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

[Trailblazer]

Ahh I think you misunderstood me. I was saying you were using circular reasoning in that particular post because you used a Holy Book to assert your claims in that post. I didn't mean your life up until now. Just that specific instance in our exchange.

Okay, thanks for explaining that. FYI, I do not believe that the Holy Book is the proof of my claims, because that would be circular.

This is exactly what I was talking about.
"The Bible is evidence that Christianity is true." <<<<THAT is circular reasoning in a nutshell.
If evidence supports it, then prove it, without falling back on Holy Books.

No, the Bible IS the evidence that Christianity is true. That is not circular because the Bible is not Christianity; the Bible is proof of Christianity. What OTHER evidence do you think there should be?

In the Baha’i Faith we have evidence besides just the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

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 have come 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.

Scientists don't use text books to back up their claims, they test hypothesis' in the real world to verify or falsify the starting premise. That is why it is objective.

God cannot be tested because God is not an objective reality. Likewise, Messengers cannot be tested to prove they are really Messengers of God. Religion is not science.

If you build a bubble around book/s and only rely on said book/s, don't expect anyone else to be immediately impressed when you quote them.

The scriptures are the only Source of information about God, if that matters to you and others. That is just the way it works.

I think you have that backwards. Anything in their scriptures is inherently biased, because that is what the religions of the book use to prove others wrong. Hence a strong bias in said book for them to be the right ones.

The scriptures of each religion are the evidence for that religion because they represent that religion. They are not biased, but they could prove the other religion is wrong if one determines they are more correct.

Actually God changed drastically from OT to NT. He mellowed out considerably. Jesus is like his hippie phase.

That is true, God changed His way of relating to humans, but the attributes of God did not change.

I'm not saying it is without nuance. But for people of scripture you have to have scriptural backing to convince them. So my point still stands. You can get people to do horrific things as long as you can convince them it's what "God ultimately wants."
Atheists still look better by comparison.

Whatever is in the scripture IS what God wants, but the dispensations of the past have been abrogated by the Revelation of Bahaullah, so what God wants NOW is written in the Baha’i Writings, not in the Bible. There is nothing horrific in the Baha’i Writings.

No it presupposes a number of possibilities, in an exercise designed to broaden your scope of thinking. It's literally challenging the notion that heaven or hell are the only potential options. And demonstrates that such black and white thinking is narrow and unsubstantiated.

Heaven and hell are not the only options, the state of the soul after death exists along a continuum.

Name them.

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Or a third option. They're both wrong.
*plays dramatic music in the background*

That is a logical possibility.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a plain, direct statement of the need for Revelations of the Abrahamic mold, directly followed by a claim of a linkage among successive ones. A very fair description of the core idea of the Bahai Faith.

It is indeed too restrictive as a description of religion in general, though, precisely because it requires a purely Abrahamic understanding of what constitutes religion.

That is not surprising or even particularly remarkable in and of itself; every single definition of religion is, after all, arbitrary. And it makes sense that the Abrahamic definitions would attempt to deal with their own expectations of inclusiveness, which are a direct consequence of the attributes of the God that they make central to their doctrine.

All the same, it still turns out that the Abrahamic model is not very good at representing religion in general, and even less successful at understanding non-Abrahamic creeds. For instance, it specifically states that monotheism is a requirement for religion. That is simply not true, at least outside of the Abrahamics.

That is a main dilemma for the Bahai Faith. It attempts to be widely respectful, yet it has also chosen not to leave aside its heritage of a discriminatory model of religion.

Thanks for explaining your concerns. The Baha’i Faith cannot be anything other than what it actually is. It is monotheistic, so if it accommodated the pre-monotheistic religions by saying they are also true it would be contradicting its own teachings and going against its primary teaching of One True God.

“What is inefficient about Messengers? What are the better ways?”

Messengers of the Bahai conception deliver very indirect messages, of a mainly textual nature.

That is just about the less efficient way of religious teaching available. It requires literacy, a considerable investment of time reading, and an all but interminable, often deeply frustrating effort at seeking reliable yet useful interpretations of the meaning - interpretations that unavoidably end up being branded unreliable due to their supposed lack of divine endorsement, no less.

Its one saving grace is that it is often demographically successful - but that carries far too heavy a price, IMO, to the point of making the validity of that transmission highly questionable.

A far better vehicle for the spread of religious doctrine is oral transmission, which involves direct interaction and answering of questions between teachers and students. Another is direct meditation and contemplation, which is even better when alternated with direct experience. There are several varieties of these, some focusing on specific emotional and mental attitudes.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. The reason it is incompatible with the Baha’i perspective is that we believe that religion originates from God and comes to us only by means of Messengers of God. After a revelation comes to humanity, it can be spread by oral transmission, which involves direct interaction and answering of questions between teachers and students.

“No, God does not communicate directly to everyone and there are good reasons for that.”

Of course, it seems to me that one supreme reason is that it does not exist in and of itself.

That could be one reason but just because God does not communicate directly to everyone that does not mean that God does not exist, since there is no reason to think that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone. Up until fairly recently, I had been discussing this with an atheist on some other forums for about five years, and he has continually insisted that God is stupid to use Messengers and that if God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone. I have all the reasons why God does not do that saved in various Word documents.

“Why would belief and obedience be indicative of a false god?”

A true god would be transcendental by nature. It would be well beyond such mundane expectations of prestige for itself and submission from its followers.

Absolutely. The One True God is beyond all of that. The belief and obedience is for human benefit, not anything that God needs, so if God wants it that is only because it benefits humans.

Also, allow me to point out that theistic belief and faith in God are not necessarily one and the same.

I fully agree.

“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.” Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154

Quite the Islaam-like passage, that one! Its language sure seems to imply not so much a conversion as an eradication of nontheists, don't you think? As a matter of fact, it has an oddly Muslim expectation of belief in "no other God".

Yes, it is quite like Islam and it is not unlike Judaism or Christianity. From a Baha’i perspective there will be no eradication of atheists, because by that time in history everyone will choose to believe in the One True God of all the religions.

I don't think that very many Muslims (or perhaps Bahais) appreciate how exotic and nearly undecipherable such an expectation is for those on the outside. It is so strange a request that I think that most people simply gloss over it without attempting to understand it.

Well, I am trying to understand it.

But I still do not understand why it is strange. What seems strange to me is the belief in many gods.

It seems to me to be actually self-contradictory, for it presumes the coexistence of both a purely monotheistic mindset and the need to protect it from some form of temptation to worship other Gods.

The net effect is perhaps that of praising the virtues of monotheism by the perspective of a monotheist, while just sounding odd without much of a clear meaning if one is a non-monotheist.

This goes back to what I said about religion being like finding shoes that fit and are comfortable. From my perspective, the truth is the truth, whether it fits our personality and lifestyle or not. So it is not like it makes sense to choose to believe in many gods, unless there are many gods. In other words, we should seek to believe in what is in accord with reality rather than what we want reality to be. It always made sense to me that there is One God, but that does not mean it is comfortable for me. I had to work really hard to understand and make peace with this God, and it is still a work in progress.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

I for one do not know what to make of that passage other than a call for people to be proselitistic in their monotheism of a fairly bully-like take on God.

It is a noticeable contrast with other conceptions of deity, which tend to be considerably more serene and relaxed.

I can certainly understand why you say that. The Abrahamic God is not a relaxed God because that is incongruent with an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God concept.

“It is not God who is responsible for uniting people. People have to unite themselves.”

I somewhat agree, but that is still my take on the text that you presented. It attempts to explain an apparent oddity of the Bahai deity, but it does not address the matter of atheism vs theism.

No, it doesn’t. Atheism is not addressed very much in the Baha’i Writings, at least not directly. That has left me to try to piece things together because I do care about the fate of everyone.

I, of course, do not expect anything from God, since I do not believe that It exists.

I do expect that a God-conception that demands belief would show some clear reason why belief is even necessary in the first place. Free Will as a concept has been created to attempt to explain that, but I don't think that it succeeds. It just doesn't have a clear meaning of its own.

I posted the thread entitled “Does it really matter if we believe in God?”because I really wanted to know what other people think, and I do not have a clear understanding myself. A Christian recently pointed out on that thread that belief is not what really matters; if we are a believer, it is our attitude towards God and our deeds that matter... I fully agreed.

“I have a very good understanding of atheism, you have no idea.”

So it seems. I maintain that you do not show hints of such an understanding. I have not perceived them, at the very least.

Sorry about that, but I do try. Not all atheists are the same so maybe I understand some of them but not all of them.

“Maybe I resisted monotheism for the same reasons atheists do, ever thought of that?”

Yes, and I discarded it immediately. Exactly because what you describe is so disconnected from my own understanding of atheism.

But your understanding of atheism is not the same as other atheists’ understanding of atheism because all atheists have different understandings. That I know from posting almost exclusively to atheists 24/7 for over five years. The only thing I perceive that have in common is lack of a belief in God, and the main reason I have been given for that is lack of evidence for a God.

“Perhaps that is why I am drawn to atheists.”

I don't think so. It sounds much more likely that you realize that logical challenge that the existence of atheism presents for an Abrahamic conception of deity, and your drive for honesty spurred you into attempting to understand our sorry kuffar minds.

I do not consider the minds of anyone sorry. I am drawn to atheists because they are different from me and I like differences, but also I like to analyze people and figure them out, which is why I studied psychology for so long.

I do not think that atheism presents a challenge for the Abrahamic God because nobody can challenge an Omnipotent God and win at that challenge. Rather, I think it is the converse; the Abrahamic God presents a challenge for atheists because they cannot control Him and make Him DO what they want Him to DO. This is the common thread that runs through most dialogues I have had with atheists over the years.

“Me and God have not always been bosom buddies, an understatement. I had to work really hard at just liking God, let alone loving God. It is a work in progress. Why do I do it? Because I believe that what Baha’u’llah revealed about God is the very truth.”

Sorry about that. I fear that I neither understand that perspective nor expect to ever be capable of such a feat.

That’s okay, I might never understand your perspective either, or I might misapprehend it.

It is probably for others to judge how accurately I perceive the differences and for me to learn from them if I can.
I will say that I see quite a lot of significant differences, and that is why I am so much more sympathetic towards the Bahai Faith than I am towards Islaam.

Well, I am glad to hear that.

“I am not sure that is what Islam teaches. As I recall reading, Muhammad said there is to be no compulsion in religion.”

Yes, that is an old favorite. Without that specific verse, Muslim apologetics would be quite the nightmare. They are not that walk in the park even with it, since after all so much more in the Qur'an tells such a different tale.

I guess you mean the Qur’an is very adamant about the necessity that we believe in God and obey His commands.

It is no coincidence that Muslims often cite that verse but have such a harder time reconciling it with the doctrine in general. Very often they just cite the verse and refuse to comment or elaborate on what it means in practice.

Then again, you could also interpret that verse as Muhammad himself pointing out that Islaam is not a religion. It is as good a reading as any, although it is clearly not what Muhammad hoped that we would conclude.

As previously pointed out, I don't think any religion worth its salt would want to be "unchanged by men". That would be missing the whole point of religion existing in the first place.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that.

“I have no idea where you got that idea but it seems to be prevalent among the non-Abrahamic religions. Who says religion is supposed to be highly customizable?”

I do, although I am hardly the only one, let alone the most qualified.

As for why that need exists, it is because religion must connect the inner reality of the adherent with the shared reality of the external world. A religion is no good (and can be loads of bad) if it does not know how to respectfully interact with the deeper traits and nature of its own adherents.

