Is atheism a religion?

[Truly Enlightened]

All of God's religions are true. Their spiritual verities are the same; only the social teachings and laws change from one religion to the next. There is also a new message that is revealed with each new religion, a message that is pertinent to the times in which the religion was revealed, a message that addresses the ills of humanity in that age.

The religion that is pertinent to the present age is the Baha'i Faith and the message is the oneness of humanity.

Even though your icon looks like my cat, you are now just changing the goal posts. I was specifically correcting your usage of hasty generalization being used as a fallacy. I am not interested in whether all God's religions are true, or how we determine what is not God's true religion, or whether all religious varieties are the same, or how the teachings and laws change from religion to religion. These are all distractions. I'm only interested that you don't use the hasty generalization fallacy, when it does not apply.

I'm not interested in your editorializing your message of humanity, oneness, peace, and harmony, under the Baha'i faith and rules of order. This message is not new, including having a Messenger. Religious power, social power, military power, or political power, it is still all about control over the masses.

So please don't use hasty generalization, unless it is applicable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I forgot myself. I am talking to you as if you were a believer....

Yes, I can understand that it's annoying when you can't just assume certain things are real with others just accepting it as correct and instead, asking you to actually meet your burden of proof and support your claims and assumptions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I can understand that it's annoying when you can't just assume certain things are real with others just accepting it as correct and instead, asking you to actually meet your burden of proof and support your claims and assumptions.

I am used to it...
It is all in a day's work.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even though your icon looks like my cat, you are now just changing the goal posts. I was specifically correcting your usage of hasty generalization being used as a fallacy. I am not interested in whether all God's religions are true, or how we determine what is not God's true religion, or whether all religious varieties are the same, or how the teachings and laws change from religion to religion. These are all distractions. I'm only interested that you don't use the hasty generalization fallacy, when it does not apply.

I'm not interested in your editorializing your message of humanity, oneness, peace, and harmony, under the Baha'i faith and rules of order. This message is not new, including having a Messenger. Religious power, social power, military power, or political power, it is still all about control over the masses.

So please don't use hasty generalization, unless it is applicable.

I have no goal posts because I have no goals.
I am not a mind reader so I do not know what people are interested in.
I just respond to what I see written in peoples' posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither model is superior, they are just different.

They sure are different.
And when it comes to actually gathering the most accurate info on reality, then science clearly is superior.

Science and religion are tested in different ways since they are very different aspects of reality.

Different "aspects" ha?
It seems as if these different aspects are that science studies the real while religion studies the imaginary.

Religion can be just as accurate and reasonable as science.

Example?

Its accuracy and reasonableness is just measured differently.

How do you measure the accuracy of religious claims, if you can't empirically test them?


If "accurate" means: "in accordance with actual reality", then by definition to find out how accurate something is, you'ld have to test it against actual reality. That brings you into science territory.

How wrong you are

I don't think so.

That is a generalization about believers and generalizations rarely hold true. For decades, I did not want religion to be true. I ran from it as if I was being chased down a dark alley. I finally came back but not without a lot of resistance and contemplation.

So why did you come back?
And what were you supposedly running from in the first place?

Science is more provable but that does not mean science is truer, logically speaking.

Again, if "true" means "in accordance with actual reality", then to find out if something is true you'ld have to test it against actual reality.

Testing ideas empirically is the very foundation of science, while in religion - if anything - it is even frowned upon doing that. "don't test god", they say. And even if you'ld want to, you can't, because the supernatural is by definition untestable and undemonstrable.

So sure, not being able to test an idea doesn't mean the idea is false. But it most certainly doesn't mean it's true or accurate either.

Untestable ideas are infinite in number, only limited by your imagination.

This is why we have 1 theory of evolution, 1 theory of relativity, 1 theory of germs,.... but hundreds, thousands even, of different religions (and even more denominations within those religions).

Science and religion re simply two different aspects of reality and they are not in competition with each other; at least they should not be in a rational religion. A Baha’i Faith core principle is the harmony of science and religion.

That's neat, but the problems remain.
You can't test or verify your religious ideas to see how accurate they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not if you couple faith with reason; then you have a reasonable faith.

