Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[Colt]

That's close to my point - many are confusing the spiritual experience with the presence of spirits. The feeling is familiar to us all, although it is often not recognized or called spiritual. It's a natural psychological response to some experiences that manifests as a thrilling sense of connection, and can occur while stargazing, hearing rapturous music, falling in love, laughing, gardening, or admiring the family pet. As I indicated, for me, the mistake is to begin to invoke and attach spirits and otherworldly entities and realms to the experience. When we have that deep belly laugh with somebody, and for a moment, there is just you and the other, connected by a common bond, feeling the thrill of existence, he is having the spiritual experience, but rarely calls it that. When feeling the same thrill gazing at the night sky, he often does, but this is the same feeling (see reference to Ptolemy below).

I'd like to elaborate on this a bit more. Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits and everything to do with a psychological response to life and the world in which one experiences a sense of connection to nature manifest as a warm feeling, a sense of awe and mystery, and often, a sense of gratitude. It is an inherently emotional situation. There are several examples from history of men mistaking this experience for spirits.

The ancient Greeks did this with the muses. They didn't have a concept for the mind being creative. Creative inspiration was not understood as a product of the mind, but rather, as a received message from a creative muse whispering silently into one's brain.

Likewise with dreams, who most understand to be products of their own minds, but others mistake as messages being delivered to them.

And likewise with internal moral conflicts, which are often depicted as a devil and an angel sitting on one's shoulder and arguing through one's ears.

This is the same, except that many have not discovered that their apprehensions that they call God or spirits are also endogenous psychological states and not perceptions of external reality.

Ptolemy expressed a similar sentiment describing his geocentric solar system, one star gazers are familiar with when they contemplate the vast distances separating us from the stars of the night sky yet understanding that we are made of their ashes, and one feels a sense of connection and a thrill. Here's how Ptolemy described the experience: "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."

These are all examples of people confusing thoughts originating in their own minds as evidence of some external agent communicating with them.

Do you have a rebuttal of this? I'm sure that you reject it, but can you make an evidenced argument that contradicts it? I don't think you can. I don't think anybody can. It might not be correct - there may be spirits yet - but can you show it to be wrong? If not, doesn't that mean that it might be correct? Is that something a theist can agree with - that he may be wrong?

A cell phone is separate from the signal. It's designed to receive the signal, but one can turn off the phone, ignore that there is a signal and just use the phone as a calculator and other features and qualities.

No, I can't prove that there is a signal, and you can't prove that there isn't without the mechanism of the phone. Your mind is that mechanism and by design! I guess that religious emotions may look just like nonreligious emotions, yet faith-trust in the spirit remains inexplicable for those who "know" the presence of spirit. God is so obvious its blinding. We are supposed to be having a faith experience.


IMOP this puts it better than I can retell it, so I just paste it. Its open and free on the net, no copyright:

"Religion, the conviction-faith of the personality, can always triumph over the superficially contradictory logic of despair born in the unbelieving material mind. There really is a true and genuine inner voice, that “true light which lights every man who comes into the world.” And this spirit leading is distinct from the ethical prompting of human conscience. The feeling of religious assurance is more than an emotional feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. Religion is faith, trust, and assurance.

1. True Religion

101:1.1 (1104.4) True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

101:1.2 (1104.5) The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster’s difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling.

101:1.3 (1104.6) The divine spirit makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings, that lead you Godward. The divine nature may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling Adjuster, is the pure mind. “Without holiness no man may see the Lord.” All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight. Such religious experiences result from the impress made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit strivings of the evolving sons of God.

101:1.4 (1105.1) Religion lives and prospers, then, not by sight and feeling, but rather by faith and insight. It consists not in the discovery of new facts or in the finding of a unique experience, but rather in the discovery of new and spiritual meanings in facts already well known to mankind. The highest religious experience is not dependent on prior acts of belief, tradition, and authority; neither is religion the offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. It is, rather, a profoundly deep and actual experience of spiritual communion with the spirit influences resident within the human mind, and as far as such an experience is definable in terms of psychology, it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing in God as the reality of such a purely personal experience.

101:1.5 (1105.2) While religion is not the product of the rationalistic speculations of a material cosmology, it is, nonetheless, the creation of a wholly rational insight which originates in man’s mind-experience. Religion is born neither of mystic meditations nor of isolated contemplations, albeit it is ever more or less mysterious and always indefinable and inexplicable in terms of purely intellectual reason and philosophic logic. The germs of true religion originate in the domain of man’s moral consciousness, and they are revealed in the growth of man’s spiritual insight, that faculty of human personality which accrues as a consequence of the presence of the God-revealing Thought Adjuster in the God-hungry mortal mind.

101:1.6 (1105.3) Faith unites moral insight with conscientious discriminations of values, and the pre-existent evolutionary sense of duty completes the ancestry of true religion. The experience of religion eventually results in the certain consciousness of God and in the undoubted assurance of the survival of the believing personality.

101:1.7 (1105.4) Thus it may be seen that religious longings and spiritual urges are not of such a nature as would merely lead men to want to believe in God, but rather are they of such nature and power that men are profoundly impressed with the conviction that they ought to believe in God. The sense of evolutionary duty and the obligations consequent upon the illumination of revelation make such a profound impression upon man’s moral nature that he finally reaches that position of mind and that attitude of soul where he concludes that he has no right not to believe in God. The higher and superphilosophic wisdom of such enlightened and disciplined individuals ultimately instructs them that to doubt God or distrust his goodness would be to prove untrue to the realest and deepest thing within the human mind and soul—the divine Adjuster." Urantia Book 1955

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you have a rebuttal of this? I'm sure that you reject it, but can you make an evidenced argument that contradicts it? I don't think you can. I don't think anybody can. It might not be correct - there may be spirits yet - but can you show it to be wrong? If not, doesn't that mean that it might be correct? Is that something a theist can agree with - that he may be wrong?

A cell phone is separate from the signal. It's designed to receive the signal, but one can turn off the phone, ignore that there is a signal and just use the phone as a calculator and other features and qualities.

No, I can't prove that there is a signal, and you can't prove that there isn't without the mechanism of the phone. Your mind is that mechanism and by design! I guess that religious emotions may look just like nonreligious emotions, yet faith-trust in the spirit remains inexplicable for those who "know" the presence of spirit. God is so obvious its blinding. We are supposed to be having a faith experience.

IMOP this puts it better than I can retell it, so I just paste it. Its open and free on the net, no copyright:

"Religion, the conviction-faith of the personality, can always triumph over the superficially contradictory logic of despair born in the unbelieving material mind. There really is a true and genuine inner voice, that “true light which lights every man who comes into the world.” And this spirit leading is distinct from the ethical prompting of human conscience. The feeling of religious assurance is more than an emotional feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. Religion is faith, trust, and assurance.

1. True Religion

101:1.1 (1104.4) True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

101:1.2 (1104.5) The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster’s difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling.

101:1.3 (1104.6) The divine spirit makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings, that lead you Godward. The divine nature may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling Adjuster, is the pure mind. “Without holiness no man may see the Lord.” All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight. Such religious experiences result from the impress made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit strivings of the evolving sons of God.

101:1.4 (1105.1) Religion lives and prospers, then, not by sight and feeling, but rather by faith and insight. It consists not in the discovery of new facts or in the finding of a unique experience, but rather in the discovery of new and spiritual meanings in facts already well known to mankind. The highest religious experience is not dependent on prior acts of belief, tradition, and authority; neither is religion the offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. It is, rather, a profoundly deep and actual experience of spiritual communion with the spirit influences resident within the human mind, and as far as such an experience is definable in terms of psychology, it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing in God as the reality of such a purely personal experience.

101:1.5 (1105.2) While religion is not the product of the rationalistic speculations of a material cosmology, it is, nonetheless, the creation of a wholly rational insight which originates in man’s mind-experience. Religion is born neither of mystic meditations nor of isolated contemplations, albeit it is ever more or less mysterious and always indefinable and inexplicable in terms of purely intellectual reason and philosophic logic. The germs of true religion originate in the domain of man’s moral consciousness, and they are revealed in the growth of man’s spiritual insight, that faculty of human personality which accrues as a consequence of the presence of the God-revealing Thought Adjuster in the God-hungry mortal mind.

101:1.6 (1105.3) Faith unites moral insight with conscientious discriminations of values, and the pre-existent evolutionary sense of duty completes the ancestry of true religion. The experience of religion eventually results in the certain consciousness of God and in the undoubted assurance of the survival of the believing personality.

101:1.7 (1105.4) Thus it may be seen that religious longings and spiritual urges are not of such a nature as would merely lead men to want to believe in God, but rather are they of such nature and power that men are profoundly impressed with the conviction that they ought to believe in God. The sense of evolutionary duty and the obligations consequent upon the illumination of revelation make such a profound impression upon man’s moral nature that he finally reaches that position of mind and that attitude of soul where he concludes that he has no right not to believe in God. The higher and superphilosophic wisdom of such enlightened and disciplined individuals ultimately instructs them that to doubt God or distrust his goodness would be to prove untrue to the realest and deepest thing within the human mind and soul—the divine Adjuster." Urantia Book 1955

OK, and thanks for that, but it isn't a rebuttal. It's another statement of faith - what you believe.

Let me summarize:

You: "If you ever find God in spirit, then you will understand the explanations of those who have."
Me: That's you misunderstanding the spiritual intuition.
You: I can't prove that the message I feel like I'm receiving is from a god and you can't prove it is without a brain to receive it. Please read this: 'Faith can triumph over reason. Religion is the experience of God.'

Let me explain why my comment was a rebuttal of yours, but your second comment does not rebut mine. As explained, a rebuttal is a specific kind of dissent. It is a counterargument that if true, disproves the argument it rebutted. The argument and the counterargument (rebuttal) end with mutually exclusive claims. Yours is that the spiritual experience is the apprehension of a deity called God, and mine is that it is not that, but rather, something misunderstood as that. Do you see that both of these statements can't be right? I you're right, I'm wrong, and vice versa. That's what makes it a rebuttal. In debate (dialectic), two critical thinkers attempt to rebut one another until a single plausible, unrebutted claim is reached, and the process is over with the issue resolved.

It's the same standard used in a court of law: the last plausible, unrebutted argument prevails. Who made it? The defense? If so, one must vote not guilty if he is on a jury and acting in good faith. Was it the prosecution? Did the prosecutor present an airtight case that is plausible and could not be successfully rebutted by the defense? Then your duty is to vote guilty.

Your second comment doesn't rebut my counterargument. It's a restatement of what you and your cited source believe by faith and another example of what I am calling an error of misattribution. None of this quoted part has meaning to me, since it all assumes the existence of "the Lord," which if I am correct, is a misinterpretation of the spiritual intuition. No part of your post rebuts mine. It merely shows what we already know - you don't believe it's correct - but doesn't try to show where or why. You go on posting as if we both agree this god exists knowing I don't.

Please explain if you can - and I don't think you can - why what you are doing isn't what the ancient Greeks did when they misattributed their creative intuitions for muses. How is our discussion different from the Greeks telling you about the muses, you telling them that that is a misunderstanding of their own minds, which are actually the source of the apprehensions attributed to muses, and them telling you more about muses? If you can't rebut my argument, then we've reached the stage of the last plausible, unrebutted argument, namely, that the intuition of experiencing a god is very possibly the same error that man has made through the ages as with the examples provided. That's where we are. Can you move it forward with a rebuttal, or have we reached the end of dialectic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is this positive evidence?

Depends on the god, but whenever doing some particular thing is an attribute of a god, evidence that something else caused the thing is evidence against the god.

For instance, if we say that Zeus is the god who is responsible for lightning, then evidence that electrostatic phenomena in clouds - as opposed to Zeus - is responsible for lightning is evidence that Zeus does not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I can't prove that there is a signal, and you can't prove that there isn't without the mechanism of the phone.

That's not true. Signal meters are a thing.

And if you don't want to deal with signal meters, you could set up the equipment from a cell phone tower under laboratory conditions, put a cup of water in line with the antenna, and measure the water's temperature change (and see that it's just as predicted by the science that tells us that the cell phone signal works).

 

[Colt]

OK, and thanks for that, but it isn't a rebuttal. It's another statement of faith - what you believe.

Let me summarize:

You: "If you ever find God in spirit, then you will understand the explanations of those who have."
Me: That's you misunderstanding the spiritual intuition.
You: I can't prove that the message I feel like I'm receiving is from a god and you can't prove it is without a brain to receive it. Please read this: 'Faith can triumph over reason. Religion is the experience of God.'

Let me explain why my comment was a rebuttal of yours, but your second comment does not rebut mine. As explained, a rebuttal is a specific kind of dissent. It is a counterargument that if true, disproves the argument it rebutted. The argument and the counterargument (rebuttal) end with mutually exclusive claims. Yours is that the spiritual experience is the apprehension of a deity called God, and mine is that it is not that, but rather, something misunderstood as that. Do you see that both of these statements can't be right? I you're right, I'm wrong, and vice versa. That's what makes it a rebuttal. In debate (dialectic), two critical thinkers attempt to rebut one another until a single plausible, unrebutted claim is reached, and the process is over with the issue resolved.

It's the same standard used in a court of law: the last plausible, unrebutted argument prevails. Who made it? The defense? If so, one must vote not guilty if he is on a jury and acting in good faith. Was it the prosecution? Did the prosecutor present an airtight case that is plausible and could not be successfully rebutted by the defense? Then your duty is to vote guilty.

Your second comment doesn't rebut my counterargument. It's a restatement of what you and your cited source believe by faith and another example of what I am calling an error of misattribution. None of this quoted part has meaning to me, since it all assumes the existence of "the Lord," which if I am correct, is a misinterpretation of the spiritual intuition. No part of your post rebuts mine. It merely shows what we already know - you don't believe it's correct - but doesn't try to show where or why. You go on posting as if we both agree this god exists knowing I don't.

Please explain if you can - and I don't think you can - why what you are doing isn't what the ancient Greeks did when they misattributed their creative intuitions for muses. How is our discussion different from the Greeks telling you about the muses, you telling them that that is a misunderstanding of their own minds, which are actually the source of the apprehensions attributed to muses, and them telling you more about muses? If you can't rebut my argument, then we've reached the stage of the last plausible, unrebutted argument, namely, that the intuition of experiencing a god is very possibly the same error that man has made through the ages as with the examples provided. That's where we are. Can you move it forward with a rebuttal, or have we reached the end of dialectic?

"Primitive religion had a biologic origin, a natural evolutionary development, aside from moral associations and apart from all spiritual influences. The higher animals have fears but no illusions, hence no religion. Man creates his primitive religions out of his fears and by means of his illusions." UB

The function of evolved religion is that it provides the scaffolding for revealed religion. I would tell the Geeks about the true God as opposed to the gods they evolved through speculation and conjecture. Jesus revealed the true God in life before and after his death.

 

[Colt]

That's not true. Signal meters are a thing.

And if you don't want to deal with signal meters, you could set up the equipment from a cell phone tower under laboratory conditions, put a cup of water in line with the antenna, and measure the water's temperature change (and see that it's just as predicted by the science that tells us that the cell phone signal works).

The point went right over your head!

Believers can only live out their religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point went right over your head!

Believers can only live out their religion.

Don't mistake my disagreement with your argument for not understanding your argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a supernatural event when the natural world has always run according to natural laws.

I am not waiting for anything supernatural either, and nothing supernatural ever happened to me, not until recently. Something supernatural did happen to me a couple of months ago. I never questioned that there is a spiritual world where our souls go and take on a new form after our body dies, but now I have some confirming evidence. I have only told my story to only a couple of my friends, @Truthseeker and @Sgt. Pepper, because it is very personal.

Besides believing in god sounds like a bet, or a game moreso than something provable.

It sure is like a bet, a bet you may win or lose!

Life isn't a very brilliant design. Life is something that struggles to exist in the physical world. Technology has enabled the conveniences we all enjoy, and has provided life with reliable living conditions. I can't possibly attribute all that to a God.

Life can be attributed to God but technology and modern conveniences are attributed to humans.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am not waiting for anything supernatural either, and nothing supernatural ever happened to me, not until recently. Something supernatural did happen to me a couple of months ago. I never questioned that there is a spiritual world where our souls go and take on a new form after our body dies, but now I have some confirming evidence. I have only told my story to only a couple of my friends, @Truthseeker and @Sgt. Pepper, because it is very personal

I validated your experience by confirming it as a psychic medium and as a paranormal investigator with 15 years of expertise in the paranormal field. However, I wish I had the opportunity to meet you in person because I could have tried to make contact for you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I validated your experience by confirming it as a psychic medium and as a paranormal investigator with 15 years of expertise in the paranormal field. However, I wish I had the opportunity to meet you in person because I could have tried to make contact for you.

I really appreciated that validation since this has been hanging over my head for some time.
I also wish I had the opportunity to meet you in person. Some psychic mediums work over the phone but I don't know how they do it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I really appreciated that validation since this has been hanging over my head for some time.
I also wish I had the opportunity to meet you in person. Some psychic mediums work over the phone but I don't know how they do it.

I've talked to people on the phone before and sensed what's going on with them, either related to spirits or if there's something off about them (the benefits of being an empath), but I never relayed my feelings over the phone. I've even shared my thoughts with you in private messages, but I prefer to talk to someone in person if I have a message from a spirit or if I'm picking up unusual vibes from another person. I've learned that my abilities as an empath and as a psychic medium are more potent when I meet people in person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly.
The same goes for messengers who claim to be messengers.

That's true, unless there is evidence that they are Messengers.

You have just spend several posts saying that there is no such verifiable evidence.
Make up your mind.

Either there is verifiable evidence or there isn't.
Which is it?

If there is, share it.
If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

I never said there as verifiable evidence that they are Messengers of God, I only ever said there is evidence.
How we could we ever verify (prove) that a Messenger was sent by God if we cannot verify (prove) that God exists?

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

All evidence is not verifiable. Verifiable evidence is one specific kind of evidence which is the same as proof.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said there as verifiable evidence that they are Messengers of God, I only ever said there is evidence.

Do you know what we call "evidence" that isn't verifiable?

Just claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes that is your religious belief as a baha'i.
Non-baha'i's don't seem terribly impressed with these "prophecies".

Why, for example, aren't these supposed remarkable "prophecies" stirring up academic circles around the world?

Why are there SO FEW baha'i's if such remarkable prophecies really exist and are valid?

Why aren't christians, muslims, atheists, scientologists, budhists, hindu's, wiccans, .... impressed by these?

Why is it that only those who already have religious belief in baha'i apparantly capable of recognizing them?

You don't think that this requires an explanation?

I have an explanation for those who ask, but first let me remind you of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 )

Why do you think that more people would believe the Baha'i Faith if it was indeed true? Why do you think that few find it believable? I can give you a list of reasons why they either don't find it and if they do find it why they don't believe it.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.” 84 percent of the world population has a faith

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

Christian scholars seem to heavily disagree with that, since they remain christians.
Why is it that only believers of baha'i see this?

Because those who became Baha'is LOOKED. They found out about the Baha'i Faith and they researched and investigated it and came to believe it is true.

If such "prophecies" are really so remarkable, shouldn't there then at least be much more people following your religion? I mean, there are some 8 million of you worldwide. There are 2 billion christians. There are 8 billion people in total.

How would people even KNOW about these prophecies unless they LOOKED for them?

All religions grow larger over time. There are 2.4 billion Christians because Christianity has been around for over 2000 years. There are 1.9 billion Muslims because Islam has been around for over 1400 years. The Baha'i Faith has only been around for about 160 years.

Moreover, as is noted on my list above, (#4) most people (84%) already have a religion so they have no reason to join a new religion unless they are dissatisfied with their religion, but since most religious people were raised in the religion they belong to they are entrenched in that religion.

What is it that your small minority is able to realize what 99.9% of the rest of the world seems to be unable to see?

See list of reasons 1-7 above.

But you just said it already happened.
How is it that you are able to recognize bahaullah as the return of christ that 2 billion christians can't? Or 8 billion humans in general?

See list of reasons 1-7 above.

TB said: so they look for all manner of excuses to deny that the prophecies have been fulfilled.
TM said:
All 2 billion of them?
All 8 billion of them?

No, because all 2 billion of them (let alone all 8 billion) have not LOOKED at these prophecies and HOW they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. Only a small handfull of people even KNOW about these prophecies and HOW they were fulfilled, as depicted in a book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears

You find that reasonable?
I don't. What I find reasonable, is that these "prophecies" are just part of the overall religious lore. Faith based beliefs. ie, you have to believe it to believe it. There's no proper evidence to make you believe it.
It's instead in the same category as all other faith based claims found in religions.

I find it VERY reasonable given there are logical explanations as to why more people do not even know about the Baha'i Faith, let alone knowing about the prophecies that were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. I have been a Baha'i for 52 years but I never knew about these prophecies until the last 10 years or so, because another Baha'i told me about them..

This explanation atheists give, that we believe it because we want to believe it is just their way of saying that we have no other reason to believe it since there is no supporting evidence. However, the only reason I do believe it is because of the evidence. Being a Baha'i is not a walk in the park. It'd be much easier to be a Christian, saved and forgiven without having to do anything but believe in Jesus.

TB said: The fact that people believe such prophecies are valid and real is not what makes them valid and real.
TM said: And yet you seem unable to give other reasons which are valid.

Simply put, the prophecies are valid and real because they have been fulfilled. All one need to is compare what the prophecy says with what actually happened on the ground to know they have been fulfilled. This is all a matter of history and geography.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just wrote plenty of posts saying that there is no evidence....................
Make up your mind.

Either there is evidence or there isn't.

I said there is no verifiable evidence, I did not say there is no evidence.
Verifiable evidence is only one kind of evidence, but there are many other kinds of evidence.

See? In the previous quote you say there is evidence and in the next breath you say there isn't.
What do you expect me to make of this?

I said there is evidence but I did not say there is verifiable evidence. Verifiable evidence is proof, and there is no proof that God exists.
As I said, nobody can test, demonstrate, or prove God's existence because God is not a physical being.

Nobody can test, demonstrate, or prove the existence of undetectable cookie monsters.
But that does not mean that cookie monsters don't exist.

We've been over this already.
I agreed to it. I also said that it DOES mean that there is no rational reason to believe it.

Yes, we have been over this before and I will say what I said before.... There is NO REASON to to believe that cookie monsters exist because there is no evidence of cookie monsters. Ever heard of the Cookie Monster Bible?

If there is no evidence and no logical argument, then how do you expect to reasonably "logically argue" for the existence?

There is evidence and I can make a logical argument for that evidence.

"i know it but I don't know it".

I shouldn't have to explain the absurdity of that statement.

There is nothing absurd about what I said. I not only believe that God exists, I know that God exists, but I do not claim to know that God exists because I cannot prove that God exists. Claims require proof and since I have no proof (only evidence) I do not claim that God exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's the human fingerprint, along with the holy books that all look like human beings wrote them and all contradict one another.

Well, I would say it is more about their interpretation.
Clearly, many people find the Bible and Qur'an to have some contribution to society.
I find that extreme views, be they believer or disbeliever, are not fruitful.

Zoroaster is believed to be an ancient prophet of God in Persia, before Moses. The further we go back in history, the less reliable the teachings become, of course.
Books are written by men. It's their source and accuracy that is important. The Qur'an is unique in that respect, as it is a relatively recent text memorised by 1000's of people since its advent.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is sad and I am sorry, if you suffer. I think following Jesus could help in suffering.

He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith? Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious. For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luke 12:22-31

Matthew 7:24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[Trailblazer]

TB said: To turn that around, what would constitute a sufficient reason for you to believe?

Evidence and/or a demonstration that a god exists.
What kind of evidence or demonstration I hear you ask.
To be honest, that’s a difficult question to answer. It would have to be something as rigorous as a scientific demonstration or evidence. Something that can objectively and independently be verified.
Something we would require for anything else to believe to be true, outside of religion.

I am sorry to say that there is no such evidence for God's existence. God cannot be demonstrated to exist because God is not a physical entity that can be located and analyzed by scientific means. God cannot be objectively and independently verified because there is no way to approach God and verify God.

One or multiple testimonies won’t do it. An old book won’t do it. Claims of miracles won’t do it.
The rearrangement of stars to show the sentence in the sky “God exists”? I’m not sure that would be sufficient, but at least we have something extraordinary to talk about.

The rearrangement of stars in the sky to say “God exists” would have to be done by God since nobody else would be able to do it, but why would God do that given most of the people in the world believe in God owing to one of the religions?

I’m open to reason and evidence. That’s all I ask. Surely an omniscient god would know how to convince me . And surely an omnipotent god would be able to.

Surely an omniscient God would know how to convince you and surely an omnipotent God would be able to convince you, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that God does not choose to convince you, but rather God wants you to come to belief in another way, if you are going to believe in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you know what we call "evidence" that isn't verifiable?

Just claims.

I know what I call it, evidence that isn't verifiable.
Claims are not evidence. Evidence is what supports claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Surely an omniscient God would know how to convince you and surely an omnipotent God would be able to convince you, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that God does not choose to convince you,

There's another logical possibility.

God cannot be demonstrated to exist because God is not a physical entity that can be located and analyzed by scientific means. God cannot be objectively and independently verified because there is no way to approach God and verify God.

Or because this deity doesn't exist. How many other things can you claim exist but are physically undetectable?

The rearrangement of stars in the sky to say “God exists” would have to be done by God since nobody else would be able to do it, but why would God do that

Because he can. Maybe he can't.

Remember this at Legitimate reasons not to believe in God about the number of ways this god perfectly imitates a nonexistent god illustrated with coin flips. We were up to eighty-three there. I think we can add your last three comments to the list, bringing it up to 86 consecutive "tails" now.

I find that extreme views, be they believer or disbeliever, are not fruitful.

What's an extreme view by an unbeliever in this context? Are you referring to my comment, "That's the human fingerprint, along with the holy books that all look like human beings wrote them and all contradict one another"?

Books are written by men. It's their source and accuracy that is important. The Qur'an is unique in that respect, as it is a relatively recent text memorised by 1000's of people since its advent.

In the case of holy books holy or otherwise, if their source isn't a deity, then it doesn't matter who wrote them. Maybe you disagree.