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

[Guy Threepwood]

You are very welcome. I'm afraid that God is not time, God is not material, and God is not even a possibility in a 4 dimensional Universe(under the 4 forces in Nature). Please don't say that God transcends space, time, and matter. That would mean that God exists in another dimension, which is the same as non-existence by default. Therefore given an infinite amount on zero time, and an infinite amount of zero materials, will only produce zero probability/outcome. An analogy would be if you never bought a lotto ticket. You would have zero chance of winning, no matter how much non-time and non-materials you use. The outcome will always be zero possibility of winning.

(thanks again for detailed response, sorry if mine are sometimes slow but I always try to get to posts people have put some thought into..)

Similarly, Tolkien doesn't appear anywhere in Lord of the Rings , he lives in another dimension, he is utterly non existent in Middle Earth. Does he transcend it? of course. And so does the automated printing press

i.e. whether naturalistic or intelligent, whatever created the universe as we know it, by definition transcends it's own creation, and cannot exist in time/space matter/energy as we understand it- so in this sense 'super-natural' is a box you are probably going to want to be able to check ,is it not?
Otherwise you assert that the laws of nature can be ultimately fully accounted for by... those very same laws.... That's a paradox inherent and specific to atheist beliefs. Theism does not create this problem, it solves it

Again, Atheism of not a belief, it is a position of understanding if you will. There is absolutely Zero evidence to support a belief in a Deity. Therefore, atheist have nothing NOT to believe in regarding the existence of a Deity. You believe without evidence(faith), Atheists don't. Also, my non-belief(only in a Deity) has nothing to do with science. So Atheistic ideas didn't win, it was the new scientific idea that won.

a-naturalism is not a belief either. As an 'a-naturalist' I make no positive assertions, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic causes for the universe until proven otherwise
(and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative)

- works as well both ways doesn't it? that is to say, not very well, because obviously framing a belief as a disbelief does not alter the belief itself at all, it merely tries to avoid looking like one. Why would you want to do that? Theists don't because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on their own merits.

i.e we all believe in something, Blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself as such.


"So Atheistic ideas didn't win, it was the new scientific idea that won.[/quote]" correct; science won, atheism lost, not the only example!

Although you seem to mock the idea of a multiverse, you should really keep an open mind. Once we determine why Gravity is so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces, we may be able to know if a multiverse does, or does not exist. This research is going on now at the LHC and CERN. We just have to be patient. It may be one more nail in the Religious coffin.

I agree with Krauss on Hawking's (RIP) multiverse: "If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory."

I also agreed with Hawking on Krauss though " that moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard' or words to that effect

I think you missed the point of my car analogy. You are looking at a Cosmos the way it is(or was). We have no other cosmos to compare our fine-tuning to. We have no other life forms in the Universe, to compare our life forms to. The mechanics of Evolution is based only on how our species have evolved. What is the point you are insinuating? Are you implying that if the Cosmos were different, or the natural laws were different, then the Cosmos would be different? I certainly agree. BUT IT AIN'T! It is what it is. Since nothing in nature is absolute, fine-tuning is relative, and has already been debunked totally.

Really! Someone considers it feasible that we could engineer our own Universe, and you get excited? I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm. That would be like telling someone that if they bought two lotto ticket, their possibility of winning is improved. If an ID did exist, there would be evidence of his design. Not inferred, but implicit and objective. This idea was also debunked back on the 60's.

correct, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created, so there is no default assumption to claim here, any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

If you see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you put it down to the random action of the waves?

why not?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is what makes knowledge relevant to you, but what is certainty to you is not the same as what is certainty to me. I am as certain that what I know from the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is true as you are certain that scientific facts are true. I am also certain that scientific facts are true since one does not preclude the other; they are simply different kinds of knowledge, religious and scientific. Moreover they are like two wings of a bird and humanity needs both to function properly, to grow and develop, to prosper and advance.

You are correct. According to Baha’u’llah, everyone has the “capacity” to believe in God through recognition of His Messenger. However, not everyone is going to believe in God or in Baha’u’llah and there are myriad reasons why not. One reason is that God guides certain people, and He guides those who He knows will be humble and open-minded and are willing to make the necessary effort. He does not guide those who have rebelled against His Messenger because that would be a violation of freewill. God want belief to be a choice. It has always been that way throughout history.

My belief is based upon evidence and faith. The supernatural beliefs such as God, the soul and the afterlife can never be proven so they are taken on faith, but it is a reason-based faith because it has good evidence to back it up and it makes logical sense.

