but I eventually realized that it is not even a religion at all, but rather a fierce distraction and misguidance.

I have not chosen Islam; I have chosen the Baha’i Faith. If Baha’i was like Islam, Baha’u’llah never would have been persecuted, imprisoned, exiled and banished by Muslims. EYE ROLL

They are. They even say so outright, and not always regarding each other. Islaam actually tells me directly that it is a lie, for I am after all an atheist.

Islam is a lie because of what it says about atheists? What does it say? Perhaps it was too harsh, but I know of no such statements about atheists in the Baha’i Faith.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan." (Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)​

“I do not believe that all religions are religions of God. Religions are not like pairs of shoes that fit and feel comfortable or not. They are either from God or they are not. Obviously my definition of religion differs from yours.”

Indeed! Yours is useless to me. I wonder if it can actually be useful for anyone at all.

I guess you missed my point. My point was that religions should not be judged according to how they fit our personal preferences. Reality is reality and people should want to know what that is, whether it is comfortable or not.

Eh. Maybe that is why your God does not dare to reveal itself to me. It knows that it has a lot to answer for, starting with a very flawed presentation of religion by way of its messengers, and that I am not reluctant to call it for those failures...

Actually, you are right about that. God does not guide those people to know Him if He knows that they don’t want to know Him as He is.

It is a plight because many of those Abrahamists presume to have an authority over my beliefs and goals that was never even conceivably theirs to abuse.

Any Abrahamists who presume that are not even following the teachings of their own Messengers who all taught that belief cannot be forced by coercion but must rather be attained by free will.

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[SomeRandom]

The explanation as to why more people do not go for a new religion such as Baha’i is that most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

I know for a fact that this is true because I have evidence. That evidence is all the people I have talked to on forums for the last six years as well as people I know in real life.

I don't know. An alternative could be that some irreligious people have been fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.
I could also cite anecdotal evidence for this for myself. But isn't that considered a poor evidence model to begin with?

God has not neglected to make us aware of His existence; He sent Messengers to make us aware. Even so, God does not demand that we are aware of His existence.

Seems a tad lazy for an all powerful God to send mere mortals as his messengers. It's almost like some kind of sick mind game. Like God is up in Heaven with all the rest of his drinking buddies (other deities) and they're all taking bets on who can win over the most human followers.

At least the Dharmics kind of embrace the seemingly obvious indifference the Gods appear to have.

Belief is not the central tenet. Knowledge of God and obedience to His ordinances are what matter most:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5
It makes perfect sense why these would be important, if an All-Knowing and All-Wise God exists.

Sounds a tad arrogant of said All Wise God. I suppose that's in keeping with a character who created life, though.

God does not want to MAKE people believe He exists. God wants us to determine He exists by using our own innate intelligence coupled with a sincere effort, which demonstrates our desire to know.

This seems like unnecessary hoops God makes for his followers to jump through. Again kind of like a sick mind game. It's more manipulative than anything else. I'd pay good money to see psychoanalysts "shrink" God. That would be interesting.

I also noticed a sort of contradiction. You claim that religion will be understood by everyone differently.

Why would everyone know that? Again, it all goes back to what I said before -- everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same religions in the same way.

Sure, religious is subjective. I get that. But then you almost kind of flip flop and claim that reality is what it is.

My point was that religions should not be judged according to how they fit our personal preferences. Reality is reality and people should want to know what that is, whether it is comfortable or not.

Which makes religion seem objective. So which is it? An objective truth that has evidence which people should hopefully accept, which by the way has far more stringent demands for proof that I have seen you offer? Or subjective philosophical movements that have an amorphous quality making them fit different people?

 

[Vinayaka]

I see it just the opposite living in Tx it seems to me that there are too many christian bullies. I don't believe especially for non Christian students that they feel like they have the same rights as Christian students who insist on school prayer at school.

I agree. The degree of intolerance about atheists coming from the Abrahamic fundamentalists is overwhelming.

 

[LuisDantas]

The explanation as to why more people do not go for a new religion such as Baha’i is that most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

All of those are reasonable factors and I am certain that they are all relevant.

But you are not mentioning the decisive factor, far as I am personally concerned: the Bahai Faith is just too Abrahamic, too theocentric to be considered. It has an ambitious scope, but saddles itself with far too restricting conceptions of the nature and structure of religion.

