-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn't it better to be atheists?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Sometimes to gain a truer and more complete understanding of an issue or idea, we must see past your own personal beliefs and biases. The Constitution gives us freedom OF Religion, but also the freedom FROM Religion. Leaders at Plymouth(1620) and Massachusetts Bay(1628) Colonies, after escaping religious persecution in England, restricted their franchise to the members of their church only. They enforced their own interpretation of theological law and banished any freethinkers such as Roger Williams, who was actually chased out of Salem. They also banned Quakers and Anabaptists. These colonies became safe havens for persecuted religious minorities. Williams, and others, were convinced that democracy and freedom of conscience were also the will of God. Williams also argued that "faith" is the free gift of the "Holy Spirit", and cannot be forced upon any person. Therefore, a strict "separation of church and state" had to be kept. Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States. "The U.S. Constitution also provides that "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States." James Madison wrote many times about the "perfect separation between church and state". The "oath of office" can now be an "affirmation of office". The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. But this right is NOT ABSOLUTE(Reynolds V. US, Vampirism, Animal and Human sacrifices, Genital mutilations, etc.). The Supreme Court has consistently stated that the "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." Look up the "Blaine Amendments, "Loyalty Oaths", The Suppression of Native American Religion, Finally, "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".
Did you know that the Boys Scouts of America did not admit atheists into their club? The court ruled that since the club WAS receiving some Government funds, it cannot discriminate against any religion or irreligion. Therefore, We are protected FROM Religion. I can't imagine any worst fate of our government, than to become a Religious Theocracy. Giving old men power through the illusion of religious truth, is not my idea of a true Democracy. All religions breed contempt, intolerance, separatism, exclusivity, mistrust, hatred, and elitism. I choose not to be part of over 100,000 types of madness's. Life is far too short, and far to precious..
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I think it would be stupid to believe in something if there is no evidence.
But we all have different ideas as to what constitutes evidence.
Foxic
Member
Incorrect. "Personal evidence", upon which the religious rely, is false evidence for it merely satisfies a subjective comfort rather than exemplifies a scientific truth.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is no scientific evidence for religion.
Scriptures and what the Prophet did on His mission ARE evidence of the Prophet, but they are not proof that God exists. There is no proof that God exists.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
All you have is evidence that the body and mind dies. The mind dies because it is associated with the brain, and when the body dies, the brain dies. But the soul lives on past the death of the body...
You are right that this is a belief... There is no objective evidence of the soul because it is not physical. One can have objective evidence only of the physical reality.
It is based upon a belief and a faith in that belief, but it is a reason-based faith, not a blind faith. Blind faith is faith with nothing to back it up. I have plenty of evidence to back up my belief.
That is exactly what I am suggesting. When you die, you will realize you are not dead at all. I have some depictions of that experience if you are interested. It is not from my religious scriptures but I think it is fairly accurate because it is congruent with the beliefs. Let me know if you want to see it and I will post it.
About the win-win, yes and no. There are good reasons why it is better to believe in God and the Messenger of God before you die than waiting till after you die. Let me know if you want to know more about this.
That is a straw man because I have not been spending 5 years of my life trying to convince anyone of anything. It is against the teachings of the Baha’i Faith to try to convince anyone of what we believe. The first principle of the Baha’i Faith is independent investigation of truth, which means everyone has to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I can answer questions and tell you where to look for the evidence, but I cannot and do not want to convince you of anything, because then it would be MY belief and not YOUR belief. The days where preachers sought to convert people and the days where clergy spoon fed people the Bible are over. This is a new age, the Age of Reason. All people can now think for themselves.
You can choose to believe it is made up if you want to. It does not defy logic 101; in fact it is completely logical that a non-physical entity cannot be proven by science... The soul is a mystery.
“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159
My religion is special but it is not exclusive, it is inclusive. I am happy to hear that you have gotten what you want out of life. Not all people are that fortunate. I had a difficult childhood so much of my life has been struggle to recover from that, but I did. I never had many goals, except to complete college and have a career. I acquiredvarious college degrees but my career did not go as I had hoped. I have no children or family, except a brother and my husband. I have a wonderful job with wonderful people to work with but I only secured this job for the last eight years of my career. The previous years were less than optimal. I have more money and assets than I will ever need and I could retire today, but I am not ready yet. I could enjoy the rest of my life, travel around the world, etc., but I have more important things to do.
“For indeed if thou dost open the heart of a person for His sake, better will it be for thee than every virtuous deed; since deeds are secondary to faith in Him and certitude in His Reality. XVII, 15.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p. 133
I spent most of my adult life worrying about the material world and money, what I could amass, which is why I have so much. The last five years I have woken up and realized what is really important in life. I know that I will have an afterlife and I want to be prepared by acquiring spiritual virtues; but more than that, I think other people matter more than I do, since most people are truly lost. I was blessed to stumble upon the Baha’i Faith 47 years ago, but I spent most of those years not doing anything with it and shunning God. Now is the time to turn the ship around and anyone who wants to hop on board I am willing to assist. That is how I plan to spend the rest of my life. I have done the rest; colleges, career, real estate investments, travel, the whole lot.
It won’t be irrelevant when it happens. Logically speaking, if there is a reason for this life and it is preparation for an afterlife, it will be very relevant. But I am not trying to convince you, I am just here with a helping hand if you want one. If not, there are plenty of other people who need one and want one.
“What “oppression” is greater than that which hath been recounted? What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God have multiplied. This “oppression” is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error. For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind. As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions.”
The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 31-32
I was truly blessed, so it is my duty to pass that along to those who are interested. I did not want this grave responsibility and that is one reason I turned away for so many years, but I cannot turn away anymore because I know what I have is the truth from God. Of that I have no doubt.
Maybe I sound just like a Christian to you, but if you really understood what the Baha’i Faith is, you’d be singing another tune.
Thank you so very much for sharing with me. I now have a much clearer understanding of who I am speaking with. My upbringing was also hard. My breakfast before grade school was whatever my brother and I could find thrown in the bins at "smacks"(burger chain back in my day in SF). This also included a daily visit to the apple juice factory for free apples. I soon learned the value of a good education, especially in the science disciplines. I tutored, washed dishes at a hospital, worked at a service station, and many other jobs to pay my way through Jr. College, State College, Uni, and Post Grad. I also worked many years in research, teaching, tutoring, mentoring, and as an expert witness. I am semi-retired and devote much of my time now to the community, family and friends. My wife and I use to travel a lot, until we realized that the destination was sometimes not worth the journey. Our travels now are somewhat limited to very special places for us. It is the slower pace of life that I am now enjoying.
Please understand that if your belief helps you accept what happens after death, it is none of my business. If your belief provide the answers you need, it has nothing to do with me. I simply understand and accept that individual life is an accident from a human perspective, and the inevitable outcome from a cosmic perspective. It is only our evolved language(verbal and written) skills and self-awareness, that separates us from other animals in the Kingdom. But our basic purpose is still the same. That is, to survive long enough to pass on our genetic information to our offsprings. Our purpose is not to prepare for death. If it were, nature would be a trickster, giving life for the purpose of taking it away. It is our personal genes that decides what our personality traits will be. The only free will we have is to exercise "free won't". Just imagine how the human psyche would develop if we did not restrict the expression of these traits. How much insecurities, doubts, uncertainties, and beliefs would be abolished, and replaced with more positive attributes?
"It does not defy logic 101; in fact it is completely logical that a non-physical entity cannot be proven by science... The soul is a mystery". The non-physical entity cannot be proven by science is a statement of fact, not a statement of logic. There is a big difference. If I ask you how old is your husband, and you give me his age. Is this a statement of fact, or a statement of logic? Searching for answers that are unfalsifiable opens up the worst of the slippery slopes fallacies. Any search is an exercise in futility, and will only end in a confirmation bias, false conclusion, or simply more ignorance. Since we are talking about the unfalsifiable, ignorance is the only logical outcome.
I personally believe that a universal subjectivity must be maintained at all times for reality to exist. Even after death. But this is only my belief, and I certainly don't go around making truth claims about my unfalsifiable belief. I simply keep it to myself.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I am talking about, that no one has died a brain death, and returned to tell us about it.
When they are laying there in their bed dieing, Death will come, steering them in the face, and the unknown steering them in face, for the first time in their life, their facing the reality of death and the unknown, that death and the unknown has long been standing by waiting for the day?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
There is no where in the Constitution that states freedom from religion,
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution
"Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"
Therefore, there is no where in the Constitution that states freedom from religion. As to where do people get that at.
You would like the Constitution to say freedom from religion, to support your agenda, But then you could only wish.
If you notice the Constitution does say,
the free Exercise thereof, meaning we have free exercise thereof to express our religion.
when and where ever we may chose to do so.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your inability to understand the Constitution does not help you. Since one of the authors of the Constitution was the one that came up with the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State." you might want to reconsider your position.
By the way, you are not free to do express your wherever you wish to do so. Try proselytizing in a shopping mall some day and see what happens. Try doing so in a court of law during a trial and see what happens. There are all sorts of place where you cannot express your religion, at least not aloud.
Foxic
Member
There is no scientific evidence for religion.
Scriptures and what the Prophet did on His mission ARE evidence of the Prophet, but they are not proof that God exists. There is no proof that God exists.
Then there is no reason to believe in god.
If one is not going to believe in the existence of Odin based on the lack of evidence, the christian god should be held to the same logical standard.
This relates to another recent thread that touches on the reason people believe. In the thread 'Sense of Purpose and Security Without Religion?' The desire for a 'Sense of Belonging' is explored as the primary reason people believe and not the 'truth' value of the religious belief itself. In the reason why people cling to ancient beliefs that make exclusive claims over other religions and belief systems is the 'false comfort' of a 'Sense of Belonging' that creates a strong emotional bond to the group. The 'Sense of Belonging' is describe in Abraham Maslow's “A Theory of Human Motivation.” The highest human motivation is described as 'Self-Actualization,' where the motivation to believe is not tied to clinging to a 'false comfort' of belonging. This also relates to the Buddhist beliefs of the suffering caused by clinging. This potentially can be a problem for any religious belief including atheism where the lack of appealing to the universal is rejected for 'clinging' to one exclusive belief system, but atheism does appeal to a universal material nature of our existence.
I consider atheism and agnosticism to be more logical and reasonable than exclusive claims of ancient belief systems, and appealing to a more universal perspective that nature of our existence including humanity is a product of natural observable causes by science. I prefer agnosticism, because it avoids the philosophical.theological conclusion that absolutely no spiritual worlds exist beyond the material world.
My personal journey in the search of the universal is the Baha'i Faith, because it does appeal to a more inclusive spiritual universal world view of the nature of our physical universe, and the overwhelming evidence of an evolving and changing spiritual and physical nature of the human existence, where this is rejected by the individual ancient religions that cling to one ancient world view often heavily influenced by mythology and pagan beliefs. This belief in a more universal evolving changing nature of our existence is shared by atheism and agnosticism, but the Baha'i view is grounded in a belief in a 'Source' some call God(s), and theism and agnosticism is grounded in the materialist view of an evolving changing nature of our physical existence, Atheism, Agnosticism acknowledge the limits of the fallible human nature to determine the nature of universal 'Truths,' The Baha'i Faith considers the different religions to an evolving limited fallible human view of God to be still grounded in Progressive Revelation, where Atheism and Agnosticism generally consider the religions of the world as an evolving changing natural nature of humanity where fallible humans create God(s) to meet their human needs.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Did you actually read my post at all? Are you saying that as long as the words "freedom from religion" is not clearly mentioned or written down, then there is no freedom from religion? Can you interpret anything, or are you a rote sort of person? The words "separating religion from the government", is also not written in the constitution. But based on the consistent actions/decisions of the Supreme Court, this separation clearly exists. As I mentioned in my post, the freedom of religious practice is not absolute. Can you imagine if all religions were free to practice all aspects of their beliefs. Maybe public child circumcisions, vampirism, ritualistic murder and human sacrifice, should be freely expressed? Even you would agree that some religious exercise/practices should be prohibited. Our founding fathers, especially Madison("true wall of separation.."), knew that the government would come to a standstill if it tried to placate the 1000's of different religious interests. Surely you don't believe that you can practice your religion anywhere and anytime you want. I would seriously rethink that statement. I know this is what you want the constitution to mean, but thankfully it is a dynamic document. And, unlike you, it will change over time. I suppose "no religious test as a qualification...", does not protect those who don't have any religious affiliations?
Clearly our founding fathers knew how dangerous the influence of religions can be, from their experience with religions in England and Europe. They were smart enough to protect the Government from one-dimensional thinkers like you. I would seriously suggest that you look at some of the early and current Supreme Court decision trends, and try and interpret what they mean. Or, you can look at the Constitution as a static document, and keep telling yourself that if it not written down it just isn't true. Truly sad.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
And in that very weak moment? They succumb to the cultural indoctrination of whichever place they were accidentally born into?
In India, they cry out for Hindu gods. In many parts of Africa, they cry out for ancient African gods. In parts of Nevada and New Mexico, they cry out for Navajo deities. In China, they cry out to their distant, long-dead ancestors.
And in any place where European White Jesus has made inroads? That's who they cry to.
Coincidence? Or are gods simply regional things, and not nearly as Universal as people claim?
More to the point: Which of these, or 1000's of other deities will you cry to on your deathbed?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
I did read your post #522, which you said, the Constitution gives us freedom of Religion, but also freedom from religion,
This is false,
The Constitution does not say,freedom from religion.
The Supreme Court, made the decision, to say,
( freedom from religion). Which is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Which anyone with any knowledge of the founding fathers would know exactly what the
1st amendment to the Constitution does mean and stand for.
But seeing how Liberals, can not accept God, the Liberal Supreme Court ruled, to interpret the Constitution their way and not the way the founding fathers had it.
If Liberals had it their way, they definitely would destroy the Constitution.
Even Obama hated the Constitution, all because it stood in his way of having a Dictatorship Government
Which the founding fathers said nothing of the such, had you any knowledge about those days of the founding fathers, They all had one Religion in mind. Which was Christianity. So the founding fathers went to establish that the people would have freedom of religion, to practice Christianity the way they chosen, without any interference from Congress.
The first President George Washington attended church every Sunday, as did the other founding fathers.
Therefore upon Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence, Had God being made mention of throughout the
Declaration of Independence, Which all the founding fathers ratified.
So therefore seeing the founding fathers ratified the Declaration of Independence, having God being made mention in it,
that means that the founding fathers, knew exactly what the 1st amendment to the Constitution was intended for and ment.
Freedom of Religion.
First of all you did not say anything about the Supreme Court.
Before you said anything about the Constitution, you should have said the Supreme Court ruling said this or that.
Last edited:
This not correct concerning the view of the founding fathers toward religion and the separation of church and state. George Washington did attend church but he expressed strong Deist views as well as other founding fathers, and some atheistic views.
The court interpretation of the separation of church and state is based on the interpretation of the founding fathers as described here:
From: Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clauseand Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,
“ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”
Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
In contrast to separationism, the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson upheld accommodationism, holding that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.As such, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams.
“As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion" ~ Treaty of Tripoli; initiated under President George Washington, 1796, signed into law by President John Adams, 1797,
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
1st U.S. President George Washington
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?
That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
John Adams
Does not change anything that I cited. Please read again and respond.
The court decisions for the separation of church and state are based on the founding fathers writings for the interpretation of the Constitution and delusions of liberal judge decisions.
The founding fathers did not consider the USA a Christian nation.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
That's what you say, which doesn't line up to what the founding fathers has said.
Seeing how they believed in the Christian values, and was Christians themselves.
So what other Religion would they be in supportive of other than Christian ?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
John Adams
Seeing that John Adams is Christian, what other Religion would he be referring to here, upon him speaking to the people of his time, other than Christian ?
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Who said anything about the Christian God?Trailblazer said: There is no scientific evidence for religion.
Scriptures and what the Prophet did on His mission ARE evidence of the Prophet, but they are not proof that God exists. There is no proof that God exists.
Then there is no reason to believe in god.
If one is not going to believe in the existence of Odin based on the lack of evidence, the christian god should be held to the same logical standard.
The God I believe in has a lot more evidence to support Him than the Bible.
My citations are accurate and specific the founding fathers, regardless of their religious beliefs, intended that the government be secular and independent of any one religion or church, and specifically Christianity as cited. The answer is a secular government acknowledging the contributions of the different religions of the world to Secular Law.
From: FACT CHECK: Religious Symbols in the U.S. National Capital
The Supreme Court building facade and interior acknowledged the diversity of the religions of the world and the independent secular nature of the USA government. The religions of the world are depicted by their founders and acknowledge their contribution to the Law around the world:
- The two other lawgiver figures (Confucius and Solon) are not “facing [the] one in the middle” (i.e., Moses) as claimed above — all three of the lawgivers are depicted in full frontal views, facing forward. (The allegorical figures who flank the three lawgivers are indeed facing towards the middle, but they are looking in the direction of all three men, not just Moses.) The two tablets Moses holds in his arms are blank, without inscription.
- As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
- The doors of the Supreme Court courtroom don’t literally have the “Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion.” The lower portions of the two doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets bearing the Roman numerals I through V and VI through X. As discussed in the next item, these symbols can represent something other than the Ten Commandments.
1
- The wall “right above where the Supreme Court judges sit” is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right side by a group of figures representing Justice:
In a letter on file in the archives of the Supreme Court, Adolph Weinman, the designer of this frieze, states that the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first “ten amendments to the Constitution known as the ‘Bill of Rights.'”
- The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building (also designed by Adolph Weinman) depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall):
According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law:
Last edited: