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

[MonkeyFire]

Tolerance for peoples is tolerance for being.

 

[Trailblazer]

The society.

Humanity is in big trouble if we allow society to set the standards for human behavior. Society today is corrupt and immoral. It is all about what people want and enjoy. But I guess that's okay if there is no God.

By assuming the existence of One God (and his manifestation), you have already created your own virtual reality.

I did not create reality. It simply exists. Whether it is what I believe it to be is another matter.
But it's not looking good for the pre-Abrahamic religions; since all the Abrahamic religions champion one God, it makes more sense that they are right, since they are more current. It's kind of like are you going to go back to using a typewriter now that we have computers?

Humanity changes and the world we live in changes; why then would the message from God not also change over time? I cannot help but believe in the Baha'i Faith because I consider it logical. I am bound by logic, not emotion or what I want.

You are always welcome to Linux. One core, many distributions. Freedom as in Hinduism.

Thanks, that is nice of you, but I choose to remain in service to the God I believe in, such as I am.

 

[charlie sc]

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

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

Then how do you explain Buddhism being part of your religion? As far as I'm aware, Buddha never said he was a prophet or anything of the like.

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

I find some things the Bible says very difficult to take otherwise, even if you try to interpret it in some allegory/metaphor. Nevertheless, if it was just all allegory and nothing was meant to take seriously then I'd find that very humorous because I'd like to think many Christians would not agree with this. I found the extremist and fundamentalists want to take every word as gospel and historical fact. If it was all allegory, I'd think it'll be nearly completely worthless but at least it wouldn't be as immorally obscene. I think I need to explain what's so obscene about this. It's not entirely that the Christian god appears to be a murderous child with a tantrum, it's that there's so much cognitive dissonance going on with believers that makes this so unbelievable. In any other context it would be abhorred. For example, an African American called in the Atheist experience to defend slavery because it's supported in the Bible. This is how shockingly absurd religious cognitive dissonance can become.

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

I'm quite glad you don't take it all seriously. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean you shouldn't question anyone/any society or any culture's justice. If we didn't question the morality of an action, and subsequent laws, you'd most likely still be in the kitchen cooking and unable to get closer to a man's salary in whatever pathetic job you could find. Since we've come a long way from slavery and gender inequality, at least in most of the Western world, it's a good thing we actually question what is just. Therefore, I see no reason you'd not question God's justice other than you're completely and utterly biased. For example, the happy slave with their lot in life in Ancient Rome. Since you can't tell me what you think you should take seriously, there's no point discussing what's immoral and what's not in the Bible.

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

“The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment…” Gleanings, p. 219
I do not understand this: “If someone could be helped without hurting them, even though they did something atrocious.” Why shouldn’t they be hurt? Given what you seem to believe about forgiveness, I am starting to wonder if maybe you were not once a Christian. Do you believe in free will? If free will exists, are people not responsible for their own decisions and actions, unless they are mentally ill or mentally challenged? If we say, gee, they had a bad childhood where does that end? Lots of people had bad childhoods.

This makes me wonder how much psychology you've studied. It is logical and demonstrable that you do not need to inflict any sort of suffering to change behaviour. It is demonstrated unequivocally in psychology that punishment is the worst kind of motivator and ways to change behaviour; positive reinforcement, followed by negative reinforcement is the most effective. Similarly, psychoanalyses does not use any kind of punishment method to change behaviour; in order to change neurosis, for Freud, It's understanding, non-judgemental, accepting, empathetic, and patient lead(to get the ego, super-ego and ID in sync). All therapy follows a similar approach. It's even demonstratable in reality for this exact topic: look at Norways Prison system I toured prisons around the world — and the system that seems the most relaxed is also one that works Where they're treated like actual people and have a chance to better themselves.

So, perhaps you should tell me why they should, "be hurt?" The only reason I can think of is that it satisfied an emotional desire to inflict the same amount of pain the victim felt onto the aggressor. This line of thinking is archaic and medieval. It serves no purpose other than to ostensibly feel good and I have no idea how this applies to justice.