I think you are confusing knowledge for certainty. I was saying that if there was enough objective evidence to support your high degree of certainty, then I should also be able to see it. I don't see anything that even resembles objective evidence. Science and religion are NOT two sides of the same coin. Scientific knowledge is based in verifiable natural events. Religious knowledge is based in man-made social, and cultural superstitions. In other words in the former, the objective facts/evidence provide us with a very high degree of certainty. In the latter, it is the absence of objective facts/evidence that provide us with a very low degree of certainty(faith). Science at least have a basis for truth, Religions do not. Humanity may or may not need all the thousands of different cults and religion on the planet, but it certainly needs science to keep evolving to provide for the future of Humanity. Religions have no utilitarian or practical value, science does.

You are correct. According to Baha’u’llah, everyone has the “capacity” to believe in God through recognition of His Messenger. However, not everyone is going to believe in God or in Baha’u’llah and there are myriad reasons why not. One reason is that God guides certain people, and He guides those who He knows will be humble and open-minded and are willing to make the necessary effort. He does not guide those who have rebelled against His Messenger because that would be a violation of freewill. God want belief to be a choice. It has always been that way throughout history.

My belief is based upon evidence and faith. The supernatural beliefs such as God, the soul and the afterlife can never be proven so they are taken on faith, but it is a reason-based faith because it has good evidence to back it up and it makes logical sense.

Since you haven't a clue what is in the mind of a God, I will assume your self-serving comments are an attempt to rationalize your choice. How do you know that a God guides or chooses only humble and open-minded people? Con men also do this. How do you know that a God wants belief to be a choice, or that a God can't violate anyone's free-will? The only way you can understand what a God is or wants, is to be a God yourself. Are you a God? You may have convinces yourself that a human being can be a messenger of a God, or that other irrational superstitions are rational, but I assure you that no supernatural being guided your decision.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course a claim is not evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

There is no proof that Baha’u’llah got a message from God, so all we can do is look at the evidence that “indicates” that He was a Messenger of God. That is what I did and continue doing, as one cannot ever be too sure when it comes to things as important as God.

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.

Yet you claimed evidence.

None if your list is evidence by the definition of the word

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What you have is a series common events that can relate to many people that in one particular case you chose to call evidence. Preconception is a wonderful way tool as used by religion

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thanks Bob. I had thought I had some kind of relationship with him but I guess that was just one-sided. I tried so hard, which is why it hurts so much to be rejected like this. But I will get over it with the help of all you kind atheists on this forum. I tend to gravitate more towards men than women, since I was closer to my dad than my mom, and it seems like a lot of atheist posters are men. My dad was an atheist. Then there are the agnostic posters, I like them too.

The only close Baha’i friend I have is Truthseeker9 (Duane). On my forum which is pretty inactive right now, I have three atheists posting who are my friends. I do not post much to Christians because normally they just want to prove they are right and I am wrong. I have had enough of those debates to last a lifetime.

I think that might be true for the bulk of atheists in the United States, but this atheist forum owner is an exception, because he never bought off on religion and so he was never hurt. I have a poster on my forum who was hurt so badly by Christianity for 35 years that it makes me want to cry. He was also hurt by God and that makes me want to cry even more, because I can identify. I almost lost him about a week ago because he got angry at me, since he cannot seem to disassociate Baha’i from Christianity, but he finally realized that he is going to get more empathy from me than from the hard core atheists on the adjacent forum I left. That atheist forum owner knows where I am at if he wants to talk to me. I wrote him several long private messages so the ball is in his court. It will probably stay there though because he is about as stubborn as me.

You kind of seem like a new man since I met you Bob, and that was only about three months ago. But maybe that was just my initiation ceremony, not the real you. I sensed you were not mean, just hurt by God. That is not a difficult task since God can be pretty aloof.

Yes, it is always best to be kind, except in cases where that would lead someone very devious to take advantage, because they think you are a sap. I have a new tenant like that, so I had to get more businesslike really fast.

I tried to be kind to that atheist forum owner but it did not work. Of course it would help if he would read my private messages. He told my husband he was too mad at me to read them, so maybe he does have feelings after all.

Thanks for your kind words.

I think it would be helpful to remember: Kindness is a worthy goal, in and of itself.

And a person can be moral (given a certain definition of moral) but not be kind.

Indeed: I can easily visualize someone who is deliberately hurtful, cruel even, but firmly remaining inside the "lines" of what is considered moral behavior.

I have personally experienced teachers who fit that category very, very well: Intentionally cruel to their students, while never quite stepping over the line far enough to get them canned/sacked.

Some folk are just plain mean, as my gran' would say. She also observed that there is always two sides to every pancake, no matter how thin.

Gran' lived a very long life, in an age where that was uncommon, and she was happy I'd say, 90% of the time-- if not more. "You just don't think about them things" she would say regarding some situation over which no one had any control.

A lesson I took from my training (to be a counselor working with abused kids), is nobody owns your feelings but you. Do not give other people power over how you feel, because if you do, they will walk all over you and many times, not even realize it.

It's hard to put yourself out there, trying to be Informative or Helpful (or just plain Kind) and then to have that effort utterly rejected or ignored or tossed back at you.

That's on them-- not you. But it's hard to remember that. You cannot control anyone but you-- I have no doubt you know this, but it's often easy to forget.

Keep Being Kind. One of the Best Revenges onto Mean People? Is to be Kind to them no matter what.

It's one of few bits of advice, the bible gets right, in Psalms.

 

[Revoltingest]

If atheists want to say they need no God for morality then some of them are not doing a very good job of demonstrating that with their air of superiority, arrogance, and rude behavior, not to mention dishonesty, lack of self-awareness and unjust treatment of others.

Always bear in mind that atheism is a very very big tent.
We let in anyone....nice, mean, smart, stupid, Democrat, Republican, criminal or saint.
There's no initiation...no requirements...no vetting....we don't even know who joins.
We don't care what they believe.
All that matters is what they don't believe.
So expect some very bad behavior now & then.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you might call an attempt to discredit, I call an accurate description. Fortunately, both video supply historical and factual evidence to support their claims. You do not, and simply assert denial, without providing either. I do not go to Clan or White Supremacist sites to get an unbiased objective interpretation of their philosophies. Circular reasoning firstly comes to mind. My sources are independent and objective, based only on facts and evidence, not gap-filled with elements of faith and belief. MANY independent sources.

No, one of your sources was not objective at all. It was obvious attempt to discredit the Baha’i Faith. It was calumny. That site even had a thumbs down so right away we know it cannot be objective!

The problem is that there really is not a lot of objective information about the Baha’i Faith because it is so new and nobody has taken it seriously enough to write about it. In the future, there will be more objective scholarly works written about it and its history as we now have about Christianity and the other major religions

How do you know that was presented as historical and factual evidence is accurate? There is no way for you to know that since you know hardly anything about the Baha’i Faith. Have you independently verified it or compared it to other sources of information, or did you just assume it is accurate because it “looked accurate.” To be fair, you would have to look at other sources of information, even those that are presented by the Baha’i Faith.

Yes you would go to Clan or White Supremacist sites to get information about what they believe and do.Who could know better what they believe and do than those who belong to those groups? What possible reason would they have to misrepresent what they believe and do? What you would get on other sites that disagree with their beliefs and actions are not going to be objective at all, for very obvious reasons; those sources of information would most likely disagree with the philosophies and actions of the clan and white supremacists, so they are going to present a distorted view of what the clan and white supremacists actually believe in and do.

That is exactly what those who disagree with the Baha’i Faith do, and many do it so coyly that the unsuspecting reader/viewer is fooled into thinking that they present “actual facts.” Some might be facts, but their interpretation of those facts and spinoff from them to draw conclusions are where the problem comes in, because it is biased by their hatred towards the Baha’i Faith. You could say the same thing about the “facts” presented by the Baha’is, that they are biased by their love for the Baha’i Faith, but now we need to look at motive, because it is practically the whole ball game. First of all the Baha’is know more about their own religion that outsiders and secondly they have no motive to lie about their own religion.

Any human being claiming divinity, or divinity through succession, would instantly require evidence to support that claim.

And that is what we have, scads of evidence that “indicates” that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. There is much more evidence for Him than for any of the Messengers of the past religions, and it is verifiable evidence. By contrast, for Jesus all we have are stories written by men, many unnamed.

There are no demigods, or any messengers for a God(s). Why would a God need a messenger in the first place?

The most obvious reason why God would need a Messenger is that God cannot materialize, come to earth and write 15,000 Tablets, as Baha’u’llah did.

There is no explicit or implicit direct connection between any human being on the planet and a God. These are only myths, that people want to believe are true(cognitive dissonance). Just because someone believes they are somehow connected to a God, don't make it so. And, by succession is even more ludicrous.This is why the scientific method of inquiry is such an invaluable tool, for dismissing these sorts of extraordinary claims, outright. Faith requires Zero evidence, and faith in any belief requires even less.

You are right, there is no explicit or implicit direct connection between any human being on the planet and a God, but there is a connection between a Messenger of God and God.A Messenger of God is not just a man. He is a higher order of creation. He is a subtle, mysterious and ethereal Being that has been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather pre-existent. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

Of course, just because someone believes someone is a Messenger of God does not make it so. Beliefs do not create reality, but neither does evidence. Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God or not. The way we determine that is to look at all the evidence that indicates that, but since everyone interprets that evidence differently, not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion.
The scientific method of inquiry cannot be used as a tool for dismissing any religious claims. They are outside the scope of science and the evidence that supports them is a wholly different kind of evidence.

Oasis, MercyCorp, Child Empowerment International, CloudHead, The Dhaka Project, The Hunger Project, Invisible Children, Shared Interest, International Rescue Committee, etc., 50 nonprofits making a world of difference - Matador Network , are just a few of the secular, non-profit, non-religious organizations trying to make a difference in the world. Why not join or contribute to them? All these organizations promise peace, education, and the desire to bring people together. Why must obedience to a divine belief be part of your motivation? Altruism is a human attribute, not a divine attribute.

