The Folly of Atheism

[We Never Know]

I thought Christmas was for getting presents and eating Turkey and I thought Easter was for going out to eat at the University restaurant, which was a big event in my family...

Do you think I am kidding?
I did not know who Jesus was and I never heard of the resurrection until I came to Christian forums in 2013.

It is rather obvious why the Baha'i Faith was easy for me to accept. I had no confirmation bias.

I didn't think you were kidding. I was just curious why you thought you celebrated christmas and easter as you were growing up.

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't think you were kidding. I was just curious why you thought you celebrated christmas and easter as you were growing up.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, as most people do think I am kidding.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not completely unknown.

Then please demonstrate what is known and how you have confirmed it to be true.

 

[ArtieE]

I see no need to thoroughly study all the religions.

People do not brainwash themselves, they become convinced by looking at all the evidence. That is EXACTLY what Baha’u’llah has enjoined us to do, look at all the evidence and make an informed decision.

How would you make an informed decision between religions when you haven't studied them?

People who want to know about Christianity read about Christianity, namely the Bible, they do not read about the Baha’i Faith. People who want to know about the Baha’i Faith read about the Baha’i Faith, namely the Baha’i Writings, they do not read about Christianity. The best source of information about any religion if from their own scriptures and from believers who know them. It is not from those who oppose those religions, for obvious logical reasons.

Of course I wouldn't judge the validity of Islam just by reading and believing the Quran. I would read the Quran and all kinds of things written about Islam by believers. I would also watch videos like this one.

Then I would sum up everything I have learned and make an informed decision based on what I have learned whether the information in the Quran is reliable or not. Here the obvious conclusion is "not".

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; what others have written about Him;

OK! What have other independent objective people other than his followers and Baha'i believers written about him and this religion? Please give me some links.

the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; the predictions He made that have come to pass;

Please give me some verification by independent objective sources confirming that prophecies were fulfilled and those predictions came to pass. Is there some information from somebody who oppose your religion or scriptures so that I can make an informed judgement whether your religion and scriptures are reliable or not?

 

[ArtieE]

God wants you to know, but God is leaving it up to you to accept His terms or not accept them.
It won’t make any difference to God beause God does not need your belief.

Trailblazer, let's make a thought experiment. Let's pretend that you've never heard about this Baha'i religion and this Bahá'u'lláh and I asked you about God. Which religion and which sacred texts would you quote at me then to tell me what God wants and needs? I am trying to establish whether you actually know anything at all about what God wants and needs or if you simply are parroting what others say they know.

 

[usfan]

I've engaged in many threads relating to theism or origins over the years, but few dedicated to atheism. We all know about the variety of religious views, but what about the irreligious? Can't they have variety, too?

Many religious people see atheists as godless enemies of morality & society, but that is an unfair stereotype. Well, ok, they have to embrace 'godless', since they are that by definition. But that does not necessitate them being amoral or immoral relativists, & certainly not enemies. I'll present a list of atheists that i have observed over the years.

1. Gentle Cynic
This is the atheist that is very subtle & private about his beliefs. He is generally a skeptic, but does not hold any animosity toward religious people, or the concept of God.
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. ~Eric Hoffer
2. Social Shocker
This is the kind that thrusts their atheism like a sword, to shock & appall polite society. He tries to be avant garde, hip, and appear intellectual, & atheism gives him the attention he craves.
3. Tantrum Thrower
These folks aren't really atheists.. they are mad at God, for some personal reason, & are on a crusade against Him. They cannot discuss philosophical points without becoming enraged at those who believe.
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. ~Heywood Broun
4. Political Activist/Rebel with a Cause
These are quite common these days. These atheists promote their political agenda, which they worship more than any god. They immerse themselves in their ideology, which can blend marxism or anarchy, & tend to be grievance oriented, seeing evil & injustice everywhere. They don't really like other people, & tend toward an elitist view of themselves.
5. Selection Confused
This is the atheist that is more of an agnostic, but still adopts the title of atheist. They are bewildered by all the different religions, & throw their hands up & declare that it is impossible to know anything, since they are confused.
6. Embittered Child
This is very similar to the tantrum thrower, as the existence of God is not really the point, but an interpersonal problem, usually with a parent. They were forced to go to church, or they saw some weakness or hypocrisy in someone, & their atheism is a reaction to that, not something they've thought out.
He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him). ~George Orwell
7. Gullible Doctrinaire
These are products of indoctrination from the secular humanist, marxist based educational system. Atheism is a tenet of marxism, & these people have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideology. They are usually rabid evolutionists, & believe very strongly that life spontaneously happened, and hold alternate theories in disdain.
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. ~Vladimir Lenin
8. Anti-Christian
This isn't really a single category, as this concept runs through many of the others. But it is usually a result of some bad experience with a religious person, or offense taken for the imagined grievances of others, such as gays or murderers, who are usually condemned by religious people.

If there are others, be sure to chime in & add them to the list. ..or, if someone has a different experience with an atheist, or is one & wants to give a personal testimony about how they arrived at that view. This is a light hearted bit of fun with atheists, who can enjoy poking fun at themselves, & maybe give a shot back at theists, too.

I considered atheism, but there weren't enough holidays. ~Henny Youngman

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've engaged in many threads relating to theism or origins over the years, but few dedicated to atheism. We all know about the variety of religious views, but what about the irreligious? Can't they have variety, too?

Many religious people see atheists as godless enemies of morality & society, but that is an unfair stereotype. Well, ok, they have to embrace 'godless', since they are that by definition. But that does not necessitate them being amoral or immoral relativists, & certainly not enemies. I'll present a list of atheists that i have observed over the years.

1. Gentle Cynic
This is the atheist that is very subtle & private about his beliefs. He is generally a skeptic, but does not hold any animosity toward religious people, or the concept of God.
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. ~Eric Hoffer
2. Social Shocker
This is the kind that thrusts their atheism like a sword, to shock & appall polite society. He tries to be avant garde, hip, and appear intellectual, & atheism gives him the attention he craves.
3. Tantrum Thrower
These folks aren't really atheists.. they are mad at God, for some personal reason, & are on a crusade against Him. They cannot discuss philosophical points without becoming enraged at those who believe.
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. ~Heywood Broun
4. Political Activist/Rebel with a Cause
These are quite common these days. These atheists promote their political agenda, which they worship more than any god. They immerse themselves in their ideology, which can blend marxism or anarchy, & tend to be grievance oriented, seeing evil & injustice everywhere. They don't really like other people, & tend toward an elitist view of themselves.
5. Selection Confused
This is the atheist that is more of an agnostic, but still adopts the title of atheist. They are bewildered by all the different religions, & throw their hands up & declare that it is impossible to know anything, since they are confused.
6. Embittered Child
This is very similar to the tantrum thrower, as the existence of God is not really the point, but an interpersonal problem, usually with a parent. They were forced to go to church, or they saw some weakness or hypocrisy in someone, & their atheism is a reaction to that, not something they've thought out.
He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him). ~George Orwell
7. Gullible Doctrinaire
These are products of indoctrination from the secular humanist, marxist based educational system. Atheism is a tenet of marxism, & these people have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideology. They are usually rabid evolutionists, & believe very strongly that life spontaneously happened, and hold alternate theories in disdain.
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. ~Vladimir Lenin
8. Anti-Christian
This isn't really a single category, as this concept runs through many of the others. But it is usually a result of some bad experience with a religious person, or offense taken for the imagined grievances of others, such as gays or murderers, who are usually condemned by religious people.

If there are others, be sure to chime in & add them to the list. ..or, if someone has a different experience with an atheist, or is one & wants to give a personal testimony about how they arrived at that view. This is a light hearted bit of fun with atheists, who can enjoy poking fun at themselves, & maybe give a shot back at theists, too.

I considered atheism, but there weren't enough holidays. ~Henny Youngman

I won't because you judge them as humans. There are other atheists possible for which a positive description is indeed doable, but as long as you start with gentle cynic, I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Rewrite some of it and I will participate.
Your bias is showing.

 

[usfan]

I won't because you judge them as humans. There are other atheists possible for which a positive description is indeed doable, but as long as you start with gentle cynic, I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Rewrite some of it and I will participate.
Your bias is showing.

Hmm.. is there a double standard here? I hear atheists bashing and viciously ridiculing theists over their beliefs, ALL THE TIME.. ..even IN THIS THREAD.. but this mild, tongue in cheek jab is howled at with righteous indignation!

I look forward to you correcting the bias from the many militant, intolerant atheists, here..

..can dish it out, but can't take any return fire?

Is atheism off limits for philosophical scrutiny, and to be handled with kid gloves, because of the dainty, snowflake dispositions of atheists?

Is atheism a one way shooting arcade, where they get unlimited free shots, with no return fire allowed?

 

[JJ50]

Hmm.. is there a double standard here? I hear atheists bashing and viciously ridiculing theists over their beliefs, ALL THE TIME.. ..even IN THIS THREAD.. but this mild, tongue in cheek jab is howled at with righteous indignation!

I look forward to you correcting the bias from the many militant, intolerant atheists, here..

..can dish it out, but can't take any return fire?

Is atheism off limits for philosophical scrutiny, and to be handled with kid gloves, because of the dainty, snowflake dispositions of atheists?

Is atheism a one way shooting arcade, where they get unlimited free shots, with no return fire allowed?

Your posts need challenging.

 

[ArtieE]

If there are others, be sure to chime in & add them to the list. ..or, if someone has a different experience with an atheist, or is one & wants to give a personal testimony about how they arrived at that view. This is a light hearted bit of fun with atheists, who can enjoy poking fun at themselves, & maybe give a shot back at theists, too.

I considered atheism, but there weren't enough holidays. ~Henny Youngman

Interesting. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. Imagine simply removing all theists from the planet how many different categories would you have left? For example, there are up to 500 million Buddhists and they don't believe in God...
Do Buddhist believe in god?
How do you categorize them?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm.. is there a double standard here? I hear atheists bashing and viciously ridiculing theists over their beliefs, ALL THE TIME.. ..even IN THIS THREAD.. but this mild, tongue in cheek jab is howled at with righteous indignation!

I look forward to you correcting the bias from the many militant, intolerant atheists, here..

..can dish it out, but can't take any return fire?

Is atheism off limits for philosophical scrutiny, and to be handled with kid gloves, because of the dainty, snowflake dispositions of atheists?

Is atheism a one way shooting arcade, where they get unlimited free shots, with no return fire allowed?

Yea, there are humans, who belittle other humans. I am critical of both the worldviews of religious and non-religious alike.
You appear to be one of them.
There are at least 3 positions relevant:

1. It can be known if there is at least one God.
2. It can be known that there are no Gods.
3. Can't we just get along?

I guess you are position one.

As for philosophy, start here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
The short version is here: Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

So if you want to do philosophy, you should note that you can't win over a skeptic, nor loose. I just point out that we have different worldviews and all you do, is to take your own for granted for all humans, if you think you can prove a positive metaphysical position. You can't and neither can I. I just know it applies for both of us.

 

[usfan]

Your posts need challenging.

..knock yourself out.. if you think you're up to it.

Interesting. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. Imagine simply removing all theists from the planet how many different categories would you have left? For example, there are up to 500 million Buddhists and they don't believe in God...
Do Buddhist believe in god?
How do you categorize them?

I can only acknowledge what people say.. 'atheism = no God'.. at least that belief/opinion.
Few people fit into tidy little philosophical boxes.. that's the progressive indoctrinee schtick, to stereotype everyone into neat little groupthink categories. I recognize a lot of variability in the beliefs of human beings.

But, IF i accept your premise, that there are 500 million Buddhists, all believing the same homogeneous thing, then 'Indoctrination', would seem to be the most likely explanation. You surmise 'indoctrination!' for western civilization's historical belief in Christianity (presumably), so how would Buddhists (or Muslims, or atheists) be excluded?

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all MANDATED the belief in atheism, and banned Christianity, and other competing beliefs. How were they NOT 'indoctrinated!', yet 'Christians!' .... were?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..knock yourself out.. if you think you're up to it.

I can only acknowledge what people say.. 'atheism = no God'.. at least that belief/opinion.
Few people fit into tidy little philosophical boxes.. that's the progressive indoctrinee schtick, to stereotype everyone into neat little groupthink categories. I recognize a lot of variability in the beliefs of human beings.

But, IF i accept your premise, that there are 500 million Buddhists, all believing the same homogeneous thing, then 'Indoctrination', would seem to be the most likely explanation. You surmise 'indoctrination!' for western civilization's historical belief in Christianity (presumably), so how would Buddhists (or Muslims, or atheists) be excluded?

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all MANDATED the belief in atheism, and banned Christianity, and other competing beliefs. How were they NOT 'indoctrinated!', yet 'Christians!' .... were?

Well, all upbringings and cultures are forms of indoctrination, but they are not equal for how to treat humans and indeed what it means to be human.
Communism is easy to classify. Marx cheated and turned something subjective into Objective and Truth and of it went. There is nothing unique about that. Ayn Rand did the same in Objectivism.
The same is the case for some religions and not others.

As long as you operate in black and white, you will only see black and white.

 

[ArtieE]

I can only acknowledge what people say.. 'atheism = no God'.. at least that belief/opinion.

Oh. Then you aren't actually talking about atheists in general but just the subgroup called strong atheists. "Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.[1][2][3]" Wikipedia. You should then correct your original post to reflect that you are only talking about strong atheists. Otherwise it looks like you can't tell the difference.

 

[JJ50]

..knock yourself out.. if you think you're up to it.

I can only acknowledge what people say.. 'atheism = no God'.. at least that belief/opinion.
Few people fit into tidy little philosophical boxes.. that's the progressive indoctrinee schtick, to stereotype everyone into neat little groupthink categories. I recognize a lot of variability in the beliefs of human beings.

But, IF i accept your premise, that there are 500 million Buddhists, all believing the same homogeneous thing, then 'Indoctrination', would seem to be the most likely explanation. You surmise 'indoctrination!' for western civilization's historical belief in Christianity (presumably), so how would Buddhists (or Muslims, or atheists) be excluded?