I know for a fact that this is true because I have evidence. That evidence is all the people I have talked to on forums for the last six years as well as people I know in real life.

Fair enough, but still significantly incomplete a view, IMO.

God has not neglected to make us aware of His existence; He sent Messengers to make us aware.

That is odd in and of itself, though. Why would God be such an unskilled communicator as to resort to such inefficient, drawback-ridden means?

We know for a fact that there are better ways for us humans, after all.

Even so, God does not demand that we are aware of His existence.

That does not really add up with what is written in the Bible, let alone the Qur'an. Nor with the doctrines of mainstream Christianity and Islaam.

Belief is not the central tenet. Knowledge of God and obedience to His ordinances are what matter most:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5​

It makes perfect sense why these would be important, if an All-Knowing and All-Wise God exists.

We will have to agree to disagree on the above. "Obedience" requires belief, and the very existence of such a requirement of obedience (or for that matter, of belief) is at the very least a strong hint of a false god.

Where do you think these billions of people through many thousands of years got their religious wisdom?

From honest effort, good examples and moral courage. I don't think there are other ways, although that is conceivable.

The Baha’i Faith does not claim that there have only been half a dozen or so... Actually, there have been many Prophets, and just because we do not know who they all were does not mean they did not exist....

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?
Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars. The Three Kinds of Prophets​

That is nice to learn. Thanks.

You can feel sorry for the Christians and the Muslims and the Buddhists and the Hindus because within the different sects of each of those religions there are contradictory beliefs. Good luck ever sorting that out.

Oh, it is not quite that difficult, although it requires a lot of effort.

There is a very sharp difference of spread on the confusion and its decorrent harm. Islaam is probably nearly alone at the bottom of the barrel in that respect, to the point that it is not really worth maintaining at all IMO.

God does not want to MAKE people believe He exists. God wants us to determine He exists by using our own innate intelligence coupled with a sincere effort, which demonstrates our desire to know.

By that yardstick, it must be true that if God exists it for some reason insists that there must be atheists. One has to wonder why.

It is in fact an intriguing hypothesis to play with.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

I don't think the text above addresses the matter of theism and atheism. It seems to be instead an attempt at explaining why ethnocentrism exists in a world that is supposed to be united by its creator God.

Why would everyone know that? Again, it all goes back to what I said before -- everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same religions in the same way.

That is a fair description of how things are, but it does not seem to attempt to actually reconcile that situation with the logical implications that one would expect from the Abrahamic God.

I am not attached to monotheism... In fact I ran away from it for the first 42 years that I was a Baha’i... Then for the last six years I have tried to reconcile myself to the one true God, because I know it is in my best interest. For most of my life, I have done what I thought was right, not what I want to do. If I did what I wanted to do, I would take the easy way out and be an atheist.

I stand surprised. With all due respect, you do not seem to have a very good understanding of atheism. I have no idea of why you would find monotheism so compelling yet have resisted it for so long.

I have not chosen Islam; I have chosen the Baha’i Faith. If Baha’i was like Islam, Baha’u’llah never would have been persecuted, imprisoned, exiled and banished by Muslims. EYE ROLL

Except that, despite very clear admonitions to the contrary, Muslims have persecuted Muslims for about 13 or 14 centuries, at least since the Battle of the Camel. The doctrine just can't help itself from affirming its supposed truthfulness by forceful means.


Meanwhile, the Bahai Faith is clearly invested in caring as best as it can for its own Islaamic heritage. And it does an impressive job of it, too. I often describe it as "Islaam on rehab".

I admire that effort, even as I find it sadly wasteful.

Islam is a lie because of what it says about atheists?

Exactly.

What does it say?

That we were born theists and will be chastised if we learn of Islaam yet refuse to adhere to it.

Perhaps it was too harsh,

I guess it was at that. But what truly stands out are the naiveté and the complete failure at understanding, or even being aware of atheism. Or, for that matter, theism even.

but I know of no such statements about atheists in the Baha’i Faith.

Oh, no. The Bahai Faith has its shortcomings, but it does attract a lot of sincere effort. For that matter, so does Islaam itself, although the results are a lot less succesful there.

But the Bahais have learned better in that particular point, that much is certain.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan." (Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

Yes, I think that is a fair illustration of how the Bahais learned better.

