• 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!

Science and atheism inconsistent?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
  • The Bible's Genesis states that Eve was made from Adam's rib.
  • True
  • It is commonly accepted by theists that Moses wrote Genesis.
Not by the Baha'is nor by most academic scholars.

  • Bahais have stated the Moses was a Messenger.
True, but the Old Testament account is very third hand and from the Baha'i perspective the restoration of Monotheism and the Revelation of the Laws, ie Ten Commandments, but not the literal writing of Genesis nor the Pentateuch.
Your "opinion" is one thing. The official teaching of the Bahai religion seems to be something else. When I used the term "your Messenger", I was referring to the Bahai you. If your stated opinions on matters of faith are not from Bahai, then why do you list your religion as Bahai?

You are clueless as to what the Baha'i writings explain concerning ancient scripture like the Bible, and they do not consider them literal writings Revealed by God.



Well, let's see.
There is and has been only one God.
Over the Centuries, God has sent Messengers to earth to convey information to the people.
Over the Centuries, the Message has changed, not because God has changed, but because of the capabilities of the people to understand things in the context of their environments have changed.
Included in the list of Messengers are:
Adam, Noah, Krishna, Moses, Abraham, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, The Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh.
Is that about right?

Too simplistic. The Baha'i writings also correct corrupted scripture of ancient scriptures, and the burdens of cultural perspectives.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So you choose to label The Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis, as created, started, or guided by God. Okay, which God is responsible, and how do you know? Either question will do.

Know? An odd claim of arrogance. I believe, not 'know' as you believe God(s) do not exist but do not know that as a fact..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So you choose to label The Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis, as created, started, or guided by God. Okay, which God is responsible, and how do you know? Either question will do.

As far as the Baha'i Faith believes there is only one 'Source' some call God(s) from various cultural perspectives. Humans from Age to Age mold God(s) in their own cultural images.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You don't like my responses and refer to them as "vindictive sarcasm" and state that they do not "contribute to the dialogue". However, you are entirely comfortable with saying that atheists need to satisfy some spiritual needs. You are entirely comfortable with making sweeping demeaning and factually incorrect statements like "atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers".

I did not say the bold, you illiterate. I said some may . . .

Did you?

Atheists, agnostics, and other humanists are often in rebellion against traditional beliefs. If they seek a sense of belonging and community they will often turn to like minded institutions like the UU or Zen Buddhism for a more spiritual approach. Some if not many are loners in rebellion against tradition religious beliefs, and most atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers.

"Some" is not "Some if not many".
"Atheists", "they", and "most" is not "some"


Haven't you learned yet that I have not problem digging into post history when it is necessary to refresh people's memories of what they actually said and then try to deny it?



Yes, we know we are unpopular. We also know that people like you feel fully justified in posting self serving nonsense like in your post that I quoted above.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The lack of knowledge about atheists is truly amazing.

It’s difficult to decide whether they are incapable of understanding simple concepts such as what an atheist believes, or are being deliberately disrespectful, like deliberately mispronouncing somebody’s name as a snub.

Either way, theists arguing against atheism that can’t define atheism properly are not going to be taken seriously.

Atheism concludes that no evidence/proof = no gods.

That is incorrect.

Atheism is the conclusion that in the absence of convincing evidence for gods, one lacks a sufficient reason to believe in them, and therefore doesn’t. This is not a statement about the existence or nonexistence of gods. To correct your formulation, no evidence/proof = no reason to believe in gods.

Science doesn't confirm that there are no gods

But atheism does.

Atheism doesn’t confirm anything. The atheist affirms that he has no god belief. That’s it. It’s really that simple.

Regarding Dr. Gleiser ‘s view, his statement about atheistic stand “I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.',

Well, you got that one right. Lacking both confirming and disconfirming evidence regarding the existence of gods, we lack sufficient reason to believe that they do exist. That’s a perfectly rational position. Did you think otherwise? Do you consider it more virtuous to say, “I believe even though I have no evidence for or against”?

I'd say that the opposite is true. The faith-based thinker and the reason and evidence-based thinker use very different methods for processing information and deciding what is true about the world.

It may be different methods, but the motivation is equally the same. One can change the objects of beliefs, or the methods supporting them, as you point out, but the desire to find answers outside of oneself is the same. How they are held is the same. It's just shifting God. That's all. The style is the same. It's just a new object of faith, and methods of support to justify that faith.

The reason and evidence-based thinker doesn’t indulge in faith-based thought, by which I mean the willingness to believe an idea that is not sufficiently supported by reason applied to evidence. These are radically different ways of processing information. To call them both faith is to miss that distinction. One doesn’t need faith as I defined it here – insufficiently justified belief - to live. Calling justified belief, such as the belief that one’s car will turn over the next time he tries to start it as it has the last several hundred times – calling that faith invites ambiguity and equivocation fallacies.

Is there one water, or many waters? How do we know which water is the real one? Is it the liquid one, or the solid one, or the vaporous one? Is it the one called "water", or the one called "aqua"? And if we cannot answer these questions 'objectively', then water must not exist, ... right?

The way we can tell that there is one water and that it actually exists is because water can be experienced by the external senses of every healthy human being, and because there is a near universal consensus on what the properties of water are.

The way that we know that the gods of man’s past and present are mythical constructions is because the reports of what these gods are like vary widely.

Imagine a boy with daltonism, or red-green color blindness. People tell him that his socks don’t match even though they look the same to him, and he accepts the fact that he can’t sense some colors that others can.

But as time passes, the boy learns that Santa Claus was a hoax, as was the snipe hunting trip and 52-card pick-up, and begins to wonder if the red-green thing is also some kind of hoax – an elaborate prank. How can he decide whether people are claiming to see something not really there, or if he can’t sense something that is?

Easy. He gets what he has been told are 25 red socks and 25 green socks, which he numbers, and then shows to several people who claim to see red and green differently, and asks them separately what color is sock number 1, 2, 3, etc., and records their answers. It’s the uniformity of their responses that gives him his answer. Had this been a hoax, he would expect the answers to be varied.

It is in this same manner that we can conclude that water exists and doubt that gods do even though people tell us that they definitely experience a god. The accounts of their experiences are too varied to believe that their interpretations of them refer to something not limited to their heads.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Again . . .

Long tedious Soap Box insulting rants are ignored!

From your posts I can see you are truly truly enlightened. I recommend you not play with matches.


It is only through others that we find the truest reflection of ourselves. What you see is only a reflection of the self you want to project. It is not a true reflection of self, hence the need for glib deflections and accusations. Since addressing any of the issues I raised, avoidance and denials are your only tools left. What I would recommend is, If you are going to insult people, please don't expect them to just say thank you.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
  • True
Not by the Baha'is nor by most academic scholars.

Please show writings by The Bab or Bahá'u'lláh that Moses is not the author on Genesis.


True, but the Old Testament account is very third hand and from the Baha'i perspective the restoration of Monotheism and the Revelation of the Laws, ie Ten Commandments, but not the literal writing of Genesis nor the Pentateuch.

Please show writings by The Bab or Bahá'u'lláh that substantiate your assertions.


You are clueless as to what the Baha'i writings explain concerning ancient scripture like the Bible, and they do not consider them literal writings Revealed by God.

If the writings of God's Messenger Moses are not true and correct, then how can you believe that the writings of God's Messengers The Bab and Bahá'u'lláh are true and correct.


Too simplistic. The Baha'i writings also correct corrupted scripture of ancient scriptures, and the burdens of cultural perspectives.

So, you are admitting that Bahai's Godly Messengers lied. OK.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It’s difficult to decide whether they are incapable of understanding simple concepts such as what an atheist believes, or are being deliberately disrespectful, like deliberately mispronouncing somebody’s name as a snub.

Either way, theists arguing against atheism that can’t define atheism properly are not going to be taken seriously.



That is incorrect.

Atheism is the conclusion that in the absence of convincing evidence for gods, one lacks a sufficient reason to believe in them, and therefore doesn’t. This is not a statement about the existence or nonexistence of gods. To correct your formulation, no evidence/proof = no reason to believe in gods.





Atheism doesn’t confirm anything. The atheist affirms that he has no god belief. That’s it. It’s really that simple.



Well, you got that one right. Lacking both confirming and disconfirming evidence regarding the existence of gods, we lack sufficient reason to believe that they do exist. That’s a perfectly rational position. Did you think otherwise? Do you consider it more virtuous to say, “I believe even though I have no evidence for or against”?





The reason and evidence-based thinker doesn’t indulge in faith-based thought, by which I mean the willingness to believe an idea that is not sufficiently supported by reason applied to evidence. These are radically different ways of processing information. To call them both faith is to miss that distinction. One doesn’t need faith as I defined it here – insufficiently justified belief - to live. Calling justified belief, such as the belief that one’s car will turn over the next time he tries to start it as it has the last several hundred times – calling that faith invites ambiguity and equivocation fallacies.



The way we can tell that there is one water and that it actually exists is because water can be experienced by the external senses of every healthy human being, and because there is a near universal consensus on what the properties of water are.

The way that we know that the gods of man’s past and present are mythical constructions is because the reports of what these gods are like vary widely.

Imagine a boy with daltonism, or red-green color blindness. People tell him that his socks don’t match even though they look the same to him, and he accepts the fact that he can’t sense some colors that others can.

But as time passes, the boy learns that Santa Claus was a hoax, as was the snipe hunting trip and 52-card pick-up, and begins to wonder if the red-green thing is also some kind of hoax – an elaborate prank. How can he decide whether people are claiming to see something not really there, or if he can’t sense something that is?

Easy. He gets what he has been told are 25 red socks and 25 green socks, which he numbers, and then shows to several people who claim to see red and green differently, and asks them separately what color is sock number 1, 2, 3, etc., and records their answers. It’s the uniformity of their responses that gives him his answer. Had this been a hoax, he would expect the answers to be varied.

It is in this same manner that we can conclude that water exists and doubt that gods do even though people tell us that they definitely experience a god. The accounts of their experiences are too varied to believe that their interpretations of them refer to something not limited to their heads.

I think I first realized that our "theists" are actually
incapable of comprehending what it is to be an atheist
when I heard someone say,

"In their hears, everyone believes in god".

And here I'd thought it was the opposite!

The theist's most basic concept in life is
that there is a god, the source of all.

I dont think they can see how one could
dispose of that, any more than a jellyfish
could get along without water.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The lack of knowledge about atheists is truly amazing.
It’s difficult to decide whether they are incapable of understanding simple concepts such as what an atheist believes, or are being deliberately disrespectful, like deliberately mispronouncing somebody’s name as a snub.

Both.

Either way, theists arguing against atheism that can’t define atheism properly are not going to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, they are taken seriously by other theists.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What this author calls atheism, and what most atheists call gnostic atheism, is not a justifiable position.

Actually, most atheists DON’T call it that, because most atheists uphold atheism as a justifiable position.

Yes, most atheists acknowledge that agnostic atheism is a justifiable position - the only justifiable position for the rational skeptic - but that asserting that one knows that no gods can or do exist, gnostic atheism, is not justifiable. It’s a claim that can’t be supported by any test, measurement, observation, argument, or algorithm. There simply is no way to rule out the possibility of the deist god, for example.

But I would add that that is not a problem as there is also no need to do so, nor any benefit for the atheist if one could rule out gods. Nothing at all would change if we went from our present unknowing about gods to certain knowledge that none exist.

the overwhelming majority of human beings experience their own existence via these kinds of ideals: love, beauty, honor, god, and so on. So I think it's you who has been short-changed, either by your own insistence, or by some short-circuit in the cognitive wiring, perhaps. Or by whatever. And for that, you have my sympathy.

In my opinion, God doesn’t belong on that list. Love, beauty, and honor can add value to any life capable of experiencing them, but god only adds value if one has a need satisfied by such a belief. Isn’t that what you mean that the justification for theism isn’t evidence, but value added?

And as I’ve noted earlier, many lives are complete without religion or a god belief. I consider that preferable to having a need that a god belief satisfies.

You’ve chosen twice not to address my answer to you on this matter of a god belief adding value to some lives, presumably by comforting fears or insecurities, and whether that is actually a good thing compared to feeling comfortable without a religious worldview. Here’s the second answer again :

“Why would an atheist want to be a person who needed comforting from religion? Growing up without religion forces one to grapple with issues that are eventually resolved with acceptance - acceptance that consciousness may end at death, acceptance that we are not watched over or protected from on high, the ability to grieve without false beliefs about seeing loved ones again some day, the acceptance that man is the measure of what is moral, etc..

“But if you never get the opportunity to develop those skills because of religious beliefs, then you will need that religion to comfort your fears. As I posted here recently, religion offers no positive purpose or value to the person whose emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and moral needs can be met without it. The fact that a god belief makes a person feel more complete is not necessarily a good thing. Benefiting from a prosthetic leg is great if you have lost a leg, but isn't it better not to need one?”

I presume that you don’t agree with that, although you might. If you disagree, maybe you can offer a reason why it is better to have a need satisfied by a god belief than to not have such a need.

The new study also attempts to find out why atheists are so reviled by what its authors call “dominant group members” — aka religious Americans. The findings pinpoint three things: Religious Americans associate atheists with “criminality,” materialism and “a lack of accountability.”

I think it’s very clear where atheophobia comes from. In the West, it’s the Christian church. Consider these excerpts from the Christian Bible:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 *Corinthians 6:14

[4] "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

Altogether, those scriptures depict unbelievers as lying, corrupt, vile, decadent, debauched, abominable, wicked, godless vessels in the service of darkness and evil, not one of which does any good, and fit to be burned alive forever as the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and the declared enemy of a good god.

And what are the consequences of that teaching? At one time, unbelievers could be legally tortured or killed. Until recently, they were defined as too immoral to be allowed to adopt, teach, coach, or serve on juries. Even now, it is very difficult for an atheist to be elected to a public office.

Here's a bit more of that atheophobic message

[6] Wartime poster: "Godless atheists threaten Christian America" http://0.tqn.com/d/atheism/1/7/U/2/3/The-Atheist-e.jpg

[7] Billboard: "Attention lunatic atheists and their lawyers. Anti-God is anti-American. Anti-American is treason. Traitors lead to civil war" https://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/christian-billboard-one.jpg

[8] "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- American President George H. W. Bush

[9] "Settle it therefore in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or forgotten, that atheism is an inhuman, bloody, ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint and to every virtuous affection; that, leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and with earth: its first object is to dethrone God, its next to destroy man." - Rev. Robert Hall

[10] Message board poster: "[Atheists] constantly think of death and killing, the death and killing of Christians and Christianity, the death and killing of innocent babies who never harmed them or anyone else, the death and killing of any taboos that interfere with morality thriving. In their world it is "anything goes" if you feel like it do it. In fact, their creed is almost exactly that of the Church of Satan's. Gee, how coincidental is THAT?"

And the cumulative consequence of all of this bigotry and hate speech? :

NEW REPORT CASTS ATHEISTS AS "OTHERS" BEYOND MORALITY AND COMMUNITY IN AMERICA freethoughtassociation.org -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspcenter for inquiry michigan freethought atheists atheism freethinkers humanism humanists agnosticism Resources and Information.

"Atheists have become the ultimate scapegoats in our culture... but the news isn't all bad! A new study by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology has found that Americans perceive Atheists as the group least likely to embrace common values and a shared vision of society. Worse yet, Atheists are identified as the cohort other Americans do not want to see their offspring marrying!

[snip]

"Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population according to Dr. Edgell, associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project."

Religious scripture must be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science.

Isn’t that a tacit admission that it is science, not scripture, that is authoritative in the areas where they differ? Every time a believer tells us that his Bible got it right about the universe having a beginning, he’s telling us that he knows that the Bible is correct about that matter because science said it was.

All that the Bible failed to mention, such as the splitting of a superforce into four forces, cosmic inflation, and the creation of the cosmic microwave background, are not mentioned. Because one cannot do it the other way around. Nobody says that science only got one thing right, and then names the aspects of the Genesis creation stories that science didn’t get right.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Because perception is conception. They are not separate phenomena in humans.
Dishonesty is a human concept.
Physicality is a human concept.
They are human concepts, just like honesty and physicality. They are how we make sense of our experience of being. Without them there is no "reality". There is no "physical stuff". There is no "us". Humans cannot exist without conceptual cognition. That's how "real" conceptual cognition is.
Dimensionality is a human concept. You are trying to use a human concept to nullify human conceptual cognition. It's incoherent reasoning.
That's a conceptual bias. And it's wildly irrational.
None of this matters if we are incapable of cognating (conceptualizing) the nerve impulses being sent to our brains. Perception without cognition is an irrelevant proposition.
The difference is imaginary, and irrelevant. The nerve impulses by themselves are meaningless physical gibberish until the brain conceptualizes them. Reality doesn't exist until the human brain conceptualizes it. So claiming that "God isn't real because it's conceptual" is irrational. Because reality, itself, is a human conceptualization. You are nullifying your own conception of what is and isn't real.
Nerve impulses without conceptual cognition aren't anything, because "thingness" is a human concept.
It wouldn't "look like" anything at all. Because 'similarity' is a human conception.
Subjectivity and objectivity are both human concepts, and are both subject to the same human limitations, individually and collectively, as all other human concepts are. All human cognition is subjective because the human is the subject of the subjectivism.
"Real" according to who's conception of reality? Are you proposing that you be the arbiter for all humanity of what the conceptual criteria of reality be? Because that sounds like the position you've taken for yourself.


When you use a lot of big "sciency sounding" words without fully understanding their meanings, you risk sounding incoherent and unintelligible by those who do understand the meaning and context of the words you use. So, lets begin with baby steps.

Ask someone to put an apple on the table. Now walk over and touch, taste, see, and smell the apple. Without the use of your senses the apple does not exist, right? Would you agree that the experience you had with the apple was from a perceptual perspective? That is, an experience directly from using your physical senses? Now I want you to think of that same apple. But this time the apple is not on the table in front of you, it is a mile away inside a fruit market. Now, can you taste, smell, touch, or see that apple? No, why? Because there are no sensory organs in the physical brain, and our sense organs have their limitations. Therefore, the apple can only exist in the mind as a composite from earlier experiences with the apple. This is called a conceptual experience. This experiences also includes concepts, ideas, beliefs, and the abstract. Conceptual representations are considered the fundamental units of thoughts and beliefs. You should now be able to understand that the perceptual and conceptual perspectives are different, but not mutually exclusive. In summary, there are no sensory organs in the brain, therefore the brain can't perceive anything. Also the sense organs have no sense of agency, volition, or the ability to freely associate. Therefore, sense organs can't conceive of anything. So no more that they are the same, or that "perception is conception".


Dishonesty is a human concept.
Physicality is a human concept.

Dishonesty is someone being dishonest, and physicality is anything composed of, or have the properties of matter.

That's a conceptual bias. And it's wildly irrational.

Go stick your hand over a hot flame(please don't), and then tell me again why this perceptual experience is not real, "wildly irrational", or why I am being conceptually biased?

Clearly you also don't understand how the brain works. Do you realize that very little somato-sensory information even reach our higher mental centers(cortex) of the brain. Can you imagine what would happen if you had to think about every movement you make? Did you also know that less than 10% of the brain is active at any given time. If more the 60% of the brain was active at one time, you would die. Do you think that a worm or a jellyfish needs to be conceptually aware of reality to exist? So please no more of this incoherent nonsense,

"Reality doesn't exist until the human brain conceptualizes it. So claiming that "God isn't real because it's conceptual" is irrational. Because reality, itself, is a human conceptualization. You are nullifying your own conception of what is and isn't real.
Nerve impulses without conceptual cognition aren't anything, because "thingness" is a human concept.
It wouldn't "look like" anything at all. Because 'similarity' is a human conception.".

To others this might sound profound, but it is just gibberish to me. Finally, the only thing that is physically real exists outside of our senses, not inside our mind.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Well, you got that one right. Lacking both confirming and disconfirming evidence regarding the existence of gods, we lack sufficient reason to believe that they do exist. That’s a perfectly rational position. Did you think otherwise? Do you consider it more virtuous to say, “I believe even though I have no evidence for or against”?

No need to be complicated. Lacking both confirming and disconfirming evidence regarding the existence of gods, a straight forward person will say "I do not know."
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Well, I am a philosophical naturalist. Which entails atheism.
Now, how is philosophical naturalism incompatible with science? Can you imagine methological naturalism negating the philosophical one?
How does it work?
Ciao
- viole

Science does not consider naturalism to be the absolute truth.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There are agnostics that do not fit that bill, so the "tent" has holes in it.

That's not a hole in the tent.
That's because of what agnosticism is.

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge, while (a)theism pertains to theistic beliefs. One does not exclude the other. If anything the first qualifies the second.

upload_2019-4-4_23-16-43.png
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Did you?



"Some" is not "Some if not many".
"Atheists", "they", and "most" is not "some"


Haven't you learned yet that I have not problem digging into post history when it is necessary to refresh people's memories of what they actually said and then try to deny it?

I acknowledge that I said 'most' atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers, and followed up with a citation that confirms this that 'most' Christians and Muslims strongly dislike or hate atheists, and this would include their previous peers who were Christian or Muslim.

Other than that we disagree. I need to review my wording, but do not anticipate much will change.




Yes, we know we are unpopular. We also know that people like you feel fully justified in posting self serving nonsense like in your post that I quoted above.

You are acknowledging what I posted concerning 'most' atheists being shunned (or worse) by their previous peers.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yn my opinion, God doesn’t belong on that list. Love, beauty, and honor can add value to any life capable of experiencing them, but god only adds value if one has a need satisfied by such a belief. Isn’t that what you mean that the justification for theism isn’t evidence, but value added?

And as I’ve noted earlier, many lives are complete without religion or a god belief. I consider that preferable to having a need that a god belief satisfies.

In my view God simply exists and does not reflect the human images

You’ve chosen twice not to address my answer to you on this matter of a god belief adding value to some lives, presumably by comforting fears or insecurities, and whether that is actually a good thing compared to feeling comfortable without a religious worldview. Here’s the second answer again :

Why would an atheist want to be a person who needed comforting from religion?

The Baha'i Faith does not believe that religion should comfort anyone. This is a human notion based on insecurity.

Growing up without religion forces one to grapple with issues that are eventually resolved with acceptance - acceptance that consciousness may end at death, acceptance that we are not watched over or protected from on high, the ability to grieve without false beliefs about seeing loved ones again some day, the acceptance that man is the measure of what is moral, etc..

I do not believe man is the measure of what is moral. I believe that Revelation is the measure of what is moral, but alas belief systems molded in the cultural images of God and laws are not either. Revelation concerning the morals and ethics evolve as humans evolve.

“But if you never get the opportunity to develop those skills because of religious beliefs, then you will need that religion to comfort your fears. As I posted here recently, religion offers no positive purpose or value to the person whose emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and moral needs can be met without it.

I do not necessarily advocate developing morals or skills (?) because of religious beliefs. I do believe humans should evaluate different religions based on the morals and ethics they teach and how the reality to the universal and the potential spiritual nature of humanity. I do not believe people should believe blindly.

The fact that a god belief makes a person feel more complete is not necessarily a good thing. Benefiting from a prosthetic leg is great if you have lost a leg, but isn't it better not to need one?”

No it is not necessarily a good thing. It is potentially just a self-fulfilling circular reason for believing.

I presume that you don’t agree with that, although you might. If you disagree, maybe you can offer a reason why it is better to have a need satisfied by a god belief than to not have such a need.

I do not believe that the belief in God should be based on fulfilling a personal need.

I think it’s very clear where atheophobia comes from. In the West, it’s the Christian church. Consider these excerpts from the Christian Bible:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 *Corinthians 6:14

[4] "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

Altogether, those scriptures depict unbelievers as lying, corrupt, vile, decadent, debauched, abominable, wicked, godless vessels in the service of darkness and evil, not one of which does any good, and fit to be burned alive forever as the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and the declared enemy of a good god.

And what are the consequences of that teaching? At one time, unbelievers could be legally tortured or killed. Until recently, they were defined as too immoral to be allowed to adopt, teach, coach, or serve on juries. Even now, it is very difficult for an atheist to be elected to a public office.

Here's a bit more of that atheophobic message

[6] Wartime poster: "Godless atheists threaten Christian America" http://0.tqn.com/d/atheism/1/7/U/2/3/The-Atheist-e.jpg

[7] Billboard: "Attention lunatic atheists and their lawyers. Anti-God is anti-American. Anti-American is treason. Traitors lead to civil war" https://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/christian-billboard-one.jpg

[8] "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- American President George H. W. Bush

[9] "Settle it therefore in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or forgotten, that atheism is an inhuman, bloody, ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint and to every virtuous affection; that, leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and with earth: its first object is to dethrone God, its next to destroy man." - Rev. Robert Hall

[10] Message board poster: "[Atheists] constantly think of death and killing, the death and killing of Christians and Christianity, the death and killing of innocent babies who never harmed them or anyone else, the death and killing of any taboos that interfere with morality thriving. In their world it is "anything goes" if you feel like it do it. In fact, their creed is almost exactly that of the Church of Satan's. Gee, how coincidental is THAT?"

And the cumulative consequence of all of this bigotry and hate speech? :

NEW REPORT CASTS ATHEISTS AS "OTHERS" BEYOND MORALITY AND COMMUNITY IN AMERICA freethoughtassociation.org -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspcenter for inquiry michigan freethought atheists atheism freethinkers humanism humanists agnosticism Resources and Information.

"Atheists have become the ultimate scapegoats in our culture... but the news isn't all bad! A new study by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology has found that Americans perceive Atheists as the group least likely to embrace common values and a shared vision of society. Worse yet, Atheists are identified as the cohort other Americans do not want to see their offspring marrying!

[snip]

"Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population according to Dr. Edgell, associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project."

All this is very true. In Islam it is worse in part because of Sharia Law.


Isn’t that a tacit admission that it is science, not scripture, that is authoritative in the areas where they differ? Every time a believer tells us that his Bible got it right about the universe having a beginning, he’s telling us that he knows that the Bible is correct about that matter because science said it was.

No it is not a tacit admission it is a belief of the Baha'i Faith that science takes precedence concerning the nature of our physical existence.

All that the Bible failed to mention, such as the splitting of a superforce into four forces, cosmic inflation, and the creation of the cosmic microwave background, are not mentioned. Because one cannot do it the other way around. Nobody says that science only got one thing right, and then names the aspects of the Genesis creation stories that science didn’t get right.

I do not support that the Bible got much of anything right concerning science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Please show writings by The Bab or Bahá'u'lláh that Moses is not the author on Genesis.

The Baha'i writings did not attribute Moses as the author of Genesis nor any of the Pentateuch.

From: Story of Moses

Moses was for a long time a shepherd in the wilderness. Regarded outwardly, He was a Man brought up in a tyrannical household, and was known among men as One Who had committed a murder and become a shepherd. By the government and the people of Pharaoh He was much hated and detested.

It was such a Man as this that freed a great nation from the chains of captivity, made them contented, brought them out from Egypt, and led them to the Holy Land.

This people from the depths of degradation were lifted up to the height of glory. They were captive; they became free. They were the most ignorant of peoples; they became the most wise. As the result of the institutions that Moses gave them, they attained a position which entitled them to honor among all nations, and their fame spread to all lands, to such a degree indeed that among surrounding nations if one wished to praise a man one said, “Surely he is an Israelite.” Moses established laws and ordinances; these gave life to the people of Israel, and led them to the highest possible degree of civilization at that period.

To such a development did they attain that the philosophers of Greece would come and acquire knowledge from the learned men of Israel. Such an one was Socrates, who visited Syria, and took from the children of Israel the teachings of the Unity of God and of the immortality of the soul. After his return to Greece, he promulgated these teachings. Later the people of Greece rose in opposition to him, accused him of impiety, arraigned him before the Areopagus, and condemned him to death by poison.

Now, how could a Man Who was a stammerer, Who had been brought up in the house of Pharaoh, Who was known among men as a murderer, Who through fear had for a long time remained in concealment, and Who had become a shepherd, establish so great a Cause, when the wisest philosophers on earth have not displayed one thousandth part of this influence? This is indeed a prodigy.

A Man Who had a stammering tongue, Who could not even converse correctly, succeeded in sustaining this great Cause! If He had not been assisted by divine power, He would never have been able to carry out this great work. These facts are undeniable. Materialist philosophers, Greek thinkers, the great men of Rome became famous in the world, each one of them having specialized in one branch of learning only. Thus Galen and Hippocrates became celebrated in medicine, Aristotle in logic and reasoning, and Plato in ethics and theology. How is it that a shepherd could acquire all of this knowledge? It is beyond doubt that He must have been assisted by an omnipotent power.

Consider also what trials and difficulties arise for people. To prevent an act of cruelty, Moses struck down an Egyptian and afterward became known among men as a murderer, more notably because the man He had killed was of the ruling nation. Then He fled, and it was after that that He was raised to the rank of a Prophet!

In spite of His evil repute, how wonderfully He was guided by a supernatural power in establishing His great institutions and laws!"



Please show writings by The Bab or Bahá'u'lláh that substantiate your assertions.

You need to do some reading on your own. Are you literate?

If the writings of God's Messenger Moses are not true and correct,

Genesis and the Pentateuch written by men not God. who believed what they wrote. God brought the Ten commandments, reafirmed the unity and oneness of God, and the spiritual principlesof Judaism.

. . . then how can you believe that the writings of God's Messengers The Bab and Bahá'u'lláh are true and correct.

That is your choice in the Baha'i principle of the independent investigation of knowledge and truth.



So, you are admitting that Bahai's Godly Messengers lied. OK.

No.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
When you use a lot of big "sciency sounding" words without fully understanding their meanings, you risk sounding incoherent and unintelligible
Only to idiots who think that choosing the proper terms to articulate an idea is trying to sound "big and sciency". And who think anything that they can't understand MUST be the fault of the ignorance of the person delivering the information because it couldn't possibly be any fault of their own.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is only through others that we find the truest reflection of ourselves. What you see is only a reflection of the self you want to project. It is not a true reflection of self, hence the need for glib deflections and accusations. Since addressing any of the issues I raised, avoidance and denials are your only tools left. What I would recommend is, If you are going to insult people, please don't expect them to just say thank you.

Simply no. Please take responsibility for your own aggressive hostile style of posting and do not pass the buck!
 
Top