I agree that altruism is a human attribute and the secular organizations are doing the same things that religious organizations do. These secular organizations can promise peace, education, and the desire to bring people together and they can do that to a degree, but they do not have the capacity or a plan that will bring the whole world together. The Baha’i Faith does have such a plan and it is unfolding right now.

Obedience to a divine belief are part of my motivation because I believe God exists and God sent a new Messenger for this age in history. It is as simple as that. You do not believe in God, so obviously that won’t be part of your motivation.

It is your right to believe in anything you want. But is not your right to create your own logic to justify it. Can you prove it, or do you just believe it?

I do not create my own logic, I just use my logic to determine what I will believe. I never said I could prove it to anyone else, in fact I have said many times that I cannot. But I have proven it to myself given the evidence I have.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's hard to perceive what the subject matter of your conversation was, without reading such posts.
If you were evangelising in some way to them then they may well have been responding? Where I live street evangelisers can get heckled, but no worse than politicals etc.

No, I was just responding to posts posted to me and answering questions. If Baha’i came up that is because it was related to the conversation at hand.

Of course they did...... they don't believe in any Gods. They could well have as much humility as the average Bahai, and, you know, many folks might think that Bahai is not so humble either............. I have received more serious insults from Bahais than anybody else here, been called 'Demoniser' and suchlike.

Then why don’t the atheists here denigrate belief in God? Why are some of them very humble? I suggest it is because they have a different personality and outlook on belief.

Humility is a personality trait and not all Baha’is are humble, but I would not judge the Baha’is based upon a few Baha’is on this forum and consider them average. Most Baha’is I know are pretty humble but we are not perfect.

I know of forums for Christians where you would be insulted, verbally abused, etc to a level so bad that it's actually hard to believe unless you have been there, seen all that. This very week on one forum a Socialist-Atheist posted to say that a rest was needed and that they were wandering off for a time, and other members including site bosses replied with insults and 'get lost don't come back' messages.

Why do I visit it? It sets my feet on the ground about who is out there besides the decent folks.

I am sure there are such forums. I was going to a forum for a while where anything goes and insults are not disallowed. Most people were not insulting but some were. Without a rule that is enforced by the forum owner and moderators there is no way to control that behavior. You sure must appreciate this forum when you come back from those other forums. That is akin to getting home after driving through a big snowstorm.

A long time ago I figured out that posters who are insulting and mean only make themselves look bad to good people, so I stopped responding and making an effort to defend myself. Good people know.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you are confusing knowledge for certainty. I was saying that if there was enough objective evidence to support your high degree of certainty, then I should also be able to see it. I don't see anything that even resembles objective evidence. Science and religion are NOT two sides of the same coin. Scientific knowledge is based in verifiable natural events. Religious knowledge is based in man-made social, and cultural superstitions. In other words in the former, the objective facts/evidence provide us with a very high degree of certainty. In the latter, it is the absence of objective facts/evidence that provide us with a very low degree of certainty(faith). Science at least have a basis for truth, Religions do not. Humanity may or may not need all the thousands of different cults and religion on the planet, but it certainly needs science to keep evolving to provide for the future of Humanity. Religions have no utilitarian or practical value, science does.

No, even if we are both looking at the same objective evidence there is absolutely no reason to think that you would see it the same way I see it, because it requires interpretation, and that is subjective. For example, I can read the Writings of Baha’u’llah and immediately believe that had to come from God whereas you can read them and believe they are just an ordinary book. Unless people have brains that are clones of one another there is no way they will all see the same objective evidence in the same way.

I did not say that science and religion are two sides of the same coin, I said they are like two wings of a bird and humanity needs both to function properly, to grow and develop, to prosper and advance.Scientific knowledge is based in verifiable natural events. Religious knowledge is based on knowledge from God that comes through Messengers of God aka Prophets. The objective facts/evidence of science provide us with a very high degree of certainty. The objective facts/evidence of the Messengers provide us with a lesser degree of certaintybut if we have good evidence that evidence provides certainty for some people, depending upon how they view the evidence. However, a certain degree of faith is necessary since the existence of God cannot be proven, nor can we prove that the Messenger received a message from God, since only He knew that for certain.

Science has a basis for truth, but religion also has a basis for truth, they are simply different kinds of truth. Humanity needs both science and religion to function, which is why I said they are like two wings of a bird. Moreover, humanity survived long before we had modern science, but humanity never survived without religion, since Messengers have been sent by God since the dawn of man. Morals do not just drop out of mid-air. People learn moral behavior. Religions do have practical value.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”
Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

Since you haven't a clue what is in the mind of a God, I will assume your self-serving comments are an attempt to rationalize your choice. How do you know that a God guides or chooses only humble and open-minded people? Con men also do this. How do you know that a God wants belief to be a choice, or that a God can't violate anyone's free-will? The only way you can understand what a God is or wants, is to be a God yourself. Are you a God? You may have convinces yourself that a human being can be a messenger of a God, or that other irrational superstitions are rational, but I assure you that no supernatural being guided your decision.

