How do Baha’is see atheists?

[Kfox]

Do you think God should change His method of communication just because a small percentage of the population who are atheists don't like God using Messengers to communicate?

That all depends on who he is trying to convince. If he is trying to convince those who already believe his message, then his current method is fine. If he is trying to convince those who do not believe, then he needs to change his method.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).​

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia​

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

That all depends on who he is trying to convince. If he is trying to convince those who already believe his message, then his current method is fine. If he is trying to convince those who do not believe, then he needs to change his method.

Maybe or maybe not. Do you think no atheists ever became believers because of a Messenger of God? I know some who have.
Why do you think that God is trying to convince people? If God was trying to convince people, He would not have given humans free will to choose.

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

I never said it was.

 

[Kfox]

Maybe or maybe not. Do you think no atheists ever became believers because of a Messenger of God? I know some who have.

I believe far ore would believe your God if he spoke from the clouds

Why do you think that God is trying to convince people? If God was trying to convince people, He would not have given humans free will to choose.

Then maybe he should tell his messengers to leave us alone!

I never said it was.

Then why did you bring up the point that atheists are such a small percentage of the population?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe far more would believe your God if he spoke from the clouds

Maybe so, but so what?

Then maybe he should tell his messengers to leave us alone!

Have the Messengers been bothering anyone? I haven't seen them bothering anyone.

Then why did you bring up the point that atheists are such a small percentage of the population?

My point was that most people believe in God because of one of the Messengers of God, so that means Messengers is a method of communicating with humans that works.

I said: "Simple logic tells us that God sending Messengers is not foolish, since most people in the world believe in God because of one of those Messengers. Do you think God should change His method of communication just because a small percentage of the population who are atheists don't like God using Messengers to communicate? That would be foolish and God is not foolish. God uses a method that works." #272

 

[Aupmanyav]

Who in any religion wants to admit that their religion isn't perfect? That would be being too "objective" and too honest.

Well, Indian religions do that. That is why Buddha or Mahavira were against animal sacrifice. That is why Sikhism does not believe in idols. That is why I am a Hindu atheist. I abandoned what I found was not true, i.e., deities. Fortunately, much before me Hindu philosophers had already found this - Nirishwaravada (Doctrine of no deities) or Advaita (non-duality). Therefore, I had no need to abandon my religion.

 

[Kfox]

Have the Messengers been bothering anyone? I haven't seen them bothering anyone.

I've had a few bother me.

My point was that most people believe in God because of one of the Messengers of God, so that means Messengers is a method of communicating with humans that works.

The problem is, each religion has their own messengers which gives a different message; each contradicting the other. So even if I wanted to believe, I wouldn't know which messenger to believe because the real messenger does not stick out of the crowd of all the fake ones. How can you call this a system that works?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, it's not like the writing of a Prophet. Religion is not science. Since it falls under a different purview the evaluation requires different methods.

There is no divinity and no divine revelations through prophets. In my opinion, such religions are creations of megalomaniacs or charlatans for their ego or benefit.

Have the Messengers been bothering anyone? I haven't seen them bothering anyone.
Do you think God should change His method of communication just because a small percentage of the population who are atheists don't like God using Messengers to communicate? That would be foolish and God is not foolish. God uses a method that works."

These prophets are dead and gone. It is their followers who bother humanity.
There is no God communicating with people, but this is the standard and historical way charlatans fool people, right from the stone-age shaman who said he could ask God to bring rain if people sacrifice chicken to his God. If they don't, then he can ask his God to send a plague among people.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am a member of the Anglican church, deal with it.

Sorry. I should have approached that differently. I thought maybe you had decided later that you didn't believe in Christianity anymore and you forgot to change your profile. I see another person here who in his profile says he is a nominal Catholic, but also an atheist. I don't know if that is exactly your situation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've had a few bother me.

I looked up whether or not Muhammad took part in battles. Here's one article about his military exploits...

Had Muhammad not succeeded as a commander, however, Islam might have been relegated to a geographic backwater—and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies might never have occurred.​

​

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.​

​

Muhammad’s intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all war is cunning,” reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “all war is deception.” In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clausewitz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used nonmilitary methods (alliance building, political assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.​

​

So, here's a man that Baha'is claim was a manifestation of God. If warring against others isn't bothering them, then what is? But were Christians any better? Maybe Jesus didn't lead his followers into battles, but Christians had no problems conquering people and forcing them to convert. Then there's the Inquisition. I would think most everybody would call that "bothering" people. So, why do so many people believe in a God? Because, in the past, it could cost a person their lives not to. And in some places still does.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've had a few bother me.

Seeing as how there are no true Messengers who are alive, I don't see how that is possible.

The problem is, each religion has their own messengers which gives a different message; each contradicting the other. So even if I wanted to believe, I wouldn't know which messenger to believe because the real messenger does not stick out of the crowd of all the fake ones. How can you call this a system that works?

There is more than one real Messenger but each Messenger had a different message since they all came in different ages to different peoples.
In every age God sends a new Messenger and that is the Messenger we are enjoined to follow since He brings the message that applies to the present age.

The spiritual teachings of all the Messengers are the same and they are renewed in every new age since they are all but forgotten by the time a new Messenger comes. The laws that pertain to the material world are is modified and altered in every new age in accordance with the necessities of the times.

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......​

​

These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.​

​

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”​

Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48​

 

[danieldemol]

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

And even if it were (which it isn’t) atheists and agnostics outweigh Baha'is by a long shot in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Bias: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.
Bias Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

... You are biased against religion and particularly against the Baha'i Faith. Whenever you call it homophobic that is a bias.

Factual observations are not bias in my opinion.

You have clearly demonstrated that you cannot set that bias aside and that results in treating the Baha'is unfairly simply because they have a religion with certain laws that pertain to sexual behavior. Those laws do not result in treating people unfairly since they apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Really? The Baha'i law against marriage and sex that applies to homosexuals also applies to heterosexuals? You could have fooled me.

And how is calling a homophobic religion "homophobic" unfair? I see it as very fair personally.

Discounting all the evidence of God's existence is also not the product of critical thinking.

Discounting unreliable evidence such as fabricated and misunderstood evidence eg testimonials to miracle claims such as virgin birth is the product of critical thinking in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

Factual observations are not bias in my opinion.

It is not a factual observation that the Baha'i Faith s homophobic.
That is completely false. Having laws that preclude sex out of wedlock - for both homosexuals and heterosexuals - is not homophobic.

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

Really? The Baha'i law against marriage and sex that applies to homosexuals also applies to heterosexuals? You could have fooled me.

The Baha'i law disallows sex out of wedlock - for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Homosexuals can get married under civil law if it is legal where they live, but they cannot have a Baha'i wedding ceremony since Baha'i law says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, since the primary purpose of marriage is to have children and raise them.

Since there is no 'dislike of or prejudice against' gay people it is not homophobic, it's just a Baha'i law.
Do you think the Old Testament law, stoning homosexuals to death, is a better law?

And how is calling a homophobic religion "homophobic" unfair? I see it as very fair personally.

It is not fair because it is patently false, as noted above.

You are so biased you cannot see straight. You are too biased to SEE how biased you are! Your bias is 'in favor of' homosexuals because you think they are being treated unfairly and 'against the Baha'i Faith' because you think it treats homosexuals unfairly. That is a bias.

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Bias: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.
Bias Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Who are you to say what is unfair? It is not a fact that it is unfair, it is only your personal opinion.
You are SO biased that you cannot even read the definition of homophobic and understand what it actually means. Your bias prevents that.

 

[Trailblazer]

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

If you want to know what homophobia actually is, go to Africa.

This is the anniversary of the execution of 10 Baha'i women.

Brazil: National Congress honors 10 Bahá'í women at public hearing

www.religiousforums.com

 

[danieldemol]

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

If you want to know what homophobia actually is, go to Africa.

This is the anniversary of the execution of 10 Baha'i women.

Brazil: National Congress honors 10 Bahá'í women at public hearing

www.religiousforums.com

If we are to allow the cherry picking of only the equal aspects of an unfair law we could blindly say the execution of ten Baha'i women is fair because promulgation of a religion other than Islam is forbidden for both Muslims *and* non Muslims in my view

Watch how the application of cherrypicking only the equal aspects of an unfair law results in special pleading by Baha'is now in my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

If we are to allow the cherry picking of only the equal aspects of an unfair law we could blindly say the execution of ten Baha'i women is fair because promulgation of a religion other than Islam is forbidden for both Muslims *and* non Muslims in my view

Watch how the application of cherrypicking only the equal aspects of an unfair law results in special pleading by Baha'is now in my opinion.

If those Baha'i women knew about the law in Iran regarding promulgating a religion other than Islam, and they were promulgating the Baha'i Faith in Iran, then it was fair, but if they were not promulgating the Baha'i Faith then I consider it unfair to execute them solely because they refused to renounce their Faith.

I wonder why it is so important to Muslims that Baha'is renounce their Faith? Baha'is would never ask anyone to renounce their Faith.
I wonder why Muslims feel threatened by such a teeny-weeny religion as the Baha'i Faith.?

 

[danieldemol]

If those Baha'i women knew about the law in Iran regarding promulgating a religion other than Islam, and they were promulgating the Baha'i Faith in Iran, then it was fair

Wow I never thought I would see the day a Baha'i described the martyrdom of their fellow Baha'i as fair. Just goes to show how mentally damaged a person can become by worship of their own convoluted so called "logic" in my view.

Way to throw your fellow Bahai under the bus!

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow I never thought I would see the day a Baha'i described the martyrdom of their fellow Baha'i as fair. Just goes to show how mentally damaged a person can become by worship of their own convoluted so called "logic" in my view.

Way to throw your fellow Bahai under the bus!

I said it was fair if those Baha'is knowingly broke the laws of the country they live in.
Baha'is are obligated to follow the laws of the country they live in even if they do not agree with them.

I am not sure exactly what happened because it was @Truthseeker who shared this with me. Maybe he can jump in and explain exactly what happened.

 

[Kfox]

Seeing as how there are no true Messengers who are alive, I don't see how that is possible.

I'm talking about people who claim to be messengers.

 

[F1fan]

It is not a factual observation that the Baha'i Faith s homophobic.
That is completely false. Having laws that preclude sex out of wedlock - for both homosexuals and heterosexuals - is not homophobic.

homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobic means - Google Search

Yup, Baha’i is homophobic.