Will Mankind Survive?

Unity of Mankind said:

If a truth or fact is in reference to an individual murdering someone or soldiers killing in war that involves many other truths or facts leading up to such occurrences. In other words, truths and facts are not isolated phenomena and in that sense are not easily defined.

Click to expand...

No.. .no

I think you make a mistake here... when looking at truth we have to look at claims individually and the total outcome will decide how likely something is to be true or not. However each claim have to stand on its own.

So lets take the example of a soldier in war. So lets construct a quick story and say we want to figure out if its true or not.

"The soldier claim: "He fired his rifle and killed two people, however it was first when they fired at him that he shot them. This eventually led to several others opening fire in the street, which caused ten innocent to get shot. but he didn't kill them."

So after having examine the story, we conclude that he did in fact shoot the 10 innocent people. Which would make his claim regarding that untrue. However that doesn't mean that him firing the rifle and shooting the two other after they shot after him, is not. So each claim have to stand on there own. So after having gone through all the evidence. The true story would be:

"He fired his rifle and killed two people, however it was first when they fired at him that he shot them. This eventually led to several others opening fire in the street, which unfortunately caused ten innocent to get hit by the soldier shots, which all died."

Do you see the difference? The story may or may not describe exactly what happen and some of it might be false, it is when we can add evidence and therefore facts into it that we can figure out what exactly happened. But that doesn't change that each individual claim need to be examined. And not just as one, in order to get to the truth.

Unity of Mankind said:

I would say what is accepted as true fits the definition of traditional beliefs or notions which may or not be true.

Click to expand...

It is accepted as a general belief that people believe in these things, so that would make that an agreed on fact. But what each of the people claim to believe in, is not. Does that make sense? Again as above each individual claim have to stand on its own, as these are not agreed on as being true.

Nimos said:

... when looking at truth we have to look at claims individually and the total outcome will decide how likely something is to be true or not. However each claim have to stand on its own.

Click to expand...

I would say what is true must be taken in some kind of context. So I suggest we start over rather than getting bogged down in following a trail to what led up to soldiers killing in war or what caused some people to lead a life of crime in stealing, murder, etc. etc. etc.

In general I think arriving at truth involves a process, and even then without a context it serves no purpose. So let’s consider truth in the context of religion and science.

Although a scientist I am not I seem to remember inquiry into what is true from a scientific perspective begins by creatively coming up with a hypothesis. Then if possible one tests the hypothesis by empirically testing it as to whether or not it is true in a controlled laboratory setting. If replication of results confirms the hypothesis then it is considered that a scientific truth has been discovered.

I would ask the question whether or not scientific truth can be established when it comes to human behavior? For example, can a study of human behavior from a scientific perspective come up with a formula that would result in altruism? In a similar inquiry what leads some people to be exceedingly selfish or self serving while there are examples of other people who sacrifice their well being to serve others? In order to explain this gap in human behavior I think historically speaking the major religions of the world have contributed to improving the quality of human behavior to a higher level than by any modern results from scientific inquires, or by the study of the humanities. On the other hand, would educational endeavors in the humanities have even been possible without a process of historically revealed religions founded by Prophets? I don’t think so. To think otherwise would be, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.

One way to arrive at that conclusion about religion as a process is by presently observing the utter defeat of any kind of meaningful unity among mankind without religion to come up with constructive solutions to life ending threats to humanity, and many other life forms on our planet. As a process, the newest development of religion is the appearance of the Baha’i Faith.

One last thing to mention which occurs to me is in pointing out a clear connection between religion and science. Islamic Civilization in Moorish Spain indulged itself with scientific discoveries and even brought about peace among Muslims and Christians. It founded the university system of education and was responsible for dragging Medieval Christian Europe out of the Dark Ages which resulted in the Renaissance. Is that not a clear example of a connection between religion and science? How can anyone imagine one existing without the other?

Unity of Mankind said:

I would ask the question whether or not scientific truth can be established when it comes to human behavior? For example, can a study of human behavior from a scientific perspective come up with a formula that would result in altruism? In a similar inquiry what leads some people to be exceedingly selfish or self serving while there are examples of other people who sacrifice their well being to serve others?

Click to expand...

Science is not purely about formulas and also keep in mind that the real purpose of science is not to tell us what the truth is, but rather what is not true. So I think you are correct that in regards to something like human behavior there will not, anytime soon that is, be a formula to explain why people express altruism, why some might be selfish and so forth. Even though it would be interesting were it possible, I don't think its really that important when looking at it from the perspective of science. Because what the studies in this field can tell us, is that these behavioral traits exists with humans and certain animals as well, so why does it exists? what benefits does it serve? This is where science becomes interesting.

I do however think that you mistaken in regards to how effective or useful religions are when it comes to improving the quality of human behavior, remember that humans have expressed these behaviors far before the major religions as we know that people have traded with each other, have lived together in tribes etc. If humans did not have these behavioral qualities, I think its difficult to imagine how we would have survived, yet this was before all the so call prophets, also remember that human have sought knowledge for as long as we have existed, starting out primitive with simple tools etc. To where we are now capable of leaving our planet. This is due to human intelligens and our constant aim for exploring and trying to figure out how things works. It have nothing to do with religions, in fact I would assume that it have slowed it down rather than helping. Because religion is not a method of truth, it have no explanatory power, its about keeping things in a state of ignorance, where everything that is difficult to explain, can be done so, with the words "God did it" or "God works in mysteries way".

Unity of Mankind said:

One way to arrive at that conclusion about religion as a process is by presently observing the utter defeat of any kind of meaningful unity among mankind without religion to come up with constructive solutions to life ending threats to humanity, and many other life forms on our planet. As a process, the newest development of religion is the appearance of the Baha’i Faith.

Click to expand...

If religions preached life and the well being of animals, you might be right. But they don't, they preach submission to other people and their way of doing things, demanding that people do not question them, but rather believe in them telling the truth. Again that leads to ignorance as people get convinced of this being so, and removes the purpose of even exploring or examine anything, as these people most likely can come up with an answer for you, and since one trust them to be who they are, then they obviously must be right. The big difference is that science uses a method for finding out what is most likely right and what is not, its not based on what people think ought to be true or not. Whereas religion is the exact opposite, it rely on people to tell others what the truth is, with no way to validate what they are saying as being even remotely correct unless tested. So when religious people blindly accept the truth found in scriptures and not demanding or unable to approach these critical, then you have created ignorance as I see it. To me, religions give some unity among those that share that belief, but the moment some don't you have problems, even within the same religion. Looking at history and the amount of things that have been done due to religious views, which later have been shown to be utter nonsense is far and wide. How many people that have been killed because they had to know the "truth", I don't really care which is newest or which is better, the only important thing is whether its true. You regularly hear about people that changes religion, because they are not really sure or maybe some of the others appeal more to them etc. Which I find strange, either a religion is true or its not. There is no middle ground, God exists or he doesn't!! and if a person claim that their God does in fact exists and work miracles in this world, then I think its fair to demand evidence for it.

Unity of Mankind said:

One last thing to mention which occurs to me is in pointing out a clear connection between religion and science. Islamic Civilization in Moorish Spain indulged itself with scientific discoveries and even brought about peace among Muslims and Christians.

Click to expand...

I agree there is a connection between these, but I also think one have to be very careful in how one draw conclusion from it. Like religion encourage science and if it weren't for religion then science as we know it would not be here. Its not uncommon to hear someone imply something like this. However looking at human history, it makes rather good sense why this is expected to be the natural development of things.