Example?

God does not consider believers gullible; YOU consider believers gullible.

Dude....
When you accept things as true which can't be demonstrated to be true, which can't be verified in any way, then you are by definition being gullible.

That is what "gullible" means: to accept things as true without sufficient evidence.

Thus you are projecting your thoughts onto God.

No. When someone makes a claim that can't be verified and then asks me to "just believe", then that person is asking me to be gullible.

So if you say that god doesn't want us to test his existance, even prevents us from doing so and then rewards those who believe anyway, then that god rewards gullibility.

God values rational reasoning, otherwise we would not have evolved with a rational mind. Believers can think rationally, even if not all do.

If god would value rationality, he wouldn't demand faith.

Granted, some of those are more believable than others.

How "believable" something is, depends on the evidence in support of the claims.
All these religions have the same kind of evidence: claims, more claims and anecdotes.

That makes all off them equally (un)believable.

I do not care about the older revelations, only the Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

And christians only care about biblical revelations.
And muslims only care about quranic revelations.

I care about no revelations. I care about evidence.

Investigating means researching the evidence, and that is putting it to your own test.

What evidence?

Proof has absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no reason to think that if God existed God would provide proof, especially if God wants our faith. But God does not want blind faith; God wants reason-based faith.

God exists but God does not want to be found. That is God’s call since God is Omnipotent.

And again we are back to this god valueing gullibility over rationality.
A god who values rationality, would make himself known instead of demanding irrational belief.
A god that can't be found looks very much like a god that does not exist.

We find out about God through the Messengers God sends to reveal God. That is the ONLY WAY we can ever know anything about God.

Yep. So all you can do is "just believe" the claims.
The point exactly.

You "just believe" your prophets.
Christians "just believe" their prophets.
Muslims "just believe" their prophets.

You are right, and I can think of many examples of that, but with something as important as God it is highly unlikely that 93% are wrong and 7% are right.

Why?
And I'll add that you only consider this important, because you actually already believe it.

To me, your god claims aren't any more important then the god claims of any other religion, or the claims of Scientologists, or the claims of alien abductees. But i'll guarantee you that scientologists consider their beliefs about their inner Thetans and Lord Xenu to being extremely important.

The world could not function at all if 93% of people were deluded. Think about it.

Maybe YOU should think about.
The VAST MAJORITY of those 93% believe very different things then you do.

It is very dishonest of you to pretend as if those 93% stand together against the "unbelievers" like myself. Because christians, to name just one example, disbelieve YOUR religious claims just as much as I do.

Bahá'í statistics - Wikipedia

The total amount of followers of the religion you hold so dear, numbers are 8 million worldwide.
That's about 0.1% of the world population.

I understand how atheists think.

Clearly you don't. You are just as atheistic as me when it comes to religious beliefs of any religion that isn't your own. Yet, you pit 93% against 7% atheists. Eventhough you actually disbelieve the religions of 92.9% of that 93%.

In reality, 99.9% of humans disagree with you.

Easily. It can be tested.

Proofs of Prophethood

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.” Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

How are these things objectively testable?

 

[Trailblazer]

They sure are different.
And when it comes to actually gathering the most accurate info on reality, then science clearly is superior.

That depends upon how you define reality. What is reality?

There is material world reality and spiritual reality. One you can see and feel and test, the other is not visible to the senses but only perceived by the mind (soul).

It seems as if these different aspects are that science studies the real while religion studies the imaginary.

Spoken like a true atheist.

“Religion can be just as accurate and reasonable as science.”
Example?

“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

How do you measure the accuracy of religious claims, if you can't empirically test them?

You study them in order to determine if they conform to reality as opposed to mere superstition.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

If "accurate" means: "in accordance with actual reality", then by definition to find out how accurate something is, you'ld have to test it against actual reality. That brings you into science territory.

Only if you think that the material world is the only reality.

So why did you come back?
And what were you supposedly running from in the first place?

I came back because I had run the gamut living for the things of this material world and I knew I needed something else and I needed answers to big questions about God and the purpose of my existence. I found them.

I ran from religion because I do not like organized religion. I ran from God because I did not like God.