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all MANDATED the belief in atheism, and banned Christianity, and other competing beliefs. How were they NOT 'indoctrinated!', yet 'Christians!' .... were?

Your extremist brand of Christianity is highly unpleasant indeed. I have no problem with Christians who are moderates and non-Biblical literalists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then please demonstrate what is known and how you have confirmed it to be true.

What is known, at least by me, is that there is an afterlife, which is a misnomer because it is a really just a continuation of this earthly life in a spiritual body....
Most of the consequences of belief and unbelief will not be realized until we enter the next life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm.. is there a double standard here? I hear atheists bashing and viciously ridiculing theists over their beliefs, ALL THE TIME.. ..even IN THIS THREAD.. but this mild, tongue in cheek jab is howled at with righteous indignation!

I look forward to you correcting the bias from the many militant, intolerant atheists, here..

..can dish it out, but can't take any return fire?

Is atheism off limits for philosophical scrutiny, and to be handled with kid gloves, because of the dainty, snowflake dispositions of atheists?

Is atheism a one way shooting arcade, where they get unlimited free shots, with no return fire allowed?

Take 2.

Philosophy it is.

The traditional source of the law of non-contradiction is Aristotle's Metaphysics where he gives three different versions.

1. ontological: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." (1005b19-20)
2. psychological: "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be." (1005b23-24)
3. logical (aka the medieval Lex Contradictoriarum): "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously." (1011b13-14)

Now note that is about things in the singular at a given time and space and in a certain respect.
So you can believe differently that me and use that for further behavior and so in reverse. Now what happens is that you have a subjective belief, which you treat as objective and thus you believe I hold a "wrong" belief. I don't and nor do you. We believe differently at different times and spaces and in different respects. But because some humans can't catch that they subjectively believe something is objective, they arrive at a contradiction.

I don't do that, because I accept that you believe differently and don't consider it neither right nor wrong. So you do what at least some people do. They elevate their subjective beliefs as an objective fact and then use a lot of rationalization, feelings and emotions.
So when I come across a non-religious human who do that, I point the same out to them as I point out to you. Learn to spot and understand when you are subjective and don't treat your own subjective parts of your worldview as objective. All I have to do, is point out that I can in fact think and feel differently.

So there it is as philosophy. That wasn't so hard, right? You just have to learn the limit of logic and learn to separate the subjective parts of your worldview for the objective parts.
And again for knowledge:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Don't claim philosophy unless you know what you are doing. That you share with some non-religious humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is known, at least by me, is that there is an afterlife, which is a misnomer because it is a really just a continuation of this earthly life in a spiritual body....
Most of the consequences of belief and unbelief will not be realized until we enter the next life.

You don't know it. It makes sense to you, but that is not knowledge for this everyday world we are all a part of it. You can believe it and I accept that you do, but you don't know. Nor do strong non-believers know that we die, when we die. They just believe it. What happens when we die, is unknown.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is known, at least by me, is that there is an afterlife, which is a misnomer because it is a really just a continuation of this earthly life in a spiritual body....
Most of the consequences of belief and unbelief will not be realized until we enter the next life.

That's good for you to know, but what I specifically asked was how you know and how you can demonstrate that you know. Are you able to do that?

 

[Trailblazer]

How would you make an informed decision between religions when you haven't studied them?

I do not have to study the older religions in order to know that the Bahai Faith is the truth for this age. Even though the older religions are also true, they are not the truth for this age, so I do not need to study them.

If I see the time/date stamp and determine that a product is past its shelf life why would I look at the labels to see what the ingredients are? I cannot use the product because it is no longer useful.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Of course I wouldn't judge the validity of Islam just by reading and believing the Quran. I would read the Quran and all kinds of things written about Islam by believers. I would also watch videos like this one.

Before I became a Baha’i, I did read what believers said about the Baha’i Faith and I still read them.

Then I would sum up everything I have learned and make an informed decision based on what I have learned whether the information in the Quran is reliable or not. Here the obvious conclusion is "not".

Then I summed up everything I had read and the obvious decision was that it was the truth from God.

OK! What have other independent objective people other than his followers and Baha'i believers written about him and this religion? Please give me some links.

There is not much written because as I told you before, most researchers became Baha’is after researching the Baha’i Faith. But I might be able to dig something up if I have some time.

Please give me some verification by independent objective sources confirming that prophecies were fulfilled and those predictions came to pass. Is there some information from somebody who oppose your religion or scriptures so that I can make an informed judgement whether your religion and scriptures are reliable or not?

The confirmation of prophecies that were fulfilled is explained this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

The explanation of predictions that came to pass and how they came to pass are in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah. In the book is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass.

If you want sources that oppose my religion, all you have to do is a Google search.