Why do some atheists have to be so insulting and mean?

[Truly Enlightened]

Hello again my friend. I consider all men one people because that is according to my religion. If a believer behaved the way that atheist (and some others) behaved I would say the same thing. People should not treat each other this way simply because they have different beliefs. That is okay if it happens once in a while, nobody’s perfect, but when insults and derogatory comments happen repeatedly I find it inexcusable. It is mean and selfish. What else can I say? These are the people who are godless, whether they believe in God or not. Beliefs do not make anyone a good person.

Why can’t we talk about apples and oranges and still get along? Why is it necessary to cut someone else down? Believers and nonbelievers are just horses of a different color but we can all run in the same field.

I can understand non-believers complaining if a believer threatens you with personal damnation, tells you are sinful, immoral, or that you just hate God. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior in the part of believers. People should never speak for other people and tell them what they are or what their intentions are or what their eternal destination is. It is just wrong.

You said non-believers must suffer through every fallacious argument believers use to support their position, except “I believe because I just want to believe” and non-believers must suffer through believers rote learned, distorted, and incomplete knowledge of even the most basic of scientific principles, and non-believers must suffer through the shear unmasked avoidances and denials, whenever believers are asked to present evidence to support their non-testimonial claims, or the blatant shifting of their burden of responsibility. You said that all these might extend the bounds of human endurance and patience.

Why must you suffer through these things? Why do these things extend the bounds of human endurance and patience? Why do believers have the burden of proof to prove God exists when that is impossible? Why do you assume all believers are the same? I do not think all non-believers are the same. All believers do not have rote learned, distorted, and incomplete knowledge of even the most basic of scientific principles, but even if some do, why does that cause you to suffer, unless they are inflicting those upon you?

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. I cannot speak for other believers, only myself. Non-believers continually ask me for “evidence” that God exists or that a Messenger/Prophet is from God, but then when I give them the evidence they do not like the evidence. I give non-believers all the evidence I have and they continually complain I should have some other kind of evidence. It is as if a robber holds me up and I give him everything I have and he thinks I should have more. But I only have what I have and if that is not good enough, then what am I supposed to do? I cannot produce evidence I do not have. God provides what God provides for evidence and I cannot make an omnipotent God provide any more. It is illogical to expect that.

No, there is no proof that God exists, but there is evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Atheists want proof of something that cannot be proven, which is illogical. An “immaterial” God cannot be proven to exist by any objective means that science employs. Religion is the evidence that God exists, whether non-believers like that or not, because that is how God decided to reveal Himself, through Messengers who establish religions.

Sure, I know that intellectual maturity is not immune to the effects of cognitive dissonance or other psychological needs and that even very smart people can be fooled and manipulated, if given the right encouragement, but it does not logically follow that all believers believe in God because they have psychological needs or that they were fooled and manipulated, or that they were given encouragement. It could just be that they investigated a religion for themselves and decided it was the Truth from God. It could just be that is the reason they believe in it, not because they have any special psychological need to believe. We are all human so we all have psychological needs. This idea nonbelievers have that all believers are “needy” because they believe in God is just silly. Some very well might be, but not all are. For example, my Christian coworker once said that she is needy (in need of God) and she said she did not care what anyone thinks of that. I just smiled under my breath because I do not feel that way at all; in fact, many days I wish I could leave God off at the bus depot for all the help I get from Him!

Nobody can be fooled or manipulated unless they allow themselves to be fooled or manipulated, since we all have free will. If we each independently investigate Truth for ourselves then we cannot be fooled or manipulated. This one atheist I was referring to in the OP says we are brainwashed but that is ridiculous because brainwashing requires a brainwasher. To that he will say we brainwashed ourselves, but who is he to say that, how can he know what goes on in another person’s mind? That is so arrogant.

I don't think I can unpack all of this, and still do it justice. I think the old adage "if you can't impress people with facts, then baffle them with....", comes to mind. With all due respect, I will give it a shot.

In any meaningful discourse, it is important that we are always on the same page. Hence, one person can't be talking about apples and the other about oranges. The discussion will become unproductive, and lead to frustration and an exercise in futility. Atheist are not threatened by insults and threats, that only the believer believes is real. Would you feel threatened if I threatened you with a voodoo doll. Why not? Atheist are simply amazed that anyone could believe in such nonsense, without one ounce of objective evidence. We are not talking about a belief in any natural phenomena. We are talking about a belief in talking animals, miracles, a supernatural being, the "essence of spirituality, a Holy Ghost, Apostles, Satan, an afterlife, sin and salvation, the divinity of Christ, and a judgement day. I think Atheists would require at least some evidence before entertaining such beliefs. If 3/4 of the world's population have some version of these beliefs, why is it so difficult for just one person to present any evidence? It's like UPS, it has become so big, and so many lives depend on it, failure becomes not an option. Hence the the fallacy-riddle logical gymnastics.