I know the Will of God because what Baha’u’llah wrote is identical to the Will of God, so I know what the requirements are of a true seeker: Tablet of the True Seeker

That God guides or chooses only humble and open-minded peopleconforms to reason because God cannot guide arrogant and closed-minded people since God would have to override their free will in order to make them believe. If a person does not have any humility they will not even be willing to consider the “possibility” that Baha’u’llah could be a Messenger of God, in which case they will not even bother to check out His claim in any serious fashion. How then could they ever be a believer?

Even if con men con humble and open-minded people that does not prove God is a con man.

I know that God wants belief to be a choice and that a God does not violate anyone’s free will because Baha’u’llah wrote that, in so many words. The only way to know anything about God’s Will is from Messengers of God. I do not need to be God to know God’s Will. I just need to read what was revealed by God to Baha’u’llah, which was also interpreted by His appointed interpreters to whom He gave authority by virtue of His written Covenant.

You can “believe” that God did not guide my decision but you cannot assure me of that unless you know the mind of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

None if your list is evidence by the definition of the word

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Everything on my list is evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah could be a Messenger of God.

What you have is a series common events that can relate to many people that in one particular case you chose to call evidence. Preconception is a wonderful way tool as used by religion.

No, certain things I listed could not apply to anyone else except Baha’u’llah. Unless you can find someone else who did those things, they are unique to Baha’u’llah.

• 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;
• 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.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for your kind words.

I think it would be helpful to remember: Kindness is a worthy goal, in and of itself.

And a person can be moral (given a certain definition of moral) but not be kind.

Indeed: I can easily visualize someone who is deliberately hurtful, cruel even, but firmly remaining inside the "lines" of what is considered moral behavior.

I have personally experienced teachers who fit that category very, very well: Intentionally cruel to their students, while never quite stepping over the line far enough to get them canned/sacked.

Some folk are just plain mean, as my gran' would say. She also observed that there is always two sides to every pancake, no matter how thin.

Gran' lived a very long life, in an age where that was uncommon, and she was happy I'd say, 90% of the time-- if not more. "You just don't think about them things" she would say regarding some situation over which no one had any control.

A lesson I took from my training (to be a counselor working with abused kids), is nobody owns your feelings but you. Do not give other people power over how you feel, because if you do, they will walk all over you and many times, not even realize it.

It's hard to put yourself out there, trying to be Informative or Helpful (or just plain Kind) and then to have that effort utterly rejected or ignored or tossed back at you.

That's on them-- not you. But it's hard to remember that. You cannot control anyone but you-- I have no doubt you know this, but it's often easy to forget.

Keep Being Kind. One of the Best Revenges onto Mean People? Is to be Kind to them no matter what.

It's one of few bits of advice, the bible gets right, in Psalms.

Thanks Bob. I do not think most people realize how much difference it makes when they are kind to others; I mean genuinely kind, not just pretending. Even little things can make a difference, like a man at the grocery store helping us load our groceries and telling my husband he understands about his asthma since he has had asthma since he was a baby.

It is easier to be kind when one is happy most of the time rather than depressed or anxious. One has to make a special effort when they do not feel happy like everyone around them. I have that problem at work because I have a lot of stress in my life, things most people my age do not have to contend with. I am sure that others do not understand what it is like to be me, and living many days in a row on 4-5 hours of sleep alone can make one very grumpy. But also it is hard to see everyone else enjoying themselves when one has a hard life and no time for such activities. But I have come to realize it is not their fault their life is easier than mine or that they got a set of parents I did not get. It is just fate. Nonetheless I either say nothing or I am kind to my coworkers who are about the only people I socialize with in real life right now, since I do not have time. Time is a huge issue in my life.

When I went back to that forum where that atheist was the owner I made a point to say that I missed everyone and I even told the forum owner that I missed him, because I did. I would never say anything that was not genuine. Then he said he missed me too, which made me feel really good, especially considering everything that has transpired between us on his forum, all the bad feelings there have been over the years. He was always accusing me of doing that I did not think I did. But since he sees everything from such a different perspective, in his mind I did them.

There is no way to work things out when one is not even willing to discuss them and when they do they do not bend one bit. I am always the first one to admit I made a mistake if I did, because I tend to feel guilty just because I exist, a gift from childhood. That is one reason why I won’t allow others to heap more guilt on me when I know I did not do what they accused me of doing. I do not need his laundry list of posts wherein he said I did x, y and z. I was no different on that forum than I am on this forum. I am just me wherever I go. And I know myself very well, more than I want to, because I was in counseling and 12 step programs for over 15 years, not to mention being under constitutional homeopathic treatment all during that time.