Again, if "true" means "in accordance with actual reality", then to find out if something is true you'd have to test it against actual reality.

Again, you have to define what you mean by reality.

Testing ideas empirically is the very foundation of science, while in religion - if anything - it is even frowned upon doing that. "don't test god", they say. And even if you'd want to, you can't, because the supernatural is by definition untestable and undemonstrable.

No, you cannot test god, although I know one atheist who thinks he can. It’s so funny.

So sure, not being able to test an idea doesn't mean the idea is false. But it most certainly doesn't mean it's true or accurate either.

Now, that’s logical.

This is why we have 1 theory of evolution, 1 theory of relativity, 1 theory of germs,.... but hundreds, thousands even, of different religions (and even more denominations within those religions).

That seems mind boggling, but you can start with some assumptions to get yourself in the right ball park. You do not have to look at all the religions, not anymore than you have to look at every make and model of car before you buy a car.

That's neat, but the problems remain.
You can't test or verify your religious ideas to see how accurate they are.

But you can study a religion to determine if it makes sense to you and conforms to reality as you understand it. That is what I did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That depends upon how you define reality. What is reality?

The environment we all exist in and which continues to be after we are long gone.
The state of things as they actually exist, independently of what we believe.

There is material world reality and spiritual reality.

What is "spiritual reality" and how can you demonstrate that it is actually real?

One you can see and feel and test, the other is not visible to the senses but only perceived by the mind (soul).

What soul?
All the evidence I am aware of suggests that what you call "mind" is just a functioning living brain.

“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..........

That's demonstrably false. A lot, if not most, religions also condone and regulate slavery, promote homophobia, promote misogeny, etc.

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right.

Again completely demonstrably false. See above. Slavery, homophobia, mysogeny,...
These things are anything but moral.

You study them in order to determine if they conform to reality as opposed to mere superstition.

Again, how do you do that, if you can't empirically test them against reality?

Only if you think that the material world is the only reality.

No. How do you determine if something is in accordance with reality, without actually testing it against reality?

Do you agree that "true" means "that which corresponds to reality"?
How do you determine if something corresponds to reality?

I came back because I had run the gamut living for the things of this material world and I knew I needed something else and I needed answers to big questions about God and the purpose of my existence. I found them.

So you never actually stopped believing in God then?
For example, I don't believe in alien abduction and bigfoot. I don't lose any sleep over "big questions" concerning alien abduction and bigfoot.

How many hours of sleep have you lost pondering the big questions about Visjnoe?

I ran from religion because I do not like organized religion. I ran from God because I did not like God.

I don't like cancer, but that doesn't have any effect on me believing cancer is real.
I like bigfoot, but that doesn't have any effect on me not believing bigfoot is real.

Reality isn't dependend on what we like or not.

No, you cannot test god

Exactly.
You can't test extra-dimensional unicorns either.

That seems mind boggling, but you can start with some assumptions to get yourself in the right ball park.

That's not an assumption.
When you have independent scientific studies of reality, one eventually converges on the same answers. There's plenty of examples of scientists who, independently from one another, came up with the same explanatory models.

There isn't a SINGLE example of independently converging on the same religion. Not a single one.
The only way someone ends up with christian beliefs, is if somebody else tells them about it.

When Columbus reached the America's, these people had no idea about anything concerning Jesus, Jawhe, Mozes, ....

I like the Ricky Gervais argument, which goes like this:

Let's imagine that today, somehow, all scientific knowledge and religions would disappear from collective memory. Every single religion, would be lost in history. Christianity would never resurface. But science will. We'll observe all the same facts as before and studying them will once again lead to all the same answers. Eventually, we'll figure out evolution, germs, plate tectonics, atoms, .... once again.

But religions as we know them today, would never see the light of day again. Instead, at best, brand new religions will be invented.

You do not have to look at all the religions, not anymore than you have to look at every make and model of car before you buy a car.

False analogy.
Every car, no matter the brand, drives.
But religions are mutually exclusive. At best, only one can be correct.
If the christians are right, then you are wrong.