Do I believe people have free-will? Yes and no, but I have a feeling you're using it in a different context. Normally, I wouldn't use this word. We make choices with the available information at hand, upbringing, economic status, physiological issues present/or not, and so on. We are always influenced by our environment. Therefore, to say we have absolute free-will is bonkers. To think in these black and white terms only solidifies your belief, and others, that people cannot change, they're innately bad and they could have chosen otherwise(or could not if sin is involved). Numerous studies have shown, especially with animals, that environmental factors have significant effects on behaviour. This doesn't mean criminals should go free, nor responsibility absolved. However, if you think in these black and white terms - sin, free-will, evil - you'll only proliferate the problem with this primitive type of mentality.

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

As I said, justice is not about forgiveness. The person who can give forgiveness, if they want to, is the victim. I addressed most of this prior, but would it make you feel better if the perpetrator felt personal responsibility?

Let me ask you something. I'll give you two scenarios. Let's say you could change a murderer and make him a productive member of society to never commit another crime again. Please answer both hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario A: you can change the perpetrator without inflicting pain/suffering and release him back after a week or you can change him by inflicting pain/suffering and release him after a week. Which one would you choose? (first or second)

Scenario B: you can change the perpetrator without inflicting pain/suffering and release him back after a week or you can change him by inflicting pain/suffering and they'd need 10 years incarceration. Which one would you choose? (first or second)

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

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

They committed the crime therefore they are responsible and in the very minimal sense they have to, because something needs to be done. I'd like to think that convicts who have been successfully rehabilitated take personal responsibility for their actions and grieve, but that doesn't mean people have to blame them. I meant blame in the sense of stigmatising them. I have to stress how powerful stigmatising is. Schizophrenia is seen in the news, media, social media and the general view as people who are dangerous. However, the opposite is actually true. It's a tiny minority that are dangerous, but they're stigmatised to the extreme. This stigma makes life incredibly difficult for them, consequently, they have very high suicide rates. If you are stigmatising criminals, not only is everyone else treating them differently but they'll actually believe they're bad too and cannot change. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, I do agree some people cannot change and the damage is too sever.

I'm sorry but I don't know what that quote means.

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

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

You asked me, "What do you think God should do to him, send him straight to heaven?" and I answered. Here was my answer from the last post, If I was god, "I would not inflict suffering on another human being if I knew there were other ways to change them or they could live in a part of heaven where they cannot harm others."

Highlighted in bold are assertions.

It does not matter what people think because thoughts do not determine reality. Someone was either sent by God of not. The difference between someone who was a Prophet is that He had a long-lasting effect upon civilization, and still have an effect to this very day, not just that they influenced society for the better.
Obviously, what they say is not what makes it true. Whether it is true or not depends upon the evidence. Baha’u’llah said what the evidence is for His claim to be a Prophet/Messenger of God:

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

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

Ok cool, so you determine prophets by their success to influence a positive effect on society and if they say they're a prophet. Then you examine everything they've said to determine if it's true. Jeez, sounds like there's no faith involved and it's completely evidence based.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humanity is in big trouble if we allow society to set the standards for human behavior. Society today is corrupt and immoral. It is all about what people want and enjoy.

But it's not looking good for the pre-Abrahamic religions; since all the Abrahamic religions champion one God, it makes more sense that they are right, since they are more current.

I am bound by logic, not emotion or what I want.

The society self-corrects. Look at the people with the book. They are still homophobics.

Non-Abrahamic religions and philosophies are doing excellently, e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Dao. Abrahamics stick to typewriters even if we have computers today. So, God created the Adam on the sixth day and rested on the seventh?

