Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[Trailblazer]

That is no problem. Hinduism has many denominations and even if I belong to one, I will say that all the rest are valid and I will respect them completely. That is, completely valid, without any reservation; and not like Bahais who would say "We believe in this, this, and this prophet/messenger - but only ours is the only true and valid religion at the moment till the arrival of the next manifestation in the year 2865 (or whatever)'. Hinduism is constituted in that way.

That is a misrepresentation of what Baha’u’llah wrote. The Baha’i Faith is not the only true and valid religion at the moment. Baha’u’llah is simply who God has enjoined us to turn to in this day, for the following reason:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”Gleanings, p. 171-172​

The other religions are still valid, it is their dispensations that have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Shoghi Effendi explained this.

Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 100
The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Sure, Ahmadiyyas can prove the mission of their Mahdi just as well as you can prove the 'divine mission' of Bahaullah.

I would like to see the Bible prophecies that he fulfilled.

Bible and Quran or any other scripture that sources itself to God or his ambassadors is very poor evidence. Circular reasoning.

The Bible and the Qur’an are the best sources of information about the one true God, aside from the Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Uh? No. It would be rather sad if they did.

Besides, we know for a fact that they do not. Perhaps the most clear evidence of such is the existence of the Upanishads. But even without those, I do not have quite so little faith in the wisdom of five millennia or so of Hindu sages.

Heck, we Buddhists arose a few millennia later and even so we had our ShiramShonins, our Boddhidharmas, our Atishas.

Above all, we all have our moments and that does contribute to the collective of Dharma. As we shall ever hope to.

Okay, I see. You are looking at this from a whole different perspective that I am, and that is no doubt because you do not believe that these religions are revealed by God. If they were created by man then I can see why changes over time as they are needed would be beneficial. But from a Baha’i perspective, if God revealed a religion, man’s changes to that religion over time distort and tarnish the original revelation. The original revelation is like a pristine lake that man has polluted by swimming around in it for thousands of years.

You say that as if it were a drawback or a flaw in some way. That just does not make sense to me.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is any God, nor any religion of God. Far as I now or care, all religion is indeed man-made, and that much more valuable for it.

Sure, all worthy religion will also be skilled at teaching the appreciation and expression of the Sacred. But the Sacred in not God. It is something much purer, less saddled and more sublime, at least to my eyes.

It is a drawback from my perspective but it is not a drawback from your perspective for reasons noted above. From an Abrahamic perspective, the sacred is God and we worship Him alone, although Christians worship Jesus since they believe Jesus is God.

I will file this in the same folder where I put the realization, back some 15 or 20 years ago, that I can never be a Bahai, since the whole doctrine is so completely theistic.

Bahaullah seems to have done considerable good, but I simply can't agree with him on this matter.

Indeed, it is a wholly different kind of belief system and just as you cannot accept it because it makes no sense to you, I could never accept the Hindu or Buddhist religions as they are practiced today. I can however see the value in their spiritual teachings, just not the practice. The same applies to Christianity, I value the teachings of Jesus but not the doctrines of the Church.

 

[Trailblazer]

With the proviso that I am not a Hindu, allow me to point out a few things.

Hinduism does indeed include god teachings, or more accuratelly it does teach of the Devas and their Avatara. It has virtually as many Gods as one may see use for in one's practice, from none to millions.

It is however premature and IMO misleading to conclude that the Devas or the Avataras are necessarily similar to the Gods and Messengers of the Bahai Faith and its predecessors.

Yes, as I said to Aupmanyav, I know Hinduism has many Gods.

No, I certainly do not think that the Hindu Gods are similar to the Gods and Messengers of the Baha’i Faith and its predecessors, but thanks for pointing that out.

That of course would be impossible because the Abrahamic religions teach that there is only one true God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hinduism has many Gods. No prophets, many Gods.

Yep, that is what I have gathered.

 

[Trailblazer]

People can disagree in peace and mutual respect. They do not need to convince others, they need only the freedom to practice as they see fit.

The same applies to the Baha’i Faith, IF the Baha’is are actually adhering to what Baha’u’llah wrote...

[COLOR=#660000]“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” [URL='http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-132.html.utf8?query=leaves&action=highlight#gr3']Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288[/URL][/COLOR]

 

[Trailblazer]

Stay on topic... The point was about scripture in which you demand it for X but not for your view. You couldn't leave the point at merely the Buddhists lack of contemporary scripture. You made a claim about that scripture according to your religion.

My point was that Buddhists do not have any original scripture written by the Buddha but Baha’is have original scripture written by Baha’u’llah.

You said more than that. You put forward a knowledge claim merely based on your existing belief not the scripture you demanded from others.

I do not know what you mean, but why does it even matter what I said before? Every day is a new day. Why bother going over the past?

You do not have the relevant Buddhist text. So now follow your logic above.....
No you didn't as you made a statement without the Buddhist scripture to back it.

There is no original Buddhist scripture, just teachings that were written after the Buddha lived.

Sophistry

No just the logical way of going about establishing the Truth of His claim.

 

[Shad]

My point was that Buddhists do not have any original scripture written by the Buddha but Baha’is have original scripture written by Baha’u’llah.

You made statements regarding Buddhism via your own religion despite having no evidence.

I do not know what you mean, but why does it even matter what I said before? Every day is a new day. Why bother going over the past?

As my point was relevant to the question in the OP

There is no original Buddhist scripture, just teachings that were written after the Buddha lived.

Ergo you made a faith based knowledge claim with no evidence and you know there is no evidence.

No just the logical way of going about establishing the Truth of His claim.

Nope as you still have no presented a single piece of evidence regarding the topic at hand. Ergo you quoted sophistry.

Again all you have done is establish you are blind to your own bias even when presented as a neutral party. That is easily a reason why people are intolerant of theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, as I said to Aupmanyav, I know Hinduism has many Gods.

No, I certainly do not think that the Hindu Gods are similar to the Gods and Messengers of the Baha’i Faith and its predecessors, but thanks for pointing that out.

That of course would be impossible because the Abrahamic religions teach that there is only one true God.

That is a bit of a self-imposed pickle for the Abrahamics, indeed.

In presenting themselves as both strictly monotheistic and universally applicable, they have to offer some explanation for how come not everyone believes in some version of their self-imposed restrictions.

The results are not IMO very good.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, I see. You are looking at this from a whole different perspective that I am, and that is no doubt because you do not believe that these religions are revealed by God.

That is indeed a fair comment to make. Although it must be said that even for strict monotheists Hinduism makes more sense than the Abrahamics, far as I can see.

If they were created by man then I can see why changes over time as they are needed would be beneficial.

Indeed. And that is just as true of revealed religions, as unfortunately illustrated by the Pope Emeritus so recently.

But from a Baha’i perspective, if God revealed a religion, man’s changes to that religion over time distort and tarnish the original revelation. The original revelation is like a pristine lake that man has polluted by swimming around in it for thousands of years.

Accurate description of what, to me, looks like one of the most unfortunate traits of both Islaam and the Bahai Faith.

So much sorrow could have been avoided by attaining the realization to overcome that self-imposed, so damaging restriction!

It is a drawback from my perspective but it is not a drawback from your perspective for reasons noted above. From an Abrahamic perspective, the sacred is God and we worship Him alone, although Christians worship Jesus since they believe Jesus is God.

Probably accurate. And quite the reminder of why I could never be an Abrahamic adherent, even for a single second, except to appease the expectations of others and even then with no conviction nor sincerity to speak of.

Unfortunately, many, many millions, even hundreds of millions find themselves in the exact same situation, not always with enough room to even realize the nature of their quite unnecessary plight.

Indeed, it is a wholly different kind of belief system and just as you cannot accept it because it makes no sense to you, I could never accept the Hindu or Buddhist religions as they are practiced today.

As they ever were or are ever meant to be, then.

I can however see the value in their spiritual teachings, just not the practice. The same applies to Christianity, I value the teachings of Jesus but not the doctrines of the Church.

How do you even separate the teachings from the practice?

 

[LuisDantas]

The same applies to the Baha’i Faith, IF the Baha’is are actually adhering to what Baha’u’llah wrote...