I was not about to have much to do with the Baha’i Faith until I had worked through my emotional issues. That does not mean I do not have things to work on, character defects as they are called in 12 step programs. It just means I know when I am not doing something I was accused of doing. Sure, we all have a subconscious mind so there are things I am unaware of, but that applies to everyone. The key is to try to be self-aware, and if we are we can avoid hurting other people if we make an effort.

But I think some people are just kind by their nature; again that is easier when one has an easy life. My boss is very kind and what a difference that makes, compared to a former boss I had. But even when she insulted me I did not say anything; when it got too bad I reported it to her superiors and they called a meeting.

People all see things from their own perspectives but they are unwilling to look at others’ perspectives why even bother posting on forums? I think that atheist forum owner tries to communicate with people because he asks questions, but if he responds to a believer it is almost always negative. By contrast, I try to be positive even if I do not feel that way and I make a special effort not to criticize people. My religion teaches that fault-finding is the most hateful characteristic of man.

No, nobody is responsible for anyone else’s feelings, people are only responsible to be polite and respectful of others but invariably some people will take what we say the wrong way and get their feelings hurt. At that time all we can do is try to explain what we meant and apologize.

I used to be a controlling person way back in my youth, after I first got married, and I learned that from my mother. But then after going through all those years of counseling and 12 step programs I learned that I cannot control anyone except myself. Later I figured out I did not even want to control anyone. I really do not understand why people who are almost as old as me or older still have not figured that out. Often, they think I am trying to control people, like I come on forums to convince or convert people to my beliefs. I absolutely have no interest in doing that, so to say because I talk about about my beliefs that must mean I am trying to convince people is attributing false motive. Maybe that is what they do and they are projecting that onto me. People do that very often. But is just unfair to keep telling someone else what they meant or what their motives are, especially after I have said what I meant and what my motives are and are not. It is akin to calling me a liar or at the very least that I do not know my own mind. That is so arrogant.

But as you said, there is not much we can do about what others do. All we can do is behave according to our own values and let the cards fall where they may. Sometimes it is necessary to just walk away, as I did with that forum. I have come to believe that we end up where we are supposed to be, so apparently my little side trip back to that forum was not meant to be a permanent arrangement.

 

[Trailblazer]

Always bear in mind that atheism is a very very big tent.
We let in anyone....nice, mean, smart, stupid, Democrat, Republican, criminal or saint.
There's no initiation...no requirements...no vetting....we don't even know who joins.
We don't care what they believe.
All that matters is what they don't believe.
So expect some very bad behavior now & then.

That makes sense. Atheists can also expect some bad behavior from believers now and then too.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I was just responding to posts posted to me and answering questions. If Baha’i came up that is because it was related to the conversation at hand.

Fair enough......

Then why don’t the atheists here denigrate belief in God? Why are some of them very humble? I suggest it is because they have a different personality and outlook on belief.

When I read 'humble' I think of Mr Micawber, when I read 'humility' I perceive a quite different characteristic.
I don't think that people should be humbled, rather that they should believe in themselves and be prepared to speak out for themselves, like you did when you told that other forum about your extensive education.

I am sure there are such forums. I was going to a forum for a while where anything goes and insults are not disallowed. Most people were not insulting but some were. Without a rule that is enforced by the forum owner and moderators there is no way to control that behavior. You sure must appreciate this forum when you come back from those other forums. That is akin to getting home after driving through a big snowstorm.

True...........

A long time ago I figured out that posters who are insulting and mean only make themselves look bad to good people, so I stopped responding and making an effort to defend myself. Good people know.

Everybody thinks that they are a good person. Everybody.
Dale Carnegie once wrote about a murdering gangster who killed anybody who got in his way, police, women, children, anybody. He was a ruthless, wicked, killing, thieving murderer. At his execution he was asked for any last words, and he said, 'This is what you get for trying to help people'.

 

[Trailblazer]

When I read 'humble' I think of Mr Micawber, when I read 'humility' I perceive a quite different characteristic.
I don't think that people should be humbled, rather that they should believe in themselves and be prepared to speak out for themselves, like you did when you told that other forum about your extensive education.

I agree, we should be willing to speak up for ourselves and what we believe in. That is one reason I got in trouble on that atheist forum. But I don't think we should think that we are great or that we know everything or that we are right about everything.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Be always humble, gentle, and patient. Show your love by being tolerant with one another.
(Ephesians 4:2)

Hot tempers cause arguments, but patience brings peace.
(Proverbs 15:18)

Hard to do! But applying this is productive.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dale Carnegie once wrote about a murdering gangster who killed anybody who got in his way, police, women, children, anybody. He was a ruthless, wicked, killing, thieving murderer. At his execution he was asked for any last words, and he said, 'This is what you get for trying to help people'.

