"Why Is It That Atheists Don't Believe In God?"

[loverofhumanity]

Go study the Dark Ages: When Europe was ruled by those very same things... it was a horrible time to be alive...

The dark ages are the times in history, it is my humble opinion, when we are farthest from God and closest to ego and self. While man turns to God and obeys His law to love all He is happy but once he begins following the ego he brings upon himself wars, destruction and misery.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Absolutely false. Look at Europe during the rule by the Moors.

Or later, during the Dark Ages, when christianity was synonymous with government.

Or pretty much anywhere in the modern day Middle East...

Yes but these were man made governments. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad revealed an administration or even appointed a successor which is why they split into thousands of sects.

Baha’u’llah brought a Divine Administration not a man made one that brings sorrow and suffering, war and destruction.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

An All-Wise God would never make so many moral mistakes as humans have made....
That is why God hasn't made any mistakes.
Only humans make mistakes. God does not make ANY mistakes.

That's the problem of imaginary gods (like yours)-- they are created by fallible humans.
The Real God is nothing like you depict Him.

Again. You stoop to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT logical fail.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The dark ages are the times in history when we are farthest from God and closest to ego and self. While man turns to God and obeys His law to love all He is happy but once he begins following the ego he brings upon himself wars, destruction and misery.

Yet. Government was based on the Bible. ALL repeat ALL the Rulers considered themselves Genuine Christians.

The Dark Ages? Was a time when Christianity and Government were the same thing.

Proof that Christianity is an evil method by which to live; anytime it is IN CHARGE? GREAT EVIL QUICKLY FOLLOWS.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes but these were man made governments. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad revealed an administration or even appointed a successor which is why they split into thousands of sects..

So? I thought Jesus was perfect... but when Chrisitanity was Government?

We have the Dark Ages-- evil follows every time you let Religion Rule.

Every. Time.

Baha’u’llah brought a Divine Administration not a man made one that brings sorrow and suffering, war and destruction.

Did not the bible warn about False Prophets? Why, yes... yes it did... *Edited by Moderator*

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yet. Government was based on the Bible. ALL repeat ALL the Rulers considered themselves Genuine Christians.

The Dark Ages? Was a time when Christianity and Government were the same thing.

Proof that Christianity is an evil method by which to live; anytime it is IN CHARGE? GREAT EVIL QUICKLY FOLLOWS.

My point is that there was no such government revealedd by the Bible,or any law specifying it’s duty and functions so any Christian government was not from God but man made and subject to both corruption and wrongdoing.

If we all lived our lives according to Jesus teaching to love one another great evil would follow? I think wars would end and peace would come don’t you?

The teachings of Jesus to love can only bring good. Going against these teachings of love that’s what has brought us evil. To hate and make war is not a teaching of Christ.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Jesus never revealed a divine administration of government. There has never been a Christian government originating from the Words of Jesus or the Holy Bible. Any government run by Christians was man made and subject to both wear and tear and corruption. The same with Islam..

Citation Needed. Just because you say so? Does not mean it is so.

Only Baha’u’llah brought a Divine administration in writing in His Holy Book and endowed it with infallibity by God in writing. The Universal House of Justice is free from error and cannot become corrupt unlike worldly institutions.

Citation Needed: note-- your "holy" book is not a qualified source.

*Edited by Moderator*

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My point is that there was no such government revealedd by the Bible,or any law specifying it’s duty and functions so any Christian government was not from God but man made and subject to both corruption and wrongdoing..

So you claim. So you absolutely fail to prove. The thing is? People of that time and place, strongly disagree with YOU. I'll take the words of 1000's of folk over someone who follows an obvious con-artist/fake charlatan.

If we all lived our lives according to Jesus teaching to love one another great evil would follow? I think wars would end and peace would come don’t you?.

I'm going by HISTORY. And? You don't qualify anyway-- you follow a fake/con/charlatan.

The teachings of Jesus to love can only bring good. Going against these teachings of love that’s what has brought us evil. To hate and make war is not a teaching of Christ.

So YOU say-- the bible does not agree with you, here....

 

[loverofhumanity]

Citation Needed. Just because you say so? Does not mean it is so.