Early humans (hunter/gatherers) had no especially good method for doing "science", except through observation which they could use in a trial and error approach. But no way to really validate these observations or what exactly they meant or even test them with some alternative method. Also these didn't answer questions like why people got sick, what infections were etc. All this comes much later. So how does one explain these things? Well probably some sort of nature spirit or whatever they believed. This later turned into more advance religions with multiple Gods and eventually you have the whole one God and savior thing. Which still after this time, could not explain why a lot of these bad things happened to people. So as times goes by and religions still ain't able to supply any answers to people, but still give the same old ones as they have always giving, that people need to pray and God has a purpose with all this etc. New method are developed that suddenly starts to be able to explain some of these things and not only that, they can demonstrate why what they are saying is true. So obviously since religion is still dominating everything, they want to know how God created things, so they as everyone else, is interested in knowing how, but eventually as more and more things are examined , people (scientists) increasingly discover that these things are explained without the need of a God and that these are natural explanations and therefore less and less people see evidence for a God. Which is why the majority of leading scientists are atheists. Would you agree that in large this is probably how it happened in a extremely brief explanation?

So people were looking for answers and hoped that religions could give them, but they never did and never have, so the moment an alternative sees the light of day and actually starts to give people answers and how following these guideline/ discoveries can help them. Here is an interesting story of how and why things are discovered, even if it doesn't have the best outcome in the end:

The year was 1846, and our would-be hero was a Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis.

The young Dr. Semmelweis was no exception. When he showed up for his new job in the maternity clinic at the General Hospital in Vienna, he started collecting some data of his own. Semmelweis wanted to figure out why so many women in maternity wards were dying from puerperal fever — commonly known as childbed fever.

He studied two maternity wards in the hospital. One was staffed by all male doctors and medical students, and the other was staffed by female midwives. And he counted the number of deaths on each ward.

When Semmelweis crunched the numbers, he discovered that women in the clinic staffed by doctors and medical students died at a rate nearly five times higher than women in the midwives' clinic.

But why?

Semmelweis went through the differences between the two wards and started ruling out ideas.

Right away he discovered a big difference between the two clinics.

In the midwives' clinic, women gave birth on their sides. In the doctors' clinic, women gave birth on their backs. So he had women in the doctors' clinic give birth on their sides. The result, Lessler says, was "no effect."

Then Semmelweis noticed that whenever someone on the ward died of childbed fever, a priest would walk slowly through the doctors' clinic, past the women's beds with an attendant ringing a bell. This time Semmelweis theorized that the priest and the bell ringing so terrified the women after birth that they developed a fever, got sick and died.

So Semmelweis had the priest change his route and ditch the bell. Lessler says, "It had no effect."

By now, Semmelweis was frustrated. He took a leave from his hospital duties and traveled to Venice. He hoped the break and a good dose of art would clear his head.

When Semmelweis got back to the hospital, some sad but important news was waiting for him. One of his colleagues, a pathologist, had fallen ill and died.

"There was nothing new about the way he died. He pricked his finger while doing an autopsy on someone who had died from childbed fever." And then he got very sick himself and died.

Semmelweis studied the pathologist's symptoms and realized the pathologist died from the same thing as the women he had autopsied. This was a revelation: Childbed fever wasn't something only women in childbirth got sick from. It was something other people in the hospital could get sick from as well.

But it still didn't answer Semmelweis' original question: "Why were more women dying from childbed fever in the doctors' clinic than in the midwives' clinic?"

Duffin says the death of the pathologist offered him a clue.

"The big difference between the doctors' ward and the midwives' ward is that the doctors were doing autopsies and the midwives weren't," she says.

So Semmelweis hypothesized that there were cadaverous particles, little pieces of corpse, that students were getting on their hands from the cadavers they dissected. And when they delivered the babies, these particles would get inside the women who would develop the disease and die.

If Semmelweis' hypothesis was correct, getting rid of those cadaverous particles should cut down on the death rate from childbed fever.

So he ordered his medical staff to start cleaning their hands and instruments not just with soap but with a chlorine solution. Chlorine, as we know today, is about the best disinfectant there is. Semmelweis didn't know anything about germs. He chose the chlorine because he thought it would be the best way to get rid of any smell left behind by those little bits of corpse.

And when he imposed this, the rate of childbed fever fell dramatically.

What Semmelweis had discovered is something that still holds true today: Hand-washing is one of the most important tools in public health.

You'd think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren't thrilled.

For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women.

And Semmelweis was not very tactful. He publicly berated people who disagreed with him and made some influential enemies.

Eventually the doctors gave up the chlorine hand-washing, and Semmelweis — he lost his job.

So with all other things people are curios and want answers and that is regardless of religion.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I have been having a lot of problems and they are only going to get worse because I just found out that the tenant that moved into one of my rental houses a few months ago has decided to move out, so now I need to find another tenant.

So if you do not hear from me for a while it is not because I forgot you. I work on these longer posts when I find the time. I like to wait until I have finished all of them before I post them.

Nimos said:

But atheists have kids right? they have friends and love ones, correct? Are there no reason for us to think about them and wanting them to have it good? What you say makes no sense at all....Why do you think so many atheists openly speak against religion? I have already told you several times that I don't care about what people believe, but than im against bad ideas that hurt other people. If I had no reason to think about anyone but my self, then why would I even care to debate it? Some of the stuff you write in these replies are part of the reasons I do it.

Click to expand...

All I meant is that atheists do not have anyone to answer to on a higher level, no God to answer to. That does not mean they do not care about friends and family. In that regard atheists are no different from believers.

Nimos said:

Just think about the sentence I quoted from you above? "Baha’u’llah allows us to have sex" I don't know how old you are? (Don't meant in a disrespectful way) But simply writing and accepting that what Baha'u'llah allows and doesn't allow as if it completely normal, is very surprising to me. Exactly the same when I hear people of other religious view, accept their rules and guidelines put on them as if this is perfectly logic and reasonable. To me this clearly illustrate the problem with religions in general and how it remove and suppress peoples ability to think rational and logically. Because if someone is capable of accepting these things, they will also accept things when it comes to raising children, like JWs shunning or not accepting blood, encourage people to not use condoms etc. My guess is that you do not approve of any of these things? but see absolutely no problem with the statement you made above as being the exact same thing?

Click to expand...

All I meant to say is that sex is allowable under Baha’i Law, but we are not required to have sex. Accepting that what Baha'u'llah allows and doesn't allow is completely normal for a Baha’i who believes that He was a Manifestation of God because we want to obey God. This is something an atheist does not understand. Anything goes in the sex department for atheists and frankly I think it is quite disgusting what some atheists do and live to do. It is degrading for a human who was made in the image of God. We are spiritual beings, not sexual beings. No, you cannot make that jump and say that just because the Baha’i Law permits sex only between a man and wife that they also say we cannot use birth control and things that JWs do.

Nimos said:

Again it makes no sense, if you claim that atheists have no reason to think about anyone other than themselves and in the same sentence say that it doesn't mean that they are selfish, but also that they are not necessarily immoral, just as people that believe in God might not. Then there is either no difference between the two groups and therefore a believe in God is irrelevante for your argument. The alternative is that atheists logically can not be moral, because they have no reason to think about anyone other than themselves, because they are selfish and do not believe in God, and what pretty much all atheists do, is to go around and pretend that they care about others, but deep down we are all selfish people. It might not be what you mean, but that is what you write, due to the many contradictions and wrong assumptions you make.

So which of them is it? Because what you wrote cant all be true at the same time.

Click to expand...

I never said that atheists cannot be moral or atheists are not moral. I never said that atheists are selfish and do not care about others, but clearly they have no standards for behavior so it is all up to them whether they act morally or not. If they feel like just having fun on any given day there is no fear of the displeasure of God to stop them. And this is what I am seeing more and more. Without the Laws of God society is completely lost, and this is what we see a breakdown of society on a vast scale. Maybe you do not see it because you are so close to it, but I see it.

Nimos said:

So it have nothing to do with freedom, remember that I talked about freedom under certain conditions "That it doesn't harm anything else, that is both humans, animals and environment" and that there is no harm in that.

Click to expand...

That depends upon what you consider harm. What some people consider harmless I consider harmful. The body might not be harmed but the soul can be harmed.

Nimos said:

But I think most people know, that when it comes down to it, it almost purely about national influence and resources. Fear of God doesn't prevent any of this.

Click to expand...

I know, because most people do not have a fear of God and that is why everything is going down the tubes. All people really care about is economics and how it will affect them personally. How many people do you think care about justice in the world, justice for all?

Nimos said:

And what Im trying to tell you, is that this is wrong. When you take the context of the bible and history into account. The Jews expected the Messiah to come save them from the Romans and the others which they didn't like. Not in like 1700+ years, but sooner than later. Therefore the prophecies are not talking about Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

I do not care what the Jews expected. The prophecies are referring to Baha’u’llah because He fulfilled the prophecies so He was the Messiah..

Nimos said:

That is something you impose on them, which is completely out of context, because there is nothing to backup what you are saying and referring to Baha'u'llah is not a valid source as we can't validate him either.

Click to expand...

I do not impose anything on anyone, I just believe what I believe. They can continue to wait for the Messiah made in their own image until hell freezes over, because he is not coming since Bahaullah was the Messiah. He fulfilled the prophecies of ALL the past religions, not just the Bible prophecies. That can be validated by looking at what actually happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah came.

Nimos said:

Therefore we have to take into account what the Jews meant by the stories they wrote in accordance to history. You simply ignore all that and therefore you can reach a wrong conclusion.

Click to expand...

And you ignore all the prophecies that were fulfilled. I do not care about the stories, they are irrelevant.

Nimos said:

It doesn't matter if we know who wrote it or not, if we can not validate those people that did it. Muhammad dictated the Quran? and so what, that doesn't proof that he is telling the truth or that he is what he claims to be. The same goes with Baha'u'llah, do you see the reason for that?

How do you verify that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or what it was? or that he spoke with an angel?
There is no way for you to do that, therefore it doesn't matter if we know he dictated the Quran or not, because its his claims that are up for debate.

Click to expand...

I never said that the fact that the Qur’an and the Writings of Baha’u’llah were authentic that proves they were telling the truth. But it does matter that we know it came from Muhammad and Baha’u’llah rather than some men who never even knew Moses or Jesus.

Nimos said:

Of course they didn't question him if they believed he was telling the truth, exactly like you are not. But from an objective point of view of having to validate the truth of his claims. Would you see yourself as a good source for such investigation? Just as those back in the days that followed him wouldn't be either. Because they are already convince that he is what he is claiming and therefore doesn't approach his claims in a skeptical or critical way, which makes almost everything they say useless, when having to approach this from an objective point of view.

Click to expand...

How do you know I did not question whether Baha’u’llah was telling the truth or not? But religion is not science so it cannot be proven that He got messages from God. How do you know people back in Baha’u’llah’s day did not approach his claims in a skeptical or critical way? I really don’t know why you think you know what OTHER people have done.

Nimos said:

If the OT is about the God you believe in and you don't trust any of it, then you have no clue what God you believe in is.

Click to expand...

I never said I did not trust ANY of it, I said I do not believe all the stories literally happened.

Nimos said:

So what you are left with is a fragmented idea of a God, based on what Baha'u'llah said, which is based on a God that is most likely completely wrong as we have no source for him or what he have done.

Click to expand...

I believe what Baha’u’llah wrote about God because I believe in Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, God’s Representative on Earth.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes. If any be set up by His side as peers, if they be regarded as identical with His Person, how can it, then, be maintained that the Divine Being is One and Incomparable, that His Essence is indivisible and peerless? Meditate on that which We have, through the power of truth, revealed unto thee, and be thou of them that comprehend its meaning.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

Nimos said:

People shouldn't believe in evolution until its proven, in fact they shouldn't believe in anything with absolutely certainty unless proven. But that was not my point with what I wrote either. The point were that some religions oppose these discoveries, whenever they go against their beliefs, until it reaches a point where the evidence are so severe that they can no long deny them and instead of accepting that it means that there scriptures are wrong, they just spin them to mean something else and that they actual do support what they used to oppose.

Click to expand...

I do not care about what other religions do. I only care about my own religion.[/QUOTE]

Nimos said:

Neither the Bible or the Quran is evidence for any such thing, they are evidence that these people believed these things to be true. Again you seem to mix up evidence and claims and Im sorry for having to keep mentioning it. But its very obvious that you are not really sure how to distinguish them apart, when it comes to your religion.

Click to expand...

They are evidence because they indicate that a God exists, sorry you don’t LIKE the evidence.

Nimos said:

how do you know that? Do you know why I ask? Wouldn't you agree that this is purely a claim?

Click to expand...

It is a claim I believe because I believe Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God. It all hinges on that because if He was a Manifestation of God everything He wrote is the truth.

Nimos said:

I think its might be because, and still not really sure, I understood you correct, so please correct me, if im wrong. But that your view of God is that there is only one, and even the notion that when other cultures talk about their Gods, like Zeus, Odin or if its just some tribal God, that this is either all the same God or that they are just made up, based on absolutely nothing.

Click to expand...

I believe there is only one God, the God that revealed all the major religions. I believe that gods like Odin or some tribal God are just made up, based on absolutely nothing.

Nimos said:

So if the OT doesn't give you the information about God you want, you just throw them away and take them from somewhere else.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true. How many times do I have to tell you that I do not take everything in the OT literally and I do not believe it all came from God because Moses did not write it Himself. Baha’u’llah wrote what he wrote Himself so I KNOW it came from God.

Nimos said:

It really seems to me, like that is how you approach God and have never spoken to anyone, which have such a loose concept of God before. He seems to be everything when needed and nothing when he doesn't fit what you think he ought to be.

Click to expand...

I do not think God ought to be anything. God is for the most part completely unknowable. All we can know are some attributes of God and the Will of God as they come through the Messengers of God.

Nimos said:

Its really strange and have to admit, that Im pretty close to just giving up trying to figure it out, because I really have no clue how to explain the God you believe in. If someone were to ask me what God Bahais believe in, I would be completely clueless, and probably just say a bit of everything and nothing.

Click to expand...

Maybe this will help you out, it’s pretty descriptive.


To me it seems more like you think Baha'u'llah is some sort of God and it him and his teachings that you are interested in and God is just some vague whatever floating around somewhere and whether he is one or the other thing, doesn't really matter at all, as long as he is just good.

We cannot know anything about God except through Baha'u'llah and other Messengers of God so that is why we need them to reveal something about God. Mostly they reveal the Will of God and some Attributes of God such as Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Righteous, and Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient.

Nimos said:

To me and I might be a bit judgmental or simply not understanding what you are saying. But to me Bahai faith appears to be more and more a fundamentalist cult than what I would call a religion. There seems to be no scriptures to follow except those of Baha'u'llah, which just claims to know better, because that's the way it is.

Click to expand...

Know better than what, the Bible? 2000 years from now everyone will know that the Writings of Bahaullah are the Word of God. How many people do you think believed Jesus was the Son of God 150 years after Jesus walked the Earth?

The Baha’i Faith is a world religion, not a cult. Moreover, we have scriptures written by Baha’u’llah which are the Word of God. No other religion has that; the Bible is scriptures written by men who claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Qur’an is closer to the actual Word of God than the Bible because it was dictated by Muhammad.

Nimos said:

The God seem to not follow any logic at all and members that are so dedicated, that nothing that Baha'u'llah say can ever be wrong, even though its completely impossible to figure out what God he is suppose to follow as it doesn't fit any of the known ones.

Click to expand...

Why should it fit known conceptions of God? Those have all been distorted by man except the God of the Qur’an.

Nimos said:

And as you mentioned yourself, that you might be a bit extreme even within Bahai faith, so maybe this is not how the rest are, I don't know. But as an outsider reading this, I really find it slightly disturbing to see the effect of blind faith.

Click to expand...

Maybe I am more extreme because I take religion more seriously than most people do. Blind faith is when you believe without investigating. I investigated and continue to investigate so my faith is not blind.

Nimos said:

But based on the explanation I gave, when taking the time in which they lived, history etc into account. That even if im not completely right in my assumption, that it is reasonable to assume that these laws were made by man to control their society and that no God was involved at all. And how it give a plausible explanation of why the laws are as they are and why there are errors in them? and that it might even give a better explanation of this, compared to, if an all good and perfect God had made them? Because it would be weird why a God would make mistakes in regards to things that exists or not, if he created all?

Click to expand...

So if you think that is true, why should I believe that the OT is the Word of God?[/QUOTE]

Nimos said:

I don't know what God cares about, that is why we use source material to figure it out. I have been talking about that for a while now and why it is important to include the history and what the ancient Jews/Christians believed in and the source for that is the Bible/Torah. So what we can do is look at what they wrote and try to figure out what God cared about and didn't.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter what God cared about 4000 years ago? It makes more sense to try to figure out what God cares about NOW. The source material for NOW is the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I do not care about what is in the Torah or the Bible. I have my hands full just knowing what is in the Baha’i Writings. I believe that the dispensations of Judaism and Christianity and Islam have been unconditionally abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, so I have no need to refer to old scriptures to find out what God cares about. While God is unchanging, what God cares about changes over time, according to the NEEDS of humanity.

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

Nimos said:

So when Baha'u'llah or those of Bahai faith claim that the prophecies are talking about him, I tell you that you are wrong, because you read and grab these texts out of context, with no regard to the ancient Jews and what they believed and the time period in which they lived.

Click to expand...

The messianic prophecies are not referring to ancient times; they are referring to the time when the messiah would come, a time in the future.

Nimos said:

But you are so convinced that Baha'u'llah is who he claim to be, that it apparently doesn't matter. But Im pretty sure that if you actually read the bible for yourself, that you would see that im not trying to fill you with nonsense, but that God in the OT do only care about the Jews. That Jesus is talking about salvation for the Jews coming soon and not in the future with Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

Again, I do not care what God cared about 4000 or even 2000 years ago, I only care about what God cares about NOW. Jesus was not talking about salvation for the Jews coming soon with Him, and it DID come. But then after Jesus came and was about to leave, Jesus was talking about the salvation of all of humanity that would come in the future:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Baha’is believe the one fold refers to all of humanity and the one shepherd was Baha’u’llah. Obviously the one fold could not be accomplished at Jesus'’ first coming, when He walked the earth, because the whole world could not even communicate with each other. Obviously it refers to a future age in history.

Nimos said:

The reason God could have guided them better, is based on the claims about what God is. And my claim is that almost any modern day person living today, would be able to guide them better. You applying Bahai teaching as a guide would be better than Gods.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you kind of lost me. I guess you are saying that God could have guided the Jews better, but I do not know what that is based upon.

No, I am not applying Baha’i teaching as a guide and saying that it would be better than God’s. I am saying that the Baha’i teaching is God’s teaching since Baha’u’llah was a Representative of God.

Nimos said:

And again, what God do you believe in? What you write makes no sense when it comes to God, unless one of the option I mentioned above is true?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what one option you are talking about. I believe in the one true God who is represented by all the religions of God, NOT just the Bible God.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

Baha’u’llah says it is the changeless Faith of God because the spiritual verities are eternal, so they never change. Only the message from God for the age and the social teachings and laws change over time.

Nimos said:

Completely agree as you know. But then again im an atheists. But do you think an all powerful and good god, would allow his chosen people to write such immoral laws? and treat other humans as they do? and if so how can you maintain the claim that God is all good?

Click to expand...

What happened in the past is in the past. I cannot say I know why God allowed it, only that it made sense back then because people and the world were different 4000 years ago. You are using today’s standards to measure what God did in the distant past and that does not work.

Nimos said:

But you are not thinking about yourself. If you thrive towards happiness and one of the things that makes you happy is to help others. Then it is not selfish, even if you do it to improve your own happiness, we don't decide what makes us happy and what doesn't anyway.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I am not saying that people should not choose to do what makes them happy, only that personal happiness should not be the only thing they think about. I really hate to bring up sex again, but people who spend a lot of time and energy thinking about sex and having it are not thinking of the needs of humanity. They might be thinking about their partners, but even then, they are also thinking about themselves, unless they only do for the partner and get nothing for themselves, which I highly doubt is the case for anyone. But it is not just sex, it could be anything that only benefits the individual and nobody else.

As for the cats, we got them a long time ago, before I was into religion or God so it was not a matter of choosing between them and God or the Baha’i Faith. But now that we have them we are responsible for them. Yes, I enjoy them but I have little time for that anymore. They do not get neglected though, and cats are quite independent.

Nimos said:

Thriving towards happiness, to me at least make sense regardless of there being an afterlife or not. The only difference is that if a God exists and its goal is for humans to worship him or he will throw you in hell. Then one have to decide whether its worth living an eternity with such a monster or spend an eternity in hell, which is probably equally bad.

Click to expand...

God does not throw anyone in hell, so it is not an either/or situation. Hell is simply distance from God so if we are distant from God we make our own hell. We will not realize that until AFTER we die because there are plenty of distractions in this material world that we can use, fun things we can do that take the place of God. But after we die we won’t have those any longer so it will be hell if we are attached to them and distant from God. That is why attachment to things of the flesh is problematic, since we will have no flesh in the spiritual world to have sex with or eat food with. All we will have is the lingering thoughts. In a sense it will be like prison, where you cannot have anything you want, but the difference is you will never get out of hell except by the mercy of God, and there is no guarantee of that.

Nimos said:

But all this is based on the claim that an afterlife actually do exists, which there is absolutely no evidence for. And even reading the old texts about what an afterlife might be, makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

There is evidence of an afterlife, but it is not in the Bible. Some of that evidence comes through in NDE accounts but also through spirits who have communicated to mediums in this world. You can say that is not evidence but I think it is. I course, unlike you, I already believe in an afterlife since Baha’u’llah promised one, and what little He wrote is congruent with the other evidence.


It is not as if you get to choose either. If there IS an afterlife there IS an afterlife, and you cannot just kill yourself and get out of it, because the soul of every human being lives forever, it cannot die. The question is thus whether you want to spend eternity in a hellish existence or a heavenly existence. God gives us that choice and free will to make it.

Nimos said:

Yes God would know, but he have decided to not share this information with us in any good way, instead he have given different information to everyone, so no one have any clue, which again makes him incompetent or a monster for making people run around like headless chickens trying to figure out and killing each other over what is true or not, when the fact is that no one knows.

Click to expand...

God did share this information through Bahaullah and anyone can read it if they choose to, or they can instead choose to cling to the religions of the past and stay confused and in the dark, or they can choose to be atheists. We all have free will so we can choose.

Nimos said:

I think the reason people does this, is because they don't know what else to do. Religion causes confusion, what are you allowed to do and what can't you do. Did you do the right thing? will God approve?

Click to expand...

It would depend upon which religion you are referring to. The Bahai faith deos not cause confusion. The teachings and laws are very clear.

Nimos said:

So apparently there are lots of ways to "trick" your way into heaven, following the rules given in the Bible.

Click to expand...

If that is what is in the Bible it is wrong, because there is no way to trick your way into heaven. Getting to heaven depends upon faith and conduct in this world.

Nimos said:

You have to remember that it is with Jesus the concept of being judged for eternity comes into play and that God can read your thoughts and that you sin in your thoughts, if I remember correctly. So the NT is not any better than the OT, both are pretty much equally bad in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I do not know what verses you are referring to, but I do not think that God judges us; rather we judge ourselves based upon the life we lived, which we will only really realize after we die. God might play a part in that judgment, but not the way Christians interpret it in the NT, with Jesus being the judge when he returns.

Nimos said:

Science is not purely about formulas and also keep in mind that the real purpose of science is not to tell us what the truth is, but rather what is not true.

Click to expand...

So if the real purpose of science is to reveal what is not true then are you saying what is true is thereby discovered by a process of elimination of what is not true? I don’t understand why a scientific process would not deal equally with both what is not true and what is true simultaneously as an all inclusive process. Notice the word process. From my perspective, everything having to do with not only science but religion as well essentially has to do with a PROCESS!

Also, what about discoveries in science being misused for destructive purposes rather than constructive purposes? The instrumentality of weapons of mass destruction developed through scientific means presently threatens not only mankind’s existence but a lot of other life forms on earth as well yet you are completely mute about that! Thus, science is not an end all solution for every problem which is NOW confronting us. Science is a double edged sword and especially dangerous when left in the hands of unenlightened children masquerading as adults.

Elsewhere when you attempt to assert there was a time before Prophets ever showed up or appeared how could you possibly know that? Due to our knowing that geophysical upheavals on earth occur even now in modern times it doesn’t occur to you that all records of the appearance of ancient Prophets were destroyed by such previous events? All said, even then I predict you would probably have the same complaint about Prophets and religion that you do now as an atheist.

When it comes to religion it also apparently doesn’t occur to you that fallible people in the history of previous religions were just as subject to misinterpretation or misunderstandings of what had been revealed to them by Prophets Whom they professed belief in as occurs by humans in their struggles with scientific investigations, which explains the rationality of the fundamental principle in the Baha’i Faith that religion and the appearance of Prophets is a process. Just as there are procedures in science to correct previous notions of what was believed to be true or not true in religion there are different methods provided by God to make such corrections in religion and also to reveal further enlightenment according to humankind’s stage of growth and spiritual evolution.

What I would observe about man is that he is prone to error for a host of reasons, not the least of which is enmeshment with a runaway ego. I think Prophets historically have dealt with this problem uniquely at important junctures of his growth and development. Presently, I see the world of mankind tittering at the precipice of unprecedented destruction at its present juncture for vital constructive rather than destructive change.

In a religious context, I consider nation building ended with Mohammad. Now with the appearance of Baha’u’llah I consider that in principle it is time for nations to forfeit some of their sovereignty in order that humankind may be enabled to establish, through the principle of justice, a peaceful One World Government. Sadly, what we see is a world tearing itself apart and moving in the opposite direction! All one need do is turn on the TV and watch world news.

So Nimos! Do people in Denmark watch what is politically going on in the world and otherwise? Do they witness news of the ugly violence in the US and elsewhere committed by violent white supremacy groups, etc. etc. etc.? Do they witness violent clashes going on between government and people in Hong Kong? Do they witness people in powerful governmental hierarchical positions in the US, Brazil, and perhaps elsewhere, denying what must be done to avoid human causation of destructive climate change out of greed to make money etc. etc. etc.? So Nimos! As an atheist how do you see all this turmoil working itself out peacefully in a natural way toward unity among nations and the establishment of peace without the help of a Deity? Good luck with that!

Necessity is the mother of invention. We'll let it get practically unbearable, and then use our ingenuity to find solutions.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Necessity is the mother of invention. We'll let it get practically unbearable, and then use our ingenuity to find solutions.

Click to expand...

That's pretty optimistic, but it's also often the mother of failure. I'm having a really hard time sharing your faith

ideogenous_mover said:

That's pretty optimistic, but it's also often the mother of failure. I'm having a really hard time sharing your faith

Click to expand...

Throughout history, people have moaned about it being the end of the world, and we have always pulled through. My optimism is based on humanities past.

Trailblazer said:

So if you do not hear from me for a while it is not because I forgot you. I work on these longer posts when I find the time. I like to wait until I have finished all of them before I post them.

Click to expand...

That is ok, no worries and good luck with all those things.

Trailblazer said:

Anything goes in the sex department for atheists and frankly I think it is quite disgusting what some atheists do and live to do.

Click to expand...

What do you mean everything goes, I really don't get that, do you mean sex outside marriage and that being disgusting? And when Islamic countries allow men to marriage children, then that is just all jolly good I suppose? or when priests have a go at the young boys?

Trailblazer said:

I never said that atheists cannot be moral or atheists are not moral. I never said that atheists are selfish and do not care about others, but clearly they have no standards for behavior so it is all up to them whether they act morally or not. If they feel like just having fun on any given day there is no fear of the displeasure of God to stop them.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that God make sure that religious people behave morally and not selfish or what exactly is the point with what you are writing here? How does an atheist behavior show it self to you? Because when a priest have a go at a young boy for instance, using his influence through his religious position to do these things, then that to me is immoral. Same goes when someone marriage a child, because that is what their religion say is ok. Are these people guided by God?

Trailblazer said:

That depends upon what you consider harm. What some people consider harmless I consider harmful. The body might not be harmed but the soul can be harmed.

Click to expand...

Unless you can proof that a soul exists then assuming that it is harmed is just not relevant. Its like me telling you, that if don't spend at least 2 hours a day naked in the sun, you will damage your aura and your really don't want that. Obviously you would not follow or agree with what im saying unless I can proof to you that an aura exists, everything else would be stupid.

Trailblazer said:

I know, because most people do not have a fear of God and that is why everything is going down the tubes. All people really care about is economics and how it will affect them personally. How many people do you think care about justice in the world, justice for all?

Click to expand...

I think the majority of people care about it, but I also think that most people are not in a position where they can actually change things for the better. At the same time people have different ideas of how to solve it and at the same time you have a whole system in place that keep people as slaves. Its a system designed in such way that there is not enough to go around to everyone. So the problem is the system not humans as I see it, as humans will adapt to whatever rules apply to us, but it just happens to be that the rules we have imposed or developed over time, is not well suited for securing the well being of all humans or even our planet. The reason for that, is most likely because its a system based on old ideas that is not easily changed as everyone is kept in a constant competition. So the moment you don't play by the rules you will suffer, therefore everyone have to play by them and it makes it very difficult to change them. As a child and growing up, you are taught from a very young age, that you need a good education, not so you can help other people, but to be competitive so you can get a job and make a living. So even at young age, kids are taught the rules of the game, even though they might not know it. If we imagine that we had a completely different system and the value that we taught our kids, were that they needed to learn about nature and how to preserve it, how to improve on a system that take care of everyone and that is not about competing with others, but to work together on making a better world, then things would probably look very different. So its about values and system under which we live that has to change and that will bring justice with it.

Trailblazer said:

I never said that the fact that the Qur’an and the Writings of Baha’u’llah were authentic that proves they were telling the truth. But it does matter that we know it came from Muhammad and Baha’u’llah rather than some men who never even knew Moses or Jesus.

Click to expand...

No it really doesn't matter, if we know who wrote it or not. The Qur'an is based on the bible, so if the Bible is wrong, so is the Qur'an and since Muhammad didn't know Jesus or Moses either, then his credentials are as good as Baha'u'llahs and those that wrote the original Bible. Because you know that it was Muhammad that dictated it, what does that change?

Trailblazer said:

But religion is not science so it cannot be proven that He got messages from God. How do you know people back in Baha’u’llah’s day did not approach his claims in a skeptical or critical way? I really don’t know why you think you know what OTHER people have done.

Click to expand...

Exactly religion is not science and I don't claim I know what other people think, But approaching someones claim is the same regardless of who they are. If a person make a claim they are either telling the truth or they are not. If their claim is of little importance, no one cares to question them. However if someone make an extraordinary claim then people will demand evidence. And if evidence are not or can not be presented then one ought to be skeptical about the claim. And its fairly obvious that Baha'u'llah make some extraordinary claims, so we should expect the evidence to be of equal quality. How each of us look at these evidence is clearly difference as pretty much all the stuff you call evidence is actually claims. Therefore, I do not think you approach this with the required level of skepticism and critical thinking that one ought to when dealing with the claims that Baha'u'llah makes. Look at how many times you use a quote from Bahai faith to backup something. Yet it hold no value in regards to whether his is what he is claiming to be.

Continue..

Trailblazer said:

Baha’u’llah wrote what he wrote Himself so I KNOW it came from God.

Click to expand...

No, you know that it came from Baha'u'llah because he said it. You choose to ALSO believe that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God and therefore draw the conclusion that he is telling the truth. But besides knowing that it came from Baha'u'llah, nothing is known for certain, its purely based on faith, which you have no way to verify. And that is why I say that I don't think you approach it with the correct amount of skepticism or critical thinking. But merely jump to conclusions, it is not how skepticism and critical thinking works.

Trailblazer said:

God in the Bahá'í Faith

Bahá'í view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3]...

Click to expand...

To me that seems to fit fairly well with how I describe it, a little bit of everything, besides the ones that you don't like.

Trailblazer said:

Know better than what, the Bible?

Click to expand...

No, that Baha'u'llah knows better than everyone else, just because he say so and therefore people follow him. Despite there being no evidence for him knowing the truth or even being who he claim to be.

Trailblazer said:

Why should it fit known conceptions of God? Those have all been distorted by man except the God of the Qur’an.

Click to expand...

The God of the Qur'an is based on that of the Bible and if the Bible is wrong then there is no reason to assume that the Qur'an ain't also. Both the OT and the Qur'an claim to be the true word of God, and since stories in the Qur'an comes from the OT, it would mean that if the OT is false, then the Qur'an is also filled with errors.

Trailblazer said:

So if you think that is true, why should I believe that the OT is the Word of God?

Click to expand...

Because as I wrote just above, these religions are connected. The Qur'an would not exists without the OT and my guess is that Bahai faith wouldn't either. So if you start going through each of them and start saying that OT is not the word of God, then you have no reason to trust the Quran either and therefore, you eventually have no other guideline for who God is than what Baha'u'llah claims and him quoting from these other scriptures make no sense as they are not the word of God anyway and since you have no way to validate that Baha'u'llah is who he say. Then being skeptic is the most logically approach. But as you have already said earlier you don't really care about where Baha'u'llah got all these things from and don't care to read the bible or the Quran, you just trust that Baha'u'llah is telling the truth and as I wrote to you in an earlier reply. The bible does not talk about Baha'u'llah and that this is out of contexts. So when you say you are skeptic and critical towards your faith, I have to say, I don't really follow you. Because if you think these old texts are not really true or the word of God, then why would Baha'u'llah even reference them or even care to bring the different religions together. When they are clearly based on false things that we can't trust.

Trailblazer said:

Why does it matter what God cared about 4000 years ago? It makes more sense to try to figure out what God cares about NOW.

Click to expand...

It matter because we are talking about God, again as I mentioned in the last reply, this picture of God you have, seems to be of no importance at all, its very strange. But let me try another approach and maybe that will illustrate why it is important what God cared about 4000 years ago, especially if the claim is that God is all good, all powerful and all knowing.

Imagine Hitler rose from the dead and suddenly started to help everyone, very friendly, helping old women over the street etc. a real good lad. Now if someone came to you and said "That Hitler guy is one good person" would you agree? Don't you think we ought to look at what he have done in the past during WW2 as well?

Now this is obviously a weird example since we are talking about a human, but when we talk about God, we look at what he have done throughout history, because it tell us something about him and whether he actually live up to what people claim about it. Therefore what God cared about 2000 years ago or 500 years ago matters. And that is why its so strange that you just throw it away like it not important, that God endorsed slavery, killing of children and all the other stuff he have done seems to not fit the God you believe in. Simply because you don't want it to be. But at the same time there seem to be no issue maintaining the claim that he is all good. You are not the only religious person that does this, pretty much every believer does it, to me that is a lack of critical thinking, as I have already told you, that I think religious people throw away the moment they talk about their beliefs.

Trailblazer said:

There is evidence of an afterlife, but it is not in the Bible. Some of that evidence comes through in NDE accounts but also through spirits who have communicated to mediums in this world.

Click to expand...

Im sorry but there really ain't. First of all NDE stands for "near death experience" if im not mistaken. What do you expect would happen if a brain starts to loose oxygen and the body start to collapse? Im not a doctor, but I will make a guess here and say that I would expect a lot of weird stuff to happen to a person's brain under such circumstances and I would not be surprised if those that experienced it would tell some weird stuff afterwards. However it does not proof an afterlife. Spirits and mediums is not something I consider valid either. Im sorry.

Trailblazer said:

If that is what is in the Bible it is wrong, because there is no way to trick your way into heaven. Getting to heaven depends upon faith and conduct in this world.

Click to expand...

It is not in the bible directly, but the way you are saved according to some peoples understanding of it is, that if you accept Jesus as your savior, then that is enough. The ancient people just believed that to be true and I think a lot of people even today believe it. A lot of convicts seem to pick up faith in jail, so maybe they hope to be saved as well, don't know.

Unity of Mankind said:

So if the real purpose of science is to reveal what is not true then are you saying what is true is thereby discovered by a process of elimination of what is not true? I don’t understand why a scientific process would not deal equally with both what is not true and what is true simultaneously as an all inclusive process.

Click to expand...

Because science doesn't work with absolute truth. If for instance you take the story I wrote in the last reply. The doctor started by putting women on their side and by doing that he eliminated that it had no effect on the number of death. At this point it didn't explain the truth about why more women died on one side of the hospital compared to the other. But what it told him were that it didn't matter whether they giving birth on their back or side. The next was the priest which again eliminated that possibility. And finally he tried the last thing with the chlorine, which had a huge impact, which proved that cleaning off germs helps, which we then considered a truth. So through eliminating ideas we can get as close to the truth as possible, which we essentially refer to as facts.

Unity of Mankind said:

Also, what about discoveries in science being misused for destructive purposes rather than constructive purposes? The instrumentality of weapons of mass destruction developed through scientific means presently threatens not only mankind’s existence but a lot of other life forms on earth as well yet you are completely mute about that! Thus, science is not an end all solution for every problem which is NOW confronting us. Science is a double edged sword and especially dangerous when left in the hands of unenlightened children masquerading as adults.

Click to expand...

Im not mute about that I just didn't find it relevant. And the reason for that is that science is a method, which can be used for both good and bad things. It doesn't make science anything. How human uses science to do harm to others have nothing to do with it. Science explore the natural world, so if there is possibility to destroy using it, we will figure out how to exploit it, at some point. But you make it sound like science is to blame? Its like blaming the idea of war for people killing each other. Its just a name or in regards to science a way to figure out things.

Unity of Mankind said:

Elsewhere when you attempt to assert there was a time before Prophets ever showed up or appeared how could you possibly know that? Due to our knowing that geophysical upheavals on earth occur even now in modern times it doesn’t occur to you that all records of the appearance of ancient Prophets were destroyed by such previous events? All said, even then I predict you would probably have the same complaint about Prophets and religion that you do now as an atheist.

Click to expand...

If we are working within the time frame of what science claim about humans, we are roughly around 150-250000 years old. So if there had been ancient prophets inspired by God, I think the world would be completely difference or at least these prophets have taken a serious long time to get to where we are now. I would expect God to work slightly faster than that especially because most of our knowledge about these people have been lost, so if any prophet taught us anything we have no clue what. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but I personally think that a God would be better at showing his present than he is, he really does seem to work in mysteries ways, with lots of different God(s) and ideas to then finally condemn all that in the Bible and throw forward completely new ideas, it just doesn't fit very well together, I think.

Unity of Mankind said:

When it comes to religion it also apparently doesn’t occur to you that fallible people in the history of previous religions were just as subject to misinterpretation or misunderstandings of what had been revealed to them by Prophets Whom they professed belief in as occurs by humans in their struggles with scientific investigations, which explains the rationality of the fundamental principle in the Baha’i Faith that religion and the appearance of Prophets is a process. Just as there are procedures in science to correct previous notions of what was believed to be true or not true in religion there are different methods provided by God to make such corrections in religion and also to reveal further enlightenment according to humankind’s stage of growth and spiritual evolution.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are correct, to me it just doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation. First of all because science is invented by humans and its our way of trying to understand the world in which we live. Therefore we do expect it to take time to figure out things. But religion is claiming that an all powerful and all knowing God is looking out for us and have created everything. So why would he need a process? or even to make corrections he ought to have known all this already? or at least those that believe in God, would have to change their wording and just say that God is very powerful and might know slightly more than an average human. Because clearly he is not able to make thing correct the first time. And all life enhancing progress is done by man and not God. So I don't think your explanation is very likely for God.

Unity of Mankind said:

So Nimos! Do people in Denmark watch what is politically going on in the world and otherwise? Do they witness news of the ugly violence in the US and elsewhere committed by violent white supremacy groups, etc. etc. etc.? Do they witness violent clashes going on between government and people in Hong Kong? Do they witness people in powerful governmental hierarchical positions in the US, Brazil, and perhaps elsewhere, denying what must be done to avoid human causation of destructive climate change out of greed to make money etc. etc. etc.? So Nimos! As an atheist how do you see all this turmoil working itself out peacefully in a natural way toward unity among nations and the establishment of peace without the help of a Deity? Good luck with that!

Click to expand...

Yes, we see and hear all about what is going on around the world. I have no clue how things is going to be fixed, I honestly think it is going to collapse slowly and painful first, before things might change. So as enough have collapsed or nature is not going to accept it anymore, then changes might come, but it will cost a lot of lives both humans and animals a like. Animals and plants are already dying off at an alarming rate, as they most likely can't adapt fast enough to the changes or reproduce faster than we can kill them. The only alternative I see, is that science come up with a solution, but I even doubt that as well as I think its slightly to late for that, taking into account the amount of time it takes to figure out things and we are taking about some huge problems here. I mean how exactly does one prevent an ice cap from melting? I think the one of the best solutions/ideas for that is to try to block the sun in space, but that would probably cost more than we are willing to pay. But also humans starting to try to manipulate the climate on earth in such ways, might cause other issues as well, that we are not aware of. Its like manipulating an extremely sensitive and complex system, which we don't really have full knowledge about. To me, it seems slightly dangerous, especially taking into account how humans currently have affected the climate and now we are in a lot of problems as we don't know how to fix it or at least how to get people all over the world to work together to fix it. Their are no easy solution, but waiting for a deity to come fix it, is probably the worse solution, because if we convince ourselves that one will come, then it give people an excuse to not really take it all that serious, because that deity will fix it before it ruins us right?
We have the knowledge and the ability to solve these issues and know the method for which to do it, Will it be easy? definitely not, that is sure. But at least we have a chance if we try using that which we know and doesn't require faith in something that we can't even proof exists.

dianaiad said:

Certainly we ALL of us live longer and better lives than our great great grandparents did...you know the folks...whose average life span was all of 40 if they were lucky?

Click to expand...

If I look at my genealogy, most of them seem like they reached at least 70 over the last several hundred years.. couple of em went to 90

dianaiad said:

The world has been FAR warmer than this...good grief, we are just coming out of an ICE AGE! Is there climate change? Yes. Are humans partially responsible?

Click to expand...

They probably are. Is it nature's will? Or is it us steering the thing off a cliff? Those are questions we might ask. If it gets as hot as around the Eocene Thermal Maximum, that kind of weather seemed to favor dwarfism, and put jungles on Antarctica. But maybe it would not be so good for us, and definitely things like polar bears and all sorts of big cold weather animals will die.

dianaiad said:

Maybe we'll build ships and send people out to see if there is anywhere else to live.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of investing in space more.

dianaiad said:

I'm considerably more worried about politics and people who are using this paranoia about the end of the world to gain power for themselves. You know, people who figure that we should get rid of cars and planes...and cows for everybody else...but who fly everywhere themselves?

Click to expand...

Better that I think than gaining power and money by claiming there will be a metaphysical eschaton, but people do that a lot probably.

Unity of Mankind said:

Also, what about discoveries in science being misused for destructive purposes rather than constructive purposes? The instrumentality of weapons of mass destruction developed through scientific means presently threatens not only mankind’s existence but a lot of other life forms on earth as well yet you are completely mute about that! Thus, science is not an end all solution for every problem which is NOW confronting us. Science is a double edged sword and especially dangerous when left in the hands of unenlightened children masquerading as adults.

Click to expand...

That's always been problem ever since the first human whittled out the first spear. Our ability to harness the elements demands that we all grow up, in my opinion. And if we can't handle the great responsibility, I think mother nature will eat us up and go back to evolving out dinosaur wars. If we fail, it does not care. But it's giving us a chance to get our act together.

Unity of Mankind said:

What I would observe about man is that he is prone to error for a host of reasons, not the least of which is enmeshment with a runaway ego. I think Prophets historically have dealt with this problem uniquely at important junctures of his growth and development. Presently, I see the world of mankind tittering at the precipice of unprecedented destruction at its present juncture for vital constructive rather than destructive change.

Click to expand...

Sure he has an ego. An ego is a tool too, it's double-edged just like most of them. Either he learns where the thing belongs, or he's not going to survive all that much longer. Prophets... what is a prophet? All a prophet is, in my view, is someone who contemplates a lot of things and is good at creative writing. People could see into the future who simply thought about where things were heading enough.

Nimos said:

We know that people that pollute in one part of the world is actively polluting globally and we can measure the effect of that. Which obviously expand and complicate viable solutions to these problems, as we are suddenly talking about problems that are no longer confined to a specific country.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I read an article on recycling earlier in the summer too. Like most of the stuff we recycle gets thrown in a landfill or in the ocean anyway because it's contaminated plastic. Look at the pacific garbage patch too, just how many lifeforms is all that plastic hurting. I almost don't even want to know.

ideogenous_mover said:

Yeah, and I read an article on recycling earlier in the summer too. Like most of the stuff we recycle gets thrown in a landfill or in the ocean anyway because it's contaminated plastic. Look at the pacific garbage patch too, just how many lifeforms is all that plastic hurting. I almost don't even want to know.

Click to expand...

Yeah and that is just one of the issues, obviously there are just to many to mention all. Just look at what is going on in the Amazon.

The "lungs of the planet" are burning.

As thousands of fiery infernos rage across the Amazon rainforest, tropical vegetation, trees, and the fauna they house are being razed. Since August 15, more than 9,500 new forest fires have started across Brazil, primarily in the Amazon basin.

This year so far, scientists have recorded more than 74,000 fires in Brazil. That's nearly double 2018's total of about 40,000 fires. The surge marks an 83 percent increase in wildfires over the same period of 2018, Brazil's National Institute for Space Research reported. The largest state in Brazil, Amazonas, declared a state of emergency on Monday.

Already, 2019 has the highest number of fires observed in a single year since researchers began keeping track in 2013 – and there are still four months to go.

This is why the Amazon, which covers 2.1 million square miles, is often referred to as the "lungs of the planet": The forest produces 20 percent of the oxygen in our planet's atmosphere.

Nimos said:

Yeah and that is just one of the issues, obviously there are just to many to mention all. Just look at what is going on in the Amazon.

The "lungs of the planet" are burning.

As thousands of fiery infernos rage across the Amazon rainforest, tropical vegetation, trees, and the fauna they house are being razed. Since August 15, more than 9,500 new forest fires have started across Brazil, primarily in the Amazon basin.

This year so far, scientists have recorded more than 74,000 fires in Brazil. That's nearly double 2018's total of about 40,000 fires. The surge marks an 83 percent increase in wildfires over the same period of 2018, Brazil's National Institute for Space Research reported. The largest state in Brazil, Amazonas, declared a state of emergency on Monday.

Already, 2019 has the highest number of fires observed in a single year since researchers began keeping track in 2013 – and there are still four months to go.

This is why the Amazon, which covers 2.1 million square miles, is often referred to as the "lungs of the planet": The forest produces 20 percent of the oxygen in our planet's atmosphere.

Click to expand...

Indeed...but as horrific as the fires in the Amazon are, (and they are) they are NOT the 'lungs of the planet.' The ocean is. The Kiaga forest in Siberia is...and they are not on fire. As well, the USA has more trees than it did when the Europeans first showed up. Shoot, the Americans are putting trees (and patting themselves on the back for doing so) in places where trees don't belong...like in the Yosemite Valley, where they kicked out the native Americans who had handled that valley as a treeless meadow for, quite literally, THOUSANDS of years, but is now a forest. Because the Native Americans got kicked out.

As well, this same problem, that is, wild fires...in America (like in California and Yosemite and Yellowstone...were fought and prevented for decades. Until, that is we discovered that preventing all the little ones did two very nasty things. First, it set the stage for huge conflagrations that were pretty much unstoppable, and second, prevented the natural propagation of plants (and animals) that depend upon fire. You know, like some pines and the big redwoods. So, we got the Yellowstone conflagration that scientists (and everybody else) were absolutely sick about. I remember when everybody was mourning the park, saying that the huge fire it suffered had destroyed it.

But it didn't. It was the second chance and rejuvenation that the park required. It's now more beautiful than ever, and the park service learned quite a big lesson from it. As well, wildfires in California were prevented, also for many decades, with similar results, both evil and good.

The Amazon is on fire, and that's bad. We are losing a lot from that, but not oxygen. For one thing, the plants that will replace the trees actually produce MORE oxygen than the trees do, even if the Amazon rain forest WAS producing all the air we breathe. That is, if people replace the trees with grass and grain crops, they will. Were you aware, for instance, that your front lawn (if it is all grass) produces more oxygen than if that same area were planted in trees?

If they replace the rain forest with, er, rainforest (which they will, you can pretty much depend on that), then what we will have is a more homogeneous set of plants/trees. That isn't the best solution either. I suggest that they simply...let nature do what nature does and let it replant the forest.

You know, like they had to do with Yellowstone and most of the California forests that burned?

In the meantime, mourn the loss of the species that may cease to exist because of these fires, but don't go nuts over whether we will be able to breathe or not. Believe it or not, we will. Really. We will.

dianaiad said:

Indeed...but as horrific as the fires in the Amazon are, (and they are) they are NOT the 'lungs of the planet.' The ocean is.

Click to expand...

I know about the oceans and just to clarify. I quoted an article so didn't come up with the name

And fires in forests as you say is not all bad, it happens natural as well and make space for new life etc. However a lot of these in the amazon are done to clear space for short term gain, which you probably already know. Also it was more regarding how much pollution these fires cause. I mean we "try" to reduce it as much as possible and then you have these massive fires, can only imagine how much is released.

"An earlier article by the New York Times reported that more than 1,330 square miles of the Amazon have been deforested since January – a 39% increase over the same period last year."

The Amazon is the largest rainforest in the world, spanning an area that is 25 times the size of the UK.

The forest currently accounts for around a quarter of the CO2 removal service provided by the world’s forests each year, according to the Washington Post. In total, the Amazon rainforest holds the equivalent of 10 years’ worth of global greenhouse gas emissions, it added:

“However, the ability of the rainforest to pull in more carbon than it releases is diminishing, weakened by changing weather patterns, deforestation and increasing tree mortality, among other factors. The ongoing fires will further degrade its function as a carbon sink.”

In an explainer, Reuters reported that the ongoing fires could help to push the Amazon rainforest past a climate “tipping point”, according to Brazillian climate scientist Dr Carlos Nobre. The article reads:

“Scientists fear that continued destruction of the Amazon could push it toward a tipping point, after which the region would enter a self-sustained cycle of forest dieback as it converts from rainforest into savannah.

“If the tipping point is triggered, the dieback will take 30 to 50 years, in which time 200bn tonnes of CO2 would be released into the atmosphere, Nobre said.”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-amazon-fires-and-climate-change

Im not worried about the oxygen, but I think the amount of CO2 might be a concern, but most of all I think its sad to see a rain forest being replaced with what you see in the image. It looks like they are trying to make a massive chessboard (Image doesn't work so you will have to look it up in the link above)

dianaiad said:

You know, like they had to do with Yellowstone and most of the California forests that burned?

Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm not sure evolution designed rainforests to burn. Do certain seeds in the amazon only grow if there is ash like in north america? Probably not right