I guess you missed my point. My point was that religions should not be judged according to how they fit our personal preferences. Reality is reality and people should want to know what that is, whether it is comfortable or not.

I understand that. I just don't think that it is a reasonable statement for anyone to make. Religion is supposed to be highly customizable if it is to be any good.

Actually, you are right about that. God does not guide those people to know Him if He knows that they don’t want to know Him as He is.

That is not even remotely similar to what I said. Or even compatible with it.

Any Abrahamists who presume that are not even following the teachings of their own Messengers who all taught that belief cannot be forced by coercion but must rather be attained by free will.

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

It is too bad that they do not see the contradiction. Then again, I must assume that those who do see them and care about the matter will end up leaving the Abrahamics, as many did.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Abdu'l-Baha was the Centre of the Covenant and he was given authority to interpret what Baha'u'llah wrote by virtue of the Will and Testament of Baha'u'llah.

If it is an interpretation/translation by Abdul Baha, then it is no more the 'God's word'. You should not believe it. Blame your God for not being explicit.

I was kind of on the run when I wrote that so I did not think it through. I am on the run because my computer is on the blink and it keeps shutting down and I never know when it is going to happen. I have to take it into the shop tomorrow.
So pardon my grammar, because I do not have time to check it!

All this is happening because you believe in Abdul Baha's words, which are not the words of your God.

 

[LuisDantas]

If it is an interpretation/translation by Abdul Baha, then it is no more the 'God's word'. You should not believe it. Blame your God for not being explicit.
All this is happening because you believe in Abdul Baha's words, which are not the words of your God.

Ow, come on, Aup.

We both know that you do not really want @Trailblazer to nurture such an attitude.

At least I hope you do not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. if an All-Knowing and All-Wise God exists.
Where do you think these billions of people through many thousands of years got their religious wisdom?

You can feel sorry for the Christians and the Muslims and the Buddhists and the Hindus because within the different sects of each of those religions there are contradictory beliefs. Good luck ever sorting that out.

Islam is a lie because of what it says about atheists? What does it say? Perhaps it was too harsh, but I know of no such statements about atheists in the Baha’i Faith.

That is an 'if' as big as a whale.
What religious wisdom? These are scams. If they were truthful, they would have said that there is no God. But that would not have made them a prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi.
Why do you quote Bahaullah at every step when you know that we do not take it as evidence.
Hinduism has no differences within it. We kept morals and ethics (dharma) separate from belief to which we gave full freedom.
I am flabbergasted by your statement. Bahaullah accepted Jesus and Mohammad as prophets and Abdul Baha accepted figures from other religions also and now you say that Islam is a lie. Perhaps you have not read Bahaullah's writing. He was just as harsh on those who did not believe in his one God and him being a manifestation. He cursed such people.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That is an 'if' as big as a whale.
What religious wisdom? These are scams. If they were truthful, they would have said that there is no God. But that would not have made them a prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi.
Why do you quote Bahaullah at every step when you know that we do not take it as evidence.
Hinduism has no differences within it. We kept morals and ethics (dharma) separate from belief to which we gave full freedom.
I am flabbergasted by your statement. Bahaullah accepted Jesus and Mohammad as prophets and Abdul Baha accepted figures from other religions also and now you say that Islam is a lie. Perhaps you have not read Bahaullah's writing. He was just as harsh on those who did not believe in his one God and him being a manifestation. He cursed such people.

Cows and donkeys to be precise.

Here are a couple more gems on his attitudes about atheists :

Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted truth … Nothing whatever can deter such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing can induce him to walk uprightly.
(Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 232-233)

As for those who believe not in the signs of God, or that they shall ever attain His Presence, these of My mercy shall despair, and these doth a grievous chastisement await.” And likewise He saith: “And they say, ‘What! when we shall have lain hidden in the earth, shall we become a new creation?’ Yea, they deny that they shall attain the Presence of their Lord.” And likewise He saith: “They truly doubt the Presence of their Lord. He, verily, overshadoweth all things.” And likewise He saith: “Verily, they who hope not to attain Our Presence, and find their satisfaction in this world’s life, and rest on it, and who of Our signs are heedless—these! their abode the fire, in recompense of their deeds!
(Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 115)