I agree that religion has to meet the various different needs of humanity, especially the deeper traits, but I do not think that the way that is accomplished is for humans to change it. Rather, religion as it is revealed should suit humanity’s needs. As Baha’is, we believe but might not like everything Baha’u’llah revealed, but we can all find aspects that we like most. We all come to be Baha’is for different reasons. For example, I did not come for God, I came because of the spiritual and social teachings. Only much later in my life did I start to care about God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for explaining your concerns. The Baha’i Faith cannot be anything other than what it actually is. It is monotheistic, so if it accommodated the pre-monotheistic religions by saying they are also true it would be contradicting its own teachings and going against its primary teaching of One True God.

Not a concern. Monotheism is not an improvement on non-monotheism, or even particularly more modern that the alternatives. Nor is there such a thing as One True God for the Bahai Faith to conform to.

But I do understand that the Bahai Faith can't help but be Abrahamic, and that it does see itself as a refinement and upgrade of the alternatives. There is an upside to that, but a small one, in that it solves the decision of whether one should adhere to it.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. The reason it is incompatible with the Baha’i perspective is that we believe that religion originates from God and comes to us only by means of Messengers of God.

Yes, I am all too aware of that.

After a revelation comes to humanity, it can be spread by oral transmission, which involves direct interaction and answering of questions between teachers and students.

And in that, not in any God (One True or otherwise), it acquires and regains validity.

As one could only expect.

That could be one reason but just because God does not communicate directly to everyone that does not mean that God does not exist, since there is no reason to think that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone.

We will have to agree to disagree here.

Up until fairly recently, I had been discussing this with an atheist on some other forums for about five years, and he has continually insisted that God is stupid to use Messengers and that if God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone. I have all the reasons why God does not do that saved in various Word documents.

I have one reason why it does not. Although I could easily conceive of others if I found that worth the trouble.

Absolutely. The One True God is beyond all of that. The belief and obedience is for human benefit, not anything that God needs, so if God wants it that is only because it benefits humans.

Interesting hypothetical. Come to think of it, one that may be the determining factor of Abrahamic depictions of Paradise.

(...)

Yes, it is quite like Islam and it is not unlike Judaism or Christianity.

Sorry, I just don't see how to agree.

From a Baha’i perspective there will be no eradication of atheists, because by that time in history everyone will choose to believe in the One True God of all the religions.

Ah, dehumanization of "eventual" disbelievers. The best reminder of why I will never consider the Abrahamics that are not Judaism...

Well, I am trying to understand it.

But I still do not understand why it is strange. What seems strange to me is the belief in many gods.

Far as I can see, any belief in Gods is strange, at least if it is raised to the level of significance. God-concepts can't very well sustain their own weights when confronted with the idea of their literal existence.

They are not meant to be "believed to be real". That has ever been a misuse, an abuse of the very concept.

It seems to me that even most theists know that, instinctively even, if they are sufficiently enlightened and serious in their practice. The Abrahamic expectation of monotheism, and most of all of monotheism as a belief, let a lone as a central and necessary belief, is a serious abuse that distances people from their own ability to be religious or even to understand religion.

And then it becomes something to proselitize on. Even to one's own children, for crying out loud.

it is no wonder that such an approach has pretty much destroyed the very reputation of religion, to the point of rendering the word nearly unusable.

This goes back to what I said about religion being like finding shoes that fit and are comfortable. From my perspective, the truth is the truth, whether it fits our personality and lifestyle or not.

Quite so.

We part ways when you think of that as connecting to whether there is "One True God", however.

That is just not a proper question to ask, let alone to answer, of gods.

Once we answer it in the affirmative we have lost contact with reality and have no further hope of keeping religious validity.

I expect that most people who have never previously met proselitist Abrahamism know that instinctively when they learn of it. It is just that odd a duck.

So it is not like it makes sense to choose to believe in many gods, unless there are many gods.

Gods are not supposed to be a manifestation of truth, you know. That would bind them to expectations that they are just not meant to fulfill.

In other words, we should seek to believe in what is in accord with reality rather than what we want reality to be.

My point exactly. Were the Abrahamics correct, there would be no need whatsoever to explain why such is the case. We would simply know that it is so.

Since such is not the case, and we can actually verify that the Abrahamic God-belief is both unconvincing and of dubious usefulness (two quite separate considerations), it is not really defensable either way.

It always made sense to me that there is One God, but that does not mean it is comfortable for me. I had to work really hard to understand and make peace with this God, and it is still a work in progress.

I don't understand why one would see worth in that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can certainly understand why you say that. The Abrahamic God is not a relaxed God because that is incongruent with an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God concept.

I don't think so. Such a deity would, if anything, be way beyond any ideas of relaxation or lack of same.

If I am not mistaken, there is elaboration of that in Hindu doctrines regarding Nirguna Brahma, the God Beyond Atributes. But that is such a minor consideration that I honestly never saw fit to be certain.

No, it doesn’t. Atheism is not addressed very much in the Baha’i Writings, at least not directly. That has left me to try to piece things together because I do care about the fate of everyone.

Our fate?

You must have a tough task trying to understand atheism while also being a Bahai, particularly since you also have learned better than Pascal's Wager.

I posted the thread entitled “Does it really matter if we believe in God?”because I really wanted to know what other people think, and I do not have a clear understanding myself. A Christian recently pointed out on that thread that belief is not what really matters; if we are a believer, it is our attitude towards God and our deeds that matter... I fully agreed.

I agree to a limited extent. Our attitude matters, but God really does not. God is a practice tool, nothing more.

Sorry about that, but I do try. Not all atheists are the same so maybe I understand some of them but not all of them.

Yes, you certainly do try. But from where I stand I can't help but notice that the results are just not apparent, just the effort.

That does not really surprise me. Your attempts are just too exotic, too reliant on very dubious premises. It is remarkable that you have somehow attained the understanding that true atheism does in fact exist, since it is so deeply at odds with other premises of yours.

But your understanding of atheism is not the same as other atheists’ understanding of atheism because all atheists have different understandings.

So true! Atheism just barely even requires any understandings, and even so only because so many of us are exposed to the idea of theism.

Attempting to categorize us by our understandings is akin to categorizing electrons by their political thoughts: one can attempt to do that, but it will be a strange thing to try.

That I know from posting almost exclusively to atheists 24/7 for over five years. The only thing I perceive that have in common is lack of a belief in God,

Quite correct. That is the exact measure of it.

and the main reason I have been given for that is lack of evidence for a God.

Atheism does not require any reason at all. It is something to acknowledge, not to understand. It lacks the structure to sustain something to be understood.

Atheists no more will distribute themselves in discernible reasons for being atheists than we will have clear patterns anywhere else, except perhaps as a reaction to specific theistic pressures. We have no particular political or ideological inclinations, nor geographical distribution. We have, literally, nothing else in common. As one would expect.


By expecting the need for such a thing as a "reason for atheism" you put yourself at a serious disadvantage in your efforts at understanding the nature of atheism.

That is quite ironic, since atheism is so darned simple, to the point of ludicrousness even.

I do not consider the minds of anyone sorry. I am drawn to atheists because they are different from me and I like differences, but also I like to analyze people and figure them out, which is why I studied psychology for so long.

Sorry for my liberty in the text that you are replying to here. I sympathise with the situation of trying hard to understand other people's minds. It happens so often to me and it can be so frustrating!

All the same, I just don't see how you can appease your drive without eventually realizing how darned simple atheism ultimately is. It is so simple that it can't sustain any pattern of thought or behavior. It is, quite literally, defined by the absence of theism.

I do not think that atheism presents a challenge for the Abrahamic God because nobody can challenge an Omnipotent God and win at that challenge.

Nobody could, if such were the case.

But we do not have any need to. We never met such a God except as an idea, and even that is entirely optional.

It is instead our existence that is a challenge to the truthfulness of that god-idea. In that sense, we do not have to try to win. Our very existence wins it automatically.

Rather, I think it is the converse; the Abrahamic God presents a challenge for atheists because they cannot control Him and make Him DO what they want Him to DO.

Uh... I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but... that makes no sense whatsoever. One can't "want" to do anything to a God that we do not believe to even exist.

Your premise is that atheists are at some level not truly atheists, yet for some mysterious reason nonetheless still want to claim to be and to behave as if we were.

That is quite absurd, and amounts to confusing atheism with a very specific and probably rare symptom of serious psychological disturbance.

This is the common thread that runs through most dialogues I have had with atheists over the years.

Of your perception of those, I must assume.

It is not even compatible with, well, anyone. You will never understand atheism that way.

That’s okay, I might never understand your perspective either, or I might misapprehend it.

That sure sounds likely. You are very far from understanding atheism, if the above is any indication.

Well, I am glad to hear that.

As I am relieved to have perceived that. Islaam is seriously misguided, and we all are that much better off in learning to heal it and in learning to heal from its influence.

I guess you mean the Qur’an is very adamant about the necessity that we believe in God and obey His commands.

That too. But it is not just "adamant". It states it to be an unquestionable truth and actually declares itself to be the source of divine eternal truth. That is a lot of hubris, and a very serious defect for anything that wants to be religious doctrine or a part of such.

That hubris further manifests itself in the Qur'an as very clear teachings of discrimination towards not only unbelievers, but also women and homosexuals. It does no one any favors to neglect to accept that and state that clearly.

It is in a sense clever to include in the text that tired statement that "there is no compulsion in religion". But ultimately those are just words, and very much at odds with what is actually taught in the same text. Creating the expectation that the appearance of discrimination (and therefore lack of wisdom) will be proven false eventually does not make it so.

Then again, you could also interpret that verse as Muhammad himself pointing out that Islaam is not a religion. It is as good a reading as any, although it is clearly not what Muhammad hoped that we would conclude.

This, of course, is my own text. Your reply repeated it as if it were your own, no doubt without your meaning to.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that.

Probably. At least for now. I have hopes for the future.

I agree that religion has to meet the various different needs of humanity, especially the deeper traits, but I do not think that the way that is accomplished is for humans to change it.

There is no other way, therefore it must be the correct one.

Rather, religion as it is revealed should suit humanity’s needs. As Baha’is, we believe but might not like everything Baha’u’llah revealed, but we can all find aspects that we like most. We all come to be Baha’is for different reasons. For example, I did not come for God, I came because of the spiritual and social teachings. Only much later in my life did I start to care about God.

I wonder what it can be like to actually develop theism. It is well outside my experience.

 

[Shad]

I admitted no such thing. You just twisted my words by projecting your own thoughts onto them. ]

Nope

And how do you think you know that? Were you there with me when I became a Baha’i?

Do not need to. I based it on previous and current observations, you calling your prophet infallible for example.

What was that claim I made?

About what Buddha's teachings.

The Writings, the history, etc.

You are still not demonstrating merit

Not if you expect me to compare my religion with others before I choose it.

It is still irrelevant to the double-standard you used

What do you think my double-standard is?

You demanded contemporary sources for Buddha but not when your own prophet babbles about Buddha.

There is nothing illogical about my reasoning, but since you are making the assertion you are required to provide proof. Otherwise all you have is a bald assertion.

Wrong as per your double-standard.

No, I only ever said there are no scriptures written by Buddha. I can dismiss anything I want to, based upon my own criteria for acceptance.

Yet you followed that up with a view from your prophet claiming knowledge about Buddha all while ignoring the fact there is still no source. Again a reflection of your religious conditioning.

Yet you have no proof that my reasoning is illogical, that is just your personal opinion.

Your posts for about 2 weeks is my evidence.

Been there, done that, with atheists for five years on other forums... No atheist has ever proven that I am illogical. It gets rather boring and tiresome when all they can spew are personal opinions. Those are a dime a dozen.

Arrogant rant of the believer. Another reason for the OP.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I am happy to hear you are content. Not all people are that fortunate and I do not think it is usually through any fault of their own, it is just fate.

It sounds like you are on a good life path. Love is what matters most. I never had any children so I have no grands, but I have a boatload of animals in my family, wild and domestic, around which my daily life revolves.I live in the woods surrounded by trees with a lovely lake below. Nature is one thing about this earthly life that I do appreciate.

I do not think people should believe in God or join a religion out of a need; Imo it should be because they really believe in God and their religion, have a passion for it and see a good reason for it. I do not feel a need for God or my religion, I lived most of my life as if they did not exist. I only came back to considering them about six years ago because I wanted to. It was not something I ever planned. It was just time.

I am not planning to go anywhere or do anything. I just go where the breeze blows me day by day. I never plan anything, not even my retirement, which has been looming in the background for some time.

I honestly must be an idiot. For the life of me I cannot figure out the response features here so I always have to add the other person's entire post instead of just a single or multiple sentences in boxes like every single other person on this forum knows how to do.

Honestly , it is these types of questions that I find more important than whether or not God exists...It may be because I don't use a computer and only my cellphone for everything from texting to editing my photography. So maybe I can't because of my phone. But more likely it is because I am a total idiot when it comes to technology! I love it but do not understand any of it. I just made it to the 21st century by buying a blootooth speaker and figured out how to get music from pandora on my phone to play through the speaker in my living room. That is the extent of my talents in that department. But all of my kids and gradkids are wizards with this stuff so if I really want to set something up, they always help me.

I have zero idea what that rambling came on for..I guess because I was trying to respond to you while my youngest baby has finally fallen asleep on her couch at Nana's listening to grunge on Pandora while it rains outside in the forest by the lake.

Yes, we are both are so lucky to have a life by the lake. Enjoy!

Okay found your quote I wanted

"I do not think people should believe in God or join a religion out of a need; Imo it should be because they really believe in God and their religion, have a passion for it and see a good reason for it. I do not feel a need for God or my religion."

WHAT??? If you do not feel a need for God or your religion why the heck are you wasting your only real life away when you could be sunning yourself on a beach somewhere???

Now that really is illogical.

Go enjoy what life you have left. You deserve it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You demanded contemporary sources for Buddha but not when your own prophet babbles about Buddha.

I did not demand contemporary sources for Buddha. I said that I would like to see original writings of Buddha, but there are none since Buddha never wrote anything himself.
What we have in the Baha'i Faith is as contemporary as it gets, since no new Prophets have come since Baha'u'llah.

Arrogant rant of the believer.

I see you still cannot prove why I am illogical. All you know how to do is criticize.

 

[Shad]

I did not demand contemporary sources for Buddha.

Wrong.

"This is yet another example of how the older religions have gotten away from the original teachings of their Prophets. I am sure Buddhists are going to disagree with me on this, but unless they have original scriptures of the Buddha they are spitting in the wind. I cannot say exactly how Abdu’l-Baha (eldest son of Baha’u’llah and the centre of his Covenant) knew this, but here is what he said:"

What do you think the bold is? Do you even know what the terminology I am using? More so your knowledge claim is included in my quote of your own post #245

I said that I would like to see original writings of Buddha, but there are none since Buddha never wrote anything himself.

You know other people can write things down for people as well right? More so as per my quote of your own post your religious conditioning is displayed.

What we have in the Baha'i Faith is as contemporary as it gets, since no new Prophets have come since Baha'u'llah.

You have zero sources for Buddha yet make knowledge claims only due to your religion. No one outside your religion thinks Baha'u'llah is an authority on anything

I see you still cannot prove why I am illogical.

You double-standard based on your religious conditioning as per the quoted post

All you know how to do is criticize.

Make fewer mistakes then.

 

[SomeRandom]

Okay, thanks for explaining that. FYI, I do not believe that the Holy Book is the proof of my claims, because that would be circular.

Cool.

No, the Bible IS the evidence that Christianity is true. That is not circular because the Bible is not Christianity; the Bible is proof of Christianity. What OTHER evidence do you think there should be?

Yes it is exactly circular. "I know the Bible to be true for the Bible tells me so."
Verifiable evidence? You know outside of a holy book that starts out with the premise that Christianity is true? Or that Jesus' claims were valid?
I suppose they have eye witness testimony. But that's not the strongest evidence.

I mean it's okay if someone wants to believe in Jesus because that's just how they personally feel. Everyone is entitled to follow or not follow whomever they please.
But if one wishes to claim "Truth TM" one needs something a little bit more convincing and neutral.

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 have come 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.

That's exactly what Christians claim of Jesus, just FYI.
Not exactly stellar neutral evidence, either way.

God cannot be tested because God is not an objective reality. Likewise, Messengers cannot be tested to prove they are really Messengers of God. Religion is not science.

I agree. Which is why it is subjective, rather than objective. And one's truth claims is just opinion, which kind of undercuts claims of "Truth TM."

The scriptures are the only Source of information about God, if that matters to you and others. That is just the way it works.

Not to religions that do not rely on Scripture, like the Dharmics or even some Pagans. (Note, if this is inaccurate, please correct me Pagans.)

The scriptures of each religion are the evidence for that religion because they represent that religion. They are not biased, but they could prove the other religion is wrong if one determines they are more correct.

No, they are all inherently biased. Because they start out with the premise that their pet philosophy is the correct path to God or inner spirituality.
Although outside of the Abrahamic paradigm, most scriptures are merely seen as guides and people argue their merit independent of scripture. Sure you'll find many a scripture clutcher in those circles, but most just shrug and live and let live.

That is true, God changed His way of relating to humans, but the attributes of God did not change.

I'd say sending plagues vs not sending plagues is a pretty big change of character. Either that or God discovered some of Lucifer's left over weed brownies in his old room and calmed the hell down.

Whatever is in the scripture IS what God wants, but the dispensations of the past have been abrogated by the Revelation of Bahaullah, so what God wants NOW is written in the Baha’i Writings, not in the Bible. There is nothing horrific in the Baha’i Writings.

I'm sure your scriptures are perfectly peaceful.
But every sect claims that their scriptures is the very modern word of God. Meh.

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

I like how every single one of them were either born or lived in a time when one could be shunned by society for being an outspoken atheist. Hmm, it's almost as if they were products of their respective times or something.
Only 1 still lives and the other died over 20 years ago.
Got any that are a little more current and relevant?

That is a logical possibility.

I'm banking on Kodus, personally.

 

[Trailblazer]

“I did not demand contemporary sources for Buddha.”

Wrong.

"This is yet another example of how the older religions have gotten away from the original teachings of their Prophets. I am sure Buddhists are going to disagree with me on this, but unless they have original scriptures of the Buddha they are spitting in the wind. I cannot say exactly how Abdu’l-Baha (eldest son of Baha’u’llah and the centre of his Covenant) knew this, but here is what he said:"

What do you think the bold is? Do you even know what the terminology I am using? More so your knowledge claim is included in my quote of your own post #245

Problem is, that was not a DEMAND. I said they were spitting in the wind. I did not make a demand. You took what I said and projected your own thoughts onto it.

“I said that I would like to see original writings of Buddha, but there are none since Buddha never wrote anything himself.”

You know other people can write things down for people as well right?

They can write down anything they want to but I do not have to accept it as true.

You have zero sources for Buuddha yet make knowledge claims only due to your
religion. No one outside your religion thinks Baha'u'llah is an authority on anything.

I believe what my religion says is true because I believe Baha’u’llah was infallible. I do not CARE what other people think. I only have to answer to myself and to God.

“I see you still cannot prove why I am illogical.”

You double-standard based on your religious conditioning as per the quoted post.

The Baha’i Faith has the original Writings of Baha’u’llah but the Buddhist faith does not have the original writings of Buddha since Buddha never wrote anything. I believe what Abdu’l-Baha wrote about Buddha because Abdu’l-Baha is the Centre of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah, thus He had the authority to speak for Baha’u’llah and translate His Writings.

I am under no obligation to believe those who wrote down what they thought were Buddha’s teachings many years later, and Buddhists are not obligated to believe what Abdu’l-Baha wrote about Buddha. There is nothing illogical about that; logic does not even enter into this because I am not demanding anything of anyone, so I am not applying a double-standard to anybody.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it is exactly circular. "I know the Bible to be true for the Bible tells me so."
Verifiable evidence? You know outside of a holy book that starts out with the premise that Christianity is true? Or that Jesus' claims were valid?
I suppose they have eye witness testimony. But that's not the strongest evidence.

It would be circular if I was saying you should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, but that IS NOT what I am saying. Of course in the Bible Jesus declares that He brings the Truth from God, and then we either choose to accept that the Bible is the Truth from God or not, because the Bible is the only evidence we have for Jesus so the Bible is what Christianity is based upon.

I mean it's okay if someone wants to believe in Jesus because that's just how they personally feel. Everyone is entitled to follow or not follow whomever they please.
But if one wishes to claim "Truth TM" one needs something a little bit more convincing and neutral.

But it is unfortunate that there really is no other better evidence than the Bible.

That's exactly what Christians claim of Jesus, just FYI.
Not exactly stellar neutral evidence, either way.

No, it is not exactly the same because there is verifiable evidence for Bahaullah whereas there is no verifiable evidence for Jesus and some people do not even believe Jesus as He is depicted in the NT, ever even existed, let alone all the stories that were told about Jesus. By contrast, we know that Baha’u’llah existed and the stories told about Him and what He did on His mission are verifiable… NOW do you understand the difference?

I agree. Which is why it is subjective, rather than objective. And one's truth claims is just opinion, which kind of undercuts claims of "Truth TM."

There is objective evidence but HOW we interpret that evidence IS subjective. However, what we believe does not determine what the Truth is. Truth is Truth and that is Reality. We either discover Reality or fail to do so.

“The scriptures are the only Source of information about God, if that matters to you and others. That is just the way it works.”

Not to religions that do not rely on Scripture, like the Dharmics or even some Pagans. (Note, if this is inaccurate, please correct me Pagans.)

As far as I am concerned, if a religion does not rely on scriptures that were revealed by God, it is a religion of man, not a religion of God. So we have to ask: what is religion? The following describe the nature of religion according to the Baha’i Faith.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

No, they are all inherently biased. Because they start out with the premise that their pet philosophy is the correct path to God or inner spirituality.
Although outside of the Abrahamic paradigm, most scriptures are merely seen as guides and people argue their merit independent of scripture. Sure you'll find many a scripture clutcher in those circles, but most just shrug and live and let live.

Biased means unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something, but a religion is not against another religion just because it is different. People who believe in the religion might be biased towards or against another religion, but that is a different matter altogether.

I'd say sending plagues vs not sending plagues is a pretty big change of character. Either that or God discovered some of Lucifer's left over weed brownies in his old room and calmed the hell down.

I do not necessarily believe that God sent plagues just because the Bible says that. It is all in the interpretation. But if God sent plagues that is because humanity deserved plagues and that was divine justice.

I'm sure your scriptures are perfectly peaceful.
But every sect claims that their scriptures is the very modern word of God. Meh.

The older religions can claim anything they want to, but they do not have anything NEW from God, only the Baha’i Faith has something new.

I like how every single one of them were either born or lived in a time when one could be shunned by society for being an outspoken atheist. Hmm, it's almost as if they were products of their respective times or something.

So you think they were believers because they were afraid of being atheists?

Only 1 still lives and the other died over 20 years ago.
Got any that are a little more current and relevant?

Yes, there are more current scientists who believed in God.
This Pew Research Center report might be more useful than a list of scientists. Scientists and Belief

 

[ManSinha]

The older religions can claim anything they want to, but they do not have anything NEW from God, only the Baha’i Faith has something new.

And what is that?

 

[Trailblazer]

And what is that?

A new Revelation from God.

 

[SomeRandom]

It would be circular if I was saying you should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, but that IS NOT what I am saying. Of course in the Bible Jesus declares that He brings the Truth from God, and then we either choose to accept that the Bible is the Truth from God or not, because the Bible is the only evidence we have for Jesus so the Bible is what Christianity is based upon.

Okay, let me make this clear. The Bible, the Vedas, the Torah, etc cannot be used as neutral evidence of those specific religions. This is inherently circular.
And Christianity is based upon Jesus, his character and his instructions, given they are followers of Christ. (The clue is in the title.)
I agree that Christians will use the Bible as evidence for their belief system. Much like you relied on your religious writings and the character of your prophet as your evidence. Hence I dismissed it as biased, by nature.

But it is unfortunate that there really is no other better evidence than the Bible.

Indeed.
Not to sound harsh or mean, but that's not my problem. Y'all have to figure out another way to demonstrate your claims.

No, it is not exactly the same because there is verifiable evidence for Bahaullah whereas there is no verifiable evidence for Jesus and some people do not even believe Jesus as He is depicted in the NT, ever even existed, let alone all the stories that were told about Jesus. By contrast, we know that Baha’u’llah existed and the stories told about Him and what He did on His mission are verifiable… NOW do you understand the difference?

You literally did not demonstrate anything different. The Historical figure of Jesus is disputed, to be sure.
Christians claim historical evidence by citing their specific Gospels and scripture. How does your claim differ? All I have seen you do is the exact same. Cite your specific scripture. So in order to demonstrate you are being different, you have to now cite contemporary neutral sources outside of your specific scripture that support your claims.
Take your time. I'll wait.

As far as I am concerned, if a religion does not rely on scriptures that were revealed by God, it is a religion of man, not a religion of God

Bit rich, considering all scriptures were written by man, anyway.

. So we have to ask: what is religion? .

In the interests of transparency. Here's the definition I use.
Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[1][2]

Religion - Wikipedia

There is objective evidence but HOW we interpret that evidence IS subjective. However, what we believe does not determine what the Truth is. Truth is Truth and that is Reality. We either discover Reality or fail to do so.

Objective evidence can't be objective if it is subjectively interpreted. That's the literal antonym of objective. And back to speaking in circles. Show me the evidence.

Biased means unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something, but a religion is not against another religion just because it is different. People who believe in the religion might be biased towards or against another religion, but that is a different matter altogether.

Yes, I am aware of the definition. I said texts which are trying to prove their worth and gain followers all have an inherent bias towards their own team, so to speak. How does that challenge my previous statement, exactly?

I do not necessarily believe that God sent plagues just because the Bible says that. It is all in the interpretation. But if God sent plagues that is because humanity deserved plagues and that was divine justice.

The Abrahamics always sound like a beaten down housewife/husband, justifying the abusive practices of their deity. To be fair, every religious person sounds like that to varying degrees. Probably because religion evolved out of a need to explain why the world was so callous and cruelty existed. (And humans have long had their own existential crisis)

So you think they were believers because they were afraid of being atheists?

It's possible they hid any concerns or questions they may have had about God due to the culture they grew up in. Either that or they like literally everyone else in their society was born into religious indoctrination.

Yes, there are more current scientists who believed in God.
This Pew Research Center report might be more useful than a list of scientists. Scientists and Belief

Ahh thank you.
But I do recall the original question being, what credible scientist studies supernatural phenomenon. Not which ones believe in it.

 

[ManSinha]

A new Revelation from God.

What is so "new" about it? How is it different from that preached / taught in christianity or islam? Or from what the dharmics have taught since before christianity?

 

[atanu]

In December 2017, I left a forum I had been posting on for about four years to come here because of a falling out with the atheist forum owner. I was here for about a year and then that atheist forum owner saw me posting on another forum in that forum group and invited me back to his forum. I went back in December 2018, reticently, and since then I have only been posting here on RF on a limited basis, because I do not have time for both forums. I am now very sorry I ever went back there and I hope I never make the same mistake again.

That forum pretends to be a forum for believers, ex-believers and nonbelievers but it is inhospitable for believers of any kind, particularly for believers of the Baha’i Faith. That is putting it mildly. We are discriminated against because the forum owner has a vendetta against my religion. Christians and Jews are tolerated as long as they do not talk too much about God or their religious beliefs. Mostly what they talk about on that forum are politics and social issues. So they really should not call themselves a “religious forum.”

My most recent academic background is in psychology, so I wonder why people think and do what they think and do. It seems rather obvious to me that if the atheists on that forum are hostile towards me it is because they are threatened in some way. Of course, they would never admit that. It is not as if I am a bit pushy about what I believe, and in fact I only discussed my beliefs if someone else posted to me about my beliefs. Then I responded and I got blamed for proselytizing. This is wholly unjust.

This last falling out was precipitated by the forum owner having a hissy fit for what he considered me mentioning my religion too much and then he put me on moderation. I sent him a private message that I will not post on his forum while on moderation because that is unjust, since I broke no forum rules, and I told him I was leaving his forum. Of course most of the atheists are glad I am gone. I am also glad I am gone because now I am back here and the atheists on this forum have been so different. They are mature adults, not little children acting out.

There is no reason why those atheists would act out that way unless they were afraid of what I have to say. They do not react to the other believers on that forum that way because they do not dare talk much about God or their religion, because they are too afraid of being insulted. But I never cared about being insulted; I stood right up to them, but I was always polite. And I never told them that they should believe in God, as I am very well aware of the reasons atheists do not believe in God and I respect those reasons. Why can’t we all just get along? Is that too much to ask?

Imagine that! I dare to talk about God and my religion on a “religious forum.”

The forum owner just wants to control everything I post, it is so obvious. Why can’t other people see this? It is psych 101 stuff. I know atheists are intelligent, but the atheists on that forum seem to wear blinders regarding the reasons for their fearless leader’s behaviors.

Finally, they call that forum a “free thinkers” forum and I find the very ironic, because nobody has changed the way they think since I went there five years ago. They are not free to think anything that contradicts their atheism and they don’t want to hear about it. Then they rank on believers and say we are not free to think because we have a religion. They say we are just “brainwashed believers.” It is comical that they cannot understand their own behavior, but it is also rather sad.

I understand that a lot of atheists are ex-believers who were hurt by Christianity but it is not fair to take that out on me. I did not do anything to them except try to be their friend. But they cannot be friends with a believer, all they can do is tell me I am wrong about what I believe. They say there is no God, no soul and no afterlife but they have no proof of that. I readily admit believers have no proof either, but there is evidence. By contrast, atheists have no evidence that there is no God, no soul and no afterlife, so they should just admit that, instead of insisting they know. I guess it makes them uncomfortable to have to think about these things, but if they are so sure they do not exist they would be able to just blow me off instead of getting antagonistic. This is psych 101 stuff.

I am interested in what the atheists on this forum have to say about this, but I am also open to hearing the opinions of believers.

Have you experienced frightful or irritating opponent/s (human/animal/ghost like) in a dream? Many eastern gurus teach that waking time opponents are similar.

 

[Trailblazer]

I honestly must be an idiot. For the life of me I cannot figure out the response features here so I always have to add the other person's entire post instead of just a single or multiple sentences in boxes like every single other person on this forum knows how to do.

Honestly , it is these types of questions that I find more important than whether or not God exists...It may be because I don't use a computer and only my cellphone for everything from texting to editing my photography. So maybe I can't because of my phone. But more likely it is because I am a total idiot when it comes to technology! I love it but do not understand any of it. I just made it to the 21st century by buying a blootooth speaker and figured out how to get music from pandora on my phone to play through the speaker in my living room. That is the extent of my talents in that department. But all of my kids and gradkids are wizards with this stuff so if I really want to set something up, they always help me.

Naw, you are not an idiot. It took me a while to get used to this forum, Delphi Forums is so much easier to navigate… You should see the looks I get when I tell people I do not do texts… I do not use my cell phone for anything except calling out from work or if I get stuck on the road while bicycling to or from work. I do not even know how the camera on my cell phone works or how to access voice mail.

I do not know much more about computers but I know more than I know about cell phones and I know how to get help when I need it from computer techs or computer geeks on my forums. My old laptop was shutting down because the battery was dying and I took it out and it still shut down, and the computer tech said it is probably the power cord… Meanwhile, I found another laptop on Craigslist with Windows 7 and Office 7 so I am back in business, although I plan to get a new power cord for the older laptop so my husband can use that laptop. Now the text is jumping all around when I type on both these laptops but I will figure out how to fix it if it keeps happening…… It is so annoying to be typing and find my text on another line in between something else I wrote.

I have zero idea what that rambling came on for..I guess because I was trying to respond to you while my youngest baby has finally fallen asleep on her couch at Nana's listening to grunge on Pandora while it rains outside in the forest by the lake.

Yes, we are both are so lucky to have a life by the lake. Enjoy!

Well, that sounds like a lot more fun that I have been having today with this stupid computer, the cursor jumping all around… but I do love my rain and being in the forest with the lake below and all the animals. My other two houses are on the river and on the ocean, but they are occupied by tenants. Someday I would like to use my ocean view house but I really like the tenant who has been living there six years and it would break my heart to have to ask him to leave... but one day at a time and now is not the time.

Okay found your quote I wanted

"I do not think people should believe in God or join a religion out of a need; Imo it should be because they really believe in God and their religion, have a passion for it and see a good reason for it. I do not feel a need for God or my religion."

WHAT??? If you do not feel a need for God or your religion why the heck are you wasting your only real life away when you could be sunning yourself on a beach somewhere???

Now that really is illogical.

Most of my life I got along just fine without God or my religion so that proves to me that I do not need for God or my religion… So why bother? Because I really believe in God and in my religion, and see a good reason for it, although I would not say I have a passion for it, because my belief is intellectual, not emotional…

Now about the beach… My life is completely insane so I rarely get out of the house except to go to work and the grocery store on the way home from work, so I never even go out of town anymore, let alone on a vacation. I have not been on a vacation since 2012, and that was just a few days down on the Oregon coast. My work and 3 hour bike commute, the 10 cats and the two rental houses and our house, consume all my time and attention… That is just the way it is right now so I accept it and make the necessary adjustments… I like writing, talking to people, and learning new things, and I can do all of that on forums without leaving the house, so that is what I am doing right now.

Go enjoy what life you have left. You deserve it.

Thanks… I think I will be able to do that in the future but not right now… One day at a time is all I can handle. I am just grateful to be healthy and financially well off. And the fact that I will be able to do things if and when I really want to gives me a feeling of freedom… No, it is not God or religion that is holding me back, it is my crazy life.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is so "new" about it?

It is new because it was revealed in the 19th century and all the other major religions were revealed many centuries before that.

How is it different from that preached / taught in christianity or islam? Or from what the dharmics have taught since before christianity?

It is similar to other religions in some ways but very different in other ways. What is similar are the spiritual teachings but what is different is the message for the day which is the oneness of God, the oneness of mankind, and the oneness of religion. Also different are the social teachings and the laws.
For example - Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia ... but there are many more.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you experienced frightful or irritating opponent/s (human/animal/ghost like) in a dream? Many eastern gurus teach that waking time opponents are similar.

No, I do not recall having experienced that, but sometimes I have frustration dreams, like I am trying to get somewhere or do something I cannot accomplish. I do not recall many of those lately though.
I have since freed myself from that forum and today I found another forum where the people are a lot nicer. The way people treat each other makes all the difference.