[COLOR=#660000]“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” [URL='http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-132.html.utf8?query=leaves&action=highlight#gr3']Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288[/URL][/COLOR]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but by refusing to transcend the Abrahamic mold the Bahai Faith effectively forbids itself from being all-encompassing... ironically enough, by insisting on claiming that it already is.

 

[Dan Mellis]

In December 2017, I left a forum I had been posting on for about four years to come here because of a falling out with the atheist forum owner. I was here for about a year and then that atheist forum owner saw me posting on another forum in that forum group and invited me back to his forum. I went back in December 2018, reticently, and since then I have only been posting here on RF on a limited basis, because I do not have time for both forums. I am now very sorry I ever went back there and I hope I never make the same mistake again.

That forum pretends to be a forum for believers, ex-believers and nonbelievers but it is inhospitable for believers of any kind, particularly for believers of the Baha’i Faith. That is putting it mildly. We are discriminated against because the forum owner has a vendetta against my religion. Christians and Jews are tolerated as long as they do not talk too much about God or their religious beliefs. Mostly what they talk about on that forum are politics and social issues. So they really should not call themselves a “religious forum.”

My most recent academic background is in psychology, so I wonder why people think and do what they think and do. It seems rather obvious to me that if the atheists on that forum are hostile towards me it is because they are threatened in some way. Of course, they would never admit that. It is not as if I am a bit pushy about what I believe, and in fact I only discussed my beliefs if someone else posted to me about my beliefs. Then I responded and I got blamed for proselytizing. This is wholly unjust.

This last falling out was precipitated by the forum owner having a hissy fit for what he considered me mentioning my religion too much and then he put me on moderation. I sent him a private message that I will not post on his forum while on moderation because that is unjust, since I broke no forum rules, and I told him I was leaving his forum. Of course most of the atheists are glad I am gone. I am also glad I am gone because now I am back here and the atheists on this forum have been so different. They are mature adults, not little children acting out.

There is no reason why those atheists would act out that way unless they were afraid of what I have to say. They do not react to the other believers on that forum that way because they do not dare talk much about God or their religion, because they are too afraid of being insulted. But I never cared about being insulted; I stood right up to them, but I was always polite. And I never told them that they should believe in God, as I am very well aware of the reasons atheists do not believe in God and I respect those reasons. Why can’t we all just get along? Is that too much to ask?

Imagine that! I dare to talk about God and my religion on a “religious forum.”

The forum owner just wants to control everything I post, it is so obvious. Why can’t other people see this? It is psych 101 stuff. I know atheists are intelligent, but the atheists on that forum seem to wear blinders regarding the reasons for their fearless leader’s behaviors.

Finally, they call that forum a “free thinkers” forum and I find the very ironic, because nobody has changed the way they think since I went there five years ago. They are not free to think anything that contradicts their atheism and they don’t want to hear about it. Then they rank on believers and say we are not free to think because we have a religion. They say we are just “brainwashed believers.” It is comical that they cannot understand their own behavior, but it is also rather sad.

I understand that a lot of atheists are ex-believers who were hurt by Christianity but it is not fair to take that out on me. I did not do anything to them except try to be their friend. But they cannot be friends with a believer, all they can do is tell me I am wrong about what I believe. They say there is no God, no soul and no afterlife but they have no proof of that. I readily admit believers have no proof either, but there is evidence. By contrast, atheists have no evidence that there is no God, no soul and no afterlife, so they should just admit that, instead of insisting they know. I guess it makes them uncomfortable to have to think about these things, but if they are so sure they do not exist they would be able to just blow me off instead of getting antagonistic. This is psych 101 stuff.

I am interested in what the atheists on this forum have to say about this, but I am also open to hearing the opinions of believers.

The forum itself seems to be an echo chamber. Orobably not worth your time. However, if I could offer an argument as to why I'm intolerant of religious belief.