Wow! How delusional can you get?!! Lol....yet very sad.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

(thanks again for detailed response, sorry if mine are sometimes slow but I always try to get to posts people have put some thought into..)

Similarly, Tolkien doesn't appear anywhere in Lord of the Rings , he lives in another dimension, he is utterly non existent in Middle Earth. Does he transcend it? of course. And so does the automated printing press

i.e. whether naturalistic or intelligent, whatever created the universe as we know it, by definition transcends it's own creation, and cannot exist in time/space matter/energy as we understand it- so in this sense 'super-natural' is a box you are probably going to want to be able to check ,is it not?
Otherwise you assert that the laws of nature can be ultimately fully accounted for by... those very same laws.... That's a paradox inherent and specific to atheist beliefs. Theism does not create this problem, it solves it




a-naturalism is not a belief either. As an 'a-naturalist' I make no positive assertions, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic causes for the universe until proven otherwise
(and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative)

- works as well both ways doesn't it? that is to say, not very well, because obviously framing a belief as a disbelief does not alter the belief itself at all, it merely tries to avoid looking like one. Why would you want to do that? Theists don't because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on their own merits.

i.e we all believe in something, Blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself as such.


"So Atheistic ideas didn't win, it was the new scientific idea that won.

" correct; science won, atheism lost, not the only example!




I agree with Krauss on Hawking's (RIP) multiverse: "If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory."

I also agreed with Hawking on Krauss though " that moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard' or words to that effect





correct, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created, so there is no default assumption to claim here, any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

If you see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you put it down to the random action of the waves?

why not?[/QUOTE]

If you had stated that the Graviton might transcend space-time itself, this would've been a better analogy. But Prof. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, or Shakespeare, transcending their literary works? You are trying to equate something that transcend cause and effect, to something that doesn't. The Universe does not transcend its creation, it is simply evolving expanding and a cooling extension of its creation. Did you transcend from the moment of your conception? Did you simply skip many stages of human development, and transcend into an adult? You are simply distorting and manipulating terminology to support your position. Our entire universe is dependent, and based on the principle of cause and effect. Nothing escapes this principle(in the classical reality). When we see any effect, we know that there must have been a cause. Since the scientific method has determined the overwhelming majority of classical causes, why would we look to the supernatural for any answers or explanations? Especially since there are NO examples of its existence, its causes or its effects. This is simply a gap-filling argument from ignorance.

The creation of the Universe can be explained by natural explanations(quantum Flux, quantum Gravity, quantum Vacuum, M2 Brane Theory, Multiverse, etc.). The problem is how to prove it. As the tools of science become more significantly advanced, so will our understanding and knowledge about many unexplained natural phenomena. The laws in nature have always existed, billions of years before any humans existed. These laws were formed as a result of the BB. We merely try to explain, observe, test, and understand them. You are not suggesting that if science can't explain something, that a paradox exist? Or, are you suggesting that since any supernatural explanation can explain anything, that a paradox does not exist? I think you can see how logically flawed both ideas are.

You have somehow convinced yourself that straddling the "indecision fence", or labeling yourself as a-naturalist, will somehow make you immune to any intellectual responsibility or due diligence. There is no difference between "God did it", and refusing to believe in any naturalistic cause for the origin of the Universe until proven. This is called a cognitive presupposition. All accommodating presuppositions are inappropriate and implausible. Reducing options to only two is another fallacy. What about the "we just don't know" category? One way is imaginary and unfalsifiable, the other way is factual and falsifiable. So it doesn't work both ways. You believe that blind faith is fact by default, and I believe that blind facts are factual without any faith at all.

Whatever personal comments Prof. Krause said about Prof. Hawking, are all totally irrelevant. If I saw "HELP" written in the sand I, like any normal person would stop to investigate, regardless if anyone was seen or not. It's always better to be certain, just like in science.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

To compare the Baha’i Faith with the Clan is illogical right out the door

Please stop misrepresenting everything that I say. It is becoming annoying. I was never comparing your Baha'i beliefs or ideology with the Clan. I was suggesting and implying that any objective and impartial source would be more accurate without any self serving dogma to amplify its importance or self-interests. That is why my sources are not racial or religious. The rest of your paragraph was based on this straw man. And since people change their religion or ideology all the time, the 84% statistic you mentioned is irrelevant.

I am not arguing with a straw man because I am not arguing in order to convince you of anything. I am just presenting information and some of that information is necessary to understand other information.

What you are presenting is misinformation and fallacy-riddled logic. If what you believe is only relevant to you, then keep it to yourself. But if you are trying to make a case to justify your belief, then you have failed. Your beliefs are subjective, proof is objective. If all you can do is assert that aspects of your belief is your objective evidence, then you have failed to convince any objective person. If you don't care about your reasoning, then you must feed off of negative reasoning to justify your belief.