So a proper analogy would be that of all the car brands, only one (at best) will actually drive.
You would not buy a car not knowing if it will drive. You'll test it first, before forking up a couple thousand dollars. And you will continue testing brands, until you stumble upon one that actually drives. And you won't require faith for it, because you'll actually KNOW it drives before you buy it.

But you can study a religion to determine if it makes sense to you and conforms to reality as you understand it. That is what I did.

Which does nothing to demonstrate it actually being accurate.
You belong to a religion that is followed by 0.1% of humans.
The other 99.9% of people, disagree with you.

Of those 99.9%, 7% (your numbers, which I didn't doublecheck) are atheists.
The other 92.9% believe that their religions, which disagrees with yours, makes just as much sense to them and "their reality", as you do. Yet, they believe very different things then you do.

Horoscopes make sense to people who believe in astrology.
Deluted water having magical powers makes sense to people who believe in homeopathy.
Alien sex experiments makes sense to people who believe in alien abduction.
Moon landing conspiracies makes sense to people who believe in a flat earth.

Bottom line is that that which seems sensible to you (based on what you already believe), has no bearing on what is actually true.

Before Einstein, it made sense to nobody that the flow of time is relative to the observer and influenced by the speed / gravity of the observed.

Before quantum physics, it made sense to nobody that objects can show up "here" while being measured "there". But that's exactly what electrons do.


This is why we have something like the scientific method. It's a tool to literally bypass our bias, subjectivity and our desire to "believe".

 

[ChristineM]

The environment we all exist in and which continues to be after we are long gone.
The state of things as they actually exist, independently of what we believe.



What is "spiritual reality" and how can you demonstrate that it is actually real?




What soul?
All the evidence I am aware of suggests that what you call "mind" is just a functioning living brain.



That's demonstrably false. A lot, if not most, religions also condone and regulate slavery, promote homophobia, promote misogeny, etc.



Again completely demonstrably false. See above. Slavery, homophobia, mysogeny,...
These things are anything but moral.




Again, how do you do that, if you can't empirically test them against reality?



No. How do you determine if something is in accordance with reality, without actually testing it against reality?

Do you agree that "true" means "that which corresponds to reality"?
How do you determine if something corresponds to reality?



So you never actually stopped believing in God then?
For example, I don't believe in alien abduction and bigfoot. I don't lose any sleep over "big questions" concerning alien abduction and bigfoot.

How many hours of sleep have you lost pondering the big questions about Visjnoe?



I don't like cancer, but that doesn't have any effect on me believing cancer is real.
I like bigfoot, but that doesn't have any effect on me not believing bigfoot is real.

Reality isn't dependend on what we like or not.



Exactly.
You can't test extra-dimensional unicorns either.



That's not an assumption.
When you have independent scientific studies of reality, one eventually converges on the same answers. There's plenty of examples of scientists who, independently from one another, came up with the same explanatory models.

There isn't a SINGLE example of independently converging on the same religion. Not a single one.
The only way someone ends up with christian beliefs, is if somebody else tells them about it.

When Columbus reached the America's, these people had no idea about anything concerning Jesus, Jawhe, Mozes, ....

I like the Ricky Gervais argument, which goes like this:

Let's imagine that today, somehow, all scientific knowledge and religions would disappear from collective memory. Every single religion, would be lost in history. Christianity would never resurface. But science will. We'll observe all the same facts as before and studying them will once again lead to all the same answers. Eventually, we'll figure out evolution, germs, plate tectonics, atoms, .... once again.

But religions as we know them today, would never see the light of day again. Instead, at best, brand new religions will be invented.



False analogy.
Every car, no matter the brand, drives.
But religions are mutually exclusive. At best, only one can be correct.
If the christians are right, then you are wrong.

So a proper analogy would be that of all the car brands, only one (at best) will actually drive.
You would not buy a car not knowing if it will drive. You'll test it first, before forking up a couple thousand dollars. And you will continue testing brands, until you stumble upon one that actually drives. And you won't require faith for it, because you'll actually KNOW it drives before you buy it.



Which does nothing to demonstrate it actually being accurate.
You belong to a religion that is followed by 0.1% of humans.
The other 99.9% of people, disagree with you.

Of those 99.9%, 7% (your numbers, which I didn't doublecheck) are atheists.
The other 92.9% believe that their religions, which disagrees with yours, makes just as much sense to them and "their reality", as you do. Yet, they believe very different things then you do.

Horoscopes make sense to people who believe in astrology.
Deluted water having magical powers makes sense to people who believe in homeopathy.
Alien sex experiments makes sense to people who believe in alien abduction.
Moon landing conspiracies makes sense to people who believe in a flat earth.

Bottom line is that that which seems sensible to you (based on what you already believe), has no bearing on what is actually true.

Before Einstein, it made sense to nobody that the flow of time is relative to the observer and influenced by the speed / gravity of the observed.

Before quantum physics, it made sense to nobody that objects can show up "here" while being measured "there". But that's exactly what electrons do.


This is why we have something like the scientific method. It's a tool to literally bypass our bias, subjectivity and our desire to "believe".

Just one point, the 7% (which as you say you didn't check) is not accurate, it includes only confirmed atheists, but excludes
agnostics who have no reason to believe in god or gods, nor folk religions who have no concept of god or gods. It also excludes Buddhists as believers in gods which is not necessarily true for all Buddhists. It also excludes those who have no religion and who may or may not believe in gods.

Begin with China with 1.38 billion population, over half of them (very close to 7% of the worlds population) are either atheist, or hold to folk religions that have no concept of god or gods).

Then India, another country with a high population, according to the 2012 census 16% of indians are not religious or atheist.

America does have polling data, The 2014 General Social Survey reported that 21% of Americans had no religion with 3% being atheist and 5% being agnostic.

The latest UK census found more than half the population had no religion

Across Europe similar census give is 22% of europeans do not believe in gods. Thats 163 million.

Australia also has a high atheist population.

Going on the criteria of non belief in god or gods then we are looking more like 18 to 22% of the world population.

interestingly the CIA demographic tells us that only 2% if the world population.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I have no goal posts because I have no goals.
I am not a mind reader so I do not know what people are interested in.
I just respond to what I see written in peoples' posts.

The idiom of changing the goal posts have absolutely nothing to do with your personal goals. No one was suggesting that you were a mind-reader, or that you know what people are interested in. Or, how you can conclude from your own straw man that you only respond to what people posts. None of these points were ever a point in question, except in your mind. I suppose rather than simply admit that you were wrong in using the hasty generalization fallacy and move on, you mask your clear error by creating a word salad of disconnects, to give the perception of relevancy and importance. We all make mistakes, no matter what our beliefs are. Just move on.

 

[ecco]

The following quotes with my emphases:

God does provide evidence of His existence by way of the Messengers He sends who reveal scriptures. There is no proof that God spoke to these Messengers but there is evidence that indicates they did.

It requires some faith to believe in the Messengers since we cannot ever prove they got a message from God. However, that faith can be a reason-based faith, not a blind faith, if it is based upon proper investigation.

Different people see the same things differently.
Not everyone will ever come to the same conclusions.

A proper investigation is a thorough investigation.
The conclusions have nothing to do with it.

If "proper investigation" does not necessarily lead to "truth", then your "reason-based faith" is nothing more than "blind faith".

 

[ecco]

It does not matter what the label is. There is only One God.

That is your opinion. Try telling a Muslim that Allah is the same as Shiva. Try telling a Southern Baptist that his god really is Allah.

The important point is that they believe in God, something higher than themselves.

Why is that important? Is it a good thing to forbid women to get an education and forbid them to drive because there is something higher? Is it a good thing to denigrate science because there is something higher? Is it a good thing to repeatedly terrorize, ostracize and kill Jews because there is something higher?

 

[ecco]

God is not a nothing.

There is no evidence to support anything other than man created god(s) in his own image.

God does not want the belief of those who think He is a nothing.

How do you know what a god wants?

It is no skin off God's nose what atheists do...
God does not need anything from humans.

Then why do so many people bow down and pray to a god? Are they all deluded believing this is something god needs?

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

Don't bother posting excerpts from your scripture. I've read enough to know it is all fabrication.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just one point, the 7% (which as you say you didn't check) is not accurate

Ow, I am well aware of that.

I could have looked it up, but I thought it would make more impact if I would just use his numbers and show how even his own arguments and statistics work against him

And it doesn't even matter to the argument anyway. Hidden in the numbers that he himself shared, is the dishonest way in which he pitches the "93%" all in one camp and the 7% of atheists in the other. As if 93% of people agree with him and disagree with me.

While in reality, only 0.1% of people agree with him and 99.9% of people disagree with him.
And as far as HIS religion is concerned, those 99.9% of people also agree with me. That is to say, we all agree that his beliefs are likely false.





I always love it when theists like to claim that "90% of people believe in a god", while in reality - no matter the religion of the theist saying that - their particular religious beliefs are ALWAYS a minority. Because not a single religion is followed by +50% of all humans. Not single one.

Even if we lump together ALL christian denominations, then still we are only talking about some 30-35%
But even that is dishonest... protestants and catholics disagree so much on their religious beliefs, they actually fight wars over it.

The same goes for sunni and shiite muslims.

 

[ecco]

But religions as we know them today, would never see the light of day again. Instead, at best, brand new religions will be invented.

Case in point: Bahai

 

[lukethethird]

I guess you did not understand that quote. Nobody punishes nonbelievers but themselves. God is not doing the punishing. It is a self-imposed punishment, the consequences of turning away from God. Conversely, we gte a reward when we turn towards God.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

Thank you, you explain why religion couldn't be more divisive.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you, you explain why religion couldn't be more divisive.

Religion does not do that, people divide themselves by their own choices.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or, how you can conclude from your own straw man that you only respond to what people posts. None of these points were ever a point in question, except in your mind.

No, what I responded to was written in YOUR POST.

"Since all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, there is no way for you to demonstrate just how all other religions are false, or that your religion is true. At best, you can only BELIEVE that yours is the true religion, and theirs is false. At worst, you can convince yourself that you KNOW that yours is the true religion, and theirs is false." #886 Truly Enlightened, Yesterday at 9:36 AM

Then I said what is below in response to your post.

"All of God's religions are true. Their spiritual verities are the same; only the social teachings and laws change from one religion to the next. There is also a new message that is revealed with each new religion, a message that is pertinent to the times in which the religion was revealed, a message that addresses the ills of humanity in that age." #897 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 9:53 PM

I picked out what I wanted to respond to, which was not what you thought I should respond to (the fallacy of hasty generalization), but I do not care what you want me to respond to because you have no right to tell me what I can post on a public forum.

I suppose rather than simply admit that you were wrong in using the hasty generalization fallacy and move on, you mask your clear error by creating a word salad of disconnects, to give the perception of relevancy and importance. We all make mistakes, no matter what our beliefs are. Just move on.

I am not going to admit I am wrong about the fallacy of hasty generalization because I am not wrong. Atheists employ that fallacy left and right, whenever they ASSUME (without even looking) that the Baha'i Faith is the same than the other religions. Clearly it is different, and anyone who has really looked can see that. You have a right to think it is the same if you want to, but that does not mean it is the same, it just means that is what you think. But what you think does not determine reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess you did not understand that quote. Nobody punishes nonbelievers but themselves. God is not doing the punishing. It is a self-imposed punishment, the consequences of turning away from God. Conversely, we gte a reward when we turn towards God.

Absolute nonsense.

If you hold a gun to my head and say "give me your wallet, don't make me shoot you"...
And I then refuse to give you my wallet and you shoot me...
I did not just commit suicide!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religion does not do that, people divide themselves by their own choices.

Euh.............................
No, dude. Religion absolutely does that. Religion divides between the "followers" and "everybody else".

As Matt Dilahunty once said...
When he turned atheist, he received letters from his former friends saying "we can no longer associate with you because you are off the devil". His wife was like, completely cast out of her own family.

Him losing his faith had tremendous social repercussions. In his own words: "I did not end those relationships. Christians, ended those relationships. I did not send letters to them saying that I no longer could associate and socialise with them. Christians did that."

When you have a belief that all those not part of your little belief club deservs to be tortured forever, then people not part of your club can not be friends with you. This wall between you, is entirely build up by YOUR side.