For they who turn away from their Lord in this day are in truth accounted amongst the dead, though to outward seeming they may walk upon the earth, amongst the deaf, though they may hear, and amongst the blind, though they may see, as hath been clearly stated by Him Who is the Lord of the Day of Reckoning: “Hearts have they with which they understand not, and eyes have they with which they see not....” They walk the edge of a treacherous bank and tread the brink of a fiery abyss. They partake not of the billows of this surging and treasure-laden Ocean, but disport themselves with their own idle words.
(Bahá’u’lláh, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 48-49

Not exactly all inclusive.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know. An alternative could be that some irreligious people have been fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.
I could also cite anecdotal evidence for this for myself. But isn't that considered a poor evidence model to begin with?

Thanks. I will add that to my list of reasons I have saved in a Word document. I know the reasons because people tell me the reasons. That is anecdotal evidence but how else would e know what people think except by asking them?

Seems a tad lazy for an all powerful God to send mere mortals as his messengers. It's almost like some kind of sick mind game. Like God is up in Heaven with all the rest of his drinking buddies (other deities) and they're all taking bets on who can win over the most human followers.

The thing is that Messengers of God are not mere mortals. Baha’is believe that the Holy Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station, and one the spiritual. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting His Self, His Beauty, His Might and Glory. All else besides them are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

The other thing is that God is not trying to win over any followers because God does not need our belief; since God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining the only reason God sends Messengers with a message is for the benefit of humans.

At least the Dharmics kind of embrace the seemingly obvious indifference the Gods appear to have.

However, if the Real God does not have indifference, then the Dharmics and the Deists are wrong.

Sounds a tad arrogant of said All Wise God. I suppose that's in keeping with a character who created life, though.

God by His nature is All-Knowing, but that does not make Him arrogant. God cannot be arrogant because only human beings can be arrogant, thinking they “know everything” when in fact there is no way any human can know everything.

This seems like unnecessary hoops God makes for his followers to jump through. Again kind of like a sick mind game. It's more manipulative than anything else. I'd pay good money to see psychoanalysts "shrink" God. That would be interesting.

God decides what is necessary because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Logically speaking, nobody can know more than God or be wiser than God because no human can be All-Knowing or All-Wise, let alone more than All-Knowing and All-Wise.

Whew! ~~ I have probably typed that dozens of times, since I have been posting to atheists 24/7 for about five years on various forums.

God is not trying to manipulate anyone because God does not NEED anyone’s belief. It is only for our own benefit if we CHOOSE to believe. If God needed our belief God could ensure we all believed, as that quote said:

“If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. …”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

I also noticed a sort of contradiction. You claim that religion will be understood by everyone differently.

Why is that a contradiction?

Sure, religious is subjective. I get that. But then you almost kind of flip flop and claim that reality is what it is.

That is not a flip flop. Reality is what it is, but we can all view that reality a little differently. However, if what people believe contradicts reality, such as believing that there are many gods rather than One, then they are living in a fantasy, according to my beliefs.

Which makes religion seem objective. So which is it? An objective truth that has evidence which people should hopefully accept, which by the way has far more stringent demands for proof that I have seen you offer? Or subjective philosophical movements that have an amorphous quality making them fit different people?

There is an objective evidence to back it up but people are all different so they will VIEW that evidence differently, according to their own personal preferences that come from their childhood upbringing, education, and adult experiences.

So the way that people will view the SAME evidence is highly subjective.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it is an interpretation/translation by Abdul Baha, then it is no more the 'God's word'. You should not believe it. Blame your God for not being explicit.
All this is happening because you believe in Abdul Baha's words, which are not the words of your God.

As I said before, Abdu'l-Baha was the Centre of the Covenant and he was given authority to interpret what Baha'u'llah wrote by virtue of the Will and Testament of Baha'u'llah.

God was explicit in what He revealed to Baha'u'llah. Since I consider whatever Baha'u'llah wrote to be identical to the Will of God, that means what Abdu'l-Baha wrote is the interpretation of that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thanks. I will add that to my list of reasons I have saved in a Word document. I know the reasons because people tell me the reasons. That is anecdotal evidence but how else would e know what people think except by asking them?

I dunno. But it's not exactly stellar evidence, either way.