There are many simple test that could provide tangible evidence to support any supernatural claim. A simple test could easily prove that the power of prayer is real. All tests failed. Maybe if just one of the thousands of miracles claimed could be observed or proven? Again None. How about anything that would suggest the existence of a supernatural realm? Nothing, not even at the Quantum level. How about any evidence of an afterlife? NDE, and Near Life Experiences does not equate to After Death Experiences. Actually the similarities of NDE victims would indicate a cultural connection, not a universal connection. Since the first animal died on this planet, not one has ever come back. Therefore, no evidence for resurrection either. Maybe we can find evidence that can prove that one religion is the right one, and the others are lesser or wrong ones? Maybe, we can find the ID's biological blueprint, or the Covenant of the Ark? No evidence exists. Finally, how can there be more than one God, when by definition there can only be one? These are just a few of the questions that any critical thinker would ask. However, there is evidence that immortality exist. The humble jellyfish is immortal.

If the evidence you deposit is not objective, then it is subjective. No more than a higher order of opinion(testimonials). Evidence is in the form of objective data and facts, or data that represents facts. Is this the type of evidence that you gave to those non-believers? You are the one that is making supernatural claims, the burden of proof is on you. Why do others need to disprove your supernatural claims? They are not the one's making them. This is a tactic by creationist. They shift the burden of proof to have non-believers try and disprove their beliefs. This avoids them presenting evidence supporting their own beliefs. It is just more intellectual dishonesty. If you don't want to defend your claims, or accept your burden of responsibility, then don't venture outside of the pulpit.

I don't think that the elderly, pensioners, or other victims of con men would agree with you, that they were fooled and manipulated because they wanted to be. No one is immune to being fooled an manipulated. You obviously are not aware of the effects of advertising, television, and the movie industries. As well as the print, music, and fashion industries.

"Needy"? maybe not. But "lacking" possibly. Our whole personality is determined by our genetic makeup. The sum total of who we are(our conscious mind) is the net result of our genetic and allele expression, and higher conscious mind. We do not have "will" power, we only have "won't" power. We can only choose not to do act on any programed behavior that we are conscious of. Unfortunately, we are not always conscious of all our behavior traits. You have no idea just how easy it is to fool and manipulate anyone. My composite statement is from Joss Whedon and George Jessel, "Give em' what they want and they'll come", but "Give em' what they need, and they'll follow".

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand how my OP came across to many people and I already explained to many people here why I posted it that way.Moreover, I do have some justification in associating these behaviors with more than one atheist because more than one atheist has behaved this way towards me, saying such things as “rational people do x” which of course implies I am irrational since I do y... I cannot count the number of atheists who have said this to me, over and over and over again.

The problem is you're implying it's some fundamental characteristic of atheism. Again, you're not describing atheistic behaviour, you're describing human behaviour. Some humans will do and say things like this regardless of their underlying beliefs about gods. Obviously that won't say exactly the same things or target exactly the same victims and so you might not notice (or care) as much but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If atheists do not want the reputation of being arrogant they should stop being arrogant, some but not all are.

So I have to stop doing something I don't do to avoid being blamed when other people who happen to have a singular common characteristic to me do it?!? How about you stop being a murderous extremist terrorist or you get implicitly associated with that? After all, some theists do it.

Oh, regarding moral behavior, there absolutely is a difference between an atheist and a believer, since belief in God and an afterlife is a strong deterrent against treating others poorly and a whole lot of other stuff people do.

For a start, simply believing is some deity doesn't automatically lead to positive rules for behaviour (see the terrorists I've already mentioned). Even with a positive set of rules, there's no guarantee believers actually follow them, as real life experience show us. Plenty of terrible things have been done by believers, even in the name of their faith and plenty of believers break their day-to-day rules. They just feel guilty about it and make excuses for themselves; just like the rest of us do with our own moral principles. It's almost as if we're all the same species eh?

I do not know any atheists who object to premarital sex.

You're presuming premarital sex is wrong in the first place. Just because non-believers (and other believers) follow a different set of moral rules to you doesn't make them less moral. If you're judging morality on the basis of your rules, obviously everyone else is going to fall short by definition.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

But so what if the story of Jesus and the existence of a God IS NOT a fact beyond any reasonable doubt? The effect that Jesus had upon civilization is a FACT.

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

Here is the value of religion, in a nutshell:

“Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)
Lights of Guidance (second part)

The effect that belief in God and His Prophet has upon people is a FACT because many people can testify to that effect, including myself.

I'm afraid that God, and the story of Jesus are not facts AT ALL, let alone beyond any reasonable doubt. The effects on early civilization of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are also a fact, but we do not worship man-made documents based on their effects on civilization. You cannot state as a fact, that a belief in God causes some effect on people, and that effect is caused by a belief in God. I think you know what fallacy you are committing?

I'm not certain of the purpose of your two quotes, so I won't comment further.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes. I know.

My point to Trailbrazer is that evidence and proof are interrelated. If you dont have proof of god, than your evidence (messengers) are irrelevent to something you cannot prove.

Your messangers message means nothing without the existence of its source. If you cant prove the source, the messege from it means nothing.

Catch you around Carlita, it's been great to get to know you, we all have our issues with life that we must fund answers to.

I wish you well and safe in the comming years, as it appears we are at a threshold and there will be great change. I see the signs of this are strong.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. I know.

My point to Trailbrazer is that evidence and proof are interrelated. If you dont have proof of god, than your evidence (messengers) are irrelevent to something you cannot prove.

Your messangers message means nothing without the existence of its source. If you cant prove the source, the messege from it means nothing.

It is interesting how we all think differently... I have heard many atheists say what you said, that we must FIRST know that God exists BEFORE we can believe that Messengers were sent BY GOD....

As I tell them, there is no proof that God exists and the Messengers are the only evidence that God exists.

So we cannot have proof of God before we believe in the Messengers...
Once we are sure the Messenger was sent by God that is proof to us that God exists, even though it is not proof in the sense of being an established fact, since there is no way to establish the existence of God as a fact, since God is not an objective reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

An interesting aspect of religious faith but like everyone else, they will be dead, belief will not change that.

According to my belief only the body dies... the soul lives on and takes on another form in the spiritual world where it continues to exist for eternity. That applies to everyone, believers and nonbelievers.

Any punishment we endure in the afterlife will be the realization of what our hands have wrought in this life, so if we hurt others we will realize that and feel their hurt...

God might judge us but I do not know that God punishes anyone directly, that is not part of my belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is you're implying it's some fundamental characteristic of atheism. Again, you're not describing atheistic behaviour, you're describing human behaviour. Some humans will do and say things like this regardless of their underlying beliefs about gods. Obviously that won't say exactly the same things or target exactly the same victims and so you might not notice (or care) as much but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

No, I was not implying that it is a fundamental characteristic of atheism. I have lots of atheist friends who do not behave that way or say those things. It is a select group who feel they are superior to believers, usually the ones who are highly educated.

You are right that it is also a personality thing, which is why some atheists behave this way and others do not.

So I have to stop doing something I don't do to avoid being blamed when other people who happen to have a singular common characteristic to me do it?!? How about you stop being a murderous extremist terrorist or you get implicitly associated with that? After all, some theists do it.

No, you are not responsible for what “other atheists” do, if you are an atheist. As a Baha’i, I am not responsible for what Christians do, but because I am a believer most people just assume I am just like a Christian. That is unfair and they judge me because they have confirmation bias from their past experiences with Christianity, but it is the fallacy of hasty generalization to assume all religions are the same.

Likewise, all atheists cannot be lumped into one group, they are all very different. There are arrogant people in every group, and believers are certainly not exempt from being arrogant.

For a start, simply believing is some deity doesn't automatically lead to positive rules for behaviour (see the terrorists I've already mentioned). Even with a positive set of rules, there's no guarantee believers actually follow them, as real life experience show us. Plenty of terrible things have been done by believers, even in the name of their faith and plenty of believers break their day-to-day rules. They just feel guilty about it and make excuses for themselves; just like the rest of us do with our own moral principles. It's almost as if we're all the same species eh?

I only said that belief in God is a strong deterrent, not that it deters believers from immoral behavior... It certainly doesn’t. Most Christians believe that are saved and forgiven regardless of what they do, and terrorist Muslims believe what they are doing is for God, so they do not think there will be any repercussions in this life or the afterlife, even though that is a delusion.

You are right that many believers break day-to-day rules and I do not think that they all feel guilty about it. Some people have a conscience and some don’t, and that applies equally to believers and nonbelievers.

You're presuming premarital sex is wrong in the first place. Just because non-believers (and other believers) follow a different set of moral rules to you doesn't make them less moral. If you're judging morality on the basis of your rules, obviously everyone else is going to fall short by definition.

I do not judge anyone according to what I believe is right. I just have a personal opinion and it is congruent with my religious beliefs. I do not believe premarital sex is right behavior and it is against the laws of my religion, but I never thought it was acceptable even before I heard of my religion. I would never judge anyone else for doing it; I just would never do it myself because I would feel guilty since I think it is wrong. But if someone is not religious they are not held to any standards of sexual behavior, since they do not have any God they believe in. It is the believers that go against what their scriptures say that I consider hypocrites. I still try not to judge them, but I cannot help what I think. Most people simply do not have much restraint in sexual matters, nor do they understand why that is important.

Sexual behavior is just a subset of morality and it is a personal issue, except when it hurts someone else as in cases of adultery. Imo, being tolerant and kind and compassionate towards others is what really matters most.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha. Yeah. We learn a lot from differences. Especially on topics lile these; get a personal perspective on a widely debated topic.

It is interesting how we all think differently... I have heard many atheists say what you said, that we must FIRST know that God exists BEFORE we can believe that Messengers were sent BY GOD....

You know, I never heard atheist put it that way. But then I only spoke to one atheist coworker. The rest I meet online.

As I tell them, there is no proof that God exists and the Messengers are the only evidence that God exists.

Thats a contradiction:

There is no proof god exists
God exist by the message of his messengers (and evidence would be proof of that fact)

If the messengers are the only evidence you have of god, why arent they considered proof that your evidence is valid?

So we cannot have proof of God before we believe in the Messengers...

Proof is in the existence and words of your messangers. Your messangers establish proof of gods existence. The evidence-messangers existence. The proof-the validity of that message to make your conclusion that god exists.

Probably picking hairs or youre talming about a god that only exists to the messengers but not to the people who believe in them.

Once we are sure the Messenger was sent by God that is proof to us that God exists, even though it is not proof in t

Thats confusing me.

How do you validate the messangers' message is from god; are you just taking their word for it?

On what basis do you trust their words when you dont have proof of god in order to anaylize the validity of their message before you put your trust in their words?

Sorry. I honestly dont know how you would trust the messengers speaks of god when there is no proof of god to explain the basis and analysis in what you put your trust and belief. It sounds like trust based on blind faith. (Jumping off a cliff).

Nothing inheritedly wrong with that. Its a hot word; I mean disrespect. I would go about it differently. Thats why I dont believe in christ. Need to believe in god first to trust his message comes from god himself. Christ's message is not owned by himself but from the father who sent him.

Shrugs.

 

[Trailblazer]

You drew a link to atheism.

You could have said “some people” or “some people online.” Why did you make it about atheism?

I think that maybe you are being overly defensive. I am not making it about atheism. I have said repeatedly on forums that atheism is a respectable position since nobody can prove that God exists. So I see belief and non-belief simply as different flavors of ice cream; I like chocolate, you like vanilla. I see no reason why our likes should separate us... It is a Baha'i teaching that we are all one people.

It is only the behavior of some atheists that I object to, but I also object to the behavior of some believers.
It is some atheists online, not any in real life, because I do not even know any in real life. I do not get out much and most people where I work are Christians.

I get why you might speak inappropriately right when something happened to frustrate you. I don’t get why you would keep on defending the inappropriate things even after things have calmed down and you’ve had a chance to reflect.

I have calmed down and have had a chance to reflect, and I think that is reflected on this thread and others. I forgave this man for what he did and said to me and I even wrote him a long private message on the forum but I do not know where it will go from here. I saw he sent me a private message yesterday after he got my message that I sent Friday night, but I have been afraid to read it. I will have my husband preview it today and I will read it if it is not mean and insulting and blaming me, even after I bent over backwards to explain how i understand what happened and how I feel about him. I considered him a friend and that is why this hurt so much.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, no. Whether something is an insult is about how it’s received, not the intent behind it. If someone was insulted by something you said, then it was an insult. Your intent determines whether it was a deliberate insult or an accidental insult, but either way, it’s an insult. Take this thread: your OP insulted me.

If you felt insulted by my OP, that is not my responsibility. The best thing to do is ask me what I meant by it. You might still feel insulted but the only way for me to avoid insulting everyone is to never say anything that anyone might perceive as insulting.

If someone felt insulted by something I said even though it was not meant to BE an insult, then they misinterpreted what I said. It is basic psychology that people are only responsible for their own feelings. I am only responsible to be courteous and respectful. Unless what I said was actually insulting I cannot be responsible for people feeling insulted.

Either it was an insult or it was not an insult. My intent and how it was worded determines that. If someone completely misunderstands what I meant by what I said I cannot be responsible for that. Most people are mature enough to ask me what I meant and continue talking, whereas immature or arrogant people just assume they know what I meant by what I said, which is impossible. Then they fly off the handle and blame me. This has only happened to me with a few people, and those people have problems with other people, which proves that it is not me who is the one causing the problem. I am always the first to admit when I make a mistake but when I accept blame for what I did not do wrong then they just gives them an excuse to keep blaming me.

And if “many people” find what you say insulting, then there very well could be a problem with your delivery (or you’re properly communicating ideas that are actually insulting without you realizing it).

That would be true if it was many people; but it is not many people, it is just one or two people on forums, and nobody in real life. My two best forum friends are atheists and we get along just fine even though they do not like my beliefs. That is because we can communicate back and forth and work things out.

My bad feelings have continued despite your attempts to clarify.

How am I responsible for how you feel? If some people just do not like some people then I guess they should not talk to those people. I like everyone but not everyone is going to like me.

If you think most atheists are pleasant, why did you decide to complain about how mean atheists are?

There is a good example of you misconstruing my words. I did not complain about how mean atheists are... I said “some atheists” and later on in the thread I explained that the thread was precipitated by one atheist who was mean and insulting to me, and that it was not a way to disparage atheists in general.

The whole problem I have had with that atheist that precipitated the OP is that he does not believe I am telling the truth when I explain what I mean by what I said. That is the same as calling me a liar. He has no right to assume he knows what I mean because he cannot possibly know what I mean. Only I know that. If he cannot trust me, that is not my fault. That is his issue. He also hates my religion and he has said as much, so that is a big part of the problem. By contrast, I do not hate his atheism, so he has no right to accuse me of that when I have said the exact opposite.

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheist are not threatened by insults and threats, that only the believer believes is real. Would you feel threatened if I threatened you with a voodoo doll. Why not? Atheist are simply amazed that anyone could believe in such nonsense, without one ounce of objective evidence. We are not talking about a belief in any natural phenomena.

I would be careful not to speak for atheists as a group, because people are individuals. I know that some atheists are threatened by threats or perceived threats from believers about the afterlife. Moreover anyone who expects objective evidence of that which cannot ever be objectively demonstrated is just plain illogical. The logical thing to say is that you won’t believe in anything for which you do not have objective evidence.

We are talking about a belief in talking animals, miracles, a supernatural being, the "essence of spirituality, a Holy Ghost, Apostles, Satan, an afterlife, sin and salvation, the divinity of Christ, and a judgement day. I think Atheists would require at least some evidence before entertaining such beliefs.

I am not talking about all of those things, because most of those are Christian beliefs. The only believe that Baha’is have that could be construed as “supernatural” are the existence of God, the soul, and a spiritual world where we go when we die. We also believe that the Holy Spirit emanates from God and it come to us through Messengers of God. That all makes sense to me even though it cannot be objectively proven. It is ludicrous to expect objective evidence for that which is not physical.

If 3/4 of the world's population have some version of these beliefs, why is it so difficult for just one person to present any evidence? It's like UPS, it has become so big, and so many lives depend on it, failure becomes not an option. Hence the the fallacy-riddle logical gymnastics.

There are many simple test that could provide tangible evidence to support any supernatural claim. A simple test could easily prove that the power of prayer is real. All tests failed. Maybe if just one of the thousands of miracles claimed could be observed or proven? Again None. How about anything that would suggest the existence of a supernatural realm? Nothing, not even at the Quantum level. How about any evidence of an afterlife? NDE, and Near Life Experiences does not equate to After Death Experiences. Actually the similarities of NDE victims would indicate a cultural connection, not a universal connection. Since the first animal died on this planet, not one has ever come back. Therefore, no evidence for resurrection either. Maybe we can find evidence that can prove that one religion is the right one, and the others are lesser or wrong ones? Maybe, we can find the ID's biological blueprint, or the Covenant of the Ark? No evidence exists. Finally, how can there be more than one God, when by definition there can only be one? These are just a few of the questions that any critical thinker would ask. However, there is evidence that immortality exist. The humble jellyfish is immortal.

There is no objective evidence of supernatural phenomena for obvious reasons, as noted above. NDEs do not equate to After Death Experiences, but similarities indicate a universal connection. Cultural differences can be explained by the fact that people lived in different cultures so some of their experiences varied. Mediums have communicated with those who are fully dead, and that is the only evidence we have. As for evidence that bodies come back to life after they are fully dead, there is no such evidence and that goes against what is scientifically possible so it is not a Baha’i belief that Jesus rose or that any other bodies will ever rise from graves. We consider that mere superstition.

If one is willing to do the research they can prove to themselves which religion is the current one and that the others were also right for the days in which they were revealed, but not right for this age because they were not revealed for this age. Finally, there is only one God; it is ludicrous to believe otherwise. All this is explained in the Baha’i Writings.

If the evidence you deposit is not objective, then it is subjective. No more than a higher order of opinion (testimonials). Evidence is in the form of objective data and facts, or data that represents facts. Is this the type of evidence that you gave to those non-believers? You are the one that is making supernatural claims, the burden of proof is on you. Why do others need to disprove your supernatural claims? They are not the one's making them. This is a tactic by creationist. They shift the burden of proof to have non-believers try and disprove their beliefs. This avoids them presenting evidence supporting their own beliefs. It is just more intellectual dishonesty. If you don't want to defend your claims, or accept your burden of responsibility, then don't venture outside of the pulpit.

UNLESS someone is trying to prove something to someone, they have no burden of proof. Just because believers say we believe something does not mean we are obligated to prove it to nonbelievers. The burden to prove whatever one wants to know is on the person who wants to know it. If I say there is a car in the driveway, why is it my responsibility to prove that? If you want to find out if that is true, you can go and look for yourself.

All that said, if I present the evidence that is the reason I believe in God et al. and the nonbelievers do not like my evidence or consider it evidence, then my job is done. I cannot create additional evidence that does not exist.

There is no verifiable objective evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but there is verifiable objective evidence surrounding the life of the Messenger of God Baha’u’llah because we can examine His life and the history of His Cause and His Writings and from that we can make a determination as to whether we are willing to accept His claim to have received communication from God. The evidence is objective but the decision is subjective.

I don't think that the elderly, pensioners, or other victims of con men would agree with you, that they were fooled and manipulated because they wanted to be. No one is immune to being fooled an manipulated. You obviously are not aware of the effects of advertising, television, and the movie industries. As well as the print, music, and fashion industries.

The fact that some people were fooled does not mean all people are fooled and that certainly is not proof that the Messengers of God were con men. It is their life that tells us what they were, not what people believed about them because people are fallible and beliefs do not create reality. Nor can you say that all people believe in Messengers just because they want to. I for one would be glad to drop Baha’u’llah off at the nearest bus depot because it is not easy to be a Baha’i, but I cannot do so because there is too much evidence that he was who He claimed to be. I ran for that for decades but I could run no more. I am not getting any younger.

"Needy"? maybe not. But "lacking" possibly. Our whole personality is determined by our genetic makeup. The sum total of who we are(our conscious mind) is the net result of our genetic and allele expression, and higher conscious mind. We do not have "will" power, we only have "won't" power. We can only choose not to do act on any programed behavior that we are conscious of. Unfortunately, we are not always conscious of all our behavior traits. You have no idea just how easy it is to fool and manipulate anyone. My composite statement is from Joss Whedon and George Jessel, "Give em' what they want and they'll come", but "Give em' what they need, and they'll follow".

I do not believe that our whole personality is determined by our genetic makeup. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. We have the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm afraid that God, and the story of Jesus are not facts AT ALL, let alone beyond any reasonable doubt. The effects on early civilization of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are also a fact, but we do not worship man-made documents based on their effects on civilization.

I did not suggest that we should worship the Prophets; I said that the effects they had upon civilization (effects that no other men have had) is evidence that they were more than just men.

No, as I said in my previous post, the story of Jesus is not a provable fact, but the story of Baha’u’llah is verifiable because it is well-documented recent history.

You cannot state as a fact, that a belief in God causes some effect on people, and that effect is caused by a belief in God. I think you know what fallacy you are committing?

It can be stated because it is the believer who knows the effect that belief in God has had on their life. If you are suggesting that it could be something else that had that effect, that is possible, but if nothing else changed but the belief in God there is a good chance that is what had the effect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thats a contradiction:

There is no proof god exists
God exist by the message of his messengers (and evidence would be proof of that fact)

If the messengers are the only evidence you have of god, why arent they considered proof that your evidence is valid?

The Messengers ARE proof that the evidence is valid, to those of us who believe they are from God, me and Tony for example.

Thats confusing me.

How do you validate the messangers' message is from god; are you just taking their word for it?

On what basis do you trust their words when you dont have proof of god in order to anaylize the validity of their message before you put your trust in their words?

I do not just take the Messenger’s word for it; I look at the evidence that surrounds the Messenger.

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that were attributed to Him or scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Sorry. I honestly dont know how you would trust the messengers speaks of god when there is no proof of god to explain the basis and analysis in what you put your trust and belief. It sounds like trust based on blind faith. (Jumping off a cliff).

It is a difficult thing to explain. I guess it all just fits together and makes sense to me; the bulleted list above is like a puzzle with many pieces that form a picture in my mind. More specifically, when I read the Writings of Baha’u’llah, I hear the Voice of God. But I guess I had to believe that God was possible in order to believe that. I REASON that God cannot speak to humans directly so God sends Messengers as mediators between God and man.

Nothing inheritedly wrong with that. Its a hot word; I mean disrespect. I would go about it differently. Thats why I dont believe in christ. Need to believe in god first to trust his message comes from god himself. Christ's message is not owned by himself but from the father who sent him.

I understand how you feel but I know that there is no evidence for the existence of God EXCEPT the Messengers that represent God, so I simply accept that is the closest I will ever get to knowing that God exists. Moreover, I am fine with knowing that the Essence of God is a mystery that will never be unraveled, since Baha’u’llah wrote that.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, I was not implying that it is a fundamental characteristic of atheism. I have lots of atheist friends who do not behave that way or say those things. It is a select group who feel they are superior to believers, usually the ones who are highly educated.

You are right that it is also a personality thing, which is why some atheists behave this way and others do not.

Hence the question of why you created a thread asking why “some atheists” do this rather than the more accurate and honest “some people”. Even if it wasn’t your intention to attack atheists in general, you have to see how your choice of approach can make it look that way.

You are right that many believers break day-to-day rules and I do not think that they all feel guilty about it. Some people have a conscience and some don’t, and that applies equally to believers and nonbelievers.

Yes, and doesn’t that challenge the idea that and belief in a god offers a greater deterrent to breaking moral rules since many people seem to do so regardless of whether their personal morality has a god in its basis or not?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

The Messengers ARE proof that the evidence is valid, to those of us who believe they are from God, me and Tony for exampl

My point really is if the messengers are proof of the essense of god, why say there isnt proof of god? (More explanation in the last part of the post)

I dont understand why you say there isnt when the messengers are the proof. You have it via your messengers.

See the contradiction in the statements themselves?
Freudian slip?

I understand how you feel but I know that there is no evidence for the existence of God EXCEPT the Messengers that represent God, so I simply accept that is the closest I will ever get to knowing that God exists. Moreover, I am fine with knowing that the Essence of God is a mystery that will never be unraveled, since Baha’u’llah wrote that.

That makes sense. Id express it instead:

There is no proof god exists DIRECTLY TO ME. There is ONLY proof of gods existenece via the voice of his messengers.

When you say it like this, you arent saying there is no proof AT ALL (as I keep getting from your posts) but the proof is not isolated from the voice of the messengers (which is proof and their validity of their message is evidence of it).

As a result, if someone asks for proof of god, you wouldnt say there is none, youd say there is only proof via the voices of his messengers.

See the difference in expressions?

 

[ChristineM]

According to my belief only the body dies... the soul lives on and takes on another form in the spiritual world where it continues to exist for eternity. That applies to everyone, believers and nonbelievers.

Any punishment we endure in the afterlife will be the realization of what our hands have wrought in this life, so if we hurt others we will realize that and feel their hurt...

God might judge us but I do not know that God punishes anyone directly, that is not part of my belief.

You are welcome to your belief but just remember, it is a belief with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Maybe in the sadly misinformed Popular Press. But never in any serious scientific discussions among actual paleontologists, or if it was said, it was recognized as hyperbole.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

But the bottom line is that in Science? With enough evidence, people can and will change their minds.

people can, scientists don't have such a great track record-


A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck



In future you may be safer sticking to answering every post with a 'funny' aka the 'I have no substantive argument' sign

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism is a position, a point of view, a choice, if you will. What it is not, is a science or a religion. There are no higher powers for all life to follow or answer to. There are no unexplainable supernatural phenomena. There is absolutely no evidence that supports the existence of a God(s), whether it is 100 years ago or the present day. None, except what we want to believe or make up. A belief in a God(s) does not require any evidence, therefore belief has nothing to do with science.

You seem to base all of your conclusions and ideas on what people have said and believed in many years ago. What about some of the more current ideas? Science doesn't care what people say or believe, it only cares what people can prove or falsify. I have no idea how not believing in God's existence could get in the way of any scientific understandings, discoveries, or principles.

as above, Hoyle and many other atheists mocked and rejected the BB, arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, because it appear to THEM to have undesirable implications of God. We should not let our beliefs influence our judgement either way.

But you highlight the problem here. Lemaitre went out of his was to disassociate the BB with his faith, because he could.
But how does a person recognize and separate a belief he refuses to acknowledge as such?

Cells do not morph, they divide and differentiate. And, we can observe cell division. We can also observe, measure, and explain human embryology, from the moment of conception to a full grown human adult. There are many indirect and inductive ways to accomplish this, without an electron microscope, a video camera, and 80 years to spare.

Let's say you bake a cake for the first time and fail because of mistakes and errors. You keep trying until you stop making these mistakes. Maybe after 5-10 tries, you start making cakes without having accidents or errors, most of the time. Unlike the cake analogy human evolution took billions of years of trial and error to get it right. These errors are generally not repeated in human development, obviously. Unfortunately it meant the loss of 99.999% of all other species on the planet, to pave most of the way for the survival of humans. We are still a work in progress, but it will be the inherited genetic material of our survivors that will give us our survival edge.

And eventually you manage to make a cake that taste's just like grandmas, or looks just like the one in the picture.

But without those instructions to follow, randomly mixing entirely random ingredients and cooking methods doesn't work.

Classical physics used to adhere to the exact same Victorian age model of reality; a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space= jolly interesting results eventually.
We know better now, that physics requires vast arrays of finely tuned guiding instructions is a mathematical necessity, life doesn't get a waiver on this, everything boils down to specified information, and we only know of one source for it.

If you dig up the Rosetta stone and conclude ID, is this a 'supernatural' explanation based on zero evidence?

Science doesn't care what people say or believe, it only cares what people can prove or falsify

I agree entirely- that's science - 'the method' and science 'the academic opinion' is exactly the opposite way around. Which is why I prefer the former

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I would be careful not to speak for atheists as a group, because people are individuals. I know that some atheists are threatened by threats or perceived threats from believers about the afterlife. Moreover anyone who expects objective evidence of that which cannot ever be objectively demonstrated is just plain illogical. The logical thing to say is that you won’t believe in anything for which you do not have objective evidence.

I am not talking about all of those things, because most of those are Christian beliefs. The only believe that Baha’is have that could be construed as “supernatural” are the existence of God, the soul, and a spiritual world where we go when we die. We also believe that the Holy Spirit emanates from God and it come to us through Messengers of God. That all makes sense to me even though it cannot be objectively proven. It is ludicrous to expect objective evidence for that which is not physical.

There is no objective evidence of supernatural phenomena for obvious reasons, as noted above. NDEs do not equate to After Death Experiences, but similarities indicate a universal connection. Cultural differences can be explained by the fact that people lived in different cultures so some of their experiences varied. Mediums have communicated with those who are fully dead, and that is the only evidence we have. As for evidence that bodies come back to life after they are fully dead, there is no such evidence and that goes against what is scientifically possible so it is not a Baha’i belief that Jesus rose or that any other bodies will ever rise from graves. We consider that mere superstition.

If one is willing to do the research they can prove to themselves which religion is the current one and that the others were also right for the days in which they were revealed, but not right for this age because they were not revealed for this age. Finally, there is only one God; it is ludicrous to believe otherwise. All this is explained in the Baha’i Writings.

UNLESS someone is trying to prove something to someone, they have no burden of proof. Just because believers say we believe something does not mean we are obligated to prove it to nonbelievers. The burden to prove whatever one wants to know is on the person who wants to know it. If I say there is a car in the driveway, why is it my responsibility to prove that? If you want to find out if that is true, you can go and look for yourself.

All that said, if I present the evidence that is the reason I believe in God et al. and the nonbelievers do not like my evidence or consider it evidence, then my job is done. I cannot create additional evidence that does not exist.

There is no verifiable objective evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but there is verifiable objective evidence surrounding the life of the Messenger of God Baha’u’llah because we can examine His life and the history of His Cause and His Writings and from that we can make a determination as to whether we are willing to accept His claim to have received communication from God. The evidence is objective but the decision is subjective.

The fact that some people were fooled does not mean all people are fooled and that certainly is not proof that the Messengers of God were con men. It is their life that tells us what they were, not what people believed about them because people are fallible and beliefs do not create reality. Nor can you say that all people believe in Messengers just because they want to. I for one would be glad to drop Baha’u’llah off at the nearest bus depot because it is not easy to be a Baha’i, but I cannot do so because there is too much evidence that he was who He claimed to be. I ran for that for decades but I could run no more. I am not getting any younger.

I do not believe that our whole personality is determined by our genetic makeup. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. We have the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints.

Now I understand WHY some people would become insulting. Reading through all the straw man, misrepresentation, distortions, fallacies, and testimonials, can truly be annoying..

You must first learn the difference between not liking something, and being threatened by something. When I say Atheist are not threatened by any religious threats, it doesn't mean that Atheist don't mind someone threatening them. If you said my car is parked in the driveway, it is not an unusual claim since cars are parked in driveways. If you said my car is parked on the roof, I would need objective evidence to prove it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". You make extraordinary claims, therefore you have the burden of proof. Your cult beliefs includes a belief in a Holy Ghost, a Jesus Story, an afterlife, a Judgement Day, Sin, a soul, and Messengers of God and Apostles. Are these Christian beliefs construed or implicit in your belief? In your faith, why can't women serve at the highest level of authority(International House of Justice)? Why are you required to give-up 10% of your income, carry a card indicating membership, refrain from political activities, and prohibited from premarital sex? Does your belief still practice shunning? Why is your ideology a mishmash of Hindi, Muslim, and Christian beliefs. Finally, Do you really think that by selling "peace and harmony", you can bring together both sexes, of all races, from all nations of the world? Buckley's! Just another new age cult.
On Bahai Faith religion

Nobody comes back from being dead(ADE), which was my point. NDE IS NOT ADE. The people talking about their experiences were NOT dead. They were only near dead. How many beheading victims have explained to you their NDE? So using NDE's to prove that anything supernatural exists is intellectually dishonest, and another fallacy. What is the evidence that you claim would prove that mediums actually speak to the dead?

You stated, "Nobody can be fooled or manipulated unless they allow themselves to be fooled or manipulated, since we all have free will.". Now you are saying, "The fact that some people were fooled does not mean all people are fooled and that certainly is not proof that the Messengers of God were con men. It is their life that tells us what they were, not what people believed about them because people are fallible and beliefs do not create reality". I get all warm and fuzzy whenever I listen to people arguing with their own straw man.

Since you obviously have not idea of the value and purpose of objective evidence, the rest of your post is just word salad without a bowl.

 

[Milton Platt]

I do not claim God exists, I believe and know God exists... there is a big difference.
All I can do is point you to the evidence that led me to that conclusion but it probably won’t constitute evidence for you.

Those are both claims........