Citation Needed: note-- your "holy" book is not a qualified source.

*Edited by Moderator*

As far as the Gospels are concerned I cannot cite something that there is no reference to. There is no reference to Jesus saying to establish a government or laying down its laws and functions. So I cannot cite something that’s not there.

As far as Baha’u’llah is concerned...


Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and requirements of the time.”

— Bahá’u’lláh
Numerous other quotations from Him regarding thr duties of the House of Justice.

Selected Readings on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh

It is free from error...

And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, (Abdu’l-Baha)

Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone.

Say, O people: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings of your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is, under His protection, His care, and His shelter;


Selected Readings on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice from the Writings of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá

It’s Seat is on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel.

The Universal House of Justice | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you claim. So you absolutely fail to prove. The thing is? People of that time and place, strongly disagree with YOU. I'll take the words of 1000's of folk over someone who follows an obvious con-artist/fake charlatan.


I'm going by HISTORY. And? You don't qualify anyway-- you follow a fake/con/charlatan.


So YOU say-- the bible does not agree with you, here....

I respect your right to differ courteously and wish you well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

As far as the Gospels are concerned I cannot cite something that there is no reference to. There is no reference to Jesus saying to establish a government or laying down its laws and functions. So I cannot cite something that’s not there..

Actually? There are plenty of references wherein Jesus refers to Hebrew Laws, but you demonstrate your ignorance of the bible yet again.

As far as Baha’u’llah is concerned....

Con Man. Don't care. DNR.

Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and requirements of the time.”

— Bahá’u’lláh
Numerous other quotations from Him regarding thr duties of the House of Justice.

Selected Readings on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh

It is free from error...

And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, (Abdu’l-Baha)

Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone.

Say, O people: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings of your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is, under His protection, His care, and His shelter;


Selected Readings on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice from the Writings of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá

It’s Seat is on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel.

The Universal House of Justice | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[loverofhumanity]

Actually? There are plenty of references wherein Jesus refers to Hebrew Laws, but you demonstrate your ignorance of the bible yet again.



Con Man. Don't care. DNR.

Then maybe it’s best we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Best wishes for 2019.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yeah...some atheists also want believers in God to define the nature of their God to specificity, so that it'd be something verifiable or falsifiable. Well guess what, ain't gonna happen. God is almost always vaguely defined, so a person's God can neither be tested, verified nor falsified

And as a consequence of being neither testable, verifiable or falsifiable, you'd also think that such a god could not possibly be vouched for or believed in by a sensible person. Or at least, I would.

 

[Shantanu]

And as a consequence of being neither testable, verifiable or falsifiable, you'd also think that such a god could not possibly be vouched for or believed in by a sensible person. Or at least, I would.

It is wrong to say that God cannot be verified or tested: all it needs is the correct scientifically sound procedure.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But would atheism be the best principle to run our world on? What are their principles or morals?

I really do get tired of that question: "what principles or morals" can atheists have. It always really implies that the answer is, "without God belief, none." And that's rubbish.

My principles and morals are based on a very few things, and those few things are of enormous help to me in teaching me to behave well towards others, and myself.

I accept that all humans are of equal inherent worth and value, and unless they act in such a way as to forfeit that worth and value, deserve to be treated as I would like to be treated, and not treated in a way that I would not wish to be treated. I don't wish to be stolen from, or harmed, so I don't steal from or harm others. If I were in trouble, I would hope someone would offer help, so when I see someone in trouble, I offer what help I can.

Is that not good enough? Or do you think morals have to include stuff about whether you can touch your own genitals in a pleasurable way, and therefore need some baseless "laws" that make what is otherwise harmless into a "sin?" I have no need of such silliness.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I respectfully disagree, because it is just as reasonable that a God exists as that God does not exist, maybe even more reasonable.

Are you sure? Is it just as reasonable to believe that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as to believe it does not? I can see no reason that would be any different.

But the reason that you don't believe an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists is because there's never been any evidence for such a thing, and nobody ever tried to convince you of it anyway, so you dismiss the idea. For exactly the same reasons that I dismiss the idea of God.