Why don't you accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Mahdi, whom God sent after he had sent Bahaullah? Wikipedia mentions five people today in this 21st Century who claim to be Jesus (List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia) or Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim who claimed to be the Mahdi. Here is a list of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and others who claim to be Messiahs (List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia). Some of them recent or living. Why don't you accept them? Where is your logic?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then how do you explain Buddhism being part of your religion? As far as I'm aware, Buddha never said he was a prophet or anything of the like.

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:

Question.—To which category do Buddha and Confucius belong?
Answer.—Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images......

The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 165-166​

I suggest you read that whole chapter, it is not very long but it brings up some very important points about the different kinds of Prophets and how their teachings are altered by man over the course of time and thus have to be renewed. 43: THE TWO CLASSES OF PROPHETS

I find some things the Bible says very difficult to take otherwise, even if you try to interpret it in some allegory/metaphor. Nevertheless, if it was just all allegory and nothing was meant to take seriously then I'd find that very humorous because I'd like to think many Christians would not agree with this. I found the extremist and fundamentalists want to take every word as gospel and historical fact. If it was all allegory, I'd think it'll be nearly completely worthless but at least it wouldn't be as immorally obscene. I think I need to explain what's so obscene about this. It's not entirely that the Christian god appears to be a murderous child with a tantrum, it's that there's so much cognitive dissonance going on with believers that makes this so unbelievable. In any other context it would be absurd. For example, an African American called in the Atheist experience to defend slavery because it's supported in the Bible. This is how absurd this cognitive dissonance can become.

Of course Christians are going to disagree with me but I for one think it is a complete waste of time to even read the Bible anymore because the Dispensation of Moses and Jesus Christ have now been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. The Qur’an is certainly more authentic and more in keeping with the times than the Bible, but the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is the current revelation from God. Baha’u’llah wrote over 15,000 tablets, most of which have ot yet been translated into English, but he still have over 12 full length books to read as well as the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Efendi who were the appointed interpreters of Baha’u’llah’s Writings, according to His Will and Testament. We have the originals of all these documents, so this is nothing like the Bible.

I'm quite glad you don't take it all seriously. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean you shouldn't question anyone/any society or any culture's justice. If we didn't question the morality of an action, and subsequent laws, you'd most likely still be in the kitchen cooking and unable to get closer to a man's salary in whatever pathetic job you could find. Since we've come a long way from slavery and gender inequality, at least in most of the Western world, it's a good thing we actually question what is just. Therefore, I see no reason you'd not question God's justice other than you're completely and utterly biased. For example, the happy slave with their lot in life in Ancient Rome. Since you can't tell me what you think you should take seriously, there's not point discussing what's immoral and what's not in the Bible.

The hundred-dollar question is why we are still using the Bible as a standard to judge what is moral and what is socially just? As a Baha’i this seems ludicrous but that is because we have all new teachings that are meant for the modern age... For example: Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia.

Of course I agree we should question the mores that are the result of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian laws and ethics, but what do you think we can actually do to change this kind of society? As a Baha’i I believe the only way to change it is to make more people aware of the Baha’i Faith. The problem is that most people reject it and the reason they reject it is because they are attached to these older religions. This is an emotional attachment so it is difficult if not impossible to break through. It is also tradition, what people were raised in, so they have been indoctrinated since childhood.

This makes me wonder how much psychology you've studied. It is logical and demonstrable that you do not need to inflict any sort of suffering to change behaviour. It is demonstrated unequivocally in psychology that punishment is the worst kind of motivator and ways to change behaviour; positive reinforcement, followed by negative reinforcement is the most effective. Similarly, psychoanalyses does not use any kind of punishment method to change behaviour; in order to change neurosis, for Freud, It's understanding, non-judgemental, accepting, empathetic, and patient lead. All therapy follows a similar approach. It's even demonstratable in reality for this exact topic: look at Norways Prison system I toured prisons around the world — and the system that seems the most relaxed is also one that works Where they're treated like actual people and have a chance to better themselves.