The thing is that Messengers of God are not mere mortals. Baha’is believe that the Holy Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station, and one the spiritual. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting His Self, His Beauty, His Might and Glory. All else besides them are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

The other thing is that God is not trying to win over any followers because God does not need our belief; since God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining the only reason God sends Messengers with a message is for the benefit of humans.

Well that's interesting to learn the Baha'is perspective.

Alas I remain skeptical. It's very easy to impress the proletariat with fancy prophesies and seemingly divine knowledge. Otherwise religions wouldn't exist in the first place.
What proof do these enlightened being offer?

However, if the Real God does not have indifference, then the Dharmics and the Deists are wrong.

And if the Real God is indifferent then the Dharmics and Deists are right. It's easy to claim whatever you want about a deity, really. Ask a hundred Christians what God means to them, get 101 answers. I guess one predisposed to the idea of an all encompassing being would see this as proof of the many facets of the divine.
The skeptics might claim that it's proof that man shapes God/s in their own image.
I'll admit, I'm more inclined to agree with the latter.

God decides what is necessary because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Logically speaking, nobody can know more than God or be wiser than God because no human can be All-Knowing or All-Wise, let alone more than All-Knowing and All-Wise.

Whew! ~~ I have probably typed that dozens of times, since I have been posting to atheists 24/7 for about five years on various forums.

God is not trying to manipulate anyone because God does not NEED anyone’s belief. It is only for our own benefit if we CHOOSE to believe. If God needed our belief God could ensure we all believed, as that quote said:

What net benefit does a believer have over a non believer?

That is not a flip flop. Reality is what it is, but we can all view that reality a little differently. However, if what people believe contradicts reality, such as believing that there are many gods rather than One, then they are living in a fantasy, according to my beliefs.

The world "reality" is often linked with objectivity rather than subjectivity. Sure one can look at the world on different levels or interpret what they see slightly differently. But that doesn't mean we don't have an objective reality. We can all agree that water is wet, that wind feels cold, that fire is hot etc.

The contradiction comes when you claim, subjectively might I add, that reality demands that there is but One God. A statement that implies an objective interpretation, because as you claim, that is what lines up with "reality." That's not reality, that's just your subjective opinion on reality. You need to provide objective proof of your claim, otherwise it's just your opinion. Opinion is not reality, it is at best an interpretation of reality.

There is an objective evidence to back it up but people are all different so they will VIEW that evidence differently, according to their own personal preferences that come from their childhood upbringing, education, and adult experiences.

That does not make sense. Objective evidence is something that is the opposite of subjectivity. I mean sure, people can look at it differently, but you still haven't provided objective evidence to your claim. And yet you claim it lines up with reality.
Science deals with objective evidence, sure some people reject it, usually due to some kind of religious Dogma (not always but it's a pretty established pattern.) But at least they can demonstrate it without relying on a book.

So the way that people will view the SAME evidence is highly subjective.

Sure, but you can't call anyone wrong in that sense either. Since it's literally their interpretation, correct? How can interpretation be wrong?

 

[Trailblazer]

What religious wisdom? These are scams. If they were truthful, they would have said that there is no God. But that would not have made them a prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi.
Why do you quote Bahaullah at every step when you know that we do not take it as evidence.
Hinduism has no differences within it. We kept morals and ethics (dharma) separate from belief to which we gave full freedom.

You are free to believe whatever you want to just as am I because we all have free will to choose.
If you want your full freedom you can have it; I choose to obey God.

I am flabbergasted by your statement. Bahaullah accepted Jesus and Mohammad as prophets and Abdul Baha accepted figures from other religions also and now you say that Islam is a lie.

I NEVER said that Islam is a lie. I was asking what you think:
I said: "Islam is a lie because of what it says about atheists? What does it say?"

Perhaps you have not read Bahaullah's writing. He was just as harsh on those who did not believe in his one God and him being a manifestation. He cursed such people.

No, I have not read everything Baha’u’llah wrote. I know now, since I have seen what was posted on this thread. He is indeed harsh.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What proof do these enlightened being offer?
The contradiction comes when you claim, subjectively might I add, that reality demands that there is but One God.

Zilch. Nothing other than their own babbling.
What is wrong with many Gods and Goddesses working in tandem? Neither you have proof of one God, nor we have proof of many Gods and Goddesses. And you do not have any proof of these people being prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis from any God.

No, I have not read everything Baha’u’llah wrote. I know now, since I have seen what was posted on this thread. He is indeed harsh.

Why was he harsh? The man/God/Mirror image of God was supposed to bring peace to the world. Does that not make him a false manifestation? It is just babbling of a person against those who do not agree with him. A sign or intolerance and ignorance.
You have arrived at your belief even without reading what all that man wrote.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well that's interesting to learn the Baha'is perspective.

Alas I remain skeptical. It's very easy to impress the proletariat with fancy prophesies and seemingly divine knowledge. Otherwise religions wouldn't exist in the first place.
What proof do these enlightened being offer?

Baha’u’llah explained what the evidence is and how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. 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. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

And if the Real God is indifferent then the Dharmics and Deists are right. It's easy to claim whatever you want about a deity, really. Ask a hundred Christians what God means to them, get 101 answers. I guess one predisposed to the idea of an all encompassing being would see this as proof of the many facets of the divine.
The skeptics might claim that it's proof that man shapes God/s in their own image.
I'll admit, I'm more inclined to agree with the latter.

That is true, anyone can claim whatever they want to about God, because there is no way to actually prove anything about God. Different people even within the same religion are going to view God differently because people view everything differently, given we are all different.

Logically speaking, if God does not exist, man has to be shaping God in his own image, but if God exists and created man, then God created man in His own image, at least according to the Abrahamic religions. I'm more inclined to agree with the latter.

What net benefit does a believer have over a non believer?

To be brief, a believer has knowledge of God and God’s Will for him, and if a believer following the teachings and laws of religion it molds his character and prepares him for the life to come (afterlife as it is termed).

The world "reality" is often linked with objectivity rather than subjectivity. Sure one can look at the world on different levels or interpret what they see slightly differently. But that doesn't mean we don't have an objective reality. We can all agree that water is wet, that wind feels cold, that fire is hot etc.

Yes, what we often refer to as the real world, the material world we can perceive with the sense organs, is often linked with objectivity rather than subjectivity. But when I referred to reality I was referring not only to what you can perceive in the material world, but what is actually REAL, what exists. So if God exists and an afterlife exists, that is reality, but if no God exists and death is final, then that is reality. One thing about reality is that it is not affected by what we believe or disbelieve; it simply exists. So if God exists and if Baha’u’llah was His Messenger for this age, it would not matter if only one person believed that, it would still be reality.

The contradiction comes when you claim, subjectively might I add, that reality demands that there is but One God. A statement that implies an objective interpretation, because as you claim, that is what lines up with "reality." That's not reality, that's just your subjective opinion on reality. You need to provide objective proof of your claim, otherwise it's just your opinion. Opinion is not reality, it is at best an interpretation of reality.

Reality does not demand that there is One God, but if there is One God that is the reality. There is no objective proof that God exists, only evidence, because God does not provide proof of His existence and there is no way humans can ever prove God exists because we can never SEE God.

That does not make sense. Objective evidence is something that is the opposite of subjectivity. I mean sure, people can look at it differently, but you still haven't provided objective evidence to your claim. And yet you claim it lines up with reality.
Science deals with objective evidence, sure some people reject it, usually due to some kind of religious Dogma (not always but it's a pretty established pattern.) But at least they can demonstrate it without relying on a book.

When I said there is objective evidence I meant that there is evidence (history, things that really happened, places that exist) that can be verified.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that came to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

But how one interprets this evidence is highly subjective, given we will all view it differently. So even though Baha’is interpret it as evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, we might have been convinced by certain parts of that evidence more than by others; e.g., for some Baha’is, the scriptures that Baha’u’llah wrote are ample evidence of who He was.

Science is science and religion is religion, and the methods of proof are entirely different, because science deals with the material reality and religion deals with the spiritual reality. Religion does However, true not contradict science, it is just within a different scope. The Baha’i Faith teaches that any religion that contradicts science is mere superstition; e.g. physical bodies rising from graves after they have been long dead.

Sure, but you can't call anyone wrong in that sense either. Since it's literally their interpretation, correct? How can interpretation be wrong?

They are wrong if their interpretations are not in accordance with reality, as I defined it above.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why was he harsh?

We only see it that way. Love and Justice both require strong aspects to balance out hate and injustice.

Regards Tony