I think the actual main cause of atheism is unwillingness to look at and/or inability to see the evidence for the existence of God. A secondary cause is lack of interest. If one does not think they need God, why bother to look?

You would be wrong on both counts: theists have been trying to show some sort of "evidence" for God since they first dreamed up the idea of God, and so far have come up with nothing that any rationale person would call "evidence," as some theists have even asserted in this very thread.

But second, I ask you, if you thought think that you need God for something, how could you ever suppose that it was God, not happenstance, that provided it? Because here's another truth for you to process: many people who believe in God, and need God, have their needs relentlessly ignored. I would even go so far as to suggest that they are in the very, very large majority.

Do you know what I think it is that theologians and priests are actually good at? It's the art of explaining why things never turn out the way that their theology suggests it ought to. Why the prayers and sacrifices didn't bring rain, or why God didn't save the life of one child, while another lived, and that sort of thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is wrong to say that God cannot be verified or tested: all it needs is the correct scientifically sound procedure.

I think you need to work through that thought a little more...keeping in mind at least something of what we are told is "the nature of God." If that nature does not include that tangible, the observable, the measurable, then science can't touch it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A point that the video briefly touched on at the start is, 'What do you mean, 'God'?'

In other words, what real thing is the word 'God' intended to denote?

It took me a long time to realize that (a) that's the central question and (b) no one has an answer for it.

I think, actually, it's not that no one (by which I mean believers) has an answer, but rather that the answers shift and sway in such a way as to not be subject to scrutiny.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I really do get tired of that question: "what principles or morals" can atheists have. It always really implies that the answer is, "without God belief, none." And that's rubbish.

My principles and morals are based on a very few things, and those few things are of enormous help to me in teaching me to behave well towards others, and myself.

I accept that all humans are of equal inherent worth and value, and unless they act in such a way as to forfeit that worth and value, deserve to be treated as I would like to be treated, and not treated in a way that I would not wish to be treated. I don't wish to be stolen from, or harmed, so I don't steal from or harm others. If I were in trouble, I would hope someone would offer help, so when I see someone in trouble, I offer what help I can.

Is that not good enough? Or do you think morals have to include stuff about whether you can touch your own genitals in a pleasurable way, and therefore need some baseless "laws" that make what is otherwise harmless into a "sin?" I have no need of such silliness.

Actually I was an atheist myself for quite a long period but I had plenty of principles and humanitarian beliefs exactly like yourself so I stand corrected. Atheists do have many very good humanitarian principles such as the ones you mentioned.

My only question is that we are human and make mistakes so what if we are wrong by relying totally on human conscience resulting in incorrect morals and standards being accepted & applied in society that damage us?

Or are we never wrong and society always gets it right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you sure? Is it just as reasonable to believe that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as to believe it does not? I can see no reason that would be any different.

But the reason that you don't believe an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists is because there's never been any evidence for such a thing, and nobody ever tried to convince you of it anyway, so you dismiss the idea. For exactly the same reasons that I dismiss the idea of God.

There is no *reason* to think that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, and there is no need for one to exist, but there is a *reason* to think God exists and there is a need for God, even if you are unaware of that need.

You would be wrong on both counts: theists have been trying to show some sort of "evidence" for God since they first dreamed up the idea of God, and so far have come up with nothing that any rational person would call "evidence," as some theists have even asserted in this very thread.

There is evidence but people just view it differently. That does not make them rational or irrational, they are just different.

But second, I ask you, if you thought think that you need God for something, how could you ever suppose that it was God, not happenstance, that provided it? Because here's another truth for you to process: many people who believe in God, and need God, have their needs relentlessly ignored. I would even go so far as to suggest that they are in the very, very large majority.

We know we need God and what God provides because that is what the Messengers of God have revealed. How else could we ever know?

God is not obligated to provide for our daily needs and be at our beckon call. God gave us innate intelligence and free will to take care of our own needs.

Do you know what I think it is that theologians and priests are actually good at? It's the art of explaining why things never turn out the way that their theology suggests it ought to. Why the prayers and sacrifices didn't bring rain, or why God didn't save the life of one child, while another lived, and that sort of thing.

Nobody has the answers to those questions except God, so theologians and priests should not be explaining them.