There is no proof that consciousness can exist outside of the mind, and without a functioning brain, but there is evidence that indicates that. The evidence is OBEs and NDEs. The fact that the same experiences can be scientifically recreated under controlled conditions does not mean NDE and OBE experiences are not real, logically speaking. Scientifically controlled experiments might emulate an NDE but they do not disprove the NDE or OBE experience because both can be valid experiences with different precursors.

Both OBE's and NDE's require a living host to experience them, and tell you about them later. It also requires a functioning sensory mechanism(brain and sense organs). As in normal life, the conscious(less than 10% of the brain's activities) perception of reality is only as good as the information the brain received from the sense organs. Faulty sense organs or a faulty brain', will directly lead to a faulty perception. But this perception is still based in the physical reality. Again because we cannot disprove what does not exist in the physical reality, doesn't mean that a non-physical reality exist by default. The job of proving a negative falls on the person making the negative claim. Therefore since there is clear objective evidence that consciousness is a product of a functioning brain, what is your proof that a zero dimensional consciousness can exist outside of the brain? Other than simply asserting that I can't prove it doesn't? The dream state is a manifestation of the third layer of the mind(unconsciousness). It still requires a functional brain, since the dead don't dream. Or are you going to suggest that I also prove that as well?

My statement was, "To expect extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims is certainly not illogical. In fact, it is logically expected. You have a right to believe anything you want, but you don't have a right to create your own logic". Do you think that you should NOT expect to produce extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims? Do you think that claiming a human to be a messenger for a God, the existence of a soul, or the existence of a supernatural sky daddy, are just simply everyday normal claims based in reality? If you think they are, then they don't require any evidence and I have indeed created a straw man.

As you have stated many times before, there is not only zero evidence for the existence of an IMMATERIAL God, but that it would be illogical to expect there would be. Your entire argument is to propose a non-argument as evidence. If there is no evidence of a material God, then God has no material relevance in a material reality. All cults and religions have one thing in common. They all rely on claims that are unfalsifiable and unscientific. Therefore, you can only teach what you think is true, not what you know is true.

If God is an immaterial Being then there can be no objective evidence because we cannot see or hear God. That is how I know that no objective evidence exists that supports the existence of a God. If God is a material Being all bets are off, but if God is a material Being it makes sense that someone would have been able to locate God on a GPS tracker by now, given God has been around since the beginning of time.

This is a "switch and bait". If God is non-material then which is it, that you KNOW that God exists, or that you KNOW that there is no material evidence to support His existence. Creative, but mutually exclusive. That leaves us with only one option left. That is, a material God with material evidence. If this option were true since the beginning of time, you are correct, a God would have been discovered a long time ago. But of course this is not what the argument is about(hence switch an bait). Since you can't provide objective evidence, or accept your burden of proof, simply find a way to dismiss of misdirect. More intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Revoltingest]

That makes sense. Atheists can also expect some bad behavior from believers now and then too.

No!

 

[ChristineM]

Everything on my list is evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah could be a Messenger of God.

No, certain things I listed could not apply to anyone else except Baha’u’llah. Unless you can find someone else who did those things, they are unique to Baha’u’llah.

• 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;
• 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.

You have a very low threshold of evidence. I'm wondering, do you hold the same low standards for the beliefs of other religions... Certainly Mohammed meets similar criteria.

I have twice provided you with the definition of evidence. Can you honestly say anything in that lists meets that definition, remembering that to say someone is a messenger of god you need to prove the existence of the god in question.

I would like to offer a counter claim, that you have faith, and faith is not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have a very low threshold of evidence. I'm wondering, do you hold the same low standards for the beliefs of other religions... Certainly Mohammed meets similar criteria.

No, Muhammad does not meet the same criteria as Baha'u'llah. First, we do not have a clearly recorded history of his life and mission as we do for Baha'u'llah... Second, we do not have original scriptures that He wrote in His own pen. as we have for Baha'u'llah... Third, we do not have all the prophecies that He fulfilled, as we have for Baha'u'llah... Clearly, there is more verifiable evidence for Muhammad than for Moses or Jesus, but not as much as we have for Baha'u'llah.

I have twice provided you with the definition of evidence. Can you honestly say anything in that lists meets that definition, remembering that to say someone is a messenger of god you need to prove the existence of the god in question.

I have provided the definitions of proof and evidence in an effort to explain that evidence is not proof, and I have said I cannot prove the existence of God, nobody can. All we have is evidence that "indicates" that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and if He was that means there has to be a God... There is no proof that God exists but the evidence for Baha'u'llah is good enough for me to know that God exists. YMMV.

I would like to offer a counter claim, that you have faith, and faith is not evidence.

Faith is a necessary adjunct to belief, because nobody can prove that God exists.... but once we know, we know. It is not necessary to have objective proof to have certitude.