When you bring up psychology, you are off on a completely different tangent than religion. Religion is about what is just; it is not about changing human behavior. Besides that, you are living in some kind of dream world if you think you can change criminals with psychotherapy. Therapy does not even help all normal people. That is one reason I decided not to pursue my career in counseling but rather realized that religion was the answer to the problems of humanity. Psychology only goes so far and it does not address the deeper needs of the human being, what we were created for.

I am not saying that no criminals can be rehabilitated but if they are it will be because they are treated like actual people and these are religious concepts, not psychotherapy methods. It is religion that teaches to treat people with dignity and respect, compassion and loving kindness.

So, perhaps you should tell me why they should, "be hurt?" The only reason I can think of is that it satisfied an emotional desire to inflict the same amount of pain the victim felt onto the aggressor. This line of thinking is archaic and medieval. It serves no purpose other than to ostensible feel good and I have no idea how this applies to justice.

Like I said, I think there is something wrong with your thinking if you do not understand why a rapist or murderer should be punished. This is not archaic or medieval; it is justice, pure and simple. Torture might be archaic or medieval, but punishment must suit the crime. How is being in prison and having TV to watch and books to read even enough of a punishment for a heinous murderer? How are they hurt? Should we just let them out so they can rape and kill more people?

Do you understand what it is to not have a conscience, to not have a sense of right and wrong? The criminal should feel the same amount of pain the victim felt because this is the only way they will ever understand that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, that won’t happen until the afterlife.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Do I believe people have free-will? Yes and no, but I have a feeling you're using it in a different context I would use it. Normally, I wouldn't use this word. We make choices with the available information at hand, upbringing, economic status, physiological issues present/or not, and so on. We are always influenced by our environment. Therefore, to say we have absolute free-will is bonkers.

I pretty much agree with what you said. Free will does not mean we can choose to do “anything” we want to do. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free we are varies with every given situation we find ourselves in. However, we have the ability to make choices within certain parameters. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity.

Free will only applies to making moral choices. It is debatable how much freedom we have to make life decisions like marriage and career choices, or how much of that is predestined. Free will does not apply to the things we are compelled to do or things we have no control over, such as eating, sleeping, diseases, injuries, misfortunes, and death.

We are not responsible for the things we are compelled to do or the things which we have no control over, we are only responsible for the moral choices we make, such as being nice to someone or mean, rude or courteous.

To think in these black and white terms only solidifies your belief, and others, that people cannot change, they're innately bad and they could have chosen otherwise. Numerous studies have shown, especially with animals, that the environmental factors have significant effects on behaviour. This doesn't mean criminals should go free, nor responsibility absolved. However, if you think in these black and white terms - sin, free-will, evil - you'll only proliferate the problem with this primitive type of mentality.

I do not believe in sin and evil but I do believe that man has two different natures he can choose from.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60​

As I said, justice is not about forgiveness. The person who can give forgiveness, if they want to, is the victim. I addressed most of this prior, but would it make you feel better if the perpetrator felt personal responsibility?

Why should the victim forgive the perpetrator? How does that serve justice? Justice is getting what is deserved, whether it is a reward or a punishment. God gives mercy when it is not deserved but humans are not required to do so. Some Christians do forgive the perpetrator but the perpetrator should still take personal responsibility.

Let me ask you something. I'll give you two scenarios. Let's say you could change a murderer and make him a productive member of society to never commit another crime again. Please answer both hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario A: you can change the perpetrator without inflicting pain/suffering and release him back after a week or you can change him by inflicting pain/suffering and release them after a week. Which one would you choose?

Scenario B: you can change the perpetrator without inflicting pain/suffering and release him back after a week or you can change him by inflicting pain/suffering, but they'd need 10 years incarceration. Which one would you choose?

I really cannot answer that unless I know what the crime was. I also don’t know what you mean by pain/suffering. All crimes are not the same and all criminals are not the same and that is why sentences vary so widely. All I can say is that the punishment must fit the crime. To say that there should be no punishment for crimes in not justice. To think that a criminal is going to change just because you are nice to him is a fairy tale, it is not reality. Keep in mind that there was a reason they committed that crime in the first place and there is also a reason why other people in the same situation do not commit crimes.

They committed the crime therefore they are responsible and in the very minimal sense they have to, because something needs to be done. I'd like to think that convicts who have been successfully rehabilitated take personal responsibility for their actions and grieve, but that doesn't mean people have to blame them. I meant blame in the sense of stigmatising them. I have to stress how powerful stigmatising is. Schizophrenia is seen in the news, media, social media and the general view as people who are dangerous. However, the opposite is actually true. It's a tiny minority that are dangerous, but they're stigmatised to the extreme. This stigma makes life incredibly difficult for them, consequently, they have very high suicide rates. If you are stigmatising criminals, not only is everyone else treating them differently but they'll actually believe they're bad too and cannot change. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, I do agree some people cannot change and the damage is too severe.

I criminals have been successfully rehabilitated take personal responsibility for their actions and grieve, and if they have served their time then they should not be stigmatized after that. Schizophrenics should not be stigmatized as they are not criminals.

I am all for second chances and I am now paying for that big-time since I rented to a Level II sex offender who had two offenses. Nobody else would rent a house to him so I rented my house to him, believing him when he said he was rehabilitated. Now he has moved out and he filed a law suit against me for bogus injury claims. If I did not have a good insurance company who is paying for an attorney I would be in big trouble financially paying my own attorneys to fight this. He has made my life a holy living hell for over a year now, ever since he moved in and after he left. I was afraid to re-rent the house after that so it was vacant for months, and I am finally renting it again now.

Ok cool, so you determine prophets by their success to influence a positive effect on society and if they say they're a prophet. Then you examine everything they've said to determine if it's true. Jeez, sounds like there's no faith involved and it's completely evidence based.

It is evidence based but you have to have faith in order to believe that they actually got a message from God, since that can never be proven. However, with enough evidence to back up their claims, it becomes rather obvious that they are not lying about their claim.

 

[charlie sc]

I'll try make this shorter and respond to the stuff I think is important.

When you bring up psychology, you are off on a completely different tangent than religion. Religion is about what is just; it is not about changing human behavior. Besides that, you are living in some kind of dream world if you think you can change criminals with psychotherapy. Therapy does not even help all normal people. That is one reason I decided not to pursue my career in counseling but rather realized that religion was the answer to the problems of humanity. Psychology only goes so far and it does not address the deeper needs of the human being, what we were created for.

I am not saying that no criminals can be rehabilitated but if they are it will be because they are treated like actual people and these are religious concepts, not psychotherapy methods. It is religion that teaches to treat people with dignity and respect, compassion and loving kindness.

Then this is our main difference. I think justice is what's in the best interest for those involved, including society, which is based on evidence, and judgements passed down need to be as impartial and objective as possible. You think justice is based on religion.

I didn't say you could change criminals with psychotherapy, but psychology actually studies human behaviour and it is a science. Therefore, the best way to approach the most appropriate and objective justice is to use what we know of reality. For example, science started to tell who was incapable of making sensible decision(E.G. the mentally insane). Just to let you know, if you didn't know, psychology is a science and psychoanalyse is a pseudoscience.

Equally, just because religion worked for you does not mean it'll work for others. And I honestly don't know what to say with this reply, "It is religion that teaches to treat people with dignity and respect, compassion and loving kindness" when you have things like Sharia law and the western world is secular, not theroracies.

Like I said, I think there is something wrong with your thinking if you do not understand why a rapist or murderer should be punished. This is not archaic or medieval; it is justice, pure and simple. Torture might be archaic or medieval, but punishment must suit the crime. How is being in prison and having TV to watch and books to read even enough of a punishment for a heinous murderer? How are they hurt? Should we just let them out so they can rape and kill more people?

Do you understand what it is to not have a conscience, to not have a sense of right and wrong? The criminal should feel the same amount of pain the victim felt because this is the only way they will ever understand that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, that won’t happen until the afterlife.

I disagree, but what you said was an assertion, unless you have evidence, nor do I think this is relevant for justice.

I'll the reply to the rest bellow.

Why should the victim forgive the perpetrator? How does that serve justice? Justice is getting what is deserved, whether it is a reward or a punishment. God gives mercy when it is not deserved but humans are not required to do so. Some Christians do forgive the perpetrator but the perpetrator should still take personal responsibility.

I didn't say the victim should forgive the perpetrator or that they had to. I meant the victim is the person that can give forgiveness if they want to. This has nothing to do with justice or the judgement. However, I see how it satisfies your concept of justice.

I really cannot answer that unless I know what the crime was. I also don’t know what you mean by pain/suffering. All crimes are not the same and all criminals are not the same and that is why sentences vary so widely.

For these hypothetical scenarios, it doesn't really matter what the crime is as long as it's atrocious. So, 4 murders, or say whatever you want to say.

I'd like you to consider a bit of philosophy before you answer: if someone changes significantly, are they the same person? Are you punishing the same person that committed the crime or someone new. I put emphasis in bold. Are you always the same person?

All I can say is that the punishment must fit the crime. To say that there should be no punishment for crimes in not justice. To think that a criminal is going to change just because you are nice to him is a fairy tale, it is not reality. Keep in mind that there was a reason they committed that crime in the first place and there is also a reason why other people in the same situation do not commit crimes.

Unfortunately, it's you that's not seeing clearly. Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and its justice system is designed for rehabilitation. Since they changed their criminal justice system, their repeat rates have dropped. You place your religion above humanity and are unable to see clearly. Your need to seek revenge and punish people has blinded any sense of actual evidence that's right in your face. I suggest you look at this evidence and I can give so many studies that support positive reinforcement as the best method for behavioural change. If you think people should still be punished, which increases crime and repeatable offences, then you are indirectly responsible for the suffering of innocent lives. This makes this line of thinking dangerous. Here are some quotes from Wiki concerning Norway and I've highlighted the important bits, which is about everything, that just confirm everything I've said. Other countries are following suit. - Incarceration in Norway - Wikipedia

"Incarceration in Norway's criminal justice system focuses on the principle of restorative justice and rehabilitating prisoners. Correctional facilities in Norway focus on the care of the offender and making sure they can become a functioning member of society again. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, currently 20%,[1] with approximately 3,933 offenders in prison,[2] and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.[3] Norway’s prisons are renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world. Norway does not have the death penalty or sentence people to life imprisonment."

If you ignore this and cannot offer a good rebuttal based on evidence, then I'm arguing my evidence vs your faith. Hence, we can only agree to disagree and I see no reason to go any further.

And I'm sorry for whatever happened between you and your tenant.

 

[Shad]

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:

Here is a reason why someone that does not have an axe to grind would look down upon the religious. You created a standard for Buddhists to meet yet do not apply that standard to your own views. This is due to your religious conditioning and bias.

 

[charlie sc]

I pretty much agree with what you said. Free will does not mean we can choose to do “anything” we want to do. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free we are varies with every given situation we find ourselves in. However, we have the ability to make choices within certain parameters. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity.

Free will only applies to making moral choices. It is debatable how much freedom we have to make life decisions like marriage and career choices, or how much of that is predestined. Free will does not apply to the things we are compelled to do or things we have no control over, such as eating, sleeping, diseases, injuries, misfortunes, and death.

We are not responsible for the things we are compelled to do or the things which we have no control over, we are only responsible for the moral choices we make, such as being nice to someone or mean, rude or courteous.

I do not believe in sin and evil but I do believe that man has two different natures he can choose from.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60​

Why should the victim forgive the perpetrator? How does that serve justice? Justice is getting what is deserved, whether it is a reward or a punishment. God gives mercy when it is not deserved but humans are not required to do so. Some Christians do forgive the perpetrator but the perpetrator should still take personal responsibility.

I really cannot answer that unless I know what the crime was. I also don’t know what you mean by pain/suffering. All crimes are not the same and all criminals are not the same and that is why sentences vary so widely. All I can say is that the punishment must fit the crime. To say that there should be no punishment for crimes in not justice. To think that a criminal is going to change just because you are nice to him is a fairy tale, it is not reality. Keep in mind that there was a reason they committed that crime in the first place and there is also a reason why other people in the same situation do not commit crimes.

I criminals have been successfully rehabilitated take personal responsibility for their actions and grieve, and if they have served their time then they should not be stigmatized after that. Schizophrenics should not be stigmatized as they are not criminals.

I am all for second chances and I am now paying for that big-time since I rented to a Level II sex offender who had two offenses. Nobody else would rent a house to him so I rented my house to him, believing him when he said he was rehabilitated. Now he has moved out and he filed a law suit against me for bogus injury claims. If I did not have a good insurance company who is paying for an attorney I would be in big trouble financially paying my own attorneys to fight this. He has made my life a holy living hell for over a year now, ever since he moved in and after he left. I was afraid to re-rent the house after that so it was vacant for months, and I am finally renting it again now.

It is evidence based but you have to have faith in order to believe that they actually got a message from God, since that can never be proven. However, with enough evidence to back up their claims, it becomes rather obvious that they are not lying about their claim.

For your viewing pleasure. This documentary basically answers your questions.

If you don't watch it, there's one quote I wanted to give in the documentary from Karianne Wolfer - The director of correctional practices North Dakota -

"But if you were the victim of a really heinous crime, how would you feel about the perpetrator of that crime living in such a luxurious setting? And my response was, "I'd be pissed off." But what is that when I say I'm pissed off? The group kind of takes a minute and says, "it's a feeling, it's an emotion." That's right. And we're not The Department of Emotional Responses. We're the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."

 

[We Never Know]

I used to post on a Christian forum back when I was a Christian but beginning to have doubts, and the amount of hate I got from these "Christians" simply for asking questions just pushed me away from Christianity even quicker. So, atheists are not the only group that can be hateful and intolerant.

It seems that no matter what forum you are on, be it a christian forum, a science forum, a atheist forum, etc. When you start questioning things it's considered doubt and you will be somewhat targeted.
Many of them have that either you're with us or against us mentality.

 

[Trailblazer]

The society self-corrects. Look at the people with the book. They are still homophobics.

Just because some religions have Laws about homosexuality does not mean that the people of that book are homophobic.

Non-Abrahamic religions and philosophies are doing excellently, e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Dao. Abrahamics stick to typewriters even if we have computers today. So, God created the Adam on the sixth day and rested on the seventh?

Those religions and their beleivers are doing just fine because they all have good spiritual teachings for the individual, but they do not have any remedy that is needed for this day in history.
Baha'is do not believe that God created the Adam on the sixth day and rested on the seventh.

Why don't you accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Mahdi, whom God sent after he had sent Bahaullah? Wikipedia mentions five people today in this 21st Century who claim to be Jesus (List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia) or Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim who claimed to be the Mahdi. Here is a list of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and others who claim to be Messiahs (List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia). Some of them recent or living. Why don't you accept them? Where is your logic?

I do not accept any of them because I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, the Messiah, and the Promised One of all the religions. I do not believe in any self-proclaimed Prophets who came after Baha'u'llah because of what Baha'u'llah wrote, indicating that no Prophets can come until at least 2852 A.D.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Those religions and their beleivers are doing just fine because they all have good spiritual teachings for the individual, but they do not have any remedy that is needed for this day in history.

I do not accept any of them because I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, the Messiah, and the Promised One of all the religions. I do not believe in any self-proclaimed Prophets who came after Baha'u'llah because of what Baha'u'llah wrote, indicating that no Prophets can come until at least 2852 A.D.

Remedies work only if people take the regular dose of medicine. If not, then nothing works with any religion. No one to blame but God, to have created such beings.

Smart of Baha'u'llah, reserving his space till 2,852 CE. Unfortunately his progeny petered out. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's is happily in the fifth generation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here is a reason why someone that does not have an axe to grind would look down upon the religious. You created a standard for Buddhists to meet yet do not apply that standard to your own views. This is due to your religious conditioning and bias.

What standard was that?
Baha'is have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah so we know exactly what He wrote.
It looks as if Buddhists do not have any more than what Christians have, teachings passed down by word of mouth.

The ancient Indian language, Pali, is very close to the language that the Buddha himself spoke. Buddhism is based on Buddha's teachings. At first, these were passed down by word of mouth and later were compiled into two sets of scripture. The other by the Mahayana school ( the Sutras).

Buddhist Scriptures | Biography Online

 

[Shad]

What standard was that?

The manuscript point.

Baha'is have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah so we know exactly what He wrote.
It looks as if Buddhists do not have any more than what Christians have, teachings passed down by word of mouth.

It was the claim about knowledge. Buddhists say X. Baha'u'llah says Y. You side with the later because of preexisting belief thus conclude Y is correct automatically. You do not demand the manuscript to validate your view.

 

[Trailblazer]

Remedies work only if people take the regular dose of medicine. If not, then nothing works with any religion. No one to blame but God, to have created such beings.

There is no one to blame but humans, most of whom rejected Baha'u'llah, thus rejecting the Divine Physician.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213​

Smart of Baha'u'llah, reserving his space till 2,852 CE. Unfortunately his progeny petered out. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's is happily in the fifth generation.

Progeny means nothing since he was not who he claimed to be. Show me any Bible prophecies he fulfilled for the return of Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

The manuscript point.

It was the claim about knowledge. Buddhists say X. Baha'u'llah says Y. You side with the later because of preexisting belief thus conclude Y is correct automatically. You do not demand the manuscript to validate your view.

There is no manuscript written by the Buddha. That is the problem.
I have no interest in manuscripts of followers who changed the original teachings of the Buddha.

 

[Shad]

There is no manuscript written by the Buddha. That is the problem.

The manuscript was about what Buddha said/wrote.

I have no interest in manuscripts of followers who changed the original teachings of the Buddha.

This is the assumption on your part. You do not have the original to compare. You assume your view only because you religion tells you to.

 

[Trailblazer]

The manuscript was about what Buddha said/wrote.

How can anyone know that was what the Buddha said/wrote over 2000 years ago?

This is the assumption on your part. You do not have the original to compare. You assume your view only because you religion tells you to.

I believe what I do because I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age and that whatever He wrote supersedes anything that was written in past ages. I believe that He was Infallible because His will was identical with the Will of God. It is as simple as that.

 

[Shad]

How can anyone know that was what the Buddha said/wrote over 2000 years ago?

Exactly. However read your comment which I first replied to. You spoke of knowledge without the same burden of evidence you demanded of others.

I believe what I do because I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age and that whatever He wrote supersedes anything that was written in past ages. I believe that He was Infallible because His will was identical with the Will of God. It is as simple as that.

This was the bias I was talking about. Think about this as a neutral party. There is person A claiming X. Person B contents X is wrong but Y is true. Infallibility means nothing to the neutral party. Person B demands evidence from person A but does not demand the same for their own view Y.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. However read your comment which I first replied to. You spoke of knowledge without the same burden of evidence you demanded of others.

I do not know what comment you are referring to.
I assume the same burden for evidence as anyone else.

This was the bias I was talking about. Think about this as a neutral party. There is person A claiming X. Person B contents X is wrong but Y is true. Infallibility means nothing to the neutral party. Person B demands evidence from person A but does not demand the same for their own view Y.

Sorry, you lost me. Are you saying I do not demand evidence for my beliefs but I demand evidence for others’ beliefs?