I see it as a moral duty to argue against religion and to highlight its dangers to society. It falls under the same category of thinking as many conspiracy theories - that is to say the rejection of evidence in preference to personal conviction. This is harmful in itself (allowing for religious arguments for homophobia, racism, misogyny etc) but it is dangerous when you come to talk about movements like anti-vax. The rejection of scientific evidence-based theory is something that we need to fight against - and unfortunately religion doesnt stand up to that fight.

Now I'm sure that there'll be lots of people saying "well absolute faith in accepted scientific explainations is dangerous" and I completely agree - but I'm in no way qualified to challenge these so will leave it to the scientific community to do so... it is their job, after all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, Baha’u’llah did not say that He sent Messengers. He said that God sent Messengers. He (God) hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul (Messenger) be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven.

He said many things at different occasions, a confused manifestation or perhaps one who tried to confuse others:

“Verily, through His Advent hath come to be fulfilled the Advent about which glad tidings have been given by the Messengers of God from all eternity and there hath come to pass about which God hath revealed in the Qur’án: ‘On that Day they shall all rise before the Lord of mankind.’[15]Truly the Cycle of Prophethood hath been rolled up and He Who hath sent down the Prophets hath come, arrayed with a manifest and perspicuous sovereignty. ...."
Tablet to Hasan-i-Sháhábadí
That would make Bahaullah "mursil al-rusul" or "Sender of the Messengers".

https://www.religithreadsousforums.com/threads/what-happens-after-death.214260/page-5#post-6064327

 

[Trailblazer]

Ergo you made a faith based knowledge claim with no evidence and you know there is no evidence.

Nope as you still have no presented a single piece of evidence regarding the topic at hand. Ergo you quoted sophistry.

sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.https://www.google.com/search

I was not making an argument nor was I trying to deceive you. I just answered your question.

There is plenty of evidence that supports what I believe. I explained what that evidence is. I did not post that evidence because it is not my job to do other peoples’ research. If people want to look at the evidence it is all available on the internet. Everyone has to judge for themselves if it constitutes evidence for them or not.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103​

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a bit of a self-imposed pickle for the Abrahamics, indeed.

In presenting themselves as both strictly monotheistic and universally applicable, they have to offer some explanation for how come not everyone believes in some version of their self-imposed restrictions.

The results are not IMO very good.

You are in luck, because I just explained something similar to Penguin on another thread. Below is the explanation as to why not everyone believes in the Abrahamic religions.

I cannot even begin to imagine why you would think that EVERYONE would find monotheism convincing.

Everyone will not find the evidence for Abrahamic religions convincing because everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same religions in the same way.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is indeed a fair comment to make. Although it must be said that even for strict monotheists Hinduism makes more sense than the Abrahamics, far as I can see.

Yet Hinduism makes no sense to me.

Indeed. And that is just as true of revealed religions, as unfortunately illustrated by the Pope Emeritus so recently.

That is indeed true and that is the reason why God has to reveal new religions in every new age. Christianity cannot be revived by the Pope. It is in its winter season, see in the pangs of death.

Accurate description of what, to me, looks like one of the most unfortunate traits of both Islaam and the Bahai Faith.

So much sorrow could have been avoided by attaining the realization to overcome that self-imposed, so damaging restriction!

I do not know what you consider an unfortunate trait or a damaging restriction.

Probably accurate. And quite the reminder of why I could never be an Abrahamic adherent, even for a single second, except to appease the expectations of others and even then with no conviction nor sincerity to speak of.

Unfortunately, many, many millions, even hundreds of millions find themselves in the exact same situation, not always with enough room to even realize the nature of their quite unnecessary plight.

I do not think anyone should believe anything to appease the expectations others because that would be insincere. I just try to understand. Is the plight that you would have to worship the one God?Why do you consider that a plight?The answer to that question could be very revealing.

How do you even separate the teachings from the practice?

I was referring to the way they practice their religions, their daily or weekly rituals and observances, like the way they say prayers or going to Church.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but by refusing to transcend the Abrahamic mold the Bahai Faith effectively forbids itself from being all-encompassing... ironically enough, by insisting on claiming that it already is.

If the Baha’i Faith transcended the Abrahamic mold it would not be the Baha’i Faith. There is either one God or there are many gods or there is no god. All those positions are logically contradictory so they can never be reconciled.

Being all-encompassing does not mean everyone has to agree on beliefs because people can accept other people who have different beliefs or no beliefs.

“Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin. All the differences that appear are those of outward form and colour. This diversity of type is apparent throughout the whole of nature.

Behold a beautiful garden full of flowers, shrubs, and trees. Each flower has a different charm, a peculiar beauty, its own delicious perfume and beautiful colour. The trees too, how varied are they in size, in growth, in foliage—and what different fruits they bear! Yet all these flowers, shrubs and trees spring from the self-same earth, the same sun shines upon them and the same clouds give them rain.....

Thus should it be among the children of men! The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord.....

Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.

Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.

Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.”

Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, pp. 51-53​

Those are excerpts.... For the whole chapter: BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

 

[Trailblazer]

The forum itself seems to be an echo chamber. Orobably not worth your time. However, if I could offer an argument as to why I'm intolerant of religious belief.

I see it as a moral duty to argue against religion and to highlight its dangers to society. It falls under the same category of thinking as many conspiracy theories - that is to say the rejection of evidence in preference to personal conviction. This is harmful in itself (allowing for religious arguments for homophobia, racism, misogyny etc) but it is dangerous when you come to talk about movements like anti-vax. The rejection of scientific evidence-based theory is something that we need to fight against - and unfortunately religion doesnt stand up to that fight.

Now I'm sure that there'll be lots of people saying "well absolute faith in accepted scientific explanations is dangerous" and I completely agree - but I'm in no way qualified to challenge these so will leave it to the scientific community to do so... it is their job, after all.

I agree that it is a moral duty to argue against any religions that are a danger to society, allowing for homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. I am not sure what you mean by scientific evidence-based theory, but I think we need to fight against any religion that rejects science. According to my religion, any religion that contradicts science is mere superstition; e.g., to say that dead bodies will rise from graves is contradictory to science.

The Baha’i Faith does not contradict science but rather promotes it as absolutely necessary for humanity to progress.

“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, p. 143​

 

[mistoftime]

As a non believer I have no problem with religionists as long as they aren't extremists, or try to force their brand of faith on me.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are in luck, because I just explained something similar to Penguin on another thread. Below is the explanation as to why not everyone believes in the Abrahamic religions.

Where? I think that you forgot to include a link.

I cannot even begin to imagine why you would think that EVERYONE would find monotheism convincing.

I do not and I would not. But that is because I realize that Abrahamism makes claims that are logically inconsistent with reality.

Were I trying to defend its logical viability, I would have to deal with the implication that literally everyone would be expected to somehow be a monotheist by default. As does Islaam, understandly if disastrously.

Everyone will not find the evidence for Abrahamic religions convincing because everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same religions in the same way.

The justification is solid, but the statement that it attempts to sustain... sorry, but that is utterly unconvincing to me.

It seems to me that were there anything close to the Christian Bible's God, one that literally claims to have very humanlike emotional flaws while also emphatically claiming to be the creator of existence and expecting worship, everyone would know that for a fact, as an instinct even.

Hinduism makes the very sensible yet not particularly challenging decision to avoid such a logical and theological pickle by having its deities, the Deva, be emotionally sound and artistically meaningful. That raises it to a whole new level of functionality and meaning which, of the Abrahamics, only the Bahai Faith and perhaps Judaism have even a glimpse. Sikhism seems to have inherited a bit of that realization as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

If the Baha’i Faith transcended the Abrahamic mold it would not be the Baha’i Faith.

Indeed. That is its one unavoidable, yet serious, flaw.

There is either one God or there are many gods or there is no god. All those positions are logically contradictory so they can never be reconciled.

Actually, that is not at all true, because "God" is hardly a rigidly established, rigidly defined idea. If anything it is almost absurdly freestyle.

Being all-encompassing does not mean everyone has to agree on beliefs because people can accept other people who have different beliefs or no beliefs.

It is surprising that such a thing has to be said, since anyone who ever took part or was even close to a functional family is supposed to have learned that for a fact, but sure, that is certainly true.