Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dear Wandering Peacefully, the only purpose of the existence of this supposed 'One God' is to provide legitimacy to the prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis/priests and shamans, so that they can carry on their business.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
God is not an objective reality that can be proven to be correct or incorrect. Some views of God are more accurate than others but nobody can define God as God’s Essence is unknowable.
Why would it matter if people shape God in their own image? They cannot make God be what they want, so it is just an illusion. God is whatever God is and we cannot know much about that. Biologists do not know more than God about how to create a human. What makes you think they could do better?
Why do you think that atheists are far better models of character, morality and ethical values? That might be true of some atheists and believers but not all of them. I know some atheists who are very ethical but I also know some who are not. The same applies to believers.
True, one should not accept any belief without doing ample research.
They certainly are not the only two logical possibilities. I am not big on Pascal’s Wager because it is encouraging people to be less than honest.
There are only two logical possibilities; God either exists or does not exist.
The thing is that God does provide evidence of His existence. God does not provide proof because God does not want to make it that easy, since then nobody would have to do anything to earn their belief, and then people who did not deserve to know God exists would know and that would not be fair to the deserving people who earned their belief by making a sincere effort. Also, God wants our faith, but it should be a reason-based faith, not blind faith.
No, the supernatural does not contradict science, it is simply outside of scientific purview. What contradicts science are things we know are scientifically impossible, like people rising from their graves after they have been dead and buried or Jesus floating up into the sky and defying gravity.
I did not say that only I am right. I am saying that the Christian interpretations of the Bible are incorrect and from that the Church created false doctrines. My religion is certainly not the only religion that believes that and nonbelievers also think that.
Those are all good questions. Do you think you know His view of atheists from those passages you posted?
There is no punishment that I am aware of except for remoteness of God. How that will play out in the afterlife is anyone’s best guess.
God could do it but God wants us to do the work. It’s that simple.
All this was created by humans because they have free will to choose.
Carry on, I am used to this viewpoint, and I have talked about it so much that I have something to fill in all the craters.
What was that supposed to mean? Of course I did not read religious text to become a therapist. I became a therapist by attending an accredited university and I had to jump through lots of hoops to get my MA in Counseling Psychology.You said you wanted to become a therapist. I'm curious what you actually read on the topic?
You ask really good questions.
You began with what you wanted, though. That your religion is true. That's fine, believe whatever you please.
If God's essence is unknowable then it stands to reason that no one truly knows God. And any claim of even minuscule certainty is immediately suspect without verifiable evidence. Evidence that can be accepted by even non believers. Or at the very least, agnostics.
It doesn't. I was merely offering an explanation as to why God/s is weirdly different in all religions. And why it is truly subjective.
Just reporting on my rather subjective experiences. And you know, literally every horror story I have ever heard, seen or even been a part of in the religious scenes. Parents rejecting apostates, gay kids etc. Even merely watching the news or when interacting with people I can give countless examples of religious folk acting like despicable subhumans. My time spent watching debates, watching documentaries, watching people really. What is it they say?
How does it encourage dishonesty?
Either that or it's actually an alien fooling around. Plot twist.
If that is true, show me. Not books or mere words, but objective evidence.
Technically true. But how many actual respected scientists give the time of day to supernatural inquiries?
Not outright, perhaps.
There's a certain implication there.
True. It seems more prominent in the smug circles of the Abrahamics. Everyone else doesn't seem to care enough. Which seems more confident and secure, at least to my personal view.
Yes, I can see they would need the backing of god(s) to be able to give credence to their claims of authority and knowledge. After all, what better way was there to convince people of the importance of their particular message? All varying messages of course.
So may I assume your entire reason for believing in your prophet is out of fear of what you believe might happen to you in an afterlife? Certainly you do not need either your prophet or a god to behave ethically and morally do you? Do you think it could be the emotional attachments to a father figure or need for authority which motivates to people to believe in stories about Gods? And yes, I can only assume your prophet was speaking truthfully from his viewpoint how he felt about people who didn't believe what he did. But who would ever be able to know for certain what his motives or his reasons were for claiming to be a messenger from God? We can make quesses based on other people who have claimed the same thing throughout history and use some psychology perhaps but we can never be totally certain why people have done this.
There are various psychological conditions for that, schizophrenia, megalomania, etc. Some people have done it for sex, others for money. Others have done it for ego, being called/known as leaders. Quite common.
And you know what I wanted to believe exactly HOW? Nobody knows what I began with except me and God.
That is absolutely untrue. I had no starting premise that my religion was true. The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be and thus the religion is true is as follows. All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable.
There is very little outside neutral evidence for the Baha’i Faith. One reason for that is because the religion is relatively new, so scholars have not written about it. In the future it will be different and there will be scholarly works, just as we now have for Christianity.
You had better bet that the Bible is the BEST evidence for Christianity and the God Christians believe in. It is obvious why. The Bible is the Source that is closest to the original Christian faith. Anything that came after thatare simply commentaries from outsiders, many of whom are other religious people or atheists who are against Christianityand trying to disprove it. Why would their commentaries be better evidence than the original source material?
You cannot apply the same standards to religion that are used for evidence in areas outside of religion, for obvious logical reasons. Religions are mutually exclusive so they are in competition with each other so anything outside of their own scriptures and history are going to be necessarily biased.
That is correct, nobody knows the Essence of God. God’s Essence is unknowable, period, so obviously there is no evidence of God’s Essence. There is no verifiable evidence that God exists, because that would be proof, and there is no proof.
God was different in the non-Abrahamic religions because that was before Abraham championed the One God. However, God is not different in the Abrahamic religions. For example, here are some of the attributes of God you find in the Torah, Bible, Qur’an, and in the Writings of Baha’u’llah: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Immaterial, Omnipresent, All-powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Righteous, Benevolent, Compassionate, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient.
Since about 84% of people in the world are religious that kind of skews the results. I mean since more people ARE religious than atheist, more religious people do evil things. Those religious people are not following the teachings of their religion, so you cannot blame the religion, it is the people who are to blame. They might be following their religious leaders, but their leaders are not representing the true religion as it was revealed in scriptures. This can get rather complicated.
Because Pascal’s Wager suggests you pretend you believe in God just to cover your bases in the afterlife, and pretending is dishonest.
You are funny.... and the plot thickens.“There are only two logical possibilities; God either exists or does not exist.”
Either that or it's actually an alien fooling around. Plot twist.
There is no objective evidence of God’s existence because God is not a material Being. The evidence is the Messengers and the scriptures they reveal.
Lots of them.
If they contradict my religion then I consider them wrong, because I believe in my religion. Obviously, both cannot be right if they contradict each other. For example, Christians believe Jesus is coming back and Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ. Both cannot be right so one has to choose one or the other or neither one.
Simply put, the only legitimate reason to believe in God is because God exists and an afterlife exists and there are huge implications for our future existence if we do not believe in God and know the truth about this life and how it is related to the afterlife. The primary purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife. Some atheists will have preparation if they lived according to the spiritual teachings of religion, because that is the same as using humanism and ethics to live life with compassion and peace, even though they do not believe in God. But there is a mystery that lies ahead in the afterlife;we are told it is vitally important to know and love God in this earthly life, even if we do not fully understand the reasons yet.
If religious beliefs contradict science and humanism it is time to relinquish them, because they are not what God wants us to adhere to in this new age. The Bronze Age has ended and it is time to move on. Unfortunately, the bulk of religious believers have not realized that yet. It is only atheists and Baha’is who have realized it, but they have gone on different trajectories.
Oh no, not at all. What atheists miss entirely is that the reason I believe in God is because I know God exists. Everything follows from that knowledge. I do not even think in terms of believing out of fear because that would be Pascal’s Wager and that would be dishonest. But that does not mean I do not have a fear of god, which is not fear of what He might do to me but rather reverence and respect for a Being who is far greater than me.
No, I do not need Baha’u’llah or God to live morally and ethically.
Nobody can know in the sense of proving what Baha’u’llah’s reasons were for claiming to be a Messenger from God. That is where some faith is necessary, but with good evidence it can be a reason-based faith. Only as individuals can we ever be totally certain of what we believe and these beliefs cannot be proven to other people. I am certain, but that is because I put all the pieces of the puzzle together and nothing was out of place.
But who are YOU to tell me I conditioned myself, if that is what you are saying?
But who are YOU to tell me I did not research the Baha’i Faith and decide that it was true, if that is what you are saying?
I do not NEED to compare older scriptures, because I KNOW the Baha’i Faith is the Truth from God. I knew that before I ever looked at any other religions and now that I have looked at others I know it even more. There is no requirement that I look at older scriptures and compare. The Baha’i Faith stands on its own merit. Do Buddhists have to compare the Baha’i Faith to Buddhism before they become Buddhists? Do Christians have to compare the Baha’i Faith to Christianity before they become Christians? It sounds like you are applying a double-standard to Baha’is.
You have no right to speak for me and tell me what I do. I never demanded anything from Buddhists. That is a straw man.
You are presenting a straw man. I never said that the Buddhist view was not backed by evidence. All I EVER said is that the Baha’i Faith is based upon the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah whereas Buddhism is based on Buddha's teachings which were passed down by word of mouth and later were compiled into two sets of scripture.I do have evidence that proves to me that the Baha’i Faith is the truth.
Do you want to know what is not tolerated by some theists? Atheists who constantly criticize theists and call their reasoning illogical. Finding fault with theists is all some atheists seem to do. Thank God most atheists do not do this.
Okay thanks for explaining your views. I'm glad I don't have to worry about what comes after I die. I'm not convinced of afterlifes and don't worry about what other people are doing in this life to prepare for it.
Context? You've been trying to specifically demonstrate your belief as valid for the past several of our exchanges.
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.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
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.
I know. Now what?
Actually God changed drastically from OT to NT. He mellowed out considerably. Jesus is like his hippie phase.
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."
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.
Name them.
Or a third option. They're both wrong.
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.
I admitted no such thing. You just twisted my words by projecting your own thoughts onto them.
And how do you think you know that? Were you there with me when I became a Baha’i?
What was that claim I made?
The Writings, the history, etc.
Not if you expect me to compare my religion with others before I choose it.
What do you think my double-standard is?
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.
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 have no proof that my reasoning is illogical, that is just your personal opinion. That counts